I will try (and fail) to keep this explanation as brief and un-pedantic as possible.
Disclaimer: This analysis disregards any of the sequels, reboots, or retcons. It focuses on the original film alone, as it was originally conceived and intended
While working on my sculpture, I spent more than a little time watching, and re watching John Carpenter’s Halloween. And, during all of that close analysis, I really began to pick up on a lot of concepts, that at the time, were not readily available online.
It is no secret that one of Carpenter’s primary influences on the original Halloween is the work of Alfred Hitchcock. It is also no secret to fans of Hitchcock’s work that one of his primary influences for character development, themes, and subtext in his films was the work of the psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. This is especially apparent in films like ‘Spellbound’, and more famously ‘Psycho’.
In Psycho, the central psychological theme associated with the film is the concept of the oedipal complex, which was central to the pathology of the killer, Norman Bates.
None of this information would have been lost on Carpenter while developing Halloween. His film is every bit as much of a Freudian film as any of the works of Hitchcock.
To come straight out, the primary concept in the original Halloween is that of the "Id, Ego, and SuperEgo, also known as the “Tripartite Mind”, or “Freud’s model of the Psyche”.
To oversimplify, we first begin with the deepest part of the unconscious mind, the Id. Completely unconscious, it is a representation of our deepest instincts, emotions, and drives. It is primarily concerned with sex, death, and hunger. This is where we are introduced to Micheal. It emerges from the shadows, with no reason or rationality, does not speak, focuses on sex and death, and is the most surreal and dreamlike sequence in the entire film.
Immediately, we are then introduced to the representation of the SuperEgo, in the form of Dr. Loomis. The SuperEgo is what is known as the “Preconscious” aspect of the mind. It is the representation of moral authority and structure in our mind. We are aware of it, but often are not in control of it. It is that part of us that feels guilt or shame when we commit a transgression, or fail to live up to an ideal. It is synonymous with our conscience. Dr. Loomis sees himself unquestionably as morally riteous, critical, and quick to command. He views the Shape as purely evil, and refers to Michael as “IT”(ID is Latin for IT). The concept of the SuperEgo is at complete odds with that of the Id. The highest ideal of the superego is to abolish, or suppress the Id completely. As Loomis wishes to keep Michael locked away forever.
It should also be noted that during these two introductions, that the general plot of the film is replayed in more simplified forms from the perspectives of these two “characters as constructs”. First, most simply as the Shape, who pathologizes sexual behavior, hunts and kills it’s prey, then is ultimately stopped by a patriarchal authority. Then, Loomis, who is on a mission to control this dangerous, vulgar, evil entity, and must command the driver of the vehicle on exactly what to do, must chase off the threat and save the damsel, but ultimately fails to capture or control the threat.
Finally, we come to Laurie, the ego, or the aspect that of our conscious minds that identifies itself as self. It is the proverbial set of ears with a devil and an Angel whispering conflicting desires.
There is a lot to go into with Laurie. Too much for the scope of a post, so I’m going to need to oversimplify. Laurie is in a state of internal conflict. On one hand, she has the stereotypical desires of what is considered to be architypically feminine. She is deeply maternal and caring, is very socially attentive, and she is interested in boys, as would be typical of a girl her age. On the other hand, she is abnormally intelligent, dutiful, disciplined, and repressed.
The repression is the central conflict of the film. (This is the part that is the hardest to articulate without going into the weeds) So, on the surface, her repression appears to be either typical shyness, or something completely irrational. However, it is tied to her being set apart from her peers, and consequently her small town. She is not a stereotypical outcast, as she is well liked by her friends, and is socially adept. It is her unusual level of intelligence that sets her apart from her peers, and she is aware of her potential, of where she can go. Like Carpenter and Hill, Strode is not meant for the small town she came up in, she is destined for bigger things, this lies directly at odds with the traditions of her small town, middle class life. The typical “fate” of women in her world is that of the housewife and mother. But lets remember that she is also very maternal, so it creates an inner conflict where she is pulled by tradition, and by that of a new world of potential. (Keep in mind, this film is right off the heels of the proliferation of the birth control pill, Roe v Wade, and the sexual revolution. These topics were in the zeitgeist of the culture. Lets also not forget that ‘Black Christmas’ was also a big influence, where the central theme was that of a woman wanting to choose career and education, rejecting traditions of marriage motherhood, and was planning to abort her pregnancy.)
So this is where The Shape comes in. Laurie’s only interactions with the opposite gender is that of either children or authority figures. She seems to posses no fully formed conception of boys her age, of knowledge of relationships or intimacy with the opposite sex. Hence, the Shape is like a superficial, vague representation of a person, no personality, speech, or emotion. Whose behavior is an uncanny pantomime of human action, like an empty vessel being pulled by unseen forces. This element of the uncanny (another Freudian term) behavior of the shape is in a lot of ways like that of a child’s game of tag, hide and seek, ghosts in the graveyard. It behaves according to rules it has set out, and sticks with those rules, (except when it cheats by breaking the laws of physics) it doesn’t run, it gives each would be “player” some sort of warning, and opportunity to escape, and even plays dead when it gets “hurt”, followed by a good 30 second head start for it’s playmate, which it then theatrically rises like a zombie.
This is already going much longer than planned, so I’ll cut to the conclusion of the movie. So, after a lot of back and forth where neither the Shape nor Laurie can seem to actually be able to truly harm each other, the shape finally catches Laurie for the first time. It would appear that this is the end for Laurie, but during this exchange the shape is unmasked. Once unmasked, it is no longer the shape, the game is broken, Laurie no longer sees a surreal pseudo human, but a damaged representation of a young man. She has come face to face with her deep unconscious fear, and sees it for what it is. In typical psychology, this is usually a main point of healing, where we can face and integrate our fears by seeing them with newfound understanding. This would be where the nightmare would generally end, but it is no coincidence that the controlling superego appears at this precise moment. Just when Laurie has faced her fear, that internal moral judge decides that the unconscious desires are not to be integrated. Like that of the overzealous moral evangelist, that which is “evil” must be stamped out. So Loomis attempts to kill the remasked shape, sending it careening to it’s seeming death, but as any competent psychiatrist, or philosopher knows, those seemingly undesirable elements of our psyche cannot be killed off, or even fully controlled. So the act of attempting to kill this repressed representation of violence and libido pushes it further down, pathologizing it, making it more dangerous.
And thus ends Laurie’s nightmare of her repressed sexuality, pushing it perhaps into the realm of androphobia.
There is a massive amount of stuff I left out of this analysis. I know that this interpretation of the film will not be to everyone’s liking, but I believe it to be accurate. I could more elegantly articulate these ideas if I took more time. I will save my writing of Moby Dick for another time, maybe.
All of this was an overblown, long-winded way of saying the name of the piece is “ID”
See you on Facebook.
