Thursday, October 20, 2011

Moammar Gadhafi, Moustapha Akkad, and the Halloween Franchise

Poster for 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' (1982)Today’s news regarding the killing of the Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi reminded me of a kind of unusual and somewhat personal story having to do with movies and my interest in them. Actually the story has to do with Gadhafi’s interest in movies, too.

In 1982, I went to see the movie Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Too young to go to the R-rated feature on my own, I got the 17-year-old girl who lived next door to take me.

I’m pretty sure we both knew going in that this one didn’t continue the whole Michael Myers boogeyman-in-a-mask storyline. I remember liking the movie all right, the new story about the crazed toymaker and the killer Halloween masks being plenty gripping to my adolescent self. But by the time the fourth Halloween came out six years later, I was in college and no longer that interested in seeing how they’d managed to revive Myers and the series, so I didn’t bother.

Fast-forward a couple of decades. Along the way I’d pick up graduate degrees in English and write a dissertation on 17th- and 18th-century British literature that focused largely on the category of sequels. Looking at novels, plays, and poems, I built an argument that this was an era during which the whole idea of pumping out a sequel to your commercially-successful cultural product began to emerge.

I also argued that a lot of writers used these sequels to offer their own commentaries on their earlier works. For example, Samuel Richardson wrote a very popular novel -- a “blockbuster,” really -- called Pamela in 1740. The book was huge hit, and also a bit controversial for some lewd scenes involving the teenaged maid and her older master “Mr. B” who lusts after her. Copyright laws not being what they are today, lots of other writers quickly jumped in and published spurious sequels to cash in on the original’s success. And some of those continuations were even racier than the original! But Richardson had intended to write a morally instructive work -- a warning of sorts to young people. So he wrote his own very preachy (and -- spoiler! -- boring as hell) sequel in which he has Pamela delivering all sorts of life lessons to readers.

While working on the dissertation I read a lot about film sequels as part of my research. Once I finished that, I ended up writing some academic articles all of which happened to focus on horror films. One of those articles compared Pamela to The Blair Witch Project, drawing connections between both “blockbusters” and the way they captured huge audiences. Another was about the 1987 film The Stepfather (I mentioned that one here before).

Journal of Film & Television, Fall 2004 issueI also ended up writing and publishing an article about Halloween III. It appeared in the Journal of Popular Film and Television in 2004. It was the fall issue, and so since Halloween was coming up they actually featured my article on the cover.

The gist of my article was to respond to what some theory-minded writers had been saying about horror sequels and postmodernism. Some of those writers wanted to cram these sequels into larger arguments about the postmodern breaking down of categories and ideas of “truth” and whatnot. But I felt like most of those movies were really mostly about making lots and lots of cash. That was one point I tried to make, anyway.

Halloween III presented kind of a problem, though, insofar as it seemed to go against the idea that horror sequels were mostly just blatant money grabs. And in fact, the more I studied the movie, the more I realized it was making a pretty interesting and original commentary on commercialism, generally speaking. Not to mention providing a kind of curious response to the first two films (à la the 18th-century guys and their sequels). So I wrote all about that, too, but I won’t bore you with all of the specifics of my outrageously earnest analysis of the film and the Halloween franchise.

So what does any of this have to do with Gadhafi?

The connection involves a Syrian film producer named Moustapha Akkad, the fellow who kind of fell into becoming the chief financeer of the first Halloween and then ultimately the caretaker of the entire series.

Akkad was himself a filmmaker, having directed a sprawling epic called Mohammed, Messenger of God starring Anthony Quinn in 1976 that takes about three hours to tell the story of Islam. Akkad wanted to break into the American market, however. Akkad knew the producer Irwin Yablans (who had distributed John Carpenter’s 1976 film Assault on Precinct 13), and it was through Yablans that Akkad ended up fronting the $320,000 to Carpenter to make a movie about killer who stalked babysitters.

As we know, the low-budgeted Halloween was an enormous box office hit, earning something like $60 million and helping spawn an entire subgenre of horror, the slasher. It would take awhile for the group to put out a second part (in 1981), but that one, too, was a financial boon for Akkad and others involved. They’d spend $2.5 million to make that one, but it would earn about $25 million from its theatrical release.

Back when Akkad was intially approached about backing the first Halloween, he was in the midst of directing a film of his own, another big-budgeted epic titled Lion of the Desert that told the story of Libya’s resistance to Italian incursions between the world wars. Anthony Quinn was in that one, too, along with Oliver Reed, John Gielgud, and Rod Steiger. That film lasts more than three hours and features lavish Lawrence of Arabia-like settings (all filmed in Libya) as well as lots of elaborate battle scenes.

'Lion of the Desert' (1981)The production was a lengthy and costly, with a reported budget of $35 million. In fact, Akkad once told an interviewer how he was spending more in a single day on Lion of the Desert than the entire budget of Halloween. He also told that interviewer that Halloween was “funded... with pocket change from Lion of the Desert.”

Thing was, cost wasn’t really an issue for Akkad. Why? Because he had a backer with deep, deep pockets.

That’s right. Moammar Gadhafi.

When Lion of the Desert was finally released 1981, critical response was favorable, but the film had a hard time getting distributed thanks to the Gadhafi connection. Thus, from a commercial standpoint the film became one of the biggest box office flops in history, earning just $1.5 million total from its initial release. In the space of just a couple of years Akkad found himself associated with one of the most profitable films in history (in terms of budget-vs.-box office) and one of the most costly.

When writing my article about Halloween III I became fascinated with the whole Gadhafi connection and how the dictator had kind of indirectly helped start the whole franchise. I ended up including a lengthy digression in the original draft regarding it all, but my editor wisely suggested cutting it out as it wasn’t that pertinent to my main argument.

So that’s why Gadhafi’s death here at the end of October made me think of Halloween movies.

There are a couple of postscripts to add here, too, regarding Akkad.

In my article I did address how they ended up going back to the Michael Myers storyline in the subsequent sequels. I have since seen them, and find them all mostly tedious (although that H20 reboot with Jamie Lee Curtis is a bit inspired). By the time that issue of the Journal of Popular Film and Television came out there had been eight films altogether, with Akkad involved as an executive producer for each.

I mentioned in the article how Akkad was saying he intended to keep on making the films. In interviews Akkad liked to allude to a line that Donald Pleasance (who starred the first two, then the fourth, fifth, and sixth before he died in 1995) had once said: “I’m going to stop at 22.”

Akkad also frequently said he was going to make sure they never made the mistake of III again -- a film that did turn a reasonable profit at the theaters but enjoyed nothing like the commercial success of all the others. In my article I wrote how in interviews “Akkad characterizes his relationship to the homicidal central character as parental in nature, suggesting that the survival of Myers is directly linked to his own: ‘I keep protecting him on and on and on until [laugh] I die!’”

As it happened, about a year later Akkad did die a most tragic death.

Akkad was killed on November 11, 2005 along with his daughter in a terrorist attack in Amman, Jordan. Suicide bombers had been sent by Al-Qaeda to three different hotels, including the Grand Hyatt where the 75-year-old Akkad and his daughter were staying. Those bombings killed 60 people total.

Moustapha Akkad presentsFinally, about a month ago Universal pictures issued a new Blu-Ray edition of Halloween II in which the “Moustapha Akkad presents” credit had been mysteriously removed, crudely replaced with a “Universal, an MCA Company, presents” card.

Fans of the film, franchise, and Akkad were outraged by the change. Some suspected it had to something to do with Akkad’s Muslim background and current “War on Terror”-fueled prejudices. (Not a little ironic, given how he died.) Others speculated it might have had something to do with the Gadhafi connection from long ago.

More likely, however, was just an unfortunate goof on Universal’s part, a possibility supported by the inclusion of Akkad’s name on the DVD box. One theory is that the change had been made on a print way back in the ’80s at some point when rights were being moved around and it was from that print that the Blu-Ray transfer was made.

In any case, Universal has apologized and says it intends to correct the error.

Meanwhile, Akkad’s passing did not spell the end for the Myers character. There have been a couple Rob Zombie-directed remakes with which the numbering started over. And I hear there is another Halloween 3 coming in 2012 (in 3D, natch), although it, too, will be featuring still more Myers mayhem.

Which means (as far as I’m concerned) that Halloween III: Season of the Witch will probably remain the most interesting sequel of the series.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

October movie reviews

I wasn't supposed to see this movie. My anti-social, hypochondriatic ass doesn't need a *scientific* rationale for my solitude. Alas, I went, I have one, and now I'm sealed in a hyperbaric chamber with a shotgun with two shells. It was a good movie. Gritty, fast paced, they don't stay on any one group of characters long enough for you to want them dead, so when they die, you're sad. Might just be the BEST Gwyneth Paltrow movie EVAH!

30 Minutes or Less
It's probably not fair to include this movie, as I only saw it because I arrived at the theater 79 minutes too early for Colombiana and I walked out before the end... Um it's about some guys who try to rob a bank. The facebook guy and the brown Parks and Recreation guy are in it. Super dumb... Unless the end is sooo brilliant that it saves the film. Doubt it.

Fright Night
I saw the original in the theaters with my mom when I was a mere lad. It scared the beejezus out of me. Though I have no beejezuses left, the remake was plenty scary. First, McLovin was GREAT in this! I love that kid. Also, David Tennant was perfection. Love him. And they were just *supporting cast*! The special effects were boss (I don't think it *needed* to be in 3D, but whatevs.) the main characters were good, except for the girl love interest, she was kinda terrible. But all around fun horror!

Zoe Saldana and her ubiquitousness is starting to strain my last nerve. That said, this movie about an assasin out to avenge her parents' murder was a fun action flick.

The Debt
I didn't know what this movie was about when I went to see it, but when I left, I went straight home and googled the hell out of "mossad assassinations." It's a great movie, though it's a stretch to say Helen Mirren "stars," since she plays the old lady version of the young woman who is at the center of this political thriller.

What Dreams May Come
Oh man, was this movie bad. I mean, no, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it was truly terrible, especially considering it stars two Academy Award winners. It's about a family who all die in various ways in a 24 month span and how they find each other again in the afterlife. Barf.

The Forgotten
I forget what this movie was about. I'm not even kidding...oh... Wait... that lady is in it... Julianne Moore, I think? Redhead? Oh, she plays a mom whose son died, but then everyone tries to tell her that she never had a son. Aliens end up being involved. Double barf.


I watched this movie because Stephen King wrote that it was the best horror movie he's seen in seven years. Either Stephen King doesn't know shit about horror movies or he is secretly an investor in this movie. It was not good. Your typical a-virus-is-loose-and-killing-anyone-who-catches-it apocalyptic tale. There are six main characters who you don't care about. They don't all make it and you don't care about that either. Snooze.

Down to the Bone
Um...the woman from Up in the Air stars as a drug addict mother of two trying to get clean. Super boring.

The people under the stairs
This movie is about a kid who goes with his uncle to break into this huge mansion on their otherwise poor street. Turns out there are mysterious people under the stairs. O_o I watched this cause there were black people on the cover. Does that EVER work out for me? Okay. Moving on.

This was the original Japanese version of a Sarah Michelle Gellar movie I forgot I saw until I was halfway through the movie and feeling like I'd seen it already. It's basically exactly the same with English subtitles. It's good.

The Lost Boys
This movie was AWFUL! Why are people always "oh my God, you haven't seen Lost Boys? You just have to!" I spit on Lost Boys. The vampire creation process makes zero sense. The ultimate bad guy is implausible AND the effects suck. No pun intended. Blech.

Your Highness
This movie about a lazy prince trying to prove himself to his father and keep up with his superstar older brother is pretty funny. There are quests and sword fights and possibly gay pedophilia.

Something Borrowed

This. Movie. Is. WRETCHED! It's about supposedly best friends, but when one sleeps with the other's fiance, it becomes quite clear that they hate each other. Ugh. This is, how hollywood always views female friendships. And this one....ugh...awful awful awful. Not funny, not touching, not romantic. Big heaping waste of time. On my deathbed, I'll still be regretting this.

Holy shit! So, I'm watching and it's so slow and I figure everything out and roll my eyes forty minutes later when they explain it to the main character cause...DUDE, SO OBVIOUS! Heck, in my head I'm already writing up the bad review I'm going to give it and THEN the last ten minutes happen and I'm screaming and turning all the lights on in my apartment.

I didn't hate this movie. The Thor dude is hot and spends an appropriate amount of time in a state of half dress. I liked the fighting and the's no Ironman 1, but it's better than Ironman 2.

Vomit. I love Simon Pegg. This movie made me want to find him and thump him in the stomach. This movie is about an alien trying to escape Area 51 and he enlists the help of these British tourists. Jason Bateman and Sigourney Weaver are hot on their tails. I fell asleep at least three times. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Crappy Susan Sarandon movie where she lives in Australia and is a stay at home mom afraid her husband is cheating on her, but he's not, so he thinks she's crazy and takes the children... Or something.

Barney's Version

Um...this movie was pretty good. Paul Giamiatti is in his wheelhouse here as an insecure middle aged man looking for love. There's an uninteresting murder subplot that is unnecessary and a bit distracting. Minnie Driver is hilariously annoying.

The Secret in Their Eyes
This is a great Spanish film. Equal parts love story and mystery. Very good from start to finish.

Red Riding Hood
Um. This movie wasn't terrible, but there's really no need to see it unless you're bored on a plane. The big "who's the wolf?" mystery ain't that great.

I liked this movie starring the Hangover guy as a failure who starts taking experimental genius pills and becomes an overnight success. He predictably gets caught up in the wrong element and there's a lot of running.

Wow, so Ryan Gosling's career appears to be back, huh? Here he plays a loner who works at a garage and is a stunt driver for movies. Then he falls for his next door neighbor. Dun dun dun. The casting is excellent, including that comedic jewish guy from "The In- laws" as a badass gangster (you sorta laugh about that for a while, but by the end, he sells it.) Carey Mulligan is good. I liked it.