Halloween II

[GL]

Yeah, I don't get it. I can think of at least 20 films off the top of my head that would be named sleazier than Halloween 2.

[Lazario]

gl said:

I'm still trying to decide why the one scene warrants it being named sleazy. There's some out there that have a lot more than this one, and this one isn't in the slightest bit sleazy compared to some of the others out there.

Do not take any offense by this - absolutely none is intended whatsoever : If you're talking about the same One Scene I'm thinking about right now... My goodness you're blind.

So, what One Scene were you thinking about?

[GP]

Sorry to interrupt the love in you blokes but I've just voted it a 3(just barely). I like the way it kicks off but it does go downhill somewhat and stretches a couple of horror conventions a little far (like the poor guy who made the doomed decision to wear EXACTLY the same getup as Michael Myers; or perhaps the hospital hot tub designed to get so hot IT WILL BOIL YOU ALIVE!!!)
Also the Laurie Strode wig is simply outrageous.

[GL]

lazario said:

gl said:

I'm still trying to decide why the one scene warrants it being named sleazy. There's some out there that have a lot more than this one, and this one isn't in the slightest bit sleazy compared to some of the others out there.

Do not take any offense by this - absolutely none is intended whatsoever : If you're talking about the same One Scene I'm thinking about right now... My goodness you're blind.

So, what One Scene were you thinking about?

The hot tub scene. That's the only thing in here that would remotely get this thing named sleazy, and for just the one I don't get.

[Lazario]

gl said:

The hot tub scene. That's the only thing in here that would remotely get this thing named sleazy, and for just the one I don't get.

(Okay, now my head is starting to go numb... )

If you think sleaziness is the mere act of people / a person being nude, you are sorely mistaken. Sleaziness is also: 1) the dehumanization of a person's body for a cheap effect or humor, and, 2) the verbal reduction of a person to an object. And, can (at times) be: 3) hidden verbal references to sex (also known as: "double entendres") taken to a point where it's perversely over the top.

Halloween II is an incredibly sleazy movie. The character of Bud's entire existence (his mission) in the movie is... What, Ladies and Gentlemen? Any takers? To have sex. What does he say in the movie? Do you remember... He insinuates a sexual relationship with a woman who is incapacitated (bed-ridden and drugged). He sings a really disgusting song about the nurse, comparing her to a gooey piece of food, and establishing a need for her to pleasure him- at the same time. That's not even sleazy - that is downright sexist. A text-book case of: "Objectification."

Later on, he lures a woman into a dark room under false pretenses and jumps her (this is a situation not uncommon to many rape cases). When she, not knowing what's going on, knocks him off of her, he persists in talking about his genitals. Even after she changes the subject, he leers at her sexually and tries to coerce her without ever asking her if she's interested. The movie just writes in that she's interested. He physically startled her, yet he never apologizes. Even as she's composing herself, he's not only practically fondling himself- he's laughing about it while the look on her face is anything but amused. She could have broken up with him at that moment and all he would have noticed is her backside as she walked away.

And this is being shown in a movie to a public audience. You don't call any of that sleazy? That's disturbing...

I'm not saying it makes the movie bad, exactly. It can be taken any way, even ignored outright. But even in it's brief form - it is actually there. No mistaking that, whatsoever.

[HNT]

I think that you are right that there are some clearly sleazy and sexist elements in this film. It IS a slasher film after all, however, and if you are prepared to wallow in the muck as that genre requires, this one is better and more rewarding than most

[Lazario]

hotnoodletuna said:

I think that you are right that there are some clearly sleazy and sexist elements in this film. It IS a slasher film after all, however, and if you are prepared to wallow in the muck as that genre requires, this one is better and more rewarding than most

I agree. All I'm saying is that it is very sleazy. It hurts the movie maybe 9% at most, though. Whether it's standard in the subgenre or not.

[GL]

I never really noticed, therefore I didn't pick up on it. To me, sleaze has always been the extended use of nudity during a graphic depiction of sex or the use of sexual objects or situations towards another character not interested in it at the time. A couple lines about it doesn't register, it has to be physical for me to notice.

[HNT]

Depeictions of sex can be a bit sleazy. WHat I find most sleazy is when the line between the sex and violence is blurred. The standard slasher fare of killing two people in the act of making love has been done to death. It was interesting at first and I don't ding the old classics too much, but there are some times in the lesser 80's films when the violence itself was substituted for the sexual climax in an attempt to further titilate. THat does not appeal to me.

[Lazario]

gl said:

A couple lines about it doesn't register, it has to be physical for me to notice.

I'm sure it would not with me either. But if you will remember, the scenes themselves were hanging off of his entire performance. And the emphasis of his reading of those lines. Therefore - they were major lines. And the scenes took a turn for the sleazy when they decided to focus on him.

[GL]

And once again, I can't judge acting. I wouldn't have picked up on it even if there was a large blinking sign over him saying "Pay attention to what he says, it'll seal his fate later on."

[Lazario]

Yeah? Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what he is saying is sexual in nature, and demeaning at that.

[Canetoad]

At risk of pouring fuel on the fire here can I just ask ''So what?''

So he's sleazy character. Big deal. They exist. We shouldn't erase them from film out of some misguided sense of political correctness.

And on the sleaze-o-meter H2 barely rates when set agaist exploitation classics like SS hell Camp, Sadomania, Hard Gore or films by the likes of D'Amato and Franco - where the ''sleaze'' is served up in a gratuitously prurient fashion.

Toads actually don't find the occasional wallow in filth and depravity - it can be quite cathartic.

In fact here's a useful mesage board on the subject:

www.digital-retribution.com/forum/index.php?board=27.0

(Come back and visit soon GL - we miss you over there )

[Lazario]

canetoad said:

And on the sleaze-o-meter H2 barely rates when set agaist exploitation classics like SS hell Camp, Sadomania, Hard Gore or films by the likes of D'Amato and Franco - where the ''sleaze'' is served up in a gratuitously prurient fashion.

I won't even watch that shit. That's not even Horror to me. It's trash. It's stuff from the sewer.

canetoad said:

At risk of pouring fuel on the fire here can I just ask ''So what?''

Yes you may. And technically my answer should be: nothing really. I just pointed out that it was sleazy and GL kind of challenged me on it. And me, (almost) always being up for a challenge decided to "show him the light." I simply pointed it out. And it is disgusting and hurts the integrity the movie might have had otherwise. Had it decided to remove that garbage.

canetoad said:

So he's sleazy character. Big deal. They exist. We shouldn't erase them from film out of some misguided sense of political correctness.

Okay, here we go again... Just so there is no confusion here: I never said, or said anything conducive to "Censorship." Ne'va.

canetoad said:

Toads actually don't find the occasional wallow in filth and depravity - it can be quite cathartic.

In that case, they should really have found a more appropriate and interesting way of doing that. The way Halloween II did it... Was too easy. Didn't require any actual craftsmanship to put what they did in the movie.

But I'll say, you're right. And I think more talented filmmakers like Frank Henenlotter and Stuart Gordon have done this much better than Frank Zito (Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter) and Rick Rosenthal, director of Halloween II.

[7]

For the sake of doing my share to corrupt the youth, I went over to some of the freshman dorms and forced them to watch August Underground.

Figured that little anecdote might be pertinent to put the "sleaze" conversation in perspective.