Rob Zombie: Halloween II

Rob Zombie: Halloween II

By Fred Topel
Aug 28, 2009

Tags: Halloween, rob zombie, H, White Zombie

After Rob Zombie remade John Carpenter’s Halloween, he was determined not to make a sequel. His remake embellished the original landmark slasher film by portraying Michael Myers’ childhood. Released to box office success in August of 2007, Zombie was ready to move on.

“I was totally serious when I said it,” Zombie said in an exclusive phone interview. “I wasn’t bullshitting. When I finished the first Halloween, I was so burnt out, I couldn’t even conceive of doing another one. That was totally the truth, and I did pass on it. Then I ran into someone from Dimension Films at the Scream Awards last October and I said, ‘Oh, how’s Halloween II going? Is that going well?’ They were like, “Well, the directors fell off. We don’t even have a script. We don’t know what we’re doing.” And at that point, I actually was kind of feeling bad that I didn’t do Halloween II because I had created my new characters, my Dr. Loomis, my Laurie Strode, my everything, my Michael Myers. I was like, ‘I feel kind of weird that some other people are coming in to take over my world that I feel like I just started.’”

Halloween II picks up right after Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) shot Michael Myers, presumably to death, at the end of Halloween. It’s no surprise in the world of horror movie that Michael wakes up to continue killing. His rampage continues that night, then takes a year off giving Strode and her surviving friends a year of post traumatic stress before he returns the following Halloween. Zombie continues the brutal violence he has portrayed in his previous three horror films, also including House of 1,000 Corpses and its sequel The Devil’s Rejects. Brutal kills also come with a new motif of a white horse, a symbol Michael associates with his loving mother and younger self.

On the phone, any topic was fair game with Zombie. Nothing was off limits, from homage to the original Halloween series to current events and studio politics. In music with his band White Zombie and now as a filmmaker, Zombie has always spoken his mind. It’s the more rebellious distributors like Lionsgate and Halloween’s Weinstein Company who give him his latest artistic forum.

FT:
How did you pick up the story where Halloween left off, but branch away from the old Halloween II.
RZ:
Yeah, I decided to pick up the story the next second and carry through that night, have Laurie Strode go to the hospital and what not, but then I jump ahead a year. I wanted to just pick up Laurie and Sheriff Brackett and Annie Brackett and Dr. Loomis, where everyone’s lives were at that point and follow them on from there. I wanted to do something totally different. I didn’t want it to relate to the Halloween II that had been at all. The other thing that excited me, I felt in the first Halloween, the scenes that were 100% my own, which was sort of like the first hour of the movie, young Michael Myers in Smith’s Grove Sanitarium, I thought those were the most successful scenes in the movie. That was the best part of the movie and any time it veered somewhat into John Carpenter land, it wasn’t as good because it felt like I wasn’t being me. I was sort of telling someone else’s story. So by being able to make a completely original thing, it became much more exciting.
FT:
If your first Halloween was more about exploring Michael’s point of view, is this one more about the victims’?
RZ:
Well, it’s a little of both. It kind of follows three storylines. It follows Laurie Strode trying to put her life together. Her parents are dead, some of her friends are dead. She doesn’t know who she is at all really. Then she’s living with Sheriff Brackett and Annie Brackett. Annie is a victim too. Her face is all scarred from the attack that she survived and Sheriff Brackett is just a wreck. He’s now got these two totally messed up teenage girls living in this house. Dr. Loomis on the other hand is off in the world having written a best selling book, making money, almost loving every minute of it, cashing in off the tragedy. And then there’s Michael Myers who everyone believes is dead but he’s still out there. It’s really Laurie’s movie but it’s also Michael’s movie too because for the first time we see the world through Michael’s point of view, which I didn’t do in the first movie at all. In this movie, we really see just how crazy he is and how he views the world.
FT:
Were you conscious of Halloween H20 which explored, in that series, grown-up Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis)’s post traumatic stress 20 years after the first two films?
RZ:
I really haven’t watched that movie so it didn’t influence me at all since I hadn’t really seen it.
FT:
A lot has happened in the world in the last two years. What different perspective does that give the film?
RZ:
Nothing in particular. I mean, I can’t think of any real life events that took place that made me think, “Oh boy, that really changes my view of the world. Let’s incorporate it.”
FT:
But they always say horror films do well in tough times. There were tough times two years ago, but with the economic downturn and such, has it given you a different perspective to approach horror?
RZ:
Not really. People always say that stuff and truthfully I guess it’s true but I don’t always understand it. Like oh, horror movies do great in time of war. They do great in economic downturns. Why? Why is that? I don’t understand why that would be. You would think that uplifting movies would do well, not movies about the darkest depths of human despair. I think in general, horror movies always do well no matter what, because they’re the only types of movies that promise a certain something and I guess people just love them.
FT:
Just to talk about what’s going on in the world, whether it informs the film or not, what are your thoughts on these Health Care town hall meetings?
RZ:
I mean, I think people are acting crazy. It gets really weird. So many people have such a weird point of view on everything. I don’t understand. I was talking to somebody about it and I said to them, “Oh, have you ever been out of this country and gotten sick and gone to the doctor’s?” They were like, “No.” One time I was on tour, this has happened many times, but one time I was in Sweden and I was deathly ill. I went to the doctor’s, they took great care of me, they didn’t even ask me my name. They took great care of me, they wrote me a prescription, I had no money, I went to the pharmacy, got my medication and got well. You tell somebody that and they’re looking at you like, “What are you talking about? That sounds like some kind of fantasy land.” It’s just weird. I don't know.
FT:
It’s like they’re so scared of the idea of addressing end of life decisions that they’d rather have no health care at all!
RZ:
Yeah, I don’t understand it. Are people’s situations so wonderful that there’s no way it can get better. I think that sometimes Americans get brainwashed that everything we have is absolutely the best and that if someone’s trying to change it, that means that they’re trying to scam you. Most of the people that think that have never traveled outside the United States. Then if you even question anything, somehow you’re like a bad American, when the whole point of being an American is you can question fucking everything. That’s the whole point. It’s just so weird. People get weird with that stuff and I don’t understand why. It’s ridiculous. If I was Obama, I would be like, “Fine, who fucking cares? I have good health care. Good, go, die, whatever.” I would be so fed up if I was him.
FT:
At least they’re not bashing movie violence for now.
RZ:
Yeah, not yet. They’re onto new topics but they’ll come back to it eventually.
FT:
How is the economy affecting filmmakers these days?
RZ:
It’s changed. What’s really changed, I think with studios is studios are even more gun shy than ever to put out something that is original because they feel like, “We gotta just put out stuff that’s a safe bet.” So a safe bet is usually a remake or a comic book movie or something along those lines. So if you’re trying to pitch stuff that’s original, it’s harder than it ever was. I think that’ll change again but for right now, that seems to be the case. Sequels, remakes and comic books.
FT:
Isn’t that so weird because in the history of Hollywood, the biggest hits are those original movies that just connect with people?
RZ:
Hollywood is so weird because it’s the same sort of brainwashing where you always want to go, “Look, whenever they seem to take something and market it differently or do it different, it’s a hit because people are excited. But whenever people do the same old shit, it seems to fail.” It still seems like they go, “Yeah, that may be true but we’re still going to do the same old shit.” The studios have no creativity left I guess. I don't know. It’s really kind of sad because like you said, it’s always when something’s fresh and new, that’s what catches fire, not the same old shit. I’ve never seen someone walking out of the movies being happy going, “Wow, that was great. I’m so happy we saw the same old shit again, except this time it was $12.50.” I’ve never heard anyone say that in my life.
FT:
It’s amazing that something keeps not working but they stick with it.
RZ:
Yeah, what’s kind of exciting about Halloween II to me, even though it seems like I’m part of the problem, is that when we did a test screening, all the kids that were in the focus group, they kept raising their hand pointing out the parts that they loved. Their reasoning was always, “I liked it because it was different. I had never seen it before. It wasn’t the same old thing.” The amount of times somebody said that was incredible. That was the main thing that kept getting said. They liked it because it was different.
FT:
Have you found reactions to Halloween II as divisive as they were on the first one?
RZ:
Well, not that many people have seen it so there’s not much reaction, but for the people that have seen it, the reaction has been awesome. I’m very excited about this movie. I think this movie blows away the first film, blows it away. I’m super excited.
FT:
What was your reaction to the divide on the first one?
RZ:
I was pretty happy with it actually because that is the type of thing that I love. I love that reaction because that’s when you know you’re onto something. Someone either loves it or they fucking hate it. That’s what I’ve always had. Same thing about my music. Every record that’s come out. Either someone loves it like it’s their favorite thing in the world or someone just thinks it’s the worst. Starting with White Zombie, people were like, “This is my favorite band” or “This is the worst band I’ve ever heard.” That’s really the best way to exist. I remember reading when I was a kid, David Bowie said something similar to that. I was like, “What a great way to look at it” because the last thing you want is someone to go, “Eh, it was okay.” That just sort of means you didn’t have any effect one-way or the other. It’s kind of a bummer.
FT:
I figured that was the reaction you were going for.
RZ:
I’m not really trying to go for any reaction. I’m just trying to do what I think is right but you want a strong enough reaction, love or hate. Anything in between is kind of a drag.
FT:
The latest thing in horror now is vampires. Why do you think that’s the big trend of the moment?
RZ:
Well, because I think probably vampires are always the easiest horror creature to update. If you have a creature that’s supposed to be eternal, well, now they can be modern day. Vampires are always sexier. You can kind of make them any which way. They can be very modern, they can be very gothic, they can be whatever. Whereas werewolves, people start looking kind of goofy sometimes when you put them in werewolf makeup. What, are you going to do a mummy, a sexy version of the mummy?
FT:
They did that.
RZ:
Well, they tried to. But vampires are just the easiest one. It’s always the easiest to update and it always has been. I think that’s why people gravitate towards it.
FT:
How do you use music as a filmmaker?
RZ:
As far as music in the movie, you’re probably talking about Moody Blues’ “Knights in White Satin” I would guess. That is a very significant song within the movie. That plays a huge part in act one. I love that song. It’s such a great song. It’s a classic song. Kind of like what I did with “Free Bird” in Devil’s Rejects, I love being able to take this sort of epic song and use it in a new way. For this movie, “Knights in White Satin” is probably the most significantly used that way.
FT:
Does the song have a special meaning to you?
RZ:
No, not really. Usually, if there’s a song in the movie, it’s because I just love that song. There’s a lot of D.C. Hardcore in the movie, like Scream, Void, Bad Brains, bands like that that I have Laurie Strode as a fan of because I thought well, it’s kind of cool that she’s trying to recover from these events. She’s reinventing herself like now she’s kind of like wild punk rock girl as opposed to the nice all-American girl. I thought here’s some music she might get into. This is music I discovered when I was that age in real life so you always play off things in your own life. All the characters in some ways are an extension of me because that’s who I know the best.
FT:
We lost a lot of artists over the summer, including Michael Jackson. Was he influence to you as a musician?
RZ:
Uh, no. Well, in a way actually. Let me back it up. He never influenced my music. In fact, when Thriller was out, it was meaningless to me. I didn’t care at all about that but when I was a little kid, The Jackson Five
Actually, The Jackson Five “Dancing Machine,” that 7” was the first record I ever owned, ever. So in a way, yeah. I thought The Jackson Five were pretty kick ass when I was a little kid. They were huge. I’m talking about when I was in Kindergarten but in that sense they were very exciting. As far as Thriller and all that stuff, I didn’t care about any of that stuff.
FT:
Still, I bet The Jackson Five would surprise a lot of White Zombie fans.
RZ:
Well, you figure that was like 1972 for a little kid. That stuff’s pretty badass and actually, I went on YouTube and was watching The Jackson Five. I think they were on Merv Griffin doing “Dancing Machine.” Whatever Michael Jackson became, at that age when he was, whatever, 17 years old, he was pretty fucking incredible. I mean, I will say somebody is talented and give props wherever it’s due, even if it’s something I don’t like. You can’t like everything.
FT:
Is this really it? No Halloween III?
RZ:
I don't think there’ll be a part three. I mean, there might be a part three with someone else but part threes are tricky. I always think with part two, you can always make a better movie with part two because you sort of got the backstory out of the way. You’ve already been there, done that. You can really take it to a new level. I felt that happened with Devil’s Rejects. I thought that was a far superior film than House of 1,000 Corpses and I think Halloween II is a far superior film than Halloween. Usually, no matter who it is, when you go back for the third one, it’s usually a disaster.
FT:
That’s so true. Why then do you think we gravitate towards trilogies when it usually ends badly?
RZ:
If the story is originally conceived as a trilogy, then I think you’re okay. This certainly wasn’t. It wasn’t conceived that way at all. It’s not to say that it can’t be done but it usually seems to be the case, whether you’re talking about Army of Darkness of Godfather III. It always seems like the third one’s never quite as great as the second one. I guess art comes in threes. You’ve got a three act play, so you feel like everything should be a trilogy, with three parts, like three acts. Everyone’s been bugging me for years, “Oh, do a third one with Devil’s Rejects.” Well, I just feel like it would be a disaster.
FT:
How do you feel about the plans to release The Haunted World of El Superbeasto on DVD?
RZ:
I think it’s great. El Superbeasto was always planned as a direct to video movie from the start. It was always conceived as this low budget direct to video movie but then the project kept escalating and escalating. It eventually became a big budget movie but it was still always really kind of meant to be a direct to video movie. What we’re actually doing is we’re releasing it on about 100 screens. We’re putting it on DVD and we’re putting it on Pay Per View so it’s simultaneously so we’re sort of just trying to hit it across the board. But it is kind of a weird movie. It is a very weird movie. It would be a very strange movie to try to put out there in a mass marketed kind of way. I just don’t know if it would be possible.
FT:
Is it a natural extension of the animation you did with your music?
RZ:
Sort of. It’s a very different movie because it’s a comedy for one. It’s like this monster sex comedy so it’s unlike anything I’ve done yet, sort of.
FT:
Are you doing Tyrannosaurus Rex?
RZ:
Well, that’s a script I wrote that may or may not be the next movie. I don't know yet. I haven’t gotten that far.
FT:
What genre would it be?
RZ:
It would be a different genre. If you would call it anything, it’s a very violent action movie. It’s not a horror movie at all.
FT:
Have action movies lost that since they’re all PG-13 now?
RZ:
I think computer generated effects have really changed action movies. They’ve become very superhuman. People are doing things in action movies that are just not physically possible. Everything, the giant explosion, people jumping out of helicopters, landing on buildings, running on top of subway cars, this crazy stuff. I’m a fan of older action movies that seem a little bit more down to earth and a little bit gnarlier. Mad Max per se, something like that, where it feels real. Mad Max to me seemed like a dark, scary movie when I saw it the first time as a kid because it was just so intense and it felt real. Action movies now, you never really feel any real danger because everybody in the movie seems superhuman.

Halloween II is in theaters everywhere today
11 Comments PRINT
Email this Interview

YOUR NAME:

YOUR EMAIL:

THEIR NAME:

THEIR EMAIL: