Review
Culture
Film & TV
Monsters
8 min read

Here's why E.T. is in my list of top Halloween films

What Halloween films reveal about our fears, our families, and our fondness for the ridiculous
A child and E.T. ride a BMX bike across a moon lit sky.
Universal Pictures.

 

Halloween can be exhausting these days. As we continue to import and cement more and more of the American cultural experience, and as I age into maturity and (especially) fatherhood, I find myself spending All Hallow’s Eve in two ways (neither of which is prayer and meditation of the hallowed Saints of the Church, or the Faithful Departed Souls who now rest in Christ): I can take my daughter trick-or-treating, or I can stay home and desperately throw handfuls of sweets and the horde of children in fancy dress who arrive at my door. I always choose option A…I’m a priest…I have a ready-made costume. To aid in the convalescence necessary after such an exhausting evening, I have compiled by Top 5 Halloween Films. 

NOTE: This list is in no particular order, and the entries are not all horror films. In an effort to be ecumenical, and to bring solace to those of all temperaments and dispositions, I’ve taken my criteria as films set on, or around, Halloween. I hope there is at least one offering here that might intrigue and delight you. 

5. The Crow 

A supernatural superhero flick which has gained cult status, this film kicks off the list in style. What style, you ask? The inimitable style of the 90s. Eric Draven and his fiancée are murdered on ‘Devil Night’ (also known as ‘Mischief Night’), on the eve of their Halloween wedding, leaving a distraught Sarah – the young girl they care for. One year later, Eric is resurrected by the spirit of the Crow, who shepherds souls to the afterlife, and resurrects those who die by evil and violence as undead warriors with a mission to find revenge and, perhaps…peace? Certainly not to begin with!  

This film is perfect Halloween fare for those who want the grit and vibe of the holiday without actually having to engage with real fear. The 90s was a decade of looking and sounding edgy without any commitment: the decade of bark, not bite. Brandon Lee (who died during filming in a prop accident – a star in the making, taken too soon) looks terrific as Eric Draven/The Crow, covered in black leather and face paint, excelling at fight and stunt choreography, and towing the line of camp perfectly. The setting is moody darkness and rain and neon, and gothic gargoyles! The music underpins the atmosphere superbly…I mean…the title track is by The Cure! It goes hell for leather in a deliciously pantomimesque fashion and is well worth a watch for spooky fun without the fear. 

4. Halloween II 

The unwanted sibling. The sequel that was never meant to happen. It is unclear to me quite what it was that forced John Carpenter and Debra Hill back to the writing room (perhaps the threat that this sequel would happen with or without them), but it certainly wasn’t passion for the project! Carpenter has described the writing process as one where he essentially had to be drunk to get through it. I must say, if this is the case, it doesn’t show! Halloween II picks up right where the original ends, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is catatonic after surviving the Haddonfield Halloween night massacre and is immediately transported to hospital. The murderous Michael Myers has disappeared after being shot by his psychiatrist, Dr Loomis (Donald Pleasance returning with the most delightfully hammy performance…in fact with the whole back half of the pig), and now Loomis is back on the hunt. It is all leading to a blood-soaked showdown in Haddonfield Memorial Hospital, and the most contrived plot-twist in horror history; necessary, Carpenter says, for any of this forced sequel (to a perfectly conceived standalone film) to make sense. It isn’t a patch on its progenitor, but it is far better than it deserves to be, allows you to spend some more time with beloved characters, cranks everything up to 11, and is a guilty pleasure of mine – me, a man of taste and refinement, a connoisseur of the creepy, a gentleman in the gathering of the ghoulish. 

3. E.T. 

One for the kids now, especially for those children who find Halloween a bit too much. This is the film that proved Steven Spielberg isn’t just a good filmmaker – he is one of the finest ever to pick up a camera, able to master any story in any genre. E.T. is a small alien who is separated from his group on a routine mission to collect plant samples from Earth. He is taken in by a young boy, Elliot, and protected from the government agents trying to capture him. Over the coming days the two bond, developing an odd empathic link that gives Elliot confidence in school, and gives the two much joy and laughter at home. Soon it is time for E.T. to ‘phone home’ and return to his own planet. Naturally this escape attempt takes place on Halloween, so that the little gremlin-like creature can wear a bedsheet without attracting unwanted attention. After several near escapes form the law, E.T. and Elliot have a goodbye so emotional and poignant that I dare you to watch this with your little ones and not cry…go on…I DARE YOU! E.T. is everything a children’s story should be, and has everything it should have: aliens, coming-of-age shenanigans, clueless parents, a chase with levitating bicycles. It is perfect, and perfectly gentle for a Halloween wind down as a family.  

2. Batman Forever 

Now, I was thirteen when Batman Begins was released; a man of grey-hair and wrinkled visage by the standards of comic books. As a result, Christian Bale is not my Batman – the raspy voice just grates on me! Michael Keaton is my Batman, and is, to this day, the best Batman. However, none of the Keaton films have a Halloween setting as far as I’m aware, so I’m going to recommend the Val Kilmer take on the caped cruder. Kilmer is the billionaire bad-boy Bruce Wayne, a mask he wears to hide his true identity as the crime fighter Batman. Tommy Lee Jones is the once upstanding prosecutor Harvey Dent, who went mad after having acid thrown in his face, and has become the supervillain Two-Face. Jim Carrey plays Edward Nygma, a scientific genius who is researching a technology to send TV signals directly to the brain – research that Bruce Wayne shuts down due to its potential for mind control. Nygma takes on the guise of The Riddler, and he and Two-Face begin to commit a series of robberies to fund the research and, eventually, take down Batman. Their plan culminates on Halloween night, which might explain why no one questions maniacs in ridiculous costume running around Gotham City.  

If you think The Crow is camp (which it is) you haven’t seen anything yet. The gothic is more gothicky, the leather is more leathery, the neon will burn the eyes right out of your skull, and I’m not sure if you can get more 90s than a gurning Jim Carrey menacing Nicole Kidman while Val Kilmer smoulders in anger. If you can keep a secret…I know this film is rubbish, but it was the ‘latest’ Batman film as I was growing up, and I actually really like it, and it brings back so many memories of my childhood, excitedly sitting in front of the telly to watch the action for the fiftieth time. Highly recommended, for the sheer operatic silliness of the film alone – and what is Halloween for if not operatic silliness? 

1. Halloween 

Of course this was going to be on the list. This is THE Halloween film. This is so much a part of the cultural memory that I’m not sure I even need to give a plot synopsis or explain my recommendation. Instead, I could just list the people involved and leave it at that. John Carpenter writing (with Debra Hill), directing, doing the music, probably making the cast’s lunch and everything else! Jamie Lee Curtis in the lead, essentially creating the ‘final-girl’ trope of the slasher flick, and doing it so brilliantly that it has only ever been imitated but never topped. Donald Pleasance…is also there. I can’t quite describe his performance: is it a genius deconstruction of trope and cliché in a valiant attempt to understand the warring forces of light and darkness in the human heart, or is it the work of a man who missed the lunch Carpenter prepared and so has decided to devour the scenery instead? He is bonkers – and I’m here for it! 

Curtis is Laurie Strode, an innocent and virginal (vitally important in the mythos of what becomes the ‘final girl’) high schooler, who will be spending Halloween night babysitting Tommy Doyle while her friends do – ahem – what teenagers do. Honestly, they couldn’t have picked a worse time or place to engage in underaged drinking and pre-marital sex. Haddonfield on Halloween night in 1978 is essentially an abattoir for the morally flexible teen. Because…Michael Myers is on the prowl. Introduced at the start of the film (in a POV shot that has stood the test of time for its chill and shock factor!) as a six-year-old boy who inexplicably stabs his sister to death on Halloween. He is committed to an asylum under the care of Pleasance’s Dr Loomis. On Halloween night, 15 years later, he escapes. Loomis, who’s time with Michael has turned him into a different type of madman, is horrified and starts hunting Michael, accosting innocent children, and all the while screaming about ‘THE EVIL HAS ESCAPED’…he also wonders why the police don’t take him seriously. 

Michael stalks Laurie and her friends, picking them off one-by-one, until only Laurie is left to fight and survive. The film is perfectly taught and lean and coiled: the tension ratchets and ratchets and ratchets until you don’t think you can take anymore. What makes this one of the finest horror films, and my favourite one to watch on Halloween night itself, is its simplicity. Michael Myers has no explanation. Why he killed his sister, why he hunts Laurie, how he is so strong and fast and seemingly invulnerable. He simply is. He happens. He is a force of nature that has no discernible cause or motive. Sometimes evil is like this, and I find my annual viewing of Halloween a tremendous restorative – a reminder of an age when the horror movies didn’t spoon-feed you backstory and explanations…they just gave you damn-good scares! 

Support Seen & Unseen

Since Spring 2023, our readers have enjoyed over 1,500 articles. All for free. 
This is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you enjoy Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?
 
Do so by joining Behind The Seen. Alongside other benefits, you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing my reading and reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin
Editor-in-Chief

Review
Culture
Film & TV
Identity
Masculinity
10 min read

Wanted, not wasted: the older brother who couldn’t lead

In Peaky Blinders and House of Guinness, Steven Knight shows being needed—not being perfect—transforms

Will Fagan serves as a minister in the Episcopal Church in Birmingham, Alabama.

Dressed in Victorian clothes, two brothers raise their arms together.
Anthony Boyle and Louis Partridge in House of Guinness.
Netflix.

If you’ve watched House of Guinness recently, you’ll find show creator Steven Knight return to familiar territory: masterfully exploring complex dynamics between brothers, family legacy, and ambition – captivating themes he previously explored in his ever-popular Peaky Blinders. In the respective dramas, we find both older brothers struggling to fit into roles and living with the weight that often accompanies that struggle.  

In societal terms, we are not unfamiliar with the oldest son’s placement as the first in line of dynastic succession and head of the family. The Prince of Wales will succeed his father as King; Prince George will succeed his father and so on.  

This dynamic plays out, of course, in common lives as well. Throughout history, the oldest son, as a rule, inherited the family home, the landholdings, and the family business (even if its legal standing was murky at best): Santino became the Don (The Godfather, 1972), Josh Kroenke and Tony Kahn essentially run their respective fathers’ Premiership football clubs, and at some point in your family line, I bet a great uncle took over his father’s blacksmith shop, leaving his younger brother – your direct line – left to fend for himself. (You’re here, after all, so things must have worked out, anyway.) 

What happens, though, when the oldest son is not fit to assume this role in succession? How does he respond if he is passed over? And what happens when he’s actually needed by the younger brother, the successor?  

As Peaky Blinders opens in its first series, we are presented with a perspective that Arthur Shelby, the older brother, is the boss of the family bookmaking syndicate and racketeering operation only to soon discover that his smarter, more ambitious, and more capable younger brother, Tommy, leads the family. 

Being passed over naturally plagues Arthur, and his behavior consistently confirms why he isn’t fit to lead: he is quick tempered, demonstrates poor judgement, and goes on drug-induced benders. He is loyal when he is sober, and you can’t help but love him, but you wouldn’t hire him to run your company, either. By the opening of the show’s concluding series, he is shown passing his days in an opium shop, strung out and all-but-abandoned by his family.  

Knight revisits this theme within the Guinness family in his newest show, set in the 1860s and three generations after the founding of the brewery, the family well-established as the first family of Ireland and wealthy beyond measure.  

From the start, family tension and doubts about the brewery’s continued success are palpable. At the time of his father’s death, the oldest Guinness brother, also named Arthur, is frivolous, irresponsible, and debonair, having returned to Dublin for his father’s funeral after years of carousing in London. He is unkind, arrogant, and frankly does not care what happens with the company, so long as its sale finances the rest of his life. (You don’t root for him like you root for Arthur Shelby.) 

At the time of the reading of his father’s will, anticipating he would inherit the brewery and the bulk of the family property only to sell it, Arthur Guinness finds his father had other plans, haunting him from the grave. He learns that he and his younger brother Edward – responsible and having apprenticed at the brewery – would inherit an equal stake of the brewery and family wealth, but that Arthur would be entitled to nothing if he did not participate in the running of the business, something he neither wants nor cares to do. He wants to be the older brother to inherit but has less-than-no desire to lead the family. 

Saddled with expectations that he neither wants nor could succeed under, he continues his path of ruination – marrying for convenience, partying in unfit circles, and participating in election fraud, all bringing the family into public scandal and private torment. Moreover, and perhaps of greatest importance, he knows that he is the oldest son who cannot succeed, who was never built to, and that his father did not trust him. Thus, he pursues the only thing he is good at – willful self-destruction.  

Well, this is great saga material – one that we will undoubtedly follow in the Guinness family in the coming years – but for us poorer mortals, why care?    

I believe, and I don’t think this is an overstatement, that there is an older brother in all of us. We may not be the actual older brother ourselves waiting to be handed a family fortune only to not receive it, but odds are that at some point there was an expectation thrust upon us – or even one we placed on ourselves – to be a certain type of person or to achieve a concrete level of success, and that didn’t work out.  

Have you, for instance, taken a chance in bringing the antiquated family business into the twenty-first century only to watch it go belly up? Have you found yourself in a relationship for too long “for all the right reasons” because everyone wanted it but you didn’t? Did you want to study architecture at university but read law instead because your father and grandfather were called to the bar and now you find yourself drawing neo-classical designs in the courtroom?  

What happened, then, when that expectation or dream did not come to fruition? Have you, even to a small extent, arrived at the future and found you’re not who you thought you’d be? To not achieve that thing we were destined for, to not rise to the standard, as it turns out, can often leave us in the same state of the black sheep older brother – directionless, lacking a clear station in life and without a sense of worth. 

What is interesting and what is helpful, if I can go so far as to say, is that we find this dynamic at the moral heart of family and social relationships across millennia, a dynamic which is presented in the Christian understanding of relationships. 

Christianity’s understanding of relationships – with both God and one another – rests on two essential claims. The first is that humanity was created for one clear purpose – to love God and to live in perfect harmony with creation and fellow man. According to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, this was the expectation of our divine father, the role destined for all children of God. Yet Adam and Eve, the original children, failed to live righteously according to the standard God gave them and were viewed, thus, as guilty before God. All their descendants (which is to say all humanity) inherit that guilt because of what Christian teaching calls original sin.  

That may sound both celestial and like Sunday school at the same time, and you, by the way, don’t have to take my word for it. But if you were to say that you do live in harmony with God, creation, and fellow man perfectly, I might be compelled to ask, “How’s that really going?”  

When we look around and are honest, we are free to admit that things are not perfect, and we live with the weight of imperfection.  

How do we feel, for example, when we let someone else down? How does it feel when we wake up with a moral hangover? How does it feel when we don’t get the position because of an unexplainable gap in our CV, even though we think we’re fit for it? We can see quickly enough that sublime internal or cosmic harmony does not, in fact, exist in our lives or in any of the created realms. More so, we find that it’s not actually attainable.  

Are we left, then, to live lives with potential unrealized, spiritually incongruent, and unfulfilled? Will the black sheep part of ourselves – perhaps not evidently front and center but certainly left in the margins – become the core of who we are and how we interact with the world?  

As it pertains to Knight’s dramas, a curious occurrence happens to each of these older brothers during the arc of their respective shows, particularly in relation to their younger brothers.  

At some point in every series, Tommy Shelby realizes that despite everything, the one person he needs by his side is his older brother, Arthur. He needs him as he takes down crime boss Billy Kimber and expands the family business; he needs Arthur to be the one to end the vendetta with the American mafia, and, finally, to be his strength and support as Tommy faces his dark and uncertain future in the final series, telling Arthur in the darkness of a damp cellar, “You will change because I need you.”  

Similarly, in House of Guinness, faced with looming political trouble, wanting to expand the brewery, and to continue the family legacy of philanthropy in Ireland, Edward Guinness looks to his older brother Arthur – the only person he can – to fulfill the other half of the inherited partnership and to gain political ascendancy, their father’s MP seat, for the cause of good. He needs him.  

How do these older brothers—otherwise unfit for duty—respond?  

In each case, paradoxically, they don’t crumble under the weight of expectation, but heartily rise to the occasion, becoming the man who their younger brother needs them to be. They are able to do this, by the way, not because there was some secret unfulfilled potential inside them all along (clearly they are who they are), but because despite their self-destructive patterns, the older brothers actually step up when needed because the younger brothers treat them as though they are worthy of being needed.  

Put another way, having worthiness ascribed to them makes them feel worthy, and the result is that they change, they deliver, and their own self-worth changes with it. They each become, as it were, a new man. 

What are we to draw on from this?  

Returning to Christianity’s understanding of relationships – with both God and one another – we find its second essential claim: it is that God knows that our lives are not perfect and harmonious, that we do struggle, that we do have dreams and expectations unrealized, all of which can, depending on the severity, leave one quite weighed down and without a clear path forward.  

If there is good news that can be spoken into that state (and there is), it is that God is not a father with his arms crossed forever disappointed in his firstborn. He is a father who sees the whole picture, knows all the facts, and he has done something about it in the great narrative arc of the Christian story – the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The result of which is that we flawed individuals are seen not as those who fail to love and obey God perfectly but as those who are worthy of being wanted.  

If we can learn anything from these brothers in Knight’s dramas, it is that we need not climb out of imperfection and into success to be unburdened. We find that being seen as worthy is enough. And that changes – as it does for Arthur Shelby and Arthur Guinness – everything.  

Support Seen & Unseen

Since Spring 2023, our readers have enjoyed over 1,500 articles. All for free. 
This is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you enjoy Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?
 
Do so by joining Behind The Seen. Alongside other benefits, you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing my reading and reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin
Editor-in-Chief