Forums Horror Movie Talk
Loomis Versus Myers: Dichotomy of Good Versus Evil?

In essence, Sam Loomis and Michael Myers are a dichotomy, split from the dark void that could be condered the “isness”

of everything, where such ideals of good and evil, right or wrong, mply do not exist.

In laymen terms, they are the yin and yang of horror.

One cannot truly be without the “being”

of the other; they help each other exist, essentially.

I hate to get so esoteric here, but as it is, if you t through the whole Halloween series, you begin to notice that there are “evil” qualities in both our characters here.

There can also be “good” qualities in both.

I want to talk a little about this dichotomy and I can't think of any better way to do so, than to have help from an old friend of mine, Stephen King.

In his book, Danse Macabre, King talks a lot about the dichotomy of archetypes, namely the Apollonian and Dionyan concepts.

In specifically referring to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, King defines this particular dichotomy, “...Apollonian (the creature of intellect, morality, and nobility... and the Dionyan (god of partying and phycal gratification; the get-down-and-boogie de of human nature)” (King 75).

Okay, so your saying to yourself, who is Sam Loomis in this tuation, because we all know that he loved to get down and boogie.

Or was he the “creature of nobility” humbly trying to take down the boogieman?

Yes, that's more like it.

Loomis is that brave and bold archetype, who knows that he is battling evil and knows also, that he has to do anything to uphold that ideal.

Michael also knows his role, as pure evil, completely self-gratifying, phycally and mentally in his need to spill blood.

King's definitions ade, what John Carpenter initially created was the epitome of good verses evil.

What we find out at the end of the original film is that, because evil can never die, so too can good never die.

We are left with the strong sensation that Loomis feels this to his core, almost that he knows that for him to exist, his counterpart must also.

Furthermore, this seeming separation of characteristics and archetypes becomes blurry when we see the both characters share milar traits.

Loomis, after years of trying to stop Michael, becomes so merciless himself that he will do anything necessary, even if it means become evil, even for just a moment.

For example, in Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, Loomis uses Jamie as bait to lure Michael in to a trap, essentially risking her life in the process.

Ok, so the question of the day is how is Michael inherently ever “good”?

Okay, ready for the long shot?

Here is it:

Michael, you know, the guy who kills anyone who gets in his way of , you know, killing?

Well, he spares the lives of children.

One is example is the little boy who asks so innocently, “are you a giant?”

in Rob Zombie's Halloween II.

I'm going to go even further on a limb and say that, in actuality, he spared his niece Jamie's life as well.

If you follow along with the story, it's the trait of his evil that he wants to be handed down to Jamie, through pasng his urge to kill at the end of Halloween 4, to the telepathic connection in Halloween 5, to the unnerving offspring brought about in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.

He lets her live until she becomes an adult.

Michael understands innocence, something he cherishes and is under the deluon that he still is such a thing as innocent.

In the end, Loomis and Michael are both true oppotes existing to keep the other in existence, and at the same time their nature molds into each other blending and fermenting until a minute characteristic seen only in one becomes a major turning point in the anomaly of the other.

Please feel free to discuss, I am open to all opinions as long as they are justified by mine (I suck at sarcasm)...



Source:

King, Stephen.

Danse Macabre.

Berkley Book, 1981.

Great post!

Michael Myers vs. Dr. Sam Loomis spawned FOUR sequels and a re-make. No other protagonist/antagonist duo in horror movie history comes even somewhat close. It's what separates this franchise from all others, including the Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street franchises. Dr. Loomis plays a hero who becomes obsesve, almost to the brink of madness. Don't forget that at the end of Halloween 4, he tried to shoot Jamie Lloyd while screaming "No, no, no!!!" It's still the best ending to any Halloween film up until both of Rob Zombie's films, in my opinion.

Look at Halloween: H20 and Resurrection and it's obvious what is misng from those movies. It's Dr. Loomis.

Loomis is the doctor everyone discredited and labeled as paranoid because of his diagnos of Michael Myers. It turns out he was right. Loomis knows he must take matters into his own hands to stop him because he knows nobody understands the severity of the issue as he does. Whether it's putting a gun to the head of a marshal (Halloween II 1981) or ung Jamie Lloyd as bait (Halloween 5), he understands desperate times call for desperate measures. Every movie he spends conderable time trying to convince people of the evil that is Michael Myers. But is Loomis crazy himself? Probably. I guess you have to be a little nuts to pursue The Shape. Or does Michael represent Loomis' internal anger against those who discredited him? Is saving the town of Haddonfield a path to profesonal redemption for him?

While that dichotomy worked for x movies, I was most fascinated with the direction Rob Zombie took the Loomis character in H2. For x movies, Loomis is portrayed as "the good guy". In Rob Zombie's Halloween remake, Loomis takes on the role of surrogate father not only to Michael but also to Laurie. He knows he's failed to reach Michael and his only redemption is to save Laurie Strode. Both Michael and Laurie are fatherless. Loomis knows this but Laurie does not, at the time anyway. He put his life on the line for Laurie at the end of Halloween.

Go forward to H2 and Loomis has abandoned both of them. He doesn't care if Michael is alive or dead, although he tries to convince himself and others he is dead, instead, he's all about selling the carnage of Michael Myers. The most damaging truth he tells in his book is the truth about Laurie's past. While he tries to save her in the remake, he will sell her down the river in H2 to sensationalize the story. Loomis, as the surrogate father to both, has made a mockery of both of them. While Loomis has a change of heart at the end, his fate is sealed. Going off the Director's Cut of the film, we can speculate Loomis is still alive as Laurie stands over him with Michael's knife, ready to unleash her anger on him. Of course, we will never know nce a trigger happy cop shoots Laurie down. But the father, son and daughter are together forever in the "triangle of death", as Rob Zombie labeled it in his commentary.

While many people take a crap on the Loomis character in H2, and I understand why, I always thought it was an interesting dichotomy between Good Loomis versus Evil Loomis. Every character can have two des to them. I thought Rob took the character to a new dimenon that previous films didn't have the guts to take him.

Growing up nce seeing Halloween when I was 10, my friend and I used to watch the Halloween movies alone just because of Sam Loomis and his quest to stop Michael Myers.

We always got amusement of Sam and the things he said and do.

When I discovered Halloween 5 before Halloween 4 at the video store one night with my friend we jumped for cheer that he somehow survived the fire from Halloween 2 and we stayed up all night watching Halloween 5 over and over again till about 3am.

After that we finally saw Halloween 4 and my accident found Halloween 6.

As much as H20 was a great movie and it was certaintly was without a doubt, my friend and I say that the Halloween series is the way it is mply because Donald Pleasance passed away.

If Donald was still alive and acting like Christopher Lee then we would probably see still more of Sam and Michael.

I was all for Halloween: Resurrection because I thought it was going to be in the style of H20 which pumped me up and how can you not with that movie style due to Kevin Williamson from Scream series and The Faculty.

Plus Kevin did a little of H20 and you can tell too if your good at that stuff.

He certaintly knew how to do 90's horror movies.

If they brought that style back, eliminated all the blood and gore that we don't need and just brought in scary and suspense Halloween and horror movies would mply be great again.

Now touching on the Rob Zombie's verons I think they were good terror wise and the Halloween remake with everything about for some reason just always reminded me of Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

But it was hard getting Donald Pleasance out of my mind as Sam Loomis and I went in with an open mind, but I think Malcolm McDonald just tried mimic Donald too much and it was irratating, plus Brad Dourif on screen all I had was Chucky on the brain too.

All in all without Donald Pleasance that essence of Halloween won't every be there again.

BearMan, you are correct in the Zombie veron about Loomis abandoning both, and I feel that it almost takes him too far out of balance.

Just my personal opinion.

In some ways I really like where Zombie took the Loomis character because most of the series he is relegated a seemingly tireless role as the "hero."

Its refreshing to see him as a complete villain. Irish16lep, I know what you mean!

I am almost obsessed with the Loomis character.

As a matter of fact, it is my dream to be able to dress as him for this year's Halloween. I also feel a great love for the Donald Pleasence veron of Loomis, and without him, it just doesn't have the same feel.