- 1 Why does Laurie kiss Michael?
- 2 Is Laurie actually Michael’s sister?
- 3 Who was Laurie really in love with?
- 4 Why does Michael Myers tilt his head?
- 5 What is Michael Myers his weakness?
- 6 Why did Michael Myers start killing?
- 7 Why did Joe not love Laurie?
Why does Michael Myers keep chasing Laurie?
Why is Michael Myers Obsessed with Laurie in the Original Movies? – The first Halloween movie starts with Michael’s return to his hometown of Haddonfield, IL to stalk his way through the quiet suburban streets with only his heavy breathing as his companion. In the original movie, Michael has no special connection to Laurie,
- Rather, she just happens to be the first person he comes across while looking for the perfect victim to start with on his killing spree.
- He perpetually stalks her around her suburban hometown simply to pursue her in the manner of a regular serial killer menacingly expressing their intention to harass, assault, and, ultimately, murder his next victim.
Ironically enough, it’s only the Halloween reboot trilogy that uses this reasoning to explain why Michael keeps coming back to chase Laurie, whether it’s through a sleepy suburban town, a liberal college campus, or an understaffed hospital. Meanwhile, the first sequel to the original Halloween film establishes a deeper connection between Michael (Dick Warlock) & Laurie.
- Director John Carpenter initially intended for Michael’s motives to be unexplained.
- Like the silent stalker himself, his reasons would haunt the audience’s mind and perplex their need to understand the horrific reality of the monster known as The Shape.
- However, it turns out Carpenter wasn’t exactly excited to write Halloween II, so that’s when he came up with the explanation of Laurie being Michael’s sister.
This became an integral part of the following sequels of the original timeline. Even the 2007 Rob Zombie remake follows the theory of Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) & Michael (Tyler Mane) being siblings. Michael was no longer chasing down someone who just happened to catch his eye.
Why does Laurie kiss Michael?
Final fight – ” You failed, Michael. You wanna know why? Because I’m not afraid of you. But what about you? Are you afraid of me? Are you afraid to die, Michael? ” ―Laurie Strode Halloween Resurrection – The Death of Laurie Strode Laurie’s Death Laurie thought she had finally killed her brother and ended the nightmare but the man she had killed turned out not to be her murderous brother. Laurie learned that Michael had switched clothes with a paramedic while he was still in the school, knocking him out and crushing his larynx so he would be unable to cry out.
Laurie was sent to Grace Andersen Sanitarium for killing an innocent man, where everyone believed her to be in a catatonic state. This proved not to be the case as Laurie had been stuffing the pills the nurses gave her in a rag doll she carried with her. Laurie waited three years for Michael to come for her and watched her window constantly.
She had also gone up to the roof several times to set up a trap for Michael, while the doctors thought she went up there to attempt suicide. Finally, on October 31, 2001, Michael made his appearance and looked up at Laurie in her window, allowing her to know he was coming. Michael watches as Laurie Strode falls to her death Once Michael got close enough to the roof’s edge, Laurie revealed herself and sprung the trap, leaving Michael dangling by his ankle. Laurie assured Michael that she was no longer afraid and Michael had thus failed in his mission.
- However, Michael took advantage of Laurie’s doubts and grabbed his mask in feigned agony, leading Laurie to hesitate for fear of killing another innocent.
- When she approached to remove his mask, Michael seized her, causing the added weight to break the rope and send both siblings tumbling off the roof.
Michael then drove his knife through Laurie’s back. As she hung dying, Laurie kissed Michael’s mask and promised he would see her in hell. Michael tore the knife out and let Laurie Strode fall to her death, finally allowing her freedom.
Does Michael Myers have a obsession with Laurie?
She refuses to die at his hands, and in doing so refuses to be forgotten. Myers’ obsession with Laurie spills into seven more films and three timelines, but he’s not the only one changed by their encounter. On the evening of Halloween, Laurie becomes infected with the violence that Myers brings to her home.
Why is Michael Myers obsessed with his sister?
Why did Michael Myers kill his sister? –
- Michael’s story starts on Halloween in 1968 when he is six-years-old and his sister Judith is babysitting him.
- Rather than taking him trick or treating, or even looking after him, Judith chooses to have sex with her boyfriend.
- After the boyfriend leaves, we see Michael, armed with a huge kitchen knife, go up to his sister’s room and stab her to death.
- His motive for murder could follow slasher movie logic – in which the killer is often motivated by a combination of neglect and jealousy.
2 Michael was just six-years-old when he committed the murder Michael was supposed to be being looked after by his sister who was babysitting him – but instead she went off to have sex. This leads to the theory that Judith choosing her boyfriend over him, saw Michael react by killing her.
What is Michael Myers afraid of?
Personality – Despite never speaking or showing any emotions, if one reads between the lines and properly analyzes his actions, his personality is very clear. Michael Myers is the absolute embodiment of pure evil. He is a remorseless, depraved, and sadistic serial killer whose only goal is to cause chaos, pain, and death upon innocent people whether they be men, women, children, or even his own family.
He always makes sure to kill his victims in the most brutal and painful ways imaginable rarely ever giving his victims a quick death or showing them mercy. Michael not only likes to physically harm his victims but will even mentally and physiologically torment them as well in multiple ways, like killing their loved ones in front of them or playing dark and disturbing pranks, a perfect example of this is when Michael puts on a ghost costume and glasses, making Lynda believe it’s her boyfriend, Bob.
When her back is turned to make a phone call, he strangles her to death with the telephone line. He has an absolute refusal to speak and his murders, which all happen on Halloween night, suggest that the night itself, or the sinister aspects of the holiday, play a part in his motivation.
- His murderous tendencies could be his own sick idea of how to celebrate Halloween.
- This indicates a somewhat childish mindset or, at the very least, an attempt to come across as even scarier to his victims.
- This ghost-like desire to haunt his victims and leave an impression on others on Halloween night indicates that his true obsession is with Halloween, itself.
He further showcased this obsession when he wrote the words, “Samhain”, in blood in Halloween II, which indicates that Michael is educated in the lore of Halloween, Overall, it’s likely that Michael may consider himself a force of nature like many others do.
Michael likes displaying his victims’ corpses in ritual-like presentations, showing he has a sick sense of art, such as placing his sister’s tombstone over the recently killed Annie, and after nailing Bob Simmons’ corpse on the wall with a knife, he tilts his head as if his body were a poster, admiring the gruesomeness of his murder.
Despite many believing that he has the mindset of an animal, Michael is in fact highly intelligent being able to outsmart and manipulate several people to his advantage for example he typically bides his time to stalk and sneak up on victims before killing them, and he leaves his victims on display for other potential victims to find before killing them as well.
Michael can also be very pragmatic and cautious if the situation warrants it, as in Halloween Kills, he took the threat of the Haddonfield mob very seriously and did everything in his power to get rid of them before they hunted him down, and after his defeat at the hands of Laurie in the 2018 film, he stopped holding back and went full force on his victims, instead of toying with them, most likely because he didn’t want to be caught off guard again.
Michael however is not without his fears as it indicated that he wears his mask to hide his face and emotions due to the fact Michael’s face is seen to be normal looking and rather handsome, and since one of the sources of Michael’s power is through the fear he inflicts on others, Michael could be afraid of losing that power and image if people were to see that deep down, despite his threatening presence, immense strength, and being the literal embodiment of evil, at his core, he is and will always be a mere human.
Who did Laurie truly love?
Little Women, Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel about the four March sisters, has inspired readers since it was first published in 1868. It also has inspired many directors to create their film representations of the classic story, Recently in 2019, we received Greta Gerwig’s version of the story.
Previously in 1994, many fell in love with Gillian Armstrong’s version. Still, others remember older versions where Katharine Hepburn played Jo (1933) or when Elizabeth Taylor played Amy (1949). While the versions of Little Women have somewhat changed the plot or the character arcs, one element of the plot that has stayed constant is the love triangle between Jo-Laurie-Amy.
Jo and Laurie have been best friends, and Jo balks when he proposes to her, professing his love and wanting to make their friendship into a romance. Rejected, Laurie leaves, and later finds romance and a wife in Amy, Jo’s little sister. Some fans believe that Jo should have ended up with Laurie, while others believed that Amy was a better match.
- For both camps, there are reasons why Jo and Laurie should’ve ended up together, and there are reasons why Amy is the perfect match.
- Updated on January 26th, 2022 by Amanda Bruce: No matter how times change, there’s something enduring in the story of Little Women.
- Readers and audiences alike enjoy watching as the March sisters learn and love as they grow up.
While most of the story centers on Jo following her dreams to become a writer, the bonds between the sisters, and their romantic relationships, also help propel the story forward. Jo and Amy are the two March siblings who are most different from one another.
Is Laurie actually Michael’s sister?
One of the major changes to the Halloween timeline for Halloween 2018 was that Michael and Laurie were no longer siblings. I didn’t think it would bother me as much as it did when I heard this. I felt okay about John Carpenter omitting the brother-sister storyline by making H 2018 a direct sequel to his original 1978 classic Halloween, so within this timeline, everything that happened in Halloween II (1982) did not happen.
- At all. The new timeline picks up on Halloween night, where the original film ends.
- Laurie did not learn about being Michael’s sister until Part II (1982).
- So, because Part II no longer exists in this timeline, Laurie is never informed about any of this.
- In Halloween Kills, Laurie’s granddaughter Allison is asked if Michael was her mother’s brother, and she explained to her friends that it was only a rumor.
What if it is a rumor because it is true? Why would this even be a topic of conversation? Nothing that happens between Halloween 1978 and Halloween 2018 with Laurie and Michael suggests that they are siblings. This wouldn’t be a rumor at all unless there were rumblings behind closed doors.
Think about Halloween II 1982. Even though Laurie’s true identity is unknown, word quickly gets out that she is Michael’s sister and that the Strodes adopted her soon after her birth parents perished in a car accident just two years after Michael kitchen-knifed Judith while wearing a clown mask. Just because Part II 1982 no longer exists in the most recent timeline, doesn’t mean that somewhere there isn’t a sealed record kicking around containing Laurie Strode’s true identity as Cynthia Myers, younger sister to Michael Myers.
We can assume that after the events of Halloween 1978, there was the same kind of reaction from the few who knew about Laurie being related to Michael that we saw in the 1982 sequel. I’m sure Loomis would’ve been informed, and people would talk. This rumor mentioned in Halloween Kills is undoubtedly decades old, which locals either believe to be true or assume it is just an absurd rumor.
Either way, this Michael/Laurie rumor is common knowledge in Haddonfield, to the point where high school students several generations removed from the events of the original bring it up. There has got to be some merit to this rumor for it to be discussed forty-years after the fact. And why did Doctor Sartain put Michael and Laurie back together? There was nothing remarkable about the horror of Halloween night 1978, to the point of retraumatizing a would-be murder victim and also attempting the murder of a peace officer in the process.
Doctor Sartain was obviously obsessed with the dynamic between Michael and Laurie, but why? Certainly, he knows the truth. There was a moment between Laurie and Michael in Ends. It’s subtle, but it’s there, and it makes no goddamn sense to have such a moment between the two if there wasn’t more to the story—something that seemingly has spiritually bonded these crazy siblings.
Who was Laurie really in love with?
Jo was Laurie’s first love. Sisterly love mistaken for actual love by a romantic young man. Jo was someone he could talk honestly to. Amy is his real, romantic love.
What mental illness does Laurie Strode have?
When Bad Things Happen to Good People – Scary experiences are not uncommon—psychological trauma, the emotional response resulting from any event that is physically or emotionally threatening or harmful, happens to most of us at some point in our lives. What occurs next varies from person to person.
- A survivor’s immediate reaction in the aftermath of trauma is complex and can range from exhaustion, confusion, sadness, agitation, numbness, and dissociation.
- Some individuals have difficulty expressing emotions following the initial shock.
- These are all very natural responses to severe trauma and aren’t signs of long-term problems.
However, what occurs over long-term recovery varies greatly from person to person. In Laurie’s case, even after a return to safety (her assailant is captured and imprisoned), she experienced what are considered delayed responses following the attack—chronic sleep disturbances, vivid nightmares, upsetting flashbacks, and fears of recurrence, which is the constant and irrational worry that Michael would show up and finish what he started.
- Presumably, Laurie’s hypervigilance, triggering memories, relentless anger, and alcohol abuse lasted for years and caused impairment to her and her family, indicating that her symptoms developed into a mental health disorder called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
- The social cognitive theory of PTSD suggests that some survivors, as a way to cope, try to incorporate the experience of their trauma into existing beliefs about oneself, others, and the world.
This strategy, though, can result in unhelpful understandings of their trauma and perceptions of control of the self or the environment. For instance, if Laurie believed that “bad things happen to bad people,” then being brutally attacked would confirm that she is “bad,” not that she was unjustly violated.
- She would grow to believe that she wasn’t attacked at random, but that she must have been targeted for being inadequate or immoral.
- Perhaps her willingness to isolate, arm herself with guns and weapons, and parent her daughter with strictness and coldness fits this theory of being an unlikable person and deserving punishment.
She didn’t mind being a “bad” parent if it meant she could keep her daughter safe. On the other hand, Laurie did not seem to develop beliefs that she was deserving of the assault. Another cognitive transformation is basically the opposite: rejecting the idea that one is “bad” and instead adapting beliefs about the world and others to better make sense of the victimization.
Why Michael Myers doesn t talk?
Quite simply, he chooses not to. Dr. Loomis is quoted in the series as saying that Michael can talk, but simply doesn’t. There’s no known damages to his mouth, tongue, or vocal cords.
Why does Michael Myers tilt his head?
In 2017, horror fans were ecstatic when it was announced that the king of the slashers, Michael Myers, would be returning in a new film. While there was some confusion in the choice of director ( David Gordon Green was best known for the stoner comedy Pineapple Express ), doubts were soon calmed when details of the new take on the series came out.
- For decades, the story of The Shape had become more and more outlandish.
- It started in the original Halloween 2 when it’s revealed that Michael ( Dick Warlock ) and Laurie Strode ( Jamie Lee Curtis ) are brother and sister.
- It went off the rails with a cult subplot in later films and Rob Zombie’s vision that saw Michael as a hulking madman who kills because he was bullied and misses his mom.
We were promised a different approach this time. The new Halloween wouldn’t be a remake, and it wouldn’t be a traditional sequel. Instead, it would strip away the mess of the sequels and pretend they never happened. Michael and Laurie were never related. Image via Universal Pictures With their pitch having received the blessing of original Halloween director John Carpenter, who was so won over that he even agreed to provide the score for the new outing, it seemed something great was forming. Most importantly, Jamie Lee Curtis, the Scream Queen herself, had been coaxed into returning one more time.
- Even Nick Castle, who portrayed Michael in the first film, was coming back to co-play the Shape again in a limited role.
- The ingredients were there to make something spectacular.
- The finished product of Halloween (2018) mostly delivered on what fans were promised.
- The weight of the sequels had been lost.
Michael Myers was back to being the boogeyman, a simple, unknowable force. He looked scary again. Part of this came just from getting the look of the mask right, an assumably easy process that many of the sequels failed badly at. While Nick Castle’s presence is limited to a five-second scene, his replacement, James Jude Courtney, was intimidating in his portrayal of Myers.
- John Carpenter’s score was haunting, the music in the film the best since the original.
- Jamie Lee Curtis nailed her Sarah Connor like performance as the victim who becomes the pursuer, and Judy Greer and Andi Matichak easily held their own with the horror legend.
- It wasn’t a perfect movie.
- There was too much comedy.
The gore was overdone in spots (one victim’s head is stomped like a pumpkin). And there wasn’t as much of Michael hiding in the shadows. This Shape was angrier, set to kill anyone in his path. Still, the film was a critical and commercial success that demanded a follow-up. Image via Universal In October 2021 we received the first of two new installments, Halloween Kills, This new entry lived up to its title. Everything that worked in Halloween (2018) is completely dismissed. For starters, Jamie Lee Curtis is placed in the background in a meaningless role that requires her to lay in a hospital bed for most of the run time.
- She never once interacts with The Shape.
- The worst sin is that Halloween Kills becomes another run-of-the-mill slasher.
- Five people die in all of Halloween (1978).
- Here, nearly thirty souls meet their end at Michael’s hand.
- Throats are slashed, stomachs impaled, heads caved in, eyes gouged out.
- Gallons of blood and guts flow.
Anyone that Michael sees dies, and we don’t care about most of them. They’re not people, just bodies. In two scenes, Michael is confronted by about a dozen people. He easily dispatches of them all in ways that even John Wick would be proud of. Throughout, The Shape disappears.
- It’s no longer Michael Myers, but a killer in a mask.
- He may as well be Jason Voorhees.
- Everything scary about Myers is destroyed in Halloween Kills,
- Even the filmmakers agreed that what made him so scary in the original was his quiet, ghostly presence.
- He was a white face lingering in the dark who could strike whenever he wanted, but who always took his time.
They failed in remembering this. Here he is nothing more than a madman who lives to kill. The biggest sin the sequels commit is that they forget who Michael Myers is. There is always this need to explain, to make up reasons for his madness (he kills because Laurie is his sister! He kills because he’s in a cult!), when the motivation has always been right there.
In the original Halloween we first meet a six-year-old Michael in 1963 as he stabs his sister to death. The initial hint of the reason for his madness can be seen in the POV shot that shows Michael watching the knife in his hand go up and down. He is in awe of what he’s doing. We then see the blank detachment after his sister is dead.
His mind is gone now. All that exists is what he’s done. Image via Universal For fifteen years Michael is catatonic, playing his sister’s death on repeat in his mind, until finally the obsession is too much, and the need to recreate that night wins. When Michael escapes from a psychiatric hospital, we see him as someone who can jump and move fast, who can drive a car.
There is still something human inside him. There is no desire to kill Dr. Loomis or Marion Chambers when he steals their car. He only wants to get away. His desires are elsewhere. When he puts on the mask, his demeanor changes. His movements slow dramatically, just above catatonic. In his mind it’s 1963. He is still a child and his childhood fascination with killing propels him.
He wants to relive that night once more. A chance encounter with Laurie makes her the catalyst for his curiosity. He doesn’t attack her when he could easily do so. Instead, he watches, hiding from Laurie and her friends behind bushes and outside of windows.
Most of the time he is there without his victims even knowing, but at other times he allows himself to be seen by only Laurie for a moment. Michael wants to scare her. When Michael finally does attack, it is not out of any rage. We see that when he kills Lynda’s boyfriend, Bob. The kill itself is quick, a single stab to the gut pinning Bob to the door, not blow after blow that the current Michael frequently dishes out.
The real terror, and the real motivation of Michael, is in what comes after. He tilts his head to the side, taking in what he’s done, still a child so curious of what death looks like. It’s the same when he watches Lynda in bed, The Shape now disguised by a sheet and Bob’s glasses.
He gets a thrill out of watching, out of his victim not knowing who he is. He draws the moment out, wanting to feel it for as long as possible. The kill isn’t what propels him. It’s the build. The epitome of this is seen in the climax. He puts his dead sister’s tombstone in front of another victim, proof that this is all about recreating that night.
It’s a signature for Laurie to find, his way of telling her that this is all about her. He could kill her at any moment, but he doesn’t. There is the famous scene where Michael’s mask materializes from the shadows, before he steps forth and stabs Laurie in the shoulder. Image Via Universal Pictures It’s why when Laurie tumbles down the steps, he waits for her to get up before chasing after her. It’s why when Laurie is running across the street, Michael is not right behind her. Instead, he waits in the shadows, watching, until Laurie is at the door, before he slowly lumbers after her.
He doesn’t want it to end. It happens yet again when Laurie gets inside the house and is hiding in front of the couch. Michael leaps out from behind her and swings his knife, but misses horribly. Once more, this can only be on purpose. He wants her to run. He is a cat who has caught a mouse, but wants to play with his dinner first.
The last example of this occurs after Laurie has hidden in the closet. Michael finds her and forces his way in, only to be stabbed in the eye and chest. As Laurie steps out and steps over him, he doesn’t move. He waits until Laurie sits down and turns away from him, before he ever so slowly sits up and walks up behind her.
When he wraps his fingers around her throat he finally means to kill her. The game has gone as far as it can go. When his mask is ripped off, Michael’s face is finally seen. While the eye wound makeup makes him look disfigured, that wasn’t Carpenter’s intent. Here a separate actor had been hired just to play Michael’s face, because Carpenter wanted Michael to have a boyish, angelic look.
He has a look of horror on his face at being exposed. He is a little boy who has been caught. That is Michael Myers, not a bloodthirsty hulk, but a curious child trapped in a man’s body trying to recreate the past. In filmmaking, trying to recreate the past is usually not the best approach, but in this case, if it cannot be recreated, the past must at least be remembered and honored.
David Gordon Green has said that the end of the trilogy, this year’s Halloween Ends, will be a smaller, more contained film. We can only hope that the end of Michael Myers sees the man behind the myth fixed, that he becomes in what could be his final appearance what he used to be. Maybe the filmmakers will learn that suspense is what makes a film scary, not gore.
Maybe they’ll remember what worked in 1978 and make him a lurking presence in no hurry to pounce. Maybe they’ll realize that the most frightening part of The Shape is not the blood and guts, but that he could be standing outside your window right now, watching you, waiting.
Has Michael Myers ever killed a kid?
Halloween’s Michael Myers has killed a lot of people throughout the franchise, but never children. Here’s why he never goes after them. Halloween ‘s Michael Myers has become one of the most popular killers from the slasher subgenre, and while he sometimes seems to kill at random (depending on which timeline you watch), he has never killed a child – but why? The horror genre went through its best time in the 1980s, and it has a lot to thank Halloween for.
Directed by John Carpenter and released in 1978, Halloween introduced the audience to a new serial killer in Michael Myers and a new final girl in Laurie Strode, and while initially it wasn’t well-received, it’s now considered one of the greatest and most influential horror movies ever made. Halloween tells the story of Michael Myers, who on Halloween night 1963, murdered his sister when he was just six years old.
As a result, Michael was sent to Smith’s Grove Sanitarium, where he stayed for years and never spoke a single word. Fifteen years later, on October 30, 1978, Michael escaped and returned to his hometown Haddonfield, Illinois, where he began to stalk Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends on Halloween night.
- Laurie became the only survivor of Michael’s killing spree and continued to be his main target, and when she died in the first timeline, Michael turned his attention to her daughter, Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris),
- However, he didn’t kill Jamie nor did he hurt her (physically, at least) when she was a child, and on his long killing list, you won’t find any children.
Although Laurie and Jamie have been Michael’s main targets throughout the Halloween franchise, Michael has also gotten rid of any and all people on his way, even if he didn’t have anything personal against them, as were Laurie’s friends in Halloween, Many Halloween fans believe that Michael Myers doesn’t really care about children so he sees no point in killing them even if they are in his way, as many have throughout the franchise, while others have gone a bit deeper. A fan of Halloween and Carpenter explained that the filmmaker once expanded on the two kinds of evil in an interview for the TV series Screamography,
- In it, Carpenter explained that one exists as a physical and external force that threatens the well-being of a group, and the other one is the evil that lives inside a person, similar to an infection.
- Michael would fit into the first category, so with that in mind, he doesn’t kill children because they are no threat to him, as he is a form of external evil and thus can’t be fought physically by a child – but a teenager can, hence why he killed his sister and many others.
Some fans have argued that Michael did kill a child once, in the 2018 reboot. During his escape in the first act of the movie, he came across a father and a son on their truck. Michael killed the father, and the son took a rifle to defend himself but ran back to the truck to try to escape, only to be caught and killed by Michael.
Now, some argue that Michael killed him as the kid represented an obstacle (mostly because of the weapon), while others considered that he was actually more of a teenager already, and so he fit into Michael’s targets. Still, it’s not Michael Myers’ style to murder children, showing that there’s still an ethical side to him and perhaps even a sensitive side as well, which can say a lot about his troubled psyche, and it’s to be seen if this will continue in Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends or if he will bend and break his own rules.
Next: Halloween Theory: The Real Reason Michael Myers Kills People
Does Michael Myers have a kid?
Steven Lloyd is a minor character in the Halloween series. He is the only son and child of Jamie Lloyd and serial killer Michael Myers, also being the latter’s grand-nephew. Steven is one of the few surviving members of the Myers family. His appearance was in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers,
Can Michael Myers talk?
Has Michael Myers Ever Spoken In The Halloween Franchise? – It’s mentioned in the first Halloween movie that Michael Myers didn’t say a single word during his time at Smith’s Grove, so he’s not mute as he did talk before the murder of Judith. Michael Myers, then, has chosen not to speak again, though why exactly is what continues to be debated among viewers.
- Michael’s physical ability to speak was confirmed by Dr.
- Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) in David Gordon Green’s Halloween, but a reason why he chose not to speak again wasn’t given.
- Some possible reasons why Michael Myers hasn’t talked again since the murder of his sister is that it’s part of the catatonia he tricked everyone into thinking he had, while others, based on the events of Halloween Kills, suggest he is still in shock after what happened in 1963, and he’s still that little boy who killed his sister, so his selective mutism could be a lot more complex than it seems.
Others, however, following what Loomis said multiple times about Michael Myers being the personification of evil, believe that Michael’s choice to not speak again is part of that embodiment of evil, with his actions speaking way louder. Michael Myers hasn’t spoken in any of the movies in the Halloween franchise except Rob Zombie’s remakes.
What is Michael Myers his weakness?
Michael Myers has survived the impossible throughout the Halloween franchise, making viewers wonder if he has any weaknesses and what these could be. Michael Myers has survived all types of improbable situations throughout the Halloween franchise, making fans wonder if he has any weaknesses and what these could be. In 1978, John Carpenter introduced the audience to a new slasher villain in Halloween, which even though wasn’t well-received during its release, with time it has become one of the most influential horror movies ever, and Michael Myers has become part of pop culture.
- Halloween tells the story of Michael Myers, who on Halloween night 1963, when he was six years old, murdered his older sister for no apparent reason.
- Michael was then sent to Smith’s Grove Sanitarium, where he became the patient of Dr.
- Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence), who concluded that Michael is the incarnation of evil.
Fifteen years later, on October 30, 1978, Michael escaped and returned to his hometown Haddonfield, Illinois, where he began to stalk Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends, with Laurie becoming the franchise’s main final girl. Halloween made way for a franchise with a total of 13 movies (including Rob Zombie’s remakes), and Michael Myers has been unstoppable through all of them.
Michael Myers has been close to dying multiple times, but the writers always find a way to bring him back and thus expand the franchise. This has led to retcons and the franchise branching out in different timelines, but Michael remains the same seemingly indestructible force, making viewers wonder if he has any weaknesses, as he has survived the impossible – from being burned alive to decapitation.
An official weakness hasn’t been revealed in the Halloween universe, but fans have come up with different possibilities, starting with Michael’s obsession with Halloween. Michael only kills on or around October 31, unlike other slashers who can go on murder sprees at any moment and for as long as they please. Another possible weakness of Michael Myers could be his obsession with his targets, namely Laurie and Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris), Laurie’s daughter in the first timeline. Whether because they are related (as they were in the first timeline, the Halloween H20 one, and the remakes) or because Laurie survived his first murder spree (as is the case in the reboot timeline), Michael’s drive to kill might be his weakness as well, as once he finally gets what he wants, he could be at the mercy of anyone who wants to avenge Haddonfield.
Another weakness pointed out by viewers is Michael Myers’ iconic mask, as every time he has been unmasked he stops killing, even though he had his victim in front and completely helpless. Some have even theorized that Michael’s mask was made by Silver Shamrock, which explains why he’s driven to kill when he wears it.
It’s to be seen if Halloween Ends will give Michael Myers some weakness after Halloween Kills made him supernatural again by having him survive being beaten, stabbed, and shot multiple times, and given all these events, it will have to be a believable weakness that can bring the reboot timeline (and perhaps the whole franchise) to a satisfying end without any more loose ends.
Why did Michael Myers start killing?
Sequel timeline – (Dimension Films) Movies: Halloween (1978), Halloween II (1981), Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988), Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) and Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) It would’ve been so much better if Michael’s motivations had never been fully revealed.
Unfortunately, the original timeline introduced the most HORRIBLE story arc, known as the Cult of Thorn arc. In this arc, we get the explanation as to why Michael is out there slicing folks up. If you don’t remember or have never watched Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995), then here we go. Basically, Michael killed his sister Judith because of a curse that was placed on him.
A weirdo doctor thought it would be chill to cast this curse, even though it results in death and chaos over a long course of time. Michael simply serves as a killing machine to keep the thriving. And Loomis (Donald Pleasance) was always right that Michael is pure evil.
Why did Joe not love Laurie?
In the book before Laurie moves to Concord, he has been tossed around in Europe from one boarding school to another and then he moves to live with his grandfather and they have to build their relationship from the scratch. Older Mr.Lawrence had rejected the marriage of Laurie´s parents so since the beginning Laurie feels unwanted and this is why he becomes so attached to the Marches.
- He even calls Marmee his mother and that is why he is clinging on to Jo so much.
- Because of Jo´s idealization towards the masculine Laurie thought he could do anything and she would always forgive him.
- Hannah describes Laurie as a weathercock.
- He is a character with constant mood changes.
- He can be sensitive but he also has a high temper.
Which has never been shown in the films. He can be very inconsiderate towards other people´s feelings (same way as Jo) like during the time when he was catfishing Meg (never adapted). Times, when Laurie is sweet and caring, are the times when he puts other people before him. There are times when Laurie is vain like a peacock. He likes nice clothes and keeping up a good appearance which is something that Jo at times makes fun of. He can be funny but also very immature. He wants to break free from his grandfather´s obey dance but he is afraid to do that.
- Laurie is an orphan.
- Their relationship with his grandfather is complicated.
- For older Mr Lawrence Laurie resembles both of the children he lost and this is why he doesn´t want to hear the music because of the painful memories and I suppose self-blame.
- It is only with his encounters with Beth these wounds start to heal.
Laurie doesn´t like school. He wants to go to Italy and be a composer and to re-connect with his roots. Only adaptations where Laurie actually plays the piano come from the ’70s (also in the pbs series from 2017 Laurie plays music). What it comes to the movies it is Mr Bhaer who is actually much more musical and Fritz does sing and plays music in the books.
But it is strange that there are only a couple of adaptations where Laurie actually plays the piano and after all Laurie is a composer. So far the earlier film versions have had their focus on romanticizing Jo and Laurie instead of giving him a full personality. They follow the Hollywood narrative that the only reason why Laurie exists is to be pretty and to be in love with Jo and he doesn´t have any other aspirations or inspirations outside that.
At the beginning of Good Wives when John and Meg move to their new home Laurie comes bringing gifts; a knife cleaner that spoils all the knives, soap that takes the skin off one´s hands, a sweeper that leaves all the dirt and a bunch of other similar items.
Each week when Laurie is on holiday from college he brings them random useless things. It can be a funny joke for the first couple of times but Laurie does it for months. It´s the behaviour you could expect from a teenager but not from a 21-year-old. John and Meg are poor. Laurie is rich. He could give them something useful.
None of Laurie´s pranks is shown in the movies. A big part of why Jo wanted to be more boyish and her being dismissive over feminine was about showing off. Laurie´s pranks were his way of showing off and getting attention. It is when Laurie goes to college the gender expectations of the time start to have a bigger impact on Jo´s and Laurie´s behaviour. Laurie is not very interested in his studies. He goes to college simply to please his grandfather. Laurie is more of a party-boy in college.
- That is not necessarily a character flaw.
- Quite many young people go to college to do just that still today.
- In college Laurie smokes, drinks, plays pool, flirts with girls, gets into fights (never shown in any adaptations) and Jo criticizes him for doing these things.
- Jo doesn´t want to do any of these things but she wishes she could have the liberty to do whatever she wants without being judged by society.
Jo was very aware of the unfairness of the situation. In the books, Jo never likes Laurie romantically and his romantic interest only makes Jo feel uncomfortable. Not only does their dynamics change because Jo doesn´t want to fit into the traditional female role of the time but because Laurie fits into the traditional 19th-century male role almost too well.
- Their relationship in their youth worked when there was more space for gender fluidly but it starts to fall apart when they are called to conform more.
- When Laurie develops a crush on Jo he breaks that brotherly bond and that shatters Jo´s ideas of masculinity the way she has come to know it.
- It has never been shown in movies.
The closest example of this the way it is described in the books is the song Astonishing from Little Women musical. Laurie´s behaviour becomes more obsessive and as a result, Jo travels to New York to work as a governess and there she meets Mr Bhaer. The movies have swapped the timeline so that Jo travels to New York after she has rejected Laurie´s proposal when in the book proposal happens after Jo has returned to Concord.
- When Jo meets Friedrich in New York he is not only her sexual awakening but Friedrich´s masculinity collapses the male-female binary Jo knows.
- When Jo meets Friedrich the narrator says that for the first time Jo did not compare a man to Laurie.
- Up until that point Laurie has been her ideal of masculinity but those old models have failed her miserably and then she meets a man who provides her with a new definition of masculinity.
Which does not demand Jo change or to be traditionally feminine. Which is what Laurie´s model of masculinity did. A lot of the relationship between Jo and Laurie was based on mutually reinforcing ideas of toxic masculinity. Eventually, this turned out against both of them.
- In Jo´s case, it made her lose the trip to Europe and in Laurie´s case it brought out his temper and more possessive behaviour.
- The best example of why Jo rejected Laurie´s proposal and why she did fell in love with Friedrich is to examine the two proposals.
- When Laurie proposes to Jo he says he loves her because Jo has always been so good to him.
He doesn´t love her because of her personality or her ambitions. Jo had a tendency to mother Laurie and we can probably explain this with the fact that the young men who were inspirations for Laurie´s character were much younger than Louisa. Being a maternal figure was something that came naturally to Jo.
- In a way, March´s adopted Laurie to be part of their family unit.
- That Jo sees Laurie as her brother makes perfect sense and sisters often become pseudo-mother figures to their brothers.
- In movies, we only see Laurie´s pain but we never see the pressure he puts on Jo or how uncomfortable his actions make her feel.
When we read the book and see Laurie´s character through the movie´s lens it perpetuates the idea that the controlling behaviour he has in the books doesn´t matter and it is a sign of love. Yet the book Laurie is not in love with Jo. He is in love with the idea of love.
- Laurie´s story and his character arc in Little Women are not about Amy or Jo.
- It´s a story about how Laurie becomes a man.
- This is what Laurie thinks about girls: “I’ve tried to show it to you but you wouldn´t let me.
- Now I am going to make you hear and give me an answer for I can´t go on any longer” “But girls are so queer you never know what they mean.
They say no when they mean yes, and drive a man out of his wits just for the fun of it”‘ Laurie seems to be thinking that Jo would fall in love with him because that is what girls do. If we take a look at the narrative of the first book. Laurie has said similar things as a teenager.
Things like “someday I´ll get you Jo” is quite a possessive thing for a 15-year-old boy to say and it highlights how much the two have fed each other with harmful stereotypes about gender roles. Now that they are adults Jo feels the need to leave this toxic cycle. Not just because of her own sake but also Laurie´s sake and it is toxic because up until that point Laurie has been told what to do by Jo, John Brooke or by his grandfather.
Laurie wants to keep the status quo of their relationship so that he does not need to grow and take responsibility for himself or his own actions. Laurie was not used to making decisions. Marrying Jo is an easy escape from his life remaining the same rather than different as it is meant to be.
- Most adaptations have also chosen the easy escape by not showing the slow and painful work of the personal transformation that Laurie does go through in the books.
- If we now take a look at the narrative of the second book.
- There are no glimpses inside Laurie´s head where he would be thinking about Jo or dreaming about the future with her.
When Jo leaves New York we do get a glimpse inside Friedrich´s mind and he does admit to himself that he is indeed in love with her and he wonders what life with Jo would be like. Laurie´s actions in most parts of the second book don´t make any sense because Laurie´s mind is a complete mess. Almost like the lack of Laurie´s inner thoughts the book is telling us that Laurie hasn´t thought things through. This is another contrast between Laurie´s shallow idealized dreaminess and Friedrich´s deeply grounded reality ( @this -thrown-out-gentleman).
Jo is honest with Laurie. She sees that if she would marry him their arguments would escalate to violence. Laurie´s relationship with Jo is more codependent. Laurie wants to keep the status quo of their toxic relationship and it is toxic because up until that point Laurie had been used to do by Jo, John Brooke or his grandfather.
He wasn´t used to making decisions ( @renee561 ) Trying to threaten someone you say you love is never a good idea. Instead of seeing any fault in his own actions, Laurie blames it on someone else and he wants Jo to feel guilty for rejecting him. Then he guilt trips her even more by saying that she will marry someone and that she will be a silly woman by going back on her word of never marrying. Then Laurie threatens to go to the devil and behaves like a 19th-century brat boy. Laurie´s proposal has been traditionally abridged or the dialogue has been changed. In the adaptations, it has been portrayed to be a romantic scene when in the books it is a conflict. It is still all about him and he still wants Jo to feel guilty. Thank god for the grandfather (this is good parenting). Six months later Amy meets Laurie in Europe and they have not met for four years. Amy finds him changed and different. She scolds him and his attitude but it comes from a good place because Amy knows that Laurie has the potential to make the most of his life and when she carefully asks what happened between him and Jo Still all about him. Not about Jo. Amy´s lecture did Laurie good though of course, he did not own it until long afterwards. Men seldom do for when women are advisers. The lords of the creation won’t take the advice until they have persuaded themselves that it is just what they intended to do.
Then they act upon it and if it succeeds they give the weaker vessel half the credit of it. If it fails they generously give her the whole. Little Women Chapter 41. Amy´s words start to affect Laurie yet in his mind Laurie thinks that Amy´s advice was unnecessary and that he had always meant to do something.
Laurie´s biggest flaws are his pride and vanity but also his lack of ability to put himself in another person´s position and this is why his growth process is slow and painful. Still, at this point, Laurie doesn´t see women as individuals. He sees himself above them. The moment when Laurie caught himself thinking the word “brotherly” and Jo it is almost like he sees himself as a character in an opera he is trying to compose. He immediately sends Jo a letter and proposes to her again. Once again it is all about him and not about Jo.
Proposing someone right after they have lost their sister is not a good idea. When Jo´s response arrives and she still says no Laurie feels relieved but instead of feeling bad for guilt-tripping her for quite a long time he wants to cherish his memory as being a tragic romantic hero. It is still all about him.
Why was Laurie so obsessed and why he never listened to what Jo had to say and why he felt guilty when he started to develop romantic feelings towards Amy? since we know Jo never cared about him like that. As being said there are no scenes in the books where Laurie is thinking Jo romantically or dreaming about a life with her. In terms of Little Women Louisa did not write an explicit background story for any of the male characters. From the little that we know from Laurie´s background it would seem that when he was a child he was tossed from one boarding school to another and he did not have any stable parental figures or that he never spent enough time in one place to be able to establish such relationships.
Quite early in the novel, Laurie admits to Jo that he feels envious of the sisters bond to their mother. Laurie´s and Jo´s relationship is characterised by childhood innocence. Jo represents the nurturing feminine presence Laurie was craving to have in his life at the same time Laurie is a brothernal figure for Jo who compliments her views on non-conformity (Ajedisith) Jo and the March family become a refuge of stability to Laurie.
It is only when he moves to Concord at the age of 15 for the first time he is surrounded by people who stick long enough to put boundaries and try to raise him. More than often Laurie was frustrated by Jo´s lectures but at the same, he was depending on them. Little Women is a semi-biographical novel. We can trace Laurie´s actions to Louisa. Same way as Laurie Louisa´s childhood was unstable and turbulent and the family moved very often. When Louisa was young she had a big crush to the family friend and next-door neighbour philosopher Waldo Emmerson.
Emmerson was also one of the many men who were inspirations for the character of Fritz. More than often Emmerson saved Alcott´s from troubles and he became a symbol of stability for Louisa the same way as Jo is for Laurie. Louisa became obsessed with German female writer and social activist Bettina von Armin and her book Goethes Briefwechsel mit einem Kinde (Goethe´s correspondence with a child).
Which included love letters Bettina wrote to the poet Goethe. Bettina represents herself as a lover. A role that is traditionally seen as more masculine (Kundera). Bettina was in love with the idea of love. Love is an emotion. Not as a love relation. In her letters, she does not ask his opinions or shares ideas with him.
“I turned myself into Bettina and made Emmerson my Goethe” — LMA Laurie is not in love with Jo. He is in love with the idea of love. It is about putting up on a role and a narcissistic one for that when it hurts other people. This is exactly what happened between Jo and Laurie and Bettina and Goethe.
Let´s call Laurie´s behaviour with its actual name, harassment. When Louisa was an adult she did tell Emmerson how she had built this romantic fairytale scenario in her head. Emmerson himself had been completely unaware of it. Nevertheless, they had a very strong friendship throughout their lives (Reisen).
- There is the famous Little Women passage to adulthood ritual (which would make a really interesting research topic to gender studies).
- It basically means that a reader who has read the book as a child and romanticized Jo and Laurie and quite possible watched the 1994 film more than once.
- Reads the book as an adult and finds out that Laurie was very childish and he and Jo were very ill-matched and they move on to root Jo and Fritz or Amy and Laurie or both.
We can also see it as a metaphor for how a person develops a mildly delusional obsession over another. Especially young boys and girls think that their life only has a meaning when they find a partner whose only reason for existing is them but it is not healthy and not love. Friedrich´s proposal is the complete opposite. Fritz wants to tell her how he feels about her and let her decide. After Jo has left New York they have been writing letters to each other and when he comes to see Jo in Concord he hopes to see signs of love from Jo and when he reveals to her that he has gotten a job and he is going to the west Jo´s walls go down.
He gives Jo all the power and control and he lets her know that everything that she feels and thinks is important for him and he wants to make sure that she returns to his feelings and that their lives and goals work together. He is not even making a marriage proposal. He is asking if she could love him.
In comparison to Laurie Friedrich´s screen portrayals are always closer to the books, even if most of his parts are left out because he is a less romanticized character. He also acknowledges his flaws in the same way as Jo does. In terms of Friedrich´s narrative, Little Women is also about identity but in his case, it is not about forming identity but when he falls in love with Jo he reshapes his already existing identity. Louisa was a great admirer of the German writer and poet Goethe. A lot of research has been made on Goethe´s influence on Louisa´s writings. For example, a long fatal love chase has many parallels with Goethe´s Faust. But less research has been done between Goethe´s writings and Little Women.
Goethe was one of Louisa´s favourite authors and she credited him to be the one author who has taught her the most about creating and understand characters. Her copy of Wilhelm Meister´s Apprenticeship was given to her by Waldo Emmerson (and Louisa filled it with scribbles and took notes). In Little Women Friedrich gave Jo a copy of Shakespeare´s work and through that Jo learns how much more there is to find out about storytelling.
Fritz also encourages Jo to study people around her so that she becomes better at developing and creating characters. Goethe was one of the biggest inspirations for Friedrich´s character which brings Friedrich´s impact on Jo´s writing into a new light. Trigger warning there will be mentions of suicides. What it comes to Laurie´s character arc there are lots of themes that come straight from Goethe´s writings. Goethe´s first financially successful novel (and first German international best-seller) The sorrows of Young Werther is a semi-biographical novel.
Both protagonists young Werther and Goethe himself grew up the privileged same way as Laurie. Werther´s love interest Charlotte is marrying another worthy man Albert. Werther makes Charlotte the only sole purpose of his living. He is not only miserable. He is proud of his misery. In fact, he endorses it. As a result, he commits suicide.
What kills Werther is not being disappointed in love. It has nothing to do with Charlotte. What kills him is his toxic self-centeredness. What is common with Werther and Laurie is that they are both extremely sensitive. Same way as Little Women the sorrows of young Werther has often been misread.
Some readers endorsed and glamorised Werther´s suicide and when the book became vastly popular it started a wave of suicides of young people in Germany who tried to emulate the tragic end of their romantic hero. “The children took especial interest in the love story, and when poor Laurie was so obstinately refused by Jo, “they wept aloud and refused to be comforted,” and in some instances were actually made ill by grief and excitement” (Cheney) References to Goethe continue in Laurie´s proposal.
After being rejected Laurie does threats to take his life and puts enormous pressure on Jo. Same way as with the sorrows of young Werther a great deal of Little Women fans, especially younger ones, find these worrying threats passionate and romantic. Goethe´s book was widely misunderstood since he meant it as a criticism and warning example towards life-consuming self-absorption.
- When I re-read the novel in my early twenties, I still technically thought Jo should have ended up with Laurie, but I started to feel uncomfortable about feeling that way.
- Wasn’t it weird, I thought, to feel that way when the character of Jo so explicitly rejected his proposal? Wasn’t it a bit like telling a dear friend she should date someone she wasn’t crazy about just because he had feelings for her and is such a good guy ? I dismissed this though because a) death of the author, non-canonical pairings are a-ok, etc.
and b) I have a moderate grasp on reality and I do recognize Jo is a fictional character, not my friend. But re-reading Little Women this month, I realized with mounting alarm that as a potential romantic partner for Jo, Laurie isn’t a good guy; he is, in fact, a Nice Guy™.
- The story of Laurie and Jo is not, as I had previously remembered, one of Jo seeming like she loves Laurie and making an out-of-left-field decision.
- It is very much in the field! Jo consistently indicates that she does not have feelings for Laurie, does not want him to flirt with her, and tries to prevent him from doing so every time he flirts with her.
And he ignores her, again and again. But wait, there’s more! When Jo realizes that her very consistent attempts to communicate her disinterest are not working, she decides to move to New York for adventure and also to get away from Laurie. There may be some who would accuse me of selective reading.
- After all, Laurie isn’t a terrible person! To which I say: yes, but all of this can be true and Laurie can simultaneously still be a terrible potential partner for Jo,
- What I realized re-reading Little Women as a grown-ass adult is this: making Jo and Laurie perfect for each other wouldn’t just require a different ending, it would require an entirely different book.
So, it’s been over twenty years in the making, but better late than never: Louisa May Alcott, I’m sorry. You were right.” Maddie Rodgriguez, ‘Laurie Isn’t a Good Guy, He’s a Nice Guy™’ (bookriot.com) As Goethe, when he had a joy or a grief, put it into a song, so Laurie resolved to embalm his love sorrow in music and to compose a Requiem which should harrow up Jo’s soul and melt the heart of every hearer. Wilhelm Meister´s apprenticeship is a story about self-realisation. The story centres around Wilhelm who wants to escape the empty, mundane, bourgeois life of a businessman. After a failed romance he joins a theatre company. Wilhelm Meister´s apprenticeship and many of Goethe´s works, in general, have elements from Shakespeare´s plays.
- In fact in the novel´s dialogue there is a great deal of discussion about Shakespeare´s work and Wilhelm´s theatre group also performs a production of Hamlet where Wilhelm plays the lead.
- The Theatre world is filled with seductions, love affairs and scandals.
- The more Wilhelm sees it the more he dislikes it and he realizes that he is not fitting for this type of lifestyle.
What Wilhelm really needs is to figure out who he is, what he wants from life and how he should live. Both Werther and Wilhelm can be seen as a failed geniuses. They are sensitive and artistic but they are not creatively productive enough. Laurie, in this case, is more similar to Wilhelm because unlike Werther Laurie goes through the process of self-discovery and like Wilhelm Laurie also becomes a husband and father (which brings long-desired purpose to his life) and a contributing member of the society which is not something he was before. Wilhelm Meister´s apprenticeship introduces the character of Mignon. Mignon was kidnapped as a child by bandits and Wilhelm saves her. They tour the country together with the theatre group, go to picnics, flirt and joke with each other. Mignon has a constant longing for her homeland Italy.
She falls in love with Wilhelm but he is in love with someone else. Eventually Mignon dies for longing (a common theme in Goethe´s works). “It’s a genius simmering, perhaps. I’ll let it simmer, and see what comes of it,” he said, with a secret suspicion all the while that it wasn’t genius, but something far more common.
Whatever it was, it simmered to some purpose, for he grew more and more discontented with his desultory life, began to long for some real and earnest work to go at, soul and body, and finally came to the wise conclusion that everyone who loved music was not a composer.
Returning from one of Mozart’s grand operas, splendidly performed at the Royal Theatre, he looked over his own, played a few of the best parts, sat staring at the busts of Mendelssohn, Beethoven, and Bach, who stared benignly back again. Then suddenly he tore up his music sheets, one by one, and as the last fluttered out of his hand, he said soberly to himself “She is right! Talent isn’t a genius, and you can’t make it so.
That music has taken the vanity out of my as Rome took it out of her, and I won’t be a humbug any longer. Now, what shall I do?” The purest form of love is to love the full reality of the other person. She did not hear him cross the courtyard beyond, nor see him pause in the archway that led from the subterranean path into the garden. He stood a minute looking at her with new eyes, seeing what no one had ever seen before, the tender side of Amy’s character.
Everything about her mutely suggested love and sorrow, the blotted letters in her lap, the black ribbon that tied up her hair, the womanly pain and patience in her face, even the little ebony cross at her throat seemed pathetic to Laurie, for he had given it to her, and she wore it as her only ornament.
If he had any doubts about the reception she would give him, they were set at rest the minute she looked up and saw him, for dropping everything, she ran to him, exclaiming in a tone of unmistakable love and longing Is it possible that anyone who has not been happy with the books has been looking at both Laurie and Friedrich from the completely wrong perspective? “Throughout his many works, Goethe stresses love as the foundation of relationships, and he did so living in a culture where marriage matches were typically determined by economic factors.
It was a radical position to take. The difference between “You love me!” and “You love me?” The substitution of a question mark for an exclamation point “changes the meaning completely” (Gustafson). Subscribe to Small Umbrella In The Rain — The Little Women Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/SmallUmbrellaInTheRainLittleWomenChannel?sub_confirmation=1 If you enjoy reading my content, consider subscribing to my feed.
Also, if you are not a Medium member and you would like to gain unlimited access to the platform, consider using my referral link right here to sign up. It’s $5 a month and you get unlimited access to my articles and many others like mine. Thanks.
Why does Amy choose Laurie?
“Don’t sit there and tell me that marriage isn’t an economic proposition” – Gerwig understands the binary of Little Women ‘s two-part structure, and her film leans into it. Its first scene takes place well into the action of the novel, with Jo already off in Manhattan, fulfilling her literary dreams by placing a story in a magazine. It’s from that vantage point that we see the much-beloved first half of the novel. All of Little Women ‘s most iconic moments become a series of flashbacks and memories, suffused with the warm, golden glow of nostalgia: a past that is already lost to us, all the more perfect for being lost. This restructuring means we spend plenty of time on the oft-glossed-over courtship of Laurie and Amy, and Gerwig makes both the emotional and economic logic of the match clear. Readers of Little Women often resent Amy, who burns Jo’s manuscript as a child and later seems to steal her ideal future by going to Europe with Aunt March in Jo’s place and then marrying Laurie. But under Gerwig’s direction, Amy (as played by Florence Pugh) is a thoroughly sympathetic figure. In this version of the story, Amy’s art for once gets the same respect that Jo’s writing does — but while Jo, determined to make her own way in the world, sticks to her writing even when she has to make it mercenary and commercial, Amy decides early on that her artistic talent does not rise to the level of genius and so abandons it. “I won’t be a commonplace dauber,” she says firmly, and decides she will follow her other talents and become “an ornament to society” instead. In Gerwig’s Little Women as in Alcott’s, Laurie objects to Amy’s mercenary wedding plans. But Gerwig allows Amy to respond to that objection by saying out loud what Alcott’s Amy had to keep to the subtext: Of course it’s reasonable for Amy to want to marry money, because in choosing to marry at all, she’s signing up to give away her freedom, and she might as well be paid handsomely for it. Pugh’s Amy advances on Laurie, listing off the legal boundaries of 19th century American marriages. She notes that she has no real way of earning money of her own; that when she marries, her property will become her husband’s property, as will her children; she notes that her legal rights will be bound to him. “So don’t sit there and tell me that marriage isn’t an economic proposition,” she concludes, and Laurie is unable to come up with any convincing rejoinder. The mingled dignity and ferocity of that speech forces the audience to respect Pugh’s Amy, even those who read her as a quasi-villain. (I will admit that I have always been an apologist for Alcott’s Amy, but judging from the amount of scandalized ” Really ???”s this statement is usually greeted with, that is a minority opinion.) And when Amy chastises Laurie for courting her, telling him through tears that she has been second-best to Jo for her whole life, the scene feels redemptive. It becomes possible to read the match between Amy and Laurie as meaningful for both Amy and Laurie in their own rights, rather than a case of Alcott pairing the spares just to keep Laurie thoroughly unavailable to Jo. But it’s also clear that part of what draws Amy to Laurie is his wealth. Gerwig’s innovation is to make it plain that this attraction does not make Amy cold or unfeeling. Instead, she is someone who has taken a look at the world in which she lives and drawn some reasonable conclusions about how to survive in it. Jo’s marriage to Bhaer, meanwhile, is even more thoroughly reimagined than Amy’s marriage to Laurie, but the two are closely rhetorically linked. We first see Jo (Saoirse Ronan) in her publisher’s office, listening attentively as he admonishes her to make sure her heroines always end up either married or dead. And at the end of the film, we see her back in his office, cheerfully rolling her eyes as he scolds her for leaving the heroine of her new novel — Little Women itself — unmarried. “She said the whole book that she doesn’t want to marry anyone,” says Jo of her lead — if, at this point, we can truly call Saoirse Ronan’s character Jo: in this final sequence, she seems to exist in some free-floating liminal space between Jo and Alcott herself. The publisher is unmoved. He tells her that no one will buy the book if the heroine remains unmarried. Jo/Alcott shrugs. “I suppose marriage has always primarily been an economic proposition. Even in fiction,” she agrees, echoing Amy’s words to Laurie. We cut abruptly to Jo running to Professor Bhaer and professing her love to him, sheltered under an umbrella in the pouring rain. Then we cut back to the office, and Jo/Alcott, in a businesslike fashion, commences negotiating a higher rate of royalties out of her publisher. “If I’m going to sell my heroine into marriage for money, I might as well get some of it,” she says. What remains ambiguous is whether what we just saw “actually” happened within the world of the film — that is, whether Gerwig’s Jo truly married Bhaer — or if she just wrote a proposal scene into her book because she had to. But what is absolutely clear is that ending Little Women with a marriage is an economic choice. Ronan’s Jo/Alcott hybrid is reenacting Alcott’s actual dilemma, the choice she made to rewrite Jo’s ending and sell her in marriage in order to sell her book. And Gerwig is explicitly linking Jo/Alcott’s decision to sell her heroine into a fictional marriage — that deeply unsatisfying marriage to Bhaer — to Amy’s decision to sell herself into marriage. In both cases, Gerwig is saying, marriage is a business transaction. It’s the action of a woman who is living with profoundly curtailed choices, using her particular talents to make the decision that allows her to survive. Gerwig doesn’t ask us to try to consider either of these marriages to be the stuff of fairy tale romance — even with a fully sympathetic Amy and a dissolute Laurie, even with a young and handsome and respectful Bhaer. Her primary concern is the same as Alcott’s was, under the layers of moralizing narration: it’s with their economic logic. And because Gerwig has stripped away from the text everything that might obscure that logic, for the first time, the ending to Little Women really feels fully satisfying. \r\n \r\n vox-mark \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n “,”cross_community”:false,”groups”:,”internal_groups”:,”image”:,”bounds”:,”uploaded_size”:,”focal_point”:null,”image_id”:65977636,”alt_text”:””},”hub_image”:,”bounds”:,”uploaded_size”:,”focal_point”:null,”image_id”:65977636,”alt_text”:””},”lede_image”:,”bounds”:,”uploaded_size”:,”focal_point”:null,”image_id”:65977640,”alt_text”:””},”group_cover_image”:null,”picture_standard_lead_image”:,”bounds”:,”uploaded_size”:,”focal_point”:null,”image_id”:65977640,”alt_text”:””,”picture_element”:,”alt”:””,”default”:,”art_directed”:}},”image_is_placeholder”:false,”image_is_hidden”:false,”network”:”vox”,”omits_labels”:false,”optimizable”:false,”promo_headline”:”The power of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is that it doesn’t pretend its marriages are romantic”,”recommended_count”:0,”recs_enabled”:false,”slug”:”culture/2019/12/27/21037870/little-women-greta-gerwig-ending-jo-laurie-amy-bhaer”,”dek”:”Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women has an intentionally unsatisfying ending. Greta Gerwig weaponizes it.”,”homepage_title”:”The power of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is that it doesn’t pretend its marriages are romantic”,”homepage_description”:”Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women has an intentionally unsatisfying ending. Greta Gerwig weaponizes it.”,”show_homepage_description”:false,”title_display”:”The power of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is that it doesn’t pretend its marriages are romantic”,”pull_quote”:null,”voxcreative”:false,”show_entry_time”:true,”show_dates”:true,”paywalled_content”:false,”paywalled_content_box_logo_url”:””,”paywalled_content_page_logo_url”:””,”paywalled_content_main_url”:””,”article_footer_body”:”One of our core beliefs here at Vox is that everyone needs and deserves access to the information that helps them understand the world, regardless of whether they can pay for a subscription. With the 2024 election on the horizon, more people are turning to us for clear and balanced explanations of the issues and policies at stake. We’re so grateful that we’re on track to hit 85,000 contributions to the Vox Contributions program before the end of the year, which in turn helps us keep this work free. We need to add 2,500 contributions this month to hit that goal.\r\n Will you make a contribution today to help us hit this goal and support our policy coverage? Any amount helps. “,”article_footer_header”:”We’re here to shed some clarity”,”use_article_footer”:true,”article_footer_cta_annual_plans”:”,\r\n,\r\n,\r\n \r\n ]\r\n}”,”article_footer_cta_button_annual_copy”:”year”,”article_footer_cta_button_copy”:”Yes, I’ll give”,”article_footer_cta_button_monthly_copy”:”month”,”article_footer_cta_default_frequency”:”monthly”,”article_footer_cta_monthly_plans”:”,\r\n,\r\n,\r\n \r\n ]\r\n}”,”article_footer_cta_once_plans”:”,\r\n,\r\n,\r\n \r\n ]\r\n}”,”use_article_footer_cta_read_counter”:true,”use_article_footer_cta”:true,”featured_placeable”:false,”video_placeable”:false,”disclaimer”:null,”volume_placement”:”lede”,”video_autoplay”:false,”youtube_url”:”http://bit.ly/voxyoutube”,”facebook_video_url”:””,”play_in_modal”:true,”user_preferences_for_privacy_enabled”:false,”show_branded_logos”:true}”> We’re here to shed some clarity One of our core beliefs here at Vox is that everyone needs and deserves access to the information that helps them understand the world, regardless of whether they can pay for a subscription. With the 2024 election on the horizon, more people are turning to us for clear and balanced explanations of the issues and policies at stake. We’re so grateful that we’re on track to hit 85,000 contributions to the Vox Contributions program before the end of the year, which in turn helps us keep this work free. We need to add 2,500 contributions this month to hit that goal. Will you make a contribution today to help us hit this goal and support our policy coverage? Any amount helps. $5 /month $10 /month $25 /month $50 /month Other Yes, I’ll give $5 /month Yes, I’ll give $5 /month We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via
Why was Laurie rude to Meg?
Summary: Chapter 9: Meg Goes to Vanity Fair – I’d rather see you poor men’s wives, if you were happy, beloved, contented, than queens on thrones, without self-respect and peace. See Important Quotations Explained Meg has plans to stay with Annie Moffat, a wealthy friend.
She packs all of her nicest clothes, but wishes she had more splendid attire. The Moffats are very fashionable. While Meg is there, they visit friends, go to plays, and give parties. At the first party, Meg wears her simple clothes, and she hears people gossiping that Meg’s mother must be intending for Meg to marry Laurie for his money.
At the next party, the Moffat girls insist on dressing Meg in borrowed finery. She is a bit embarrassed about the luxury of her attire, but she enjoys playing the role of a fashionable girl. Laurie is at the party and reprimands Meg for being so frivolous.
- His criticism makes Meg regret letting her friends dress her.
- When Meg gets home, she tells Marmee and Jo how she dressed up and overheard gossip about herself and Laurie.
- Marmee tells them that she has no such plans for Meg.
- She says that she hopes only that the girls are happy in youth and in marriage, and that they are good.
She adds that she hopes that they understand that appearances are shallow and that true love is built on something deeper than money.
How does Michael Myers always know where Laurie is?
I mean, in every movie, he always knows where to look for people. In addition, he also always goes to the town Laurie is in, even if she moved away. I think in H20, he actually sees she went to the school after going to her or Donald Pleasance’s old house, but all other times he just knows where to go. asked Oct 25, 2016 at 13:15 King of NES King of NES 800 5 silver badges 13 bronze badges 2
Deus ex machina. Oct 25, 2016 at 23:11 He planted a GPS in Laurie when he was a child. Oct 26, 2016 at 0:19
Literally supernatural. From Wiki: John Carpenter has described the character as “almost a supernatural force – a force of nature. An evil force that’s loose,” a force that is “unkillable”. answered Oct 26, 2016 at 2:27 cde cde 67.7k 16 gold badges 244 silver badges 342 bronze badges He’s Evil! There’s no reasons, he’s just always at the right places, he loves toying with his victims, like that big elaborate reveal scene at the end of Halloween when Laurie walks into the room and Annie’s corpse is lying on the bed with Judith Myers Tombstone there!!!! He loves to mess with his prey before he kills them! answered Sep 18, 2017 at 18:02
How did Michael Myers find out about Laurie?
The only connection that Laurie has to Michael is that Laurie’s father is the realtor who is trying to sell Michael’s family home. Laurie’s father asks Laurie to drop the keys off at the Myers house and that is where and how Michael first sees Laurie.