MovieChat Forums > Halloween II (2009) Discussion > It's about a girl with DID (Dissociative...

It's about a girl with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder)


I know I'm going to get flamed because some will say I'm looking too deep into a "slasher", oh well.

Halloween 2 is about Laurie coping and living with D.I.D. (Dissociative Personality Disorder). This is a disorder where a person possesses two or more personalities. There are many instances in the movie, and deleted scenes, where it hints at Laurie having D.I.D.

I want to start off by stating the obvious -- Michael Myers died. He died at the end of the remake. Rob Zombie intended to make Michael Myers human, so how can he survive a shot to the face with a revolver? I know, I know, "he just got grazed". There's no way in hell a little graze can cause that much blood to splatter all over someone. You can say it's "movie magic" or it's just a movie, but he intended it to be realistic. Besides, if he got grazed, why did he just lay there? Why not finish her off? Grazes don't kill you temporarily.

In the mid-way point of the remake, the janitor tells [young] Michael Myers to live in his head. He tells him the only way he can survive is to essentially create an alternate reality to escape, and that it's okay to do so. At this point, we've already seen him brutally murder his bully and go home as if nothing happened. Then he kills his entire family and later on has no recollection of that ever taking place. With D.I.D. one personality is never aware of what the other personality is doing or has done. It's almost as if it's a completely different person living in your body as a vessel. With that being said, it kind of seems to be implied that the disorder is already in the family bloodline, so it could've been passed onto Laurie.

The question comes up: "If Laurie had D.I.D., then why didn't she show any signs of it in the remake?" Simple, it doesn't always come to fruition from birth. Anything could trigger that in anyone, and tack on to the fact that it may have been hereditary, it was bound to happen eventually. What could trigger D.I.D.? Sexual, emotional, physical, and/or mental abuse. What could've happened to Laurie to trigger the disorder? Seeing her friends on the brink of death, seeing her other friend's cold, dead, naked body in front of her, being kidnapped by this seven foot tall giant with a moldy mask, being thrown off a balcony after falling through the ceiling, and shooting someone straight in the face would probably do it.

Let's jump into the sequel.

We see Laurie going through hell on Earth, even before "Michael" come back into town. It could be argued that it's just PTSD but I feel like that doesn't explain everything, especially the more "supernatural" aspects of this movie. This entry has way more hints at the chance that she suffers from PTSD.

One of the many things is Michael and Laurie sharing the same daydreams/visions/hallucinations. How can Laurie see young Michael Myers? How can she see her dead mom? Why is it whenever Michael Myers eats something or kills someone Laurie reacts to it? That seems more supernatural than realistic and something based on reality, doesn't it? Especially someone she doesn't know. I don't think PTSD causes someone to feel what someone else is doing. Neither does D.I.D., but when you have two or more personalities you don't realize what's going on and you could have little tidbits of memory relapses that you don't recall because technically it wasn't you, it was the other you.

Another example, maybe the biggest, was from a deleted scene. The scene where Laurie is in therapy and her therapist tells her about the folklore about the Native American and wolves. She explains how there are two wolves, the good one and the bad one. She explains that these two entities in everyone, even her. She also explains how these "wolves" are constantly fighting each other, kind of like how people with D.I.D. constantly struggle with one personality wanting to be more dominant than the other. So that was a pretty obvious hint at duality, two persons, two souls, two personalities, etc.

The therapist also says this one line that really stuck, "the wolf that wins, is the wolf you feed." So essentially, the more bad stuff you do, the more the bad side (in this case personality) becomes more dominant. We see Laurie high a lot through the movie and drunk/drinking alcohol. Substance abuse can't cause these disorders, but they don't help either.

Throughout the entire movie (and in a couple of deleted scenes) we see Laurie daydreaming/hallucinating about Michael killing her or her being dead. This could symbolize the death of the old, good Laurie, which correlates to what her therapist said about one or the other wolf trying to essentially become alpha. The bad personality is trying to take over. Also take note that the closer Michael gets to Haddenfield, the more violent and out of control Laurie gets. I don't need to expand upon that.

Laurie experiences terrible seizures, which can happen when you suffer from D.I.D. Laurie constantly snaps at people throughout the film. She can go from nice and easy going to harsh and aggressive in less than 30 seconds. People with D.I.D. do this very often as well when they transition from Personality A to personality B, C, D, etc.

So where does this leave Michael? Well, if you haven't guessed by now... he doesn't exist anymore, he died in the remake. Which begs the question, "then who killed the farmers, the strippers, the cop, etc". That's also easy, nobody. I feel like Rob Zombie knew that many horror fans wouldn't appreciate a Halloween film with minimal violence and psychological overtones, because you know, god forbid a horror fan uses their brain. Those deaths are just there to serve the gore hounds and the fans who want to see someone get offed. Or they could also just be another hallucination by Laurie.

Yes, Laurie killed everyone.

I know it's weird and unusual, but look at it. REALLY LOOK at the movie, pay attention to the dialogue, look at the set pieces, the music, the editing, the cinematography. You'll eventually see what I see. I could go on and on, but I think I said enough. If you have any questions or want me to explain something or whatever, just tell me and I will.


"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

I'm glad it wasn't just me.

When I walked out of the theatre after the movie ended, I had the exact same impression. That the movie never happened... except in Laurie's mind, and she's in the padded cell for the ENTIRE MOVIE.

Apart from Michael, several characters who most definitely DIED in the first film were back in this one, for another go at being murdered.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Are you responding to me? I can't tell because I don't get email notifications, so I don't know if this was intended for the other user or me.

IF it's for me, I've been here since before the film even came out. Before we got stills, trailers, etc. I always wondered how they were going to continue it since Michael Myers got shot straight in the face, and Rob Zombie said his interpretation was supposed to be realistic. Well, realistically, Michael would have died. So in my head I always imagined and thought "it'd be cool if they went in a direction that's more grounded in reality, where the survivor is mental because of what happened." and we got that.

"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

[deleted]

Our "theories" on the movie slightly differs, but essentially it's about a girl who has a mental disorder.

That's the only one to view this movie and have it makes sense. If you watch this movie and take everything literally, it won't make sense.

"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

[deleted]

If that's the case, then Zombie did the franchise an even further disservice.
For starters, I'd like to know if the so called "all in Laurie's head" was Zombie's true intention, or something a couple of you fanboys tried to interpret it that way.

But let's go with your theory...all in Laurie's head and she did the killing....in her head....so does that mean that Loomis is still dead from the theatrical first Zombie Halloween? Because the director's cut showed him alive. Is Annie dead or alive? We were left uncertain by the end of the first one, or did any of that happen either? So to continue, in Laurie's head, kinda like an Inception *beep* Michael grunts, speaks, doesn't wear a mask, does wear a parka, looks like a hobo. Loomis is an even bigger a-hole in Laurie's head too? Did Harley and Mya even exist?

The book, the signing, the talk show...none of that happened? No white horse, no imaginary young Michael holding Laurie and her dead Mom speaking to her?
If all that's the case, then maybe the movie itself should've never happened.
Lord knows it's taken almost 5 years to even come up with a better idea for another one, if the franchise isn't dead already.

You have an interesting theory, but it remains to be seen if thise was Zombie's intent or yours. Either way, the movie sucked, bombed and no continuation would ever save it. So bravo, either way.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

Not really. This is a re-imagining, not everything is going to be the same as it's predecessors, especially if it's the start of a new series.

The "It's all in Laurie's" head theory was not Zombie's intention, nor was it my theory. Don't confuse my post with the other poster's theory.

Again, I'll say it, I never said it was all in Laurie's head. Everything in the movie pretty much happened, but by the hands of Laurie herself. Michael Myers was supposed to symbolize Laurie's second personality/person that she's developed after the events of the first movie. Laurie killed Annie, her two friends, her friend's one-night stand, and Loomis. Everything happened in reality, except for the people out in the corn field, the people at the strip club, and the guy with the car. But those could also be hallucinations by Laurie. Or Zombie just wanted a higher body count or the Weinsteins demanded it.

If you recall no one was holding down Laurie at the shack. "Michael" wasn't touching her or near her.

Zombie has scoffed at theories like mine because it wasn't his intention. But if we look at the movie, and take everything literally, nothing makes sense. There are plotholes and the supernatural elements contradict his original intentions.

Rob Zombie is either a hack or trolling us.

"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

it remains to be seen if thise was Zombie's intent or yours


It was not, not, NOT Zombie's intent. You can listen to Zombie's commentary from beginning to end on the blu-ray. He makes it absolutely clear that Michael lived after part one and that Laurie is NOT the killer. He even goes so far as to say at the end, when she takes the knife from Michael, that only THEN was she about to take Michael's place as the killer ("passing the baton" was his words), only to be shot down by the cop.

http://www.juicycerebellum.com/movie.htm
Movies, movies, politics and movies.

reply

Thanks for clearing that up. I've never listened to the commentary because I can barely stand to watch this movie as is, much less with his commentary. I'm not a big fan of his anyway, aside from Devil's Rejects and parts of Halloween. At least he was able to make his intentions known and that improves my opinion of him and this movie, slightly.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

No. You said the movie takes place in Laurie's mind. I said the movie is about a girl who suffers from D.I.D.

"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

[deleted]

The way you worded it gave off the impression that you believed it was in Laurie's head, which is why I was saying "No."

I still think our theories differ at some points, but the base of it is the same.

"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

I also believe that the Weinsteins/Dimensions wanted this interpretation because the Director's Cut removes some of the key dialogue that lends to our interpretation. Even though the D.C. still has other scenes that could support out theory as well.

"You're entitled to your wrong opinion. That's fine."

reply

[deleted]

I enjoyed reading your vision of this movie, but it has just as many holes as the movie itself.

If Laurie is really Michael, who turned the car over at the end with her in it? She may have been strong enough to do some of the things blamed on Michael during the film, but she could not have killed the driver and flipped the car over.

reply

[deleted]

I like this. I'm going to rewatch it from this perspective.


I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

reply

I thought it was all in her mind when I got to the end of the movie in the theatrical version. Actually.....I was wondering about it a little before hand as some things were happening. For example when Michael(or the illusion of him) was eating the dog and then Laurie got sick. Made me think that was her own memory or that the whole event never happened but was something she was thinking in her head. I also noticed the scene when her friend is in the van with the dude being killed by Michael. That scene inter cuts with showing Laurie dancing inside the party. Like they were focusing on Laurie purposely at the same time we see Michale killing her friend. Just because we see Laurie somewhere else while it looks like Michael is killing the friend that does not have to be reality but just Laurie's version of the events and it only looks like she is somewhere else at the time her friend was being killed. The scene of her dancing while her friend was being killed was not the correct sequence that we see it. The thing is though in her dreams she sees little Michael and her mom. She must have seen pictures before she ever looked at the book for her to know what they actually looked like. Anyway if the idea was to have Laurie gone insane and us seeing things in her distorted reality then that makes this movie better than if Michael was really still alive and doing the killing. I can't remember if I ever heard Rob Zombie say that the insane theory was real or that it was not his intention at all.

The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.

reply

[deleted]

I rewatched it. Did Annie know that it was Laurie who attacked her?



I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

reply

[deleted]

I think that she definitely was.

Laurie puts on the costume, maybe stands on a chair or something, and stands behind Annie. Annie sees her and runs, and Laurie stabs Annie in the back.

Later, Laurie strolls in and finds Annie barely clinging to life. Annie wants Laurie to run because Annie believes that Michael will attack Laurie. Laurie won't leave Annie out of love and loyalty. When Laurie doesn't run, Annie simply lets go and dies so that Laurie will flee and live, neither knowing that it was Laurie who stabbed Annie.

It's quite brilliant, actually.


I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

reply

[deleted]

Maybe. But the whole scene is shot in a really ambiguous way which leaves a lot of this debatable.


I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

reply

[deleted]

I admit that there were indications in the film that Zombie had toyed with the idea of having Laurie Strode take the place of Michael as the killer in the sequel. (As one example, Laurie told the psychiatrist that she had thought of killing Annie). But I think the idea was never followed through completely, and as a result, the script could not hold together with that interpretation for either the theatrical or director's cut. If whenever someone says something could not have occurred in the film if Laurie were the killer you always have to defend by saying it was all in Laurie's mind, that only shows Zombie's lazy scriptwriting. If Laurie was intended to be the killer, the script should have been totally reworked so that at least the major happenings in the film could be consistent with that interpretation.

One serious problem is that in many cases, you not only have to assume that what we see was imagined by Laurie, but also that her imaginations had to go to second, third and higher degrees. I mean she not only had to imagine what she saw, but also what the others saw and did, and even what those people thought she (Laurie) did, and that continued to even higher levels.

The only way your suggested interpretation could work would be that Laurie was inside the asylum all the time and the whole film was her imagination. The movie would then become a total cheat. In that case the director might as well go even one step further and reveal that the whole Halloween series was just a dream sequence of some student falling asleep during class.

reply

The only thing wrong with your theory is Rob has stated on several occasions that Laurie wasn't the killer and could never be the killer.

-Dad, who's that?
-Oh, that? One of my patients. He's...sick.
-Will he live?
-It's looking grim.

reply