This is the famous opening sequence of John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 slasher classic, Halloween. This sequence is notable for popularizing the point-of-view technique that was utilized in later 1980s horror films such as Friday the 13th and is still considered an effective tool to create an unsettling experience for the audience. This technique has generated major controversy as to the intentions of the filmmakers when they force their audience to adopt the “eyes of the killer” for the sake of artistic style. Many notable film critics, such as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, placed negative criticism on this technique. There is debate on whether the use of this technique is forcing the audience to become vicarious participants in horrible murders that results in identifying with the murderer in the film and not the victim. The controversy surrounding the use of this formal filmmaking aspect that is a staple in the horror genre has generated much concern as to the negative effects this could have on the generally young and somewhat impressionable audience members who flock to the theaters in droves to see these popular films.
The 1980s saw a major shift in how horror films were both made and distributed. After box-office success of major horror franchises such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street as well as several other profitable titles, the horror genre became a lucrative industry where every week a new horror film was on the theater marquee or for sale on home video. The advertising campaigns for these films unleashed collector’s items such as toys, posters, clothes, and video cassettes. Freddy Krueger had his own television series, Michael Myers had his own Atari game, and Jason Voorhees was accepting the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award. Society’s worst nightmares were now a part of the mainstream culture. These taboo films were definitely making an impression. The question is, how much of an impression were they making? There seems to be an enthusiasm amongst both the male and female, aged 15-24 demographic that boosts these films to the number one box-office spot opening weekend. Could these films be feeding the urges of the blood-thirsty reptilian brain that every person has? Could these films, in fact, inspire its “loyal fans” to commit murder so they can experience that same rush on completely different level?
In December of 1982, in Fullerton, California, William Harbitz visited the home of his parents Frances and Eileen. William was concerned that he had not seen or heard from his parents in several days. When he entered the residence, he came across a scene that was more horrifying than film could portray. Amidst a bloody crime scene were the bodies of his parents who had been stabbed to death and robbed. There were no signs of forced entry. The detectives on the case suspected the victims knew their attacker. The prime suspect was Richard Delmer Boyer, who witnesses claim was the last one seen at the crime scene before the murders. William testified that he knew the defendant and that he helped his elderly parents around the house. He had not been seen or heard by the Harbitzes in four months. However, a week before the murders, William stated he received telephone calls from Boyer who claimed he was “struggling to survive financially” (People v. Boyer). Boyer was a confessed drug addict and claimed to be a habitual user of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, Quaaludes, and PCP. Key witness John Kennedy claimed that on the afternoon of December 7, he and Boyer were injecting cocaine. That night, Kennedy accompanied Boyer to the Harbitz residence where Boyer was to “get money to pay Kennedy back” (People v. Boyer) for the drugs he consumed. Kennedy testified Boyer entered the residence wearing a knife in a sheath. He emerged from the residence approximately 45 minute later. He got into the car and instructed Kennedy to “drive off calmly without distracting attention.” (People v. Boyer). Kennedy noticed that Boyer had been stabbed in the leg and was carrying two wallets. When Kennedy asked what had happened, he claimed that the house belonged to some dope dealers who stabbed in the leg in a heated argument. Later that night, when Boyer’s concerned roommate, Cindy Cornwell, asked him about the stab wound he stated that he was knifed by a loan shark whom he owed money. When Boyer was eventually arrested and brought in for questioning on December 14, he admitted killing the Harbitzes. He claimed he was broke and was looking for William Harbitz to see if he would loan him some money. This led him to the home of William’s parents. When he approached the residence, he was testified Mrs. Harbitz “admitted him cordially” (People v. Boyer). Boyer, supposedly high on drugs at the time, claimed that once he entered the residence he began having visions of a “foggy figure which looked like a killer in either a Friday the 13th or Halloween film” (People v. Boyer) as he conversed with the Harbitzes.
Boyer had claimed to have watched the film, Halloween II, on television recently under the influence of PCP, marijuana and alcohol. This may have triggered the involuntary vision he experienced in the Harbitz home. Boyer then claimed to have blacked out. When he came to, he found both Mr. and Mrs. Harbitz face down in a pool of blood and had no recollection of robbing them. However, in a later taped statement contrary to his previous one, Boyer testified that when the vision appeared he remembered drawing his knife, stating “I get too involved in, in, violent movies. Okay? And I was thinking of something into that nature at the time. I don't know if I was puttin' myself in, in one of the actor's spots or something” (People v. Boyer).
During the trial, defense called upon the expertise of psychopharmacologist Dr. Ronald Siegel, who examined Boyer. He became knowledgeable of Boyer’s heavy drug use during adolescence and many of the drugs that he had ingested in his lifetime could induce spontaneous and involuntary flashback in which he relives a prior drug experience. While Halloween II was played for the jury and Siegel pointed out several similarities between certain scenes and Boyer’s flashbacks, Siegel made the claim that since “[Boyer’s] conduct beginning immediately after the killings showed rational attempts to conceal his guilt” (People v. Boyer) Boyer’s intoxication could not have been that intense and he was fully aware that what his actions were wrong and unlawful.
While the case of People v. Boyer (1989) made headline news and garnered the surname “The Halloween II Murders” by the press, it was nowhere near as controversial then the murder of James Bulger. On February 3, 1992, Denise Bulger went shopping at the Bootle Strand Shopping Center in Liverpool, England with her two-year old son, James. Denise had to run into the butcher’s shop to pick up an order. The shop had a large line so she left James by the door for a few seconds so she would be able to grab her and quickly leave. In those few seconds, James disappeared. Two days later, his mutilated remains were found at a nearby railway. A security camera in the shopping center caught an image of two adolescent boys, between the ages of 8 and 12 exiting the store with James in their possession. One was wearing a very noticeable mustard-yellow jacket. After the image was plastered across newspapers and television screens across England, an anonymous female caller notified local authorities that she knew a woman named Susan Venables who had a son named, Jon, who looked like one of the boys in the video. He had skipped school the day of James’ murder with his friend, Robert Thompson. When the boys were eventually booked as suspects, they uncovered a yellow jacket of Jon’s that matched the one of the boy in the video. Furthermore, the jacket was stained with the same color of blue paint that was found on James’ body. Blood stains were found Robert Thompson’s shoes as well.
The country was shocked to discover that two young children were capable of committing such a heinous crime. What could’ve driven these boys to murder another person? At the trial, the judge Justice Morland stated that “While there has been no actual evidence of this, I suspect that the exposure to violent movies had something to do with [the boys’] actions” (Bracchi). After this statement, the press set out to find what videos the parents of the two boys had recently rented from local video shops. Jon Venables, whose parents were divorced, spent a few days of the week with his father. He was described as a devoted parent, but records showed that he had rented more than 400 videos in the recent years before James’ murder with “[s]cores of them containing ultra violence or pornography” (Bracchi). One of the videos was the popular horror sequel, Child’s Play 3. The original Child’s Play film is about a serial killer nicknamed, Chucky who transfers his soul into a doll. In hopes of becoming human again, Chucky seeks to transfer his soul into the young boy who receives Chucky as a birthday present. One sequence in the second sequel to the original film involves a young boy who is kidnapped by Chucky and taken away to eventually be murdered and possessed by the crazed doll. This connection led the film to be infamously tied to the James Bulger murder case and eventually banned in the UK. Did this film inspire Jon Venables and Robert Thompson to kidnap and murder young James?
Venables’ father “denied his son ever watched [the film]” (Bracchi). The debate on whether or not Venables and Thompson were influenced by the film, Child’s Play 3 is highly argumentative. While the film does display acts of cinematic violence that appears just as horrific as an actual murder, wouldn’t the so-called “influence” of this film teach the two boys that, like in the film, the villain is usually defeated and that evil never prevails? Though it could be argued that a film that displays graphic violence and adult themes could possibly have quite the impression on the two young boys, there are several factors to consider that could lead to the urge for the two boys to commit a murder. There was one common factor between Venables and Thompson: they both were the product of an unstable family life. Robert Thompson’s father was a reported abusive alcoholic who mercilessly beat his wife, Ann, and six other children. When his father left Ann for another woman, she hid her despair with alcohol as well. With an unfit mother, the seven children – all boys – were forced to care for themselves and would commit acts of violence on each other. The “violence [amongst the brothers] percolated down to Robert” (Bracchi), who was the second youngest of the bunch which resulted in him being the subject to most of the abuse committed by aggressive older brothers. While Robert had promise in school, his behavioral problems got in the way, making the “lives of [his] near-neighbors a misery” (Bracchi) by lighting fires and throwing rocks. Jon Venables also came from a broken home. His parents divorced when he was three and his mother was also an abusive alcoholic. Jon also had aggressive behavioral problems in which discipline from his mother resulted in more violence. At school, teachers noted that Jon “threw tantrums and exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior” (Bracchi). Many studies and theories have concluded that most offenders, especially ones who have committed murder “had been rejected by their parents, and most psychopathic children had experienced emotional deprivation, neglect, or discontinuous affectional relationships. These studies suggest that both severe social and biological sources may contribute to the development of psychopathy and violent aggression” (McCord, Raine and Sanmartin).
Is it possible to draw a connection of ten-year-old Venables and Thompson with six year old Michael Myers from the original Halloween? Young Michael was not influenced to commit murder by violent video games or horror films. He appeared to be a fairly normal young boy in a typical slice of Norman Rockwell, but behind closed doors he could have had an abusive father, an alcoholic mother, or been subject to intense verbal and physical bullying at the hands of his older sister. Perhaps the same could be said for the drug-addicted Richard Boyer since studies have also shown that the same emotional and physical abuse from a person’s social environment has resulted in substance abuse among many. One can go as far to say that all of these offenders were perhaps born evil. What one can learn from a horror film is the undeniable existence of evil in society, and if anything, the only influence a horror film can have on someone to commit a violent crime is that of an individual with an already-unhinged mind as a result of the violence and hate that is already present in the world.
Works Cited
1. Bracchi, Paul. "The police were sure James Bulger's ten-year-old killers were simply wicked. But should their parents have been in the dock?" 13 March 2010. MailOnline. 10 May 2010
2. McCord, J., A Raine and J Sanmartin. "Psychosocial contributions to pyschopathy and violence." Violence and Psychopathy (2001): 141-169.
3. People v. Boyer. No. 48 C3d 247. California Supreme Court. 13 March 1989.
