Narrative theory in relation to Halloween (John Carpenter 1978) and The Crazies (Breck Eisner 2010)

The term Classical Hollywood narrative (CHN) is Todorov's narrative stages. This is when a narrative begins with equilibrium, then there is a disruption in the equilibrium, recognition of disruption, attempt to repair disruption, then the film ends with the reinstatement of a new equilibrium and balance. I believe that the CHN is quite useful in understanding media texts. This is because, when movies then don't conform to this structure, the audience are thrown out of what they were expecting, making the film seem thrilling. For example, Halloween begins with Micheal Myers murdering his sister. As an audience, we are not expecting this crime just as we begin the film, so are instantly told to expect murder and the unexpected through out the rest of the film. 

Similarly, this 1978 film ends on a cliff -hanger, and not with the restoration of a new equilibrium. This then leaves the narrative open for a sequel, and the return of the murderous villain.  By not following the CHN, this allows Halloween to keep the audience hooked with a complex narrative structure. the audience will want to keep watching to find out if it eventually ends well, but are not disappointed when the murderer escapes at the end. 

Propp's created a list of seven character types, that he had found to be common to 100 tales he analysed. These character types are:

Hero

Villain

Heroine/princess

Helper

Donor

False hero

The dispatcher 

The character types that are evident in Halloween are:

Hero- Laurie, because she saves the children while putting herself in danger from being stalked by the villain

Villain- Micheal Myers, who murders his sister at the beginning, then kills four other people on his return home after he escapes from the mental institute where he has been classed as 'evil'. 

Helper- the doctor who is searching for Micheal to put him in the mental asylum for life. He shoots Micheal to stop him from killing Laurie.
I believe that is isn't very useful to look at Propp's character types, in relation to understanding media texts. This is because, when watching s film, you may then be looking out for specific characters and trying to make them fit in with, and conform to specific character traits. This may then limit the views of a character, as the audience may see them as just one character type, an not see them as having lots of layers to their personality, which in turn, makes up the character. For example, in Halloween, Laurie is a character that fits into more than one character type. She has a heroic nature to her, when she protects the children from the murderer that has entered the house. However, she may also be seen as a heroine, as she needs to be saved by the doctor at the end, otherwise Micheal would have killed her. This therefore confuses the character types even more, as the doctor may then be seen as the hero.

Levi Strauss was a French anthropologist who came up with the theory of  binary opposition. He believed that the way in which we understand words isn't to do with the meaning the words have on their own, but by our understanding of the word, and it's 'opposite'. Therefore, with the help of the other, one value is enhanced to seem more powerful than it would seem on its own. For instance, a common example is good vs. evil. When there is a presence of evil battling against the good, both sides are strengthened, so when someone is really evil in their actions, the 'good' side seems to be heightened. I believe that it is useful to look at binary opposition for understanding  media text, because it enhances how society and audiences view the values portrayed in the film. Some examples of where binary opposition is shown in Halloween are: 
Good vs. evil- Laurie battles against the 'bogey man'.
Darkness vs. Light- Danger comes to Laurie at night, where things can hide in the shadows.
Safety vs. Danger- When Laurie is at school she is seen as safe as she is with a lot of people, but when it is just her by herself, she is vulnerable and at risk of danger.
Virginal vs. Promiscuity- Laurie is the only one out of her friends that stays alive. This may be because her friends are occupied with boys, whereas she is seen as slightly prudish, leading her to be aware of what's going on around her, saving herself and the children from harm.
Known vs. Unknown- When we don't know where the murderer is, we are terrified of the unknown and whether he will just appear from nowhere. similarly, when we know where he is, at least we can anticipate his actions, and this makes the unknown even more scary because we know what he's capable of.

Bordwell and Thompson said that film is "a chain of events in a cause-effect relationship, occurring in time and space". This suggests that the events in a film have a domino effect, in that one action will then result in another taking place. I believe that this is quite useful to help understand media texts, as the audience watching will know to anticipate something to follow on from an event in a film. For instance, an example of this in Halloween, is at the beginning, when the young Micheal Myers murders his sister on Halloween night. This then leads to him going into a mental institute and escaping, leading the whole rest of the film to unravel. Similarly, Laurie's friend spills food down her clothes, this leads to her having to go out to the shed in the garden, to wash her clothes. This then leads to Micheal watching her, and getting into the car, ending in Micheal murdering her. An event that happen in the film that we don't see is when Micheal escapes from the mental institute, he finds his sister's grave and digs up the gravestone. We find this out by the doctor looking for the grave, and the grave-keeper says it's gone, thinking it was just kids in the spirit of Halloween. Later in the film, we see that it is in fact Micheal who stole the headstone, and places it on the bed with Laurie's friend laying dead in front of it. Likewise, another event that we know happened but we don't see is when the doctor shoots Micheal at the end of the film, and Micheal falls off the balcony. The audience sees the murderer fall over the balcony, however we do not see him hit the ground, instead it cuts to the doctor talking to Laurie. Therefore, when it cuts to the doctor looking over the balcony to see the 'dead' Micheal laying on the floor, he has disappeared. We don't see him getting up and walking away, yet we know that he has gone. This will therefore lead to the enigmatic ending, as we can assume that Micheal will come back, and that none of them are safe.