(Tobe Hooper, 1974)
(essay by Robert)
Tobe Hooper’s film changed the genre. Perhaps what is most impressive about Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the myth and legend it has become and the impact it has had. So often imitated and so commonly misunderstood (or perhaps misremembered), the film was amazingly impactful. Everyone is moved by the film, even people who have not seen it.
A lot is written of Hooper’s motivations for the film, I will not focus these here as I would rather emphasize the on-camera aspects. These are important though (hopefully comments will be posted) and can be read about in multiple articles. I will say that I loved reading that he seemed to have been inspired (in part) by standing in a long line in a store and the idea that he could get the people to move if he had a chainsaw. This is not only humorous but also a perfect precise example of why this genre is so human and should be so much more embraced.
With all the reputation of the film, it is essentially bloodless. I was really struck by this as I re-watched it for this countdown. Instead of showing us the blood and carnage, Hooper relishes the opportunities to hide the gore. The screams and squeals seem to substitute while the utter bizarreness of the imagery and characters builds and builds your intrigue. The rawness of the camera is so important in the film. His faux-documentary style was effective, less because it reinforced the “true story” tagline, but mainly because it creates that awesome 3rd person POV. This is best noticed inside the house and on the porch. He also uses some impressive close-ups that wonderfully change things up and build suspense. The dinner seen is one of the greatest horror scenes on film mostly for this reason. Marilyn Burns’ eyes seem to see things that we can’t as the group taunts her and contemplates the best way to bring about her demise. Hooper wants us to make the violence in our minds, he shows us everything we need and he knows the rest will come from us.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of my earliest (and favorite) horror moments, I was not alive when it was released but a copy was available in my house as a child and I can recall being impacted by the idea that this was a true story. As I think more about it now, knowing that it is not, I go back and forth on whether this is kind of a cheap trick (not so much with Texas Chainsaw Massacre but some of the other films that have used this) or whether it should be thought more as a stylistic choice. There is also the strange (guilty) humor that you can feel growing as the film goes on. This may be more in out own self defense but you almost can’t help chuckling at some of the outlandishness of the family.
I also wanted to comment on Leatherface as a villain. What an absolute spastic monster. His unknown story compliments his hidden face further fueling the sense of un-clarity. Why is this all happening? Him pummeling people with his sledge hammer is one of those classic rewind moments and Hooper gives you 2 or 3 chances to see it. He is completely brutal but also sad. The rest of the family are important of course however is Leatherface that you can’t take your eyes off- this strange massive killer.
In 80 some minutes, Hooper delivers a spectacle that is yes macabre and frightening but really it is just plain good. This is independent film- it is a fantastic example of maximizing what you have and doing it in a way that convinces us that funding restrictions are what truly allow brilliant minds to thrive.
(this film appeared on Jamie’s list at #32, Robert’s at #10, Kevin’s at #61, and Troy’s at #47)
YES, YES, YES….
The idea of “in-your-face” horror in combination with “suggestive” horror. I could not agree more with ROBERT on this matter.
Like Robert, I was exposed to this one as a child and i have never looked back, actually i embrace the memory of the first viewing. it’s shocking, brutal, gut-wrentching, terrifying and SUGGESTIVE in one foul swoop. Recently, about a month and a half ago, i watched this with Sam’s boys (Jeremy was the scaredy cat and bolted back upstairs to the warmenss of Lucille and an episode of GLEE, Sammy Jr. and “Psycho” Dan were rocks and used words like “kewl” as the carnage ran rampant) and was immediately struck by the lack of gore, and the suggestiveness of it. I also recall, years of friends siting this very film as one of the goriest in the list of favorites and me arguing that this was just not the case. It’s a perfect example of a superior director bending the visuals in a way to make you see more than there really is. With that, MASSACRE is a masterpiece of visual and aural manipulation that only the really talented film-makers can pull off (Hitchcock started the real ball rolling with PSYCHO, a film that MASSACRE indirectly owes alot of it’s brilliance to).
The performances, as schlocky as they are, all ring true to help build the illusion. There isn’t a false note in any turn here and the sympathy we have for the future victims and “almost” victims is what tethers us completely to the film. We are them, and this is why we find ourselves screaming directly at the screen in an attempt to warn them about the information we have privlege to.
Then, there is the imagery. The sun-light coming up over the field in the end as Leatherface writhes in defeat like a Vampyre shriveling up in the light of a new morning. The scratchy cinematography as the group stumbles back to farmhouse at night reminds me of the rain soaked windowshield that Marion Crane makes out the word BATES MOTEL through. The handheld camera as the eyes of the main character as she and her friends stumble into the shadowy butchers room that reminds me of the dank basement the husband and wife barracade themselves into in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. It’s all here. The idea of using the tried and true of the past in a way that seems completely fresh and new is one of stark originality as only the tone has been chanced. The tone, of course, unlike the films just mentioned, is hysteria.
What I think fuels this film most of all is hysteria. The director keeps things moving by presenting the details as fast as possible. The moment the clan move into the farmhouse the moment all bets are off. Leatherface has surfaced and the chase begins. What amazed even more in this last viewing is how rapid fire fast this movie chugs along and there, in and of itself is a major ingredient to the tension. You just don’t have a second to catch your breath.
This is an amazing film from evey aspect and too many for me to list on a single comment.
Well done Robert, I liked this piece by you probably more than anyone you have written thus far….
Great post Dennis and thanks for the comments. I really enjoyed working on this one. I am glad you commented on the end with the sun blanketing leatherface as he wields that saw around like the madman that he is. One of my favorite Horror moments of all time. That Texas sun hitting him as he slices and chops, almost like he wants to kill the heat and the dirt and all the demons around him and everything that condemned him to be what he is. The setting is such a perfect piece to the film. You almost start sweating yourself, the dust and stickiness. Then you throw them in that foul house and Hooper just keeps piling it on. What a stellar film.
It’s so dirty, all of it.
It’s cheap.
It’s vomit inducing.
It’s shocking.
It’s one of the most horrible films of all time.
It’s one of my favorite films of all time.
I wrote about a page and a half and I don’t think it was half as effective as this Haiku by JAIME..
Perfectly said!!!!!
No need to write long dissertations Dennis, the shorter comments are often far better.
The ultimate crazy murdering hillbilly redneck film ever!!! It can be viewed with Deliverance as a double bill on why you should never visit the rural south. These places are obviously not filled with terrifying people but I’ll never know. These movies have left their mark (Winter’s Bone contributes with why you should never visit the rural midwest) and venturing in these isolated parts of the US are severely off limits for me. While no gore can be found in TCM, it has a huge helping of grimy uneasiness. It looks like a film that was buried in dirt and then excavated to be shown to an audience. The murk and filth are intoxicating and oppressive. A shower always seems necessary after a screening. That opening image is incredibly disturbing. Great essay Rob…..
I think that one of the things that makes this film so scary and disturbing is that Hooper plays on a primal fear of being stranded in a strange place surrounded by strange people that want to do you harm. Once the “final girl” is on her own, all bets are off as the film is unrelenting in the way the cannibal family torments the film’s poor protagonist and we watch helplessly as it all plays out. There is an almost tangible feeling of uncomfortable claustraphobia during the dinner scene as you wonder if she is going to be able to get out of there. So many films since have tried to replicate this kind backwoods terror and the only I’ve found that comes remotely close is THE DEVIL’S REJECTS, which in look and tone, is definitely inspired by Hooper’s film.
Brilliant comment from J.D. There is discomfort and the fear of the unknown in this menacing terrain. I also saw it in “The Devil’s Rejects,” but there are few films of this type comparable with the original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.”
I’m with you J.D. — not sure how to exactly describe it, but Hooper does do a magnificent job of getting that hopelessness across there at the end. Perhaps it’s that lack of hope that leads to the downbeat feeling at the end of the film, despite her escaping.
I like THE DEVIL’S REJECTS, which is definitely indebted to MASSACRE. For as cliche as “Free Bird” is, that was one use of it in a movie that I actually liked.
“Perhaps it’s that lack of hope that leads to the downbeat feeling at the end of the film, despite her escaping.”
Definitely. It’s like, she’s escaped but at what cost? All her friends are dead. The wicked have not been punished and she’s probably lost her mind in the process of escaping. Definitely not a “feel-good” ending at all.
I’ll add my love for that ending moment. There’s something that gets me about the fact that the girl gets away and yet in no way do we feel like it’s a happy ending. It’s a moment that always sticks with me.
The other great thing about this is Hooper’s use of sound to create the abject feeling — knives and axes are plenty scary when you think about it, but it’s that disorienting noise of a chainsaw that puts you even more on edge throughout.
Great review here by Robert — I like how you describe that ending dinner scene and just how well Hooper films it.
Nice work here Bob.
“Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of my earliest (and favorite) horror moments, I was not alive when it was released but a copy was available in my house as a child and I can recall being impacted by the idea that this was a true story.”
As I think about Horror, there are these type of films that EVERY horror fan has cut his teeth on, the sacred cows of the genre. Many I don’t like as much as most, and have trouble dealing with the meta-qualities surrounding them… but this one succeeds beautifully. (Robert again chose to write about many of these ‘cows’– which is difficult– see THE EXORCIST).
One of the best things I can say about this film is that I know Kevin doesn’t like it that much (and he’s admitted it to me 2 or 3 times), but even he ranked it as the 61st greatest Horror film!
_ _ _ _
Another funny thought I’ve just had is looking at the top picture… Leatherface is this repulsive maniac that we fear and are shocked by, but when you look at him you realize he’s just a doughy punk that could probably use a few crunches to straighten up that train-wreck he calls a physique. Of course I wouldn’t say this to his (leather) face! lol.
Another funny thought I’ve just had is looking at the top picture… Leatherface is this repulsive maniac that we fear and are shocked by, but when you look at him you realize he’s just a doughy punk that could probably use a few crunches to straighten up that train-wreck he calls a physique. Of course I wouldn’t say this to his (leather) face! lol.
This is really funny James. I laughed out loud when he gets pumped with the wrench at the end, goes down like a ton of bricks, then slices himself. What is really funny is how hard of a time he has getting back up in those cowboy boots. He is not only a sad and terrifying monster but also has a comedic physical presence.
lol, exactly. I recall the moment you are talking about as he tries to stand. It’s like a baby-giraffe trying to stand upright on a sheet of ice.
But again, a baby-giraffe is thin and gangly. Leatherface is a sweaty, dirty tub mess. The kind of person that goes home and eats a box of white powdered donuts for dinner and washes it down with a Mt. Dew. Law enforcement might not be able to stop Leatherface, but early onset type 2 Diabetes will.
_ _ _
All this reminds me of an episode of that funny claymation/puppet show on cartoon/adult swim (I can’t remember the title– anyone help?), it depicted what Jason Voorhies did the other days of the year that weren’t Friday the 13ths. He showered, sharpened his machetes, washed and pressed his overalls, it’s hilarious.
I’ll try to find it and post it.
yes! here it is:
pretty funny.
I just clicked onto that link for YOUTUBE!!!!
That is absolutely HILARIOUS!!!!!
The shot of Jason in a bathrobe, sipping tea and standing over a jigsaw puzzle is priceless!!!!!!
Kick a big round of thank you applause to JAMIE!!!!!
That made my day!!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
There is no question of this film’s extraordinary craftsmanship, but it’s nonetheless a deeply disturbing and unpleasant film that may well be too realistic for it’s own good. Much like Wes Craven’s THE HILLS HAVE EYES (of course that film came after the Hooper film) it strives for realism, and relies of one terrifying shock after another to build and sustain it’s unremtting sense of dread and depravity. The scene at the kitchen table with the body parts on dishes and grandpa struggling to swing a hammer to bash in the brains of our tortured young heroine is one of the most sickening sequences in the cinema, and the sadistic bashings inflicted on the girl by the deranged father is absolutely terrifying. I guess I measure the ultimate worth and greatness of films by whether or not you can or would watch it again. But this kind of depravity needn’t be watched more than once. It is well-known that there were problems on the set during the making of the film that mirrors some of the film’s gruesome images, and one wonders how much pleasure can be derived from such unsettling and unconscionable terror. But since then of course, the cinema has even outdone Hooper is every sense.
Robert’s work again is superlative.
Interesting point Sam. This may be the beginning of the extreme film genre Jaime is always harping about. I am not enough of an expert to conclude either way if this is an accurate statement. I’m sure some of the horror experts could chime in. While I find the film disturbing, my main complaints about extreme films are usually excessive gore or exploitive scenario’s like 9 minute rape scenes etc… TCM does not bother me as it does not fall into either camp. I can handle bleakness, dread, and this form of fictional depravity for the most part lol. To be honest, I don’t see much difference between this and something like Silence Of The Lambs. I guess the cheap production values make everything feel more real and grimier than if it was more expertly produced. I for one have seen this film three times. While It wouldn’t make my top 10 or 20 of the horror genre…. I do consider it a minor masterpiece of it’s kind.
This is interesting… I do love Extreme cinema, as I’ve made clear many times, and I’ve never really thought about it’s history, or earliest films. It’s just so hard to do, as these move so fast, is Bruneal’s UN CHIEN (excuse spelling please) an early extreme film? I mean art films/shorts had to be where the genre started as NO mainstream producer would have made an extreme film back then.
Using this logic the rise of underground/indie film is probably when Extreme cinema started, which would put us late 60′s/early 70′s. So, yes, TEXAS would seem to be an early one, but strangely enough it’s pretty tame now (it’s remake– from a studio and received wide release– is quite a bit more gory and exploitative), whereas many other films from that era still shock. I guess when I start the extreme series some of these questions I can inadvertently tackle and explore (and I hadn’t really thought to, so that’s cool).
_ _ _ _ _
I swear if I ever do anything around here it will be to turn the majority to Extreme cinema. It’s too adventurous, and brilliant, that any good/serious film fan should be well-versed and a fan (an argument could be made that it’s the one ‘real’ true film genre). There are just too many serious film fans here (everyone that frequents and posts here regularly would claim serious film status) to turn a blind eye to an entire genre based on the grounds of heresy and rumor.
Return in two days…
Well, I happen to like some extreme cinema, but I think the question is how far is too far in the extreme.
I know that we had a bit of a time with a rape sequence in one Allan’s top ten for the decade 2000 and, although I had no problems with the sequence myself, the question arises as to how much is really necessary.
The definition of EXTREME cinema has many different variances, and i guess it’s really up to the individual to define the term on his own accord. I, myself, see the work of John Cassavettes as an early example of EXTREME cinema, but then again, John wasn’t splashing a person’s innards all over the breakfast table while the kids at Cherrios and, certainly, he wasn’t having Peter Falk and Ben Gazzara rape the snot out of his beloved wife, Gena Rowlands.
EXTREME cinema is fine, I guess, for those that can take it. but, it irks the shit out of me when the decryers of it label it shit and trash rather than the art some of it really is. The film reviewed above is an example of EXTREME cinema, I have no doubt about it (as is Bava’s RABID DOGS, or Naughton’s brilliant HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER). Some can handle the gruesomeness of it, and some puke and run. However, nobody but nobody can influence the individual into changing their mind on whether they see it as art or not. I happen to think that THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is a work of EXTREME serious art.
Dennis, nice work here. Lots to discuss.
One, you briefly touch on a notion of Extreme cinema that it’s distractors mostly don’t get. Extreme cinema is largely one of extreme emotion AND/OR extreme situation. So yes, several of Cassavette’s early films are indeed Extreme. It’s not always just blood and guts films, it fact many times it is not. So, as usual, the detractors are really judging the genre on it’s worst possible examples (so of course they’ll see little merit). As I’ve said before, if I said I didn’t like war films because all I’d seen was BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE RECRUIT, and say, PEARL HARBOR it wouldn’t be fair to anyone (nor would it be close to accurate). I do hope to show the scope of the genre (as I know it and appreciate it) soon, but it will be an ongoing process.
RE: Rape (in IRREVERSIBLE), well that thread is full of my feelings about the film, and opinions of the arguments against it, so I’ll be brief here and try to add something original. I actually think two things about the length of the scene and position in the film. One, if you made it that far and find that rape scene offensive it implies that you made it through the ‘face-turned-to-ground-chuck-by-a-fire-extinguisher’, so all this says that as a culture most can process physical violence incredibly more easily then sexual violence (and men generally view men on men violence way more easily then men on woman violence because most men feel women need protecting or are slightly inferior to men but that’s another study all together). Secondly, the actual length of the scene– it playing out in real complete time– is realistically the only way these things should be shown. I laugh at the hypocrisy of people who find the length disturbing, or exploitative. Wouldn’t cutting around, polishing, and ‘cinema-izing it’ take it away from reality (thus over time reducing our reaction to it similar to the one we have with the ‘fire extinguisher’ scene)? To me shortening it WOULD be the exploitative thing to do… and conversing with actual rape victims, I’ve been told this exact thing. Something like Jodie Foster’s THE ACCUSED is ‘shortened’ and we aren’t made to deal with the full act, and when watching it now, it gets incredibly absurd, if not down right comical. It’s a joke, but hey didn’t she win the Oscar for that role?
So yes, it does come down to what you can take and what you can’t, but aren’t fellows you can’t take a lot (or willing to draw boundary lines rather then having the horizon stretch to infinity), by nature then, not really Extreme cinema fans?
_ _ _ _ _ _
“Well, I happen to like some extreme cinema, but I think the question is how far is too far in the extreme.”
This is the beauty of the genre (and my last comment above), and I think what makes it the true Cinema genre: by definition, it can NEVER go to far. Genre’s that by definition set out to break rules of form, content, and image are what we should expect from art. And Extreme cinema is singularly unique in cinema is this regard and pursuit.
Sorry Jamie but I cannot agree with your argument at all. We don’t need to see a 9 minute rape scene to understand how horrifying the crime is. There is no real advantage of showing or lingering on something like that unless your purpose is to shock and upset people. I’m quite sure that was the director’s intent and I don’t necessarily object to his desire to film such a scene if extremism is what he’s going for. I do find it laughable that you have the gall to suggest that people who don’t wish to view such material as the actual exploiters.
You don’t need to see the whole act to understand the sadness of what happens to Alex. Any normal person knows what a terrible crime rape is. The movie could be just as effective without the prolonged scene. It exists that way because Noe was deliberately trying to appall his audience or titillate those that can stomach it. The whole point of extremism in film is to go further than what is “expected” or “required”. You make it sound like the opposite…… that not showing brutality and depravity is somehow dishonest and irrelevant. It seems like the extreme images are exactly what you crave over the content. The content in the film does not need 9 minutes of rape to get it’s message across. That scene is an “extreme” visualization of something that could easily be discarded and still get it’s point home to the viewer. My question to you is would you still like Irreversible without those 9 minutes? I’m sure Allan Fish would….I sometimes wonder if you would though. I think the graphic visuals are the main point for you.
“There is no real advantage of showing or lingering on something like that unless your purpose is to shock and upset people.”
What other emotion should we feel after viewing a rape other then be upset and shocked?
I would like the film with and/or without it (and if you, again, look through that thread I tackle MANY things I like about the film other then that), but it seems you’ve already made up your mind about the opinion of a complete stranger. So I’ll move on.
Oh, and again, for the (at least) third time the ‘fire-extinguiser’ scene comment(s) remain unaddressed… you seem to have a real problem with the vileness of rape but a man’s face concaved is watchable or tolerable to a point. Curious, and one of Noe’s points precisely (hence one of the reasons why the film works in reverse).
_ _ _
And beside the point, yes, I like all types of imagery in films, many of which are extreme in nature. I have no problem being honest with this point as we all do, but most are unable or unwilling to admit.
My point is you don’t need to show a nine minute rape scene to shock and upset people further. At some point it just becomes gratuitous and exploitive. I also never said I accept the fire extinguisher moment. That scene is just as bad and the graphicness completely unnecessary. I find it equally as vile. I guess the reason people talk about the rape scene is because it goes on for much longer.
To be honest the whole film has dimmed in my memory. It has been a while. I just happen to remember the rape scene more clearly and vividly. I think this is the case more due to length than accepting one form of violence over another.
I would also like to point out that even without those two scenes I am no fan of the film.
OK, and at this point we are just talking about whether we like or dislike the film. When originally we were discussing something else (morality of film in question, exploitative nature, etc).
I do like the film in question, and G. Noe’s oeuvre in general.
I also want to say that I like Tobe Hooper a lot as a director. I haven’t seen all, but still Poltergeist is scary (****), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is fun and really watchable in all the possible ways (***1/2) and Spontaneous Combustion, no matter what anyone has to say, is one of the most underrated movies of all time (****) many people dismiss it and even not watching it just because of its overall critical dismiss, but it’s a really great movie. I liked it a lot in my last Horror Madness.
Ah, of course, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, his masterpiece (*****)