The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

[bloodyminded]

The other night, I was happy to discover that the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was on tv. I was so underwhelmed that I decided to revisit the original, and hoped I'd like it as much as I did when I first saw it.

Well, it was far better than I'd remembered. Really scary, and still unique despite its scores of imitators.

It's rare to see a film that feels so hopeless, with antagonists who are simultaneously monstrously depraved, and yet childish and foolish. But the real horror is the visual style: grainy and stark, connoting a moral wasteland of grit and bleeding colours. And the weird, weird soundtrack: strange noises difficult to identify pop up at odd times: is that the bleating of a pig? Somebody laughing hysterically? You can never quite tell. Everything seems contrived to throw you off balance, to say "the world ain't right."

A couple of things I had forgotten: while people who have never seen the film might be surprised at this, it is not a bloodfest. It's not a gory movie. It's violent, and extremely disturbing, but there is very little blood.

Also, of the four murders that occur...only one is committed with a chainsaw!

Anyway, it's awesome. The tension and the fear builds and builds...until the infamous dinner scene, where the feeble, near-dead family patriarch sucks blood from the heroine's finger, and then botches her murder-by-hammer, while the other family members caper and gibber like the child-like lunatics they are...and the camera lingers painfully, at strange angles, on the victim's terrorized face. Brrrrr.

Some might find it hard to believe, but this thing is a genuine horror masterpiece. A classic, for sure.

[Michael Hardner]

The other night, I was happy to discover that the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was on tv. I was so underwhelmed that I decided to revisit the original, and hoped I'd like it as much as I did when I first saw it.

Well, it was far better than I'd remembered. Really scary, and still unique despite its scores of imitators.

It's rare to see a film that feels so hopeless, with antagonists who are simultaneously monstrously depraved, and yet childish and foolish. But the real horror is the visual style: grainy and stark, connoting a moral wasteland of grit and bleeding colours. And the weird, weird soundtrack: strange noises difficult to identify pop up at odd times: is that the bleating of a pig? Somebody laughing hysterically? You can never quite tell. Everything seems contrived to throw you off balance, to say "the world ain't right."

A couple of things I had forgotten: while people who have never seen the film might be surprised at this, it is not a bloodfest. It's not a gory movie. It's violent, and extremely disturbing, but there is very little blood.

Also, of the four murders that occur...only one is committed with a chainsaw!

Anyway, it's awesome. The tension and the fear builds and builds...until the infamous dinner scene, where the feeble, near-dead family patriarch sucks blood from the heroine's finger, and then botches her murder-by-hammer, while the other family members caper and gibber like the child-like lunatics they are...and the camera lingers painfully, at strange angles, on the victim's terrorized face. Brrrrr.

Some might find it hard to believe, but this thing is a genuine horror masterpiece. A classic, for sure.

Seeing on the big screen is another thrill altogether: the ear-splitting screaming that pervades the last 15 or 20 minutes of the movie will ring in your ears, and you leave the theatre in a strange kind of adrenaline rush.

I read somewhere that the actors were traumatized by the filming.

[bloodyminded]

Seeing on the big screen is another thrill altogether: the ear-splitting screaming that pervades the last 15 or 20 minutes of the movie will ring in your ears, and you leave the theatre in a strange kind of adrenaline rush.

I read somewhere that the actors were traumatized by the filming.

Yeah...damn...there IS a lot of screaming. And you're right, it has a real effect.

[wyly]

the visual appeal Jessica Biel makes the remake the better IMO

[Guest TrueMetis]

I have a little bit of a problem with these types of horrors, especially when they are based on real events.

[bloodyminded]

the visual appeal Jessica Biel makes the remake the better IMO

She's awfully nice, true; but the original has two pretty ones as well.

[bloodyminded]

I have a little bit of a problem with these types of horrors, especially when they are based on real events.

Apparently, it's not really based on true events, so much as very loosely inspired by the Ed Gein serial killer from Wisconsin.

Psycho was loosely based on him as well.

[Shwa]

The freezer scene was disturbing. It still is.

But then again, when you make the best Texas BBQ...

[Leafless]

I have a little bit of a problem with these types of horrors, especially when they are based on real events.

This is a movie made for sadistic type retards.

[bloodyminded]

This is a movie made for sadistic type retards.

I blame the French.

[Leafless]

I blame the French.

Right in line with the Belgium Dutch.

[bloodyminded]

Right in line with the Belgium Dutch.

At any rate, Leafless, no, fans of this movie are not "sadistic type retards." The appeal of horror movies is far more complex.

For your point to make sense, you'd really have to assert that any movie which portrays any kind of violence--or even emotional suffering--is for "sadistic type retards."

And that means almost every single movie ever made.

[Leafless]

At any rate, Leafless, no, fans of this movie are not "sadistic type retards."

Sorry, other people agree it is a sadistic type movie.

View Full Version : what is the most sadistic movie ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gore encore05-08-2003, 02:38 PM

what is for you the most sadisitc movie ? I've just watched LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT recently and still think it's a real sadistic picture. H1KCORPSES is also in a good place in this category like other titles like : PSYCHO SISTERs, I PISS ON YOUR GRAVE, MEN BEHIND THE SUN, the ILSA series or A GUN FOR JENNIFER. What are yours ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiem-for-a-Dream05-08-2003, 03:07 PM

Cannibal Holocaust

Cannibal Ferox

Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS

Ilsa: The Wicked Warden

Ilsa: Harem Keepers of the Oil Sheeks

House of 1000 Corpses

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

Candyman

Scream (I'll probably be alone on this one)

New York Ripper

Matt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.joblo.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-52512.html

[bloodyminded]

Sorry, other people agree it is a sadistic type movie.

http://www.joblo.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-52512.html

Oh, well, since some random nobodies agree, then the case is closed.

So...if others don't agree, that must be worth something, yes?

[Leafless]

Oh, well, since some random nobodies agree, then the case is closed.

Why does that matter,we are all nobodies.

So...if others don't agree, that must be worth something, yes?

It means you enjoy human mutilation type entertainment.

[bloodyminded]

It means you enjoy human mutilation type entertainment.

Again, the appeal of horror movies is not some simple matter of sadism.

In fact, for those of us who find the movie scary, it would suggest that we don't enjoy the mutilaiton; we are scared because we don't want these characters to get killed.

Mind you, it's more complex; to some degree, we want to see people killed, too.

So your point would hold...except that, if you like, for example, action movies, or war movies...wouldn't that be more sadistic? After all, most of these movies have a lot more violent deaths than does Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which has four)...and the audience decidedly and unambiguously does want to see people die in those movies.

Horror movies, at least the better ones, are in a way more humane...the deaths are horrific because they mean something. The killings are scary.

Whereas in Rambo, or an Arnold Schwarzeneggar movie, characters are utterly dehumanized, so that they can get killed by the scores while the audience cheers. (Mind you, I'm not making a moral condemnation of this...I'm only destroying your "sadism" argument.)

Edited June 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Again, ...I'm only destroying your "sadism" argument.

Which you have done nicely, thank you. But I find this highly interesting and somewhat ironic:

This is a movie made for sadistic type retards.

Had Leafless said, "This is a movie made about sadistic type retards" it would be, in a small way, truthful! Yet he chose to transpose a characterization of the antagonist(s) into a general statement of the audience. As if to say anyone who is fascinated by Mein Kampf is a Hitlerite, anyone who reads crime novels is a criminal or anyone who sees King Lear is Edmund (or Goneril depending on one's gender).

But wait! There's more...

What would cause this sort of bizarre literary transposition? Well, Leafless' comment was entirely antagonistic! He didn't express his opinion about the movie, but about the audience of such movies which includes yourself, myself and a few others who - if I might be allowed the liberty - would fill the role of this thread as the protagonists. Since most people would identify with the protagonists in a story, identifying oneself with the antagonist - generally - is a conscious act. So not only did Leafless make the transposition based upon the protagonists in the actual movie, he willingly identified himself with the antagonist's role in this thread. And that would be enough if there wasn't just one more telling, little piece, the most ironic of all.

By making this literary transposition of the antagonist to the audience and then willingly identifying himself as the antagonist of this thread, well you know how satisfying narratives usually go right? On top of that Leafless has exposed himself to thoughtful analysis which would result in a negation of his opinion. When confronted with such an analysis, he comes back for more. In the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, who keeps on coming back for more? Leatherface.

See where I am going with this?

Leafless has identified himself as a sadistic type retard!

Which is all to say, in the end, he must have liked the movie.

[bloodyminded]

Which you have done nicely, thank you. But I find this highly interesting and somewhat ironic:

Had Leafless said, "This is a movie made about sadistic type retards" it would be, in a small way, truthful! Yet he chose to transpose a characterization of the antagonist(s) into a general statement of the audience. As if to say anyone who is fascinated by Mein Kampf is a Hitlerite, anyone who reads crime novels is a criminal or anyone who sees King Lear is Edmund (or Goneril depending on one's gender).

But wait! There's more...

What would cause this sort of bizarre literary transposition? Well, Leafless' comment was entirely antagonistic! He didn't express his opinion about the movie, but about the audience of such movies which includes yourself, myself and a few others who - if I might be allowed the liberty - would fill the role of this thread as the protagonists. Since most people would identify with the protagonists in a story, identifying oneself with the antagonist - generally - is a conscious act. So not only did Leafless make the transposition based upon the protagonists in the actual movie, he willingly identified himself with the antagonist's role in this thread. And that would be enough if there wasn't just one more telling, little piece, the most ironic of all.

By making this literary transposition of the antagonist to the audience and then willingly identifying himself as the antagonist of this thread, well you know how satisfying narratives usually go right? On top of that Leafless has exposed himself to thoughtful analysis which would result in a negation of his opinion. When confronted with such an analysis, he comes back for more. In the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, who keeps on coming back for more? Leatherface.

See where I am going with this?

Leafless has identified himself as a sadistic type retard!

Which is all to say, in the end, he must have liked the movie.

Shwa, my friend, this deserves an impressed little bow.

In fact, even leaving aside your logical conclusion (logical based on our antagonist's own standards, for a start, and thanks to his misinterpretation of spectator art in general), the rest of this fine post is roughly how I initially planned to respond.

But as I thought it would be misunderstood, I chose a different tack. (I wouldn't have said it so well as you did anyway.)

[Leafless]

Again, the appeal of horror movies is not some simple matter of sadism.

Original horror movies played on the themes vampires, demons, werewolves, supernatural etc. and did not include sadistic extreme violent, mutilation type movies.

It was the smart Jews in Hollywood who in the 70's and 80's began lumping these sadistic violent type, anything for a buck,sadistic human mutilation type movies under the category of horror movies.

These movies deserved their own category,(human mutilation movies) but then again who would pay outside of sadist to view movies of this type and would probably be banned as society would not tolerate such utter garbage.

But under the category of 'horror movies', Hollywood got away with it.

BTW--The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was banned in several countries.

[Leafless]

See where I am going with this?

Beats me!

All I know is that you are probably the type that would grant Karla Homolka a pardon.

[bloodyminded]

Original horror movies played on the themes vampires, demons, werewolves, supernatural etc. and did not include sadistic extreme violent, mutilation type movies.

Public tolerance for movie violence was far ahead of the puritanical censors, which is why there was such an appetite for underground films.

The new rating system, which began in (I believe) 1968, opened the door for more graphic depictions of violence.

Including such "sadistic" films as The Godfather, Bonnie and Clyde, and Taxi Driver. Wonderful films.

It was the smart Jews in Hollywood

Oh ye gods, not this theme again.

who in the 70's and 80's began lumping these sadistic violent type, anything for a buck,sadistic human mutilation type movies under the category of horror movies.

Well, it's certainly true that movies are generally made for the sake of profit. However, there is often genuine care and love for the entertainment they are producing, as well. There are even films made that are not expected to make much profit, believe it or not.

Anyway, what movies do you like? Do you suppose profit motive was involved in their making?

These movies deserved their own category,(human mutilation movies) but then again who would pay outside of sadist to view movies of this type and would probably be banned as society would not tolerate such utter garbage.

??????????

What are you trying to say? they "would probably be banned"? Society will tolerate practically anything, as should be clear enough by now.

BTW--The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was banned in several countries.

If true, that doesn't surprise me; this has happened with some regularity. One of the more famous examples is A Clockwork Orange which was banned in many countries for quite some time.

Hell, Psycho was denounced in 1960....in part because it was the first major film to show a flushing toilet onscreen.

Do you think that, too, was going too far?

At any rate, do you enjoy action movies? do you watch any movies where people don't die? (It would take a little effort not to, I believe). Well, Leafless, if those movies don't portray violent death as scary and horrifying, then they are dehumanizing...are they not?

Edited June 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Beats me!

This would be a prime example of a 'foregone conclusion' had I asked you. Which I didn't.

All I know is that you are probably the type that would grant Karla Homolka a pardon.

This works against you on a couple of different levels. Firstly, since you have proven yourself to be a 'sadistic type retard' then your opinion would bear that out. Which is does by you trying to antagonize and the subject of your antagonistic comment. Secondly, since it is established that you are indeed a 'sadistic type retard.' then your relationship with Homolka would be akin to Bernardo, another sadistic type retard.

So the Leafless irony continues with you mentioning Homolka.

[Leafless]

At any rate, do you enjoy action movies? do you watch any movies where people don't die? (It would take a little effort not to, I believe). Well, Leafless, if those movies don't portray violent death as scary and horrifying, then they are dehumanizing...are they not?

People dying violently under varying circumstances is a fact of life.

The 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' specializes in extreme graphic violence in which the main theme is about the dismemberment of human beings by a deranged cannibalistic, violent insane, madman, (family).

This of course does not compare to your average action,thriller, murder type movie where the actual murder or violent way of dying is not dragged on for the entire movie.

[Leafless]

So the Leafless irony continues with you mentioning Homolka.

Poor bloody minded Shaw.

[bloodyminded]

People dying violently under varying circumstances is a fact of life.

The 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' specializes in extreme graphic violence in which the main theme is about the dismemberment of human beings by a deranged cannibalistic, violent insane, madman, (family).

This of course does not compare to your average action,thriller, murder type movie where the actual murder or violent way of dying is not dragged on for the entire movie.

The typical action movie does not show death as frightening or ever tragic.

Rather, the audience is invited to cheer these deaths as pure entertainment.

That's dehumanization. (Again, I don't even have a problem with it...but it is what it is.)

In a horror movie (a good one...not Friday 13th, where we are expected to hope for violent deaths) death is...horrific.

actual murder or violent way of dying is not dragged on for the entire movie

In the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, all four deaths occur in approximately 20 minutes of the film. So very little of the movie has actual violence.

Edited June 17, 2010 by bloodyminded