Often credited as one of the most influential horror movies
of the last forty years, The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre is responsible for creating many elements now frequent in
the slasher genre. The film was produced for a budget of less than $300,000 but
went on to bring in over £30 million at the box office and has since spawned
five sequels or remakes with a sixth scheduled for release in 2013. I saw the
2003 remake when I was about eighteen and remember being nonplussed by its story
and violence. My Dad then asked me if I’d seen the original and when I said I
wasn’t sure he replied “You’d remember if you’d seen the original.” Well nine
years on I’ve now seen the original and despite some good moments and obvious
influence it has had on recent horror I fail to see its appeal. I didn’t find
it scary or threatening, the story bored me and I was very glad that it was
only 84 minutes long.
If you’ve ever seen a slasher film then the premise will
sound very familiar. Five friends are travelling through central Texas on their way to a
run down house owned by the family of Sally (Marylin Burns) and her brother
Franklin (Paul A. Partain). Along the way they pick up a hitchhiker who scares
the group, attacks Franklin
and flees. Once they reach the homestead the group slowly begin to dwindle as
they encounter chainsaw wielding, leather mask wearing neighbour/maniac.
The film is quite slow to build and except for the odd
grisly shot of a corpse due to some local grave robbing, there is nothing of
note to scare until the mid point. Even once the murders begin, they are of
course violent, but also swift and filmed in such a way that little is seen. The
audience doesn’t actually see that much until the final act which also happens
to be the only act that perked my interest. The slow build up isn’t really a
problem as it adds to the anticipation. I think my problem with the film is
that because it is held up as an example of brutal, no holds barred horror that
when the bloodletting, chainsawing and screaming began, it all felt a little
tame. I was expecting so much more.
What I did enjoy though was the final act in which the now
common trope of the single female survivor is used. While still not scary, this
section was creepy in a psychological way. There was some great use of quick
cutting in the edit and a brilliant shot of the actress’s eye, seen closer and
closer in quick cuts until the camera seems to be almost touching her. The
terror in her eyes also shows some great acting. The final scenes are also
where we first see some full on violence. Earlier in the film horrid things
were observed but never fully seen. A woman is hung up by a hook but the
gruesome sight is hidden from view. In another scene a man has a limb sawn off
by a chainsaw but this is once again cleverly hidden from view. In the closing
scenes though we do actually see the likes of hammers hitting skulls and
copious bloodletting. The problem is though that despite all of this I was
never scared. I put this down to four reasons. The first is that my expectation
was that the film would be terrifying; the second was that I kind of knew the
story and characters. Thirdly I’ve never been to the rural areas of America in
which the film takes place and felt their isolation and lastly, modern horror
tends to be much more vicious. Films like Saw
and Final Destination delight in
fulfilling the audience’s demands for more sadistic and twisted forms of death.
I’ve seen much worse on film that a man wielding a chainsaw so as a
twenty-something in 2012 I think the film has less impact on that of a
twenty-something in 1974.
Even though I thought the film was a bit of a let down there
were still things to like. The cinematography was excellent and the third act
was creepy if not wholly terrifying. There is also plenty on screen that has
been copied since and you can see a hundred slasher clichés that here are
mostly original. The film might not have scared me as I thought it would but it
has influenced many films that have.
5/10
I think for the time it was made, it was genre defining, and is held in such high regard by horror fans because of what it did. Nowadays, extremes are pushed more, and violence is more visceral, but for its time, as you say if you were watching it back then I bet it was scary. Plus, its based on true events (well, a mixture of different serial killers mixed onto one) so its a film I always think of fondly.
ReplyDeleteAt least you watched something good Tom :)
You and your horror. I can totally see its appeal and understand how important it was to the next forty years of horror but watching it in 2012, it didn't scare me and I'm a horror wuss.
Delete