A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[chas speed]

I didn't lose money and had Paramount released the film they most likely would have lost money. It was their decision - I merely offered my opinion and he happened to agree with it. As to artistic sense, that is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure the film, if I bothered to watch it again, would seem tame by today's standards, just as Psycho, when shown to young people, seems tame - they have no idea what it was like to see that film in 1960. So, you may love the film for whatever reasons (did you see it when it was released?) and that is your OPINION. I was relating what I feel is an amusing story and the story contains my OPINION of the film - not yours, not anyone else's.

Paramount would have made a fortune if they had released Texas Chainsaw Massacre. A lot more then they would have lost on "First Nudie Musical". I'm sure many people thought your film was "vile". Everybody has the right to an opinion, but clearly Chainsaw made more money then "First Nudie Musical" and people like Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg were HUGE fans of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I didn't like the 1974 "Chain Saw" but could/would never argue it wasn't an important film. Very influential and significant - and profitable. If IMDB is right, it cost under $100,000 and earned more than $30 million.

Add to that the substantial home video earnings it's snared over the last 30+ years and I suspect "Chain Saw" is one of the most profitable films. In a business where studios are delighted to get back three times their expense, "Chain Saw" made well over three hundred times its cost! And that's not including home video!

 

[TravisR]

...people like Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg were HUGE fans of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

The Ramones even wrote a song about the movie. Sure, 2001 and Schindler's List are important contributions to the culture but they're not a Ramones record.

 

[chas speed]

I know the film isn't for everyone, but it has no nudity and very little gore. The title also should scare away anybody who does not like this type of movie from seeing it. P.S. I hated all the sequels and remakes!!!

 

[ROclockCK]

I first saw The Texas Chain Saw Massacre at the old Roxy in Toronto, which by '75 was already well into its long slow decline from grungy repertory to full blown grindhouse.

With this particular film, the Roxy's cracked walls, peeling paint, moldy smells, stale popcorn soaked in repeatedly reheated cow fat, with multiple suspect substances sticking to your feet, all somehow mirrored the unrelenting fetidness and decay emanating from every corner of Tobe Hooper's frame...a match between 'real' and 'reel', if there ever was one. In that venue, there were no quiet reassurances from anything around you that "Hey, it's only a movie."

But even in that filthy low rent environment, nothing could have prepared me for the impact of this picture. TTCSM was a one of a kind movie experience for me, thankfully never repeated...an unrelenting, horrifying state of dread sustained for 80 some odd minutes, feeling more like hours. More than anything, I just wanted this madness to stop, and yet I couldn't leave...I wasn't even entirely certain my legs would hold up. As clichéd a tagline as it's become, this was the closest I've ever come to experiencing a waking nightmare*. I even heard some despairing moans from that audience.

Of course, with all the graphic body horror gore-fests released since, pop desensitization has long since taken its toll, so nothing on screen really disturbs the psyche like that now...not even my own**.

* ...except IRL.
** ...except the News.

 

[atfree]

I saw this at a drive-in when I was 10 years old (my older brother was in charge of corrupting me). In my small town, the drive-in was in a outlying area surrounded by trees on 3 sides. Imagine being 10 years old, sitting in a dark car in the middle of the woods, watching this movie for the first time. I think my brother enjoyed my terror more than the movie!

 

[bujaki]

I saw this movie when it played at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

 

[haineshisway]

Paramount would have made a fortune if they had released Texas Chainsaw Massacre. A lot more then they would have lost on "First Nudie Musical". I'm sure many people thought your film was "vile". Everybody has the right to an opinion, but clearly Chainsaw made more money then "First Nudie Musical" and people like Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg were HUGE fans of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

Well, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone decided to get personal. Paramount actually lost NOTHING on my film. And my film ended up doing very well when you consider what it cost. When we took it away from Paramount and gave it to the second distributor, it played twelve weeks in one theater in NY and the week it went wide it was the fourth highest grossing film in the country. But I think you probably knew that and are just trying to start something, which you will not succeed in doing. I don't believe I said that Nudie Musical made more money than ANY film, let alone Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which made its money, BTW, over a VERY long period of time. I also don't believe this is a thread about my film so clearly you are just trying to goad here. I do not believe any major studio releasing that film would have done well with it at that time in that era. It made its money with its tiny distributor because it was around for a very long time and gathered its cult. Paramount would have given it a week or two and that would have been that. You weren't in the room, in case that's news to you - I was and I heard all about what they were thinking. My film did not feature someone hanging a woman on a meathook - different vile, don't you think? But keep trying. All this is, of course, my OPINION. In case you haven't been given the notice, we're all allowed our OPINIONS here. I told a story. I find it an amusing story, and it clearly rankles you for whatever reason. Ultimately, Paramount's passing on the film had nothing to do with me, obviously. I was asked for an OPINION and I gave it. The powers that be happen to agree with it - in spades.

 

[bgart13]

One character hanging another on a meat hook doesn't make the film vile.

 

[haineshisway]

One character hanging another on a meat hook doesn't make the film vile.

At that point in time, with that particular film, it certainly made THIS viewer view the film as vile. In other words, it made it vile for ME (and for the Paramount executive). Speaking in absolutes - never a good idea.

 

[Vincent_P]

I saw this movie when it played at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

I believe this "vile" film is in their permenant collection.

Vincent

 

[ROclockCK]

Don't you think that scene had such a visceral reaction precisely because of how well it was directed, performed, shot, and edited Bruce? "Vile" though it may be, there was "art" in its realization.

I mean, I've seen much more explicit horror scenes go off with machine-like precision...and yet not carry a fraction of that whallop.

 

[HarleyDog]

Don't you think that scene had such a visceral reaction precisely because of how well it was directed, performed, shot, and edited Bruce? "Vile" though it may be, there was "art" in its realization.

I mean, I've seen much more explicit horror scenes go off with machine-like precision...and yet not carry a fraction of that whallop.

I will always maintain that this is one of the best subliminal shots in any film ever as it pertains to events that happen minutes later in the film:

 

[Yorkshire]

Given that there's actually very little explicit gore, isn't Psycho a lot more 'vile'?I mean dressing up corpses is one thing, but:

SPOILERS: dressing up your mother's corpse and pretending to be her due to some sort of Freudian impulse is far sicker...okay, a little sicker than TCM. Steve W

 

[TravisR]

Don't you think that scene had such a visceral reaction precisely because of how well it was directed, performed, shot, and edited Bruce? "Vile" though it may be, there was "art" in its realization.

For all the credit that the movie rightfully gets, the performances rarely seem to get much notice from critics or fans and I think they're a big reason why the movie works. Maybe it's the shooting style or maybe it's because I've never seen most of the actors in anything else but I completely buy them as their characters and their portrayals of these fair pleasant (save for Franklin) hippie kids makes me feel bad when they get killed.

 

[Ruz-El]

For all the credit that the movie rightfully gets, the performances rarely seem to get much notice from critics or fans and I think they're a big reason why the movie works. Maybe it's the shooting style or maybe it's because I've never seen most of the actors in anything else but I completely buy them as their characters and their portrayals of these fair pleasant (save for Franklin) hippie kids makes me feel bad when they get killed.

I agree completely; Marilyn Burns especially deserved every acting award available. most of the films power is in her performance. Your brain believes she is actually suffering and it never stops. Another reason why it's up there with THE EXORCIST and others as a horror classic.

 

[ROclockCK]

Not to put too fine a point on it Russell, but those cast members actually were "suffering"...from the 100+ degree heat...all those claustrophobic spaces...the stench of rot everywhere for days on end...all created an uncommonly authentic stage.

* ...which, for good reason, few filmmakers have dared emulate since. For insurance reasons alone, no one would stand for that production environment now.

 

[ROclockCK]

I will always maintain that this is one of the best subliminal shots in any film ever as it pertains to events that happen minutes later in the film:

10578_1.jpg

...and one of the oldest cinematic principles is shrewdly at work there. You need that shot or scene lovingly celebrating the beauty of a person or thing to drive home the tragedy when it is violently destroyed.

Just ask James Cameron.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Luckily this vile film has stood the test of time and remains one of the most effectively chilling horror films of all time, with barely any gore shown; it's all about the atmosphere with this one. The brilliant soundtrack seals the deal. You don't need lots of money, gore and tits to make a great horror film, just talent, perseverance and some luck.

 

[JohnMor]

While I certainly respect everyone's opinion, I did have to laugh at Paramount passing on this but just a short few years later unleashing the far, far worse (both artistically and gore-wise) Friday the 13th. Although I doubt it was the same executives. Just more irony in a town filled with it.