I think i've watched 'THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE' for the last time. (1 Viewer)

[Peter Apruzzese]

I hope and pray the surgery is successful.

On this we can all agree; you and your family are in our thoughts, John. Please keep us updated.

 

[Ryan Wishton]

I know exactly what John means...

He doesnt mind horror films... It's just that realistic ones such as TCM, Faces of Death, Henry, etc... Are no longer ones he can handle...

This is something that happens with many people as they get older... Especially once you have a family.... My Mother for example used to watch horror back in the 70's and 80's... She still watches it once in a great while... But, it's more tame like The Ring or something along those lines... She will go up to a movie like Nightmare on Elm Street... Anything past that level of disturbing she no longer watches and hasnt in years... I think that happens to a lot of people with realistic horror once they get older, because then they see themselves or someone they love and think my god this can happen...

I notice that happening with myself recently and I am still pretty damn young... While I still dont mind horror movies that are meant to entertain me (like The Ring, Elm Street, Halloween, even Friday the 13th "thats my ending point as I will go in terms of realistic violence"), something that is realistic like Faces of Death or Henry (that level of realism) I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever...

John prefers ones that are made to entertain you, not disturb you forever... In other words, he finds no entertaining quality to the TCM.


But, you guys are right... If a movie is truly disturbing, it is doing it's job... It's just that kind of job some people dont want, because they will keep thinking about it... In other words, it's too much for certain people to handle...

 

[Joshua_Y]

Nonetheless the film did get a pretty great reaction out of John...this entire thread is dedicated to his feeling about the film...in other words...it worked...after 30 years...it still works...thats quite a feat!

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Hm. This reminds me of my recent reaction to Armageddon, a movie I think I may never watch again.

I see your point, Joshua, but if by "it still worked" you mean "it still nauseated and disgusted the audience with examples of how depraved humans can be," then I'm not sure it's a "work" that does anyone any good.

 

[JasenP]

TCM obviously got the desired reaction, it's difficult to watch and leaves you feeling uneasy. If the film were entirely over-the-top gory then it's quite easy to relegate it to the "it's only a movie" pile.

Larry Clark's Kids and Todd Solondz Happiness both left me with an uneasy feeling, particularly Kids. They are both examples of great writing and filmmaking IMHO and I recommend them all the time, but I don't know if I watch could either one again.

 

[JustinCleveland]

John,

I feel you. I spent about 6 months studying war movies... and just yesterday, I was watching The Untouchables for the first time, and it struck me how gruesome these deaths were, how unneeded, even though this is the recollection of an actual set of events. When I was presenting my research, I talked with friends and veterans of the Vietnam War, who talked with me on how they can't watch these movies because they are too real.

When I started thinking about that, and about how we celebrate amazing violence in cinema in our society, I had an attack of consious as well. I'm actually working on this as a topic over at DVDTown, and it should be up when the site relaunches in August.

But don't feel alone, I just think we're growing up... and I'm too old to grow up

 

[Lou Sytsma]

You got further than I did John, I've never watched the whole movie - and I like horror movies as well.

This one just seemed to real to me and therefore was no longer entertaining.

 

[MickeS]

I wouldn't call that a dream structure, that's how real life is.

In a movie, characters normally have to have (if not beforehand at least later) an obvious motivation for what they're doing. In real life, actions often can't be explained in a rational, movie like matter. Yes, incidents can normally be traced back to a certain sequences of events, but they are often completely random and without any logic.

I think that's why horror movies like TCM can scare people so much, not because they resemble nightmares but because they remind us that in real life, people don't come back from the dead, or are saved in the last second. In real life, people die, and a lot of times there just is no good explanation for it.

 

[Nick Graham]

I've always considered TCM to be waaaaay overrated. I grew up watching and loving the horror movies of the 70s and 80s, but TCM was one I never could find in the collections of my friends (my primary source of movies back then until I was old enough that the videos stores would allow me to rent R-rated/unrated flicks). I didn't get to see TCM until I was 12-13, and after all the years of hearing how terrifying and gruesome it was, I was convinced it would be the holy grail of horror films.

I should not have let the hype deceive me. It has it's uneasy moments (the opening, the hitchhiker, the scene where Hooper doesn't pull away when Leatherface knocks the guy out with the sledgehammer, and the sequence at the end with Grandpa), but overall, it's neither really scary, unsettling, or that great of a film to begin with.

I watched it recently on DVD, and didn't have any more appreciation for it afterwards. My friend (who used to be a big fan, but has since lost his affection for it) and I mainly just sat there laughing at Franklin, the poor shlub in the wheelchair. His girlish whining is now my favorite part of the movie. This movie had all the ingredients to be good, but it doesn't equal the sum of its parts. I tend to blame this on Tobe Hooper. As famous as he is in horror circles, has he ever really made a truly good film (horror or otherwise)?

 

[Anthony Neilson]

That's a very good point,MickeS, and I completely agree.
I was talking about the film in terms of accepted dramatic narrative structure, which is necessarily more ordered than life. But it's absolutely true that the dream structure more accurately resembles our subjective experience of life.
Someone once said that the difference between drama and life is that, in drama, we know what the characters want ;
whereas in life we seldom know what WE want, never mind anyone else. Conventional dramatic structure is essentially reassuring, which is why most mainstream horror movies are
only intermittently scary.

I also remember someone quizzing David Lynch about the surreality of his work. He protested that his work was actually HYPER-realistic in comparison to everything else, and that was why it seemed so odd. But if we think of how our lives are a medley of reality, dream, imaginings, superstitions - and of the strange and random things that occur - you can see his point.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well, I get your point too Mike, but I also think that normally on day to day living we engage in the illusion of order. Real life horror or simply unsettling, life changing events often fall in the category of those which break this order and rational, events that cause us to ask "why" for example.

Often that is when people look to a higher power for explanation/rational. It is scary to deal with being out of control even though we are in that position all of the time.

So the horror genre does seem to mirror its real-life counterpart by breaking the illusion of logic and order that most narratives have, and this is why I think the Lynch example is so good. After all, there is a high level of menace to Muholland Drive and Blue Velvet even though neither is a horror film in terms of narrative conventions. Both fall much closer to the crime investigation drama. But his irrational style enhances the discomfort level in his films and adds this sense of horror/fear.


And of course as we get older we see more and more examples of the lack of order in real life, so we become more sensitive to it. Keep in mind that for most kids a false sense of order is portrayed so that we have something simple that we can first deal with. Structures like families, school, basic systems of rules, the idea of absolute right and wrong, those are all part of a normal childhood. Part of growing up is seeing those ideas slowly peeled away.

So it makes sense that films which depict the absence of order so realistically, an amoral world, and characters that go unjudged would be the films we become more in tune with and disturbed by as we get older.


And it is not just the realm of horror films either. I can't think of many good examples off the top of my head, but one would be Jesus' Son which is slightly upsetting simply because the character flows along in life with very little direction. I think most of us find his journey to be troubling and would not be comfortable with such a lack of control (false as it may be).

 

[chris rick]

If you haven't already seen it then I would suggest staying away from MANIAC given your thoughts posted here John.

 

[Michael Martin]

This is something that happens with many people as they get older... Especially once you have a family

This is true.

As a teen - especially a younger teen - I LOVED slasher films. And yes, I mean slasher films.

However, by the time I entered college, both age and some lifechanging experiences had really moved me away from enjoying them.

I enjoy a great scary or thrilling movie. For me - and please note, I am saying FOR ME, not for everyone - the depiction of violence in horror films simply isn't entertaining or worth my time to watch. The same is also true for some action films - there's simulated violence simply for it's own sake.

A turning point for me was when I watched Scream for the first time. Seeing Drew Barrymore's character terrorized and killed in a purely evil fashion just really hit me hard - I'm a father of two daughters, and all I could think about is what it would be like to come home and find that? At that point, the movie lost just about all it's entertainment value for me. And I don't think the argument of "that's what the director wanted" holds up in this case, as the rest of the film is so self-aware and satirical.

 

[Mark_Paul]

A turning point for me was when I watched Scream for the first time. Seeing Drew Barrymore's character terrorized and killed in a purely evil fashion just really hit me hard

I agree with this. I'm not a priest, but I thought that scene was nasty.

As for TCM, I liked this movie. It does not glorify the proceedings, IMO.

 

[JeremySt]

Wes Craven films are examples of pointless voilence and horror, made purely so the audience can enjoy see people being terrorized. It a voyeuristic thrill for the audience.

I love horror films, I hate Wes Craven movies.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Your view seems to be just the opposite of mine, Jeremy. Give me Freddy Kruger over Leatherface anytime.

 

[Andy Olivera]

How one could enjoy the last thirty minutes of TCM, then call any part of Scream "nasty" just doesn't make sense. There's more sadism in those thirty minutes than in the entirety of the Scream trilogy...

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Huh???

Scream is more sadistic than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre???

Scream when you come down to it is a teenie bopper tounge in cheek slasher flick that was meant to be a parody of slasher movies... I never did see why people think this movie is a parody though? Yes, the characters knew about horror movies. And? Scary Movie is more a parody.

Thats the first time I have ever heard that. It just sounds like a double standard.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is also pointless violence just like every violent film ever made if you want to really get technical. Ask a nun. She will tell you every violent film is immoral.

I seem to remember a girl for the last half hour of the movie being tourtured and terrorized... Having her head being held in a bucket while that smelly old aged grandfather (How could he be alive, He looked dead and stitched together) tries to give her repeated wacks in the head with a hammer...

Same girl being sliced in the back about 5 times by that wierdo laughing guy until the big truck runs him over...

A girl being hung on a meathook forever, then being thrown in a freezer while still partially alive... Remember that scene where she pops out really quick and the guy with the afro lets out a big scream that sounded like a woman and gets slammed in the head with a huge hammer...

In my opinion, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre glorifies the violence way more than the Scream trilogy.

Andy hit it on the head with his comment IMO...

 

[Scott Weinberg]

If you think that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre glorifies violence...well I suppose I just gotta disgree. Strongly.

And I could absolutely see how the opening kill of Scream could be seen as particularly brutal.

As for the rest of your argument...I tuned out when you told me to "ask a nun" about filmmaking.

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Scott, you really dont get the point. I really dont know how to even describe my point. Most wont understand it or will just dismiss it anyways. The basic point is they are both violent... Just the titles say that. It's not like were watching Gone with the Wind. It's all personal opinion who thinks which is more violent than the other.

If 30 minute torture scenes and hanging people on meat hooks isnt violent, I dont know what is.

All violent movies glorify violence to some degree. Just like all comedies try to glorify comedy (or at least they try). Otherwise it wouldnt be there. Just some movies do it way more than others. It something you could put on a scale from 1 to 10.

It's a total double standard... Just like some people who love bloody action movies will dismiss all horror as trash... Not my opinion. Just general reaction I have seen.

The point about asking a nun is that people are wanting to make The Texas Chainsaw Massacre out to be the second coming. When it comes down to it, they are both just violent trashy movies to many people. I am not saying this. This is just the opinion I have heard from many people.

If you ask someone who is against violence and hates horror, you will get the same reaction for both movies. They will believe that they both glorify violence and a disgrace to society. Because certain people believe that violent movies are a disgrace no matter if they are a work of art to some or not.

I mean is any movie with a big fat guy running around hacking up people with a chainsaw really something special?

Yes, people will make the it's a work of art in film making... And I know what they mean by that. The technical aspects, ect... The acting is nowhere near top notch though IMO.

But, the basis of the story is the same basis of 100 other slasher flicks. Demented guy in mask kills you. Except this demented guy has a wacked out family who helps.

To most people who dont know anything about the technical aspects of movies, it's just another slasher flick...

Like I mentioned before and should again (before I get flame hate mail, this is not all my opinion. It is just a general reaction on what I have seen.



P.S. Scott, if you stopped reading my post at the nun part, how on earth did you get to the glorify part which wasnt till the end of the post?