As Jaws raked it in at the box office, a separate
movement was afoot in the genre. A character known as Leatherface had been
introduced months earlier in The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre. This behemoth was not some scientifically created
construct or experiment gone awry. Instead, he was merely the mentally stunted
offspring of a group of Texas inbreds with a very nasty hobby.
The definition
of a monster, according to The
American Heritage dictionary (2001, p. 549) is “1. A creature having a
strange or frightening appearance... 4. One who inspires horror or disgust.”
Technically, Leatherface can be categorized as such. However, in the horror genre, I must
interject a personal set of additional qualifiers: it must be otherworldly or inhuman. Having never been accused of political correctness,
I found something very unsavory about the portrayal of Leatherface.
.jpg)
A human being
can certainly act monstrous. He or she
can also act like a dog, a penguin, or an idiot. Mankind’s ability to commit atrocities can
never be called into question. Still, in
horror, a monster is not the person behind you in line for a latte. Certainly it is not a mentally handicapped
individual, nor is it somebody born with disfiguring birth defects.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre must be
acknowledged as one of the catalysts that began the transformation of the genre
known as “horror” to that of “slasher”.
Whereas in horror, the evils
of mankind were represented by terrible monsters and denizens of the grave, the
slasher reduced the equation to its
simplest form: man is the new monster.
It is not
difficult to see Leatherface as a monstrosity.
Hanging a young woman from a meat-hook as she kicked, screamed, and
pleaded is certainly disquieting.
However, “he” is not a monster.
Leatherface is a mentally disturbed man conditioned by a family of
sociopaths. Despite his actions, at his
core he is indisputably human. If you
reside in the camp that considers the horror genre to be about monsters, then
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre cannot truly be considered
horror.
If I were to
apply the term “monster” to Leatherface, then that would not bode well for
James Espy. James was a junior high
school classmate of mine with the misfortune of being mentally
handicapped. In addition, he was
somewhat freakish in stature with a head that seemed twice as large as it
should be even on his gigantic frame.
Based on appearance alone, James could be considered a “monster.” It was well documented that James lacked the
capacity to discern between “right” and “wrong”. Horror is supposed to scare. The viewer should fear the monster. I was not afraid of James Espy. Likewise, I was not afraid of Leatherface,
and, I dare say, neither were audiences.
There is a difference between fear and disgust or revulsion.
Still, the genie
could not be put back in the bottle and what constituted horror was about to
undergo a shift. While a few stalwart
creatures lurked in the cinematic shadows, proper monsters were being brushed
aside. Horror was now becoming all about
the body count...and nothing has proved more adept at killing than mankind.
Ithink what is needed is a new monster. Vampires zombies and werewolves seem to have, present mastery excluded! The "scene" needs something . Would love your thoughts on Cabin in the Woods
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed Cabin in the Woods. And I was glad they did not give it a miracle "happy Ending". When all those doors opened, that was so fun! I enjoyed trying to identify all the "Big Ickies" as they made their screen appearances.
DeleteThanks for the mention!
ReplyDeleteThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre still scares me. I watched it about a year ago after not having seen it for at least a decade. It was the surreal quality of the cinematography and the weird soundtrack that really had my skin prickling. I actually winced even though I'd seen the movie before.
Leatherface (and the whole family) bothered me because of their depravity. They also bothered me because they seemed within the realm of possibility.
Many years ago, I was walking alongside a country road. This truckload of rednecks passed me. A few minutes later, they drove by again. The third time I heard them coming, I ran in the woods and hid. They never got out of their truck, but they stopped in the road where they'd last seen me. The realization of how vulnerable I was and the idea that nobody would hear me scream if they found me was terrifying. I think maybe I take that into my viewing of horror and it heightens the experience.
However, I do respect the idea that horror needs an inhuman monster. The Pumpkinhead--though it could have been done better--is one of those monster movies that has stuck with me over the years. We watched Swamp Devil during the Halloween season, and it was a fairly creepy idea. Another one I re-watched recently was The Fog (with Adrienne Barbeau). They were all good solid horror, but what really struck me and interested me about them all was the history that went into the monsters.
I'm not trying to refute your theories or the way you classify horror at all. I am just trying to figure out what scares me, what I enjoy watching, what scares me, and why. In horror, I look more for something that makes me wince and something within the realm of possibility than I do monsters. I want something that will stick with me and keep bothering for days--even years--to come. (Head on a stick from Wolf Creek.)
Stuff I could see happening is what terrifies me. That sort of stuff is what keeps me looking over my shoulder when I'm wandering lost and lonely roads. It makes appearances in my nightmares. It captures my imagination, I guess. After watching The Strangers, I got more scared than I've been in a long time just standing in my front yard in the middle of the night. Maybe part of my fear came from the memory of hiding from those rednecks all those years ago.
Sorry to make such a long comment and sorry to ramble. :-)
Love long comments. So...have you seen "Funny Games"? It is a remake of a German (I think) horror film. It has one moment of sheer genius that I won't spoil, but give that a peek...and invite a wealthy friend over if you have one.
DeleteI've not seen Funny Games, and the reason is I read somewhere they had a scene of animal cruelty. I wasn't sure I could get past that. I know, odd right? I can look at all sorts of things but not animal cruelty--even fictional. Wimpy, wimpy. But I may buck up and try Funny Games someday.
DeleteBy the way, on the remake, I've read the remake is a scene for scene remake. So, apparently, if you'd seen one version, you've basically seen the other.
There is. You don't see the act...it is an off screen yelp, but, yes...it is disturbing. Still, I do recommend the movie for a good chill. It definitely crosses a few lines. Underrated film in my opinion.
Delete