A Few Thoughts on TCM!
While I didn’t think Texas Chainsaw Massacre was really all that incredible and agree with Clover when
she says movies in the slasher genre are at the “bottom of the horror heap,” quality wise, I really enjoyed
reading the theory about them (Clover 21). I watched the movie before reading the chapters, and then
again after reading them. My initial reaction to the film was not that of disgust at the bodily excess, that
which Williams states is an appeal to the mainly adolescent male audience, but more amusement of the
ridiculousness and spectacle of it all.
reading the theory about them (Clover 21). I watched the movie before reading the chapters, and then
again after reading them. My initial reaction to the film was not that of disgust at the bodily excess, that
which Williams states is an appeal to the mainly adolescent male audience, but more amusement of the
ridiculousness and spectacle of it all.
As I was rewatching TCM I was really interested to watch both Williams’ and Clover’s theories play out
because the movie really did follow it to a T, so much so that we (me, Alison (uwu), and Rita (uwu!)) got
distracted from the movie at the ridiculousness of it. There were two instances of this. The first one was
when the first man (I forgot his name) was killed. It was so incredibly anticlimactic, but it perfectly
followed what Clover said would happen-- “the death of a male is nearly alway swift [and]... he has no
time to react or register terror”. We collectively guffawed when we realized, yes, that’s it. The second
time was much later in the film when the exact opposite happened. Our final girl, Sally, is tied to her chair
at dinner with the family. She has made it longer than the rest, and because of this, “perceives the full
extent of the preceding horror-- [she] is abject terror personified” (Clover 35).She screams in an extreme
close up (and then an even more extreme close up of her eye, and then somehow an even more
extremely extreme close up of her eye) for…. what feels like hours. We couldn’t stop laughing, but it did
perfectly follow the trope.
because the movie really did follow it to a T, so much so that we (me, Alison (uwu), and Rita (uwu!)) got
distracted from the movie at the ridiculousness of it. There were two instances of this. The first one was
when the first man (I forgot his name) was killed. It was so incredibly anticlimactic, but it perfectly
followed what Clover said would happen-- “the death of a male is nearly alway swift [and]... he has no
time to react or register terror”. We collectively guffawed when we realized, yes, that’s it. The second
time was much later in the film when the exact opposite happened. Our final girl, Sally, is tied to her chair
at dinner with the family. She has made it longer than the rest, and because of this, “perceives the full
extent of the preceding horror-- [she] is abject terror personified” (Clover 35).She screams in an extreme
close up (and then an even more extreme close up of her eye, and then somehow an even more
extremely extreme close up of her eye) for…. what feels like hours. We couldn’t stop laughing, but it did
perfectly follow the trope.
One question I was left with after reading all of this theory and seeing the motifs repeated from slasher
film to slasher film is: is this a conscious decision by the filmmaker to follow these tropes as seen in so
many other wildly successful slasher films (slashing weapons rather than a gun, drawn out female torture
and quick murder of males, the final girl, etc) or are these cinematic choices motivated by a collective
psyche? In other words, have the filmmakers read the theory, studied the minds of their target audience, and make the informed decision to repeat these themes in order to have the biggest popularity, or are they driven to include these tropes in their films by the same subconscious motivations that drive their audiences to go see it? Let me know what you guys think because I really have been interested in this!
film to slasher film is: is this a conscious decision by the filmmaker to follow these tropes as seen in so
many other wildly successful slasher films (slashing weapons rather than a gun, drawn out female torture
and quick murder of males, the final girl, etc) or are these cinematic choices motivated by a collective
psyche? In other words, have the filmmakers read the theory, studied the minds of their target audience, and make the informed decision to repeat these themes in order to have the biggest popularity, or are they driven to include these tropes in their films by the same subconscious motivations that drive their audiences to go see it? Let me know what you guys think because I really have been interested in this!
I also found quite a bit of it hilarious instead of scary, especially when Sally would go on seemingly forever screaming. It was so over the top that It sometimes felt more like a comedy. I also wonder if many successful filmmakers read and truly understand theory, or if some of the subliminal messages that we catch onto are simply coincidence. I think something can be said for both scenarios--there could be beauty in the accidentalness of filmmaking too, so it would be fascinating to know just how many filmmakers really dive into theory, versus rely on instincts to bring about an important message.
ReplyDelete-Chelsea
I laughed almost in every scene. Maybe that is bad, but I can totally feel you on that part. But as far as your questions goes, I really think the two work at the same time. They may not formally know the theory, but they know the formula and follow it flawlessly. But some of the readings included direct quotes from directors who seemed to know what they were doing as far as theory is concerned so it most likely varies from slasher to slasher lol.
ReplyDeleteHehehe I am so glad we got to watch this together :D. I find the question you pose very interesting, and to be honest, I am not totally sure, but I feel like the extreme similarities between these movies are trends that the directors saw do well and replicated them. While I do think the choices is interesting on a psychoanalytic level, I feel that the some of the directors of these movies were thinking more about what would sell their movie. The psychoanalytic perspective is all about unconscious drives in doing things, and I think that is why it is really interesting to see such common links in plot decisions (like the Final Girl, the gender confusion of killer, and the sexualization of female characters) across so many different films.
ReplyDeleteYes! I have two main thoughts after reading your post. The first of which is... I saw TxCM once when I was in high school with a friend of mine, and we were cracking up to whole time, and like adding commentary and whatnot. This time, I watched the move by myself, and I found it sort of funny, but I also was kind of tense the whole time, because I didn't laugh, and I didn't really feel the need to laugh. I know there are all these studies about why we laugh when others are present and why we don't bother when we're alone, but I'm gonna disregard all these theories for now because my MAIN point is that all this really got me thinking about what Amy brought up in the discussion today—how in the 90s, people didn't laugh at this movie, and then it just switched in the early '00s. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in the fact that like, I don't know, the internet has desensitized us to everything, and collective societal fears shifted, and the slasher genre got too predictable, yada yada yada. But I'll tell ya one thing: that scene when the first guy gets conked on the head has actually always terrified me because of the way he just starts twitching wildly before Leatherface whacks him again. I know the guy in the wheelchair was talking about how the same thing happens to cows, so this kinda works in favor of the cannibal thing, but what this image always makes me think of (because I've never seen a cow being beaten with a mallet, thank God) is the way you smoosh a spider and before it dies its legs are still kinda moving. Yuck. I'm not one of those people who "takes spiders outside." Sorry, but if that lil' bitch is in my territory, I'm not just gonna let it stick around.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the other thing that your last question made me think about it how TxCM is, of course, the daughter of Psycho (1960), but I'm pretty sure it is the FIRST American slasher films, in terms of how Clover defines the slasher. So, Hooper is doing something pretty original (I'm sure he was ripping off some German film or something that came just before it that I wouldn't know about because I'm not cultured enough, God forgive me, but I'm working under an unsubstantiated assumption), and so even if he was thinking really long and hard about the how he could use Freudian theories to manipulate the viewer (which tbh, I don't think he was), then he STILL came up with this formulaic narrative that probably paved the way for like, the whole next decade and a half of slashers.
I agree with Alison that most popular film is driven by the profit motive and the desire to satisfy audiences than any other motive. I also agree with you Karin that this film is very much following from a tradition of horror film that most definitely includes Psycho. I think one of the interesting things about studying genre is that it allows you to understand patterns and innovations in film conventions and tropes. I have to admit that I am still surprised that people find this film funny. I dont find it funny at all. I do occasionally find it cringey but that's the closet I get to humor as an emotion in this film. Cannabalism is just never funny to me...
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with Amy on this one, since I originally found it funny until the final scene, and then I was just kind of disturbed by all of them taunting her and the whole eating her friends thing... but I did kind of laugh when the old guy tried to kill her because it was so pathetic. I think a lot of filmmakers are aware of the theory, mostly because like Alison said, it kind of drives profit to an extent, because so much of horror film is driven by predictability.
ReplyDelete