In "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," Feeding Your Family Comes First | Hacker News Reader

In "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," Feeding Your Family Comes First

newyorker.com

44 pointsspeckx57 comments

> ...he met a doctor who mentioned a Halloween mask made from human flesh ... Ed Gein, the killer who converted corpses into lampshades ... Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the clock tower and murdered passersby with a hunting rifle ... was rattled by the image of his mother having a lung removed.

As I get older I have become increasingly unaccepting of another's art borne of pain. I allow that a lot of very good art does in fact come from pain of shyness, pain of abandonment, rejection ... unrequited love. But expressing that pain doesn't have to be a cruel expression.

I would say, just my opinion, if you haven't seen "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", don't bother. I am still unable to find something redeeming from the film (despite the author's suggesting otherwise).

I think instead it remains as a historical reference to the changes in "Hollywood" in the 1970's when drive-ins provided an outlet for underground directors making budget films that were outrageous in their depiction of depravity, etc. Scrub through it in 5 minutes or so and you'll get the idea without having to suffer the full effect of immersion.

Yeah the older I get, the more I realize just now depraved humans can be. I don’t take any joy watching fictional depictions of it, when I can easily go read “Machete Season”, and experience the horror that actually took place.

More often it’s a better use of my time to find and appreciate the beauty in life.

I also feel the same. I guess this is why I like supernatural and cosmic horror more than the realistic variety.

That's a great way of expressing it. I read the newspapers every day, and if you stop and consider what some other person or family is going through because of what's being reported, I don't know, I find there's pain aplenty there without needing to get more from 'entertainment' like movies or books.

Careful what you feed your brain, there are a lot of amazing things happening out there that they aren't writing about. It's basically 100% fear at this point, just different flavors. Because it works, you just have to keep raising the volume faster than people get numb/bored.

Don't need painful art because there is enough pain in real life?

"There's pain aplenty there without needing to get more from 'entertainment'"

So no Diary of Anne Frank? no 'Night' by Wiesel, Etc... Etc......

Sometimes art is also a cautionary tale of what could happen again. Maybe Texas Chainsaw Massacre is also in that thrust, a cautionary tale of society collapse.

I read "The Diary of a Young Girl" but not as entertainment.

To be sure we should be aware of the real horrors in the world — we should not be naive about these things as they will likely happen again and we might more quickly recognize them as they approach.

The original post objecting to this article, expressed the point that 'art' based on pain is not needed? worthy? should sugar coat it?

It used the word 'art'. Then later post someone said 'entertainment'.

This really splits hairs over what is 'art' which can be painful, versus 'entertainment' which should just be mindless marvel movies.

One mans art, and all that.

Anne Frank was a real person with a real story. It's not fiction. I think there is enough of that kind of anguish in the real world without inventing it.

I'll happily read essays or opinion pieces about bad things that can happen. I just don't like things like, say, Romeo and Juliet.

Good point

The examples I picked weren't fiction. Which weakens the argument.

But, not sure we can say they aren't 'Art'.

How about 'Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe.

That is fiction, and painful. And is moving in a way that makes you want to maybe do something to improve the world.

That was more what I was trying to get at.

Art can't all just be angels playing harps.

I didn't say anything about what art is; just that I don't want anything to do with depressing material when the real world contains plenty of depressing stuff.

"I don't want anything to do with"

Sorry, thought we were discussing this article.

But we're just discussing your feelings, which of course, you can feel anyway you like.

As I got older, I realized the supernatural wasn’t scary. Horror movies became boring. Every ghost movie made me roll my eyes in boredom. What became scary was the realization that the real monsters live among us.

I also lost all desire to see people being cruel to other people in movies when I could see the same thing on the news.

Isn't that the entire point of Scooby Doo (a television show for children)?

That is definitely my interpretation of it. I don’t know enough about it to know of that was the intent or not, but sure seems like it was.

Strong disagree about the movie. Today it comes across as an art house horror movie. Not particularly gory compared to modern gross-out slasher films (which I rarely watch or like).

It's okay to dislike horror movies. But to me, as I watch more movies, I care less about genre. Romance, horror, thriller, whatever

How time and context can shift our view of a film

It's not the gore (or relative lack of it despite its reputation?) that I disagree with, it's the depravity. Depravity and gore are orthogonal (although, of course, often along for the ride with one another).

I'm certain humans are capable of really depraved stuff in the real world, I just don't want to "capture it", watch it. As I said, I feel more strongly this way as I get older (for whatever reason).

w.r.t. depravity vs gore:

I remember in a director's commentary for Fight Club there was a scene where Ed Norton is on top of someone and punching their face repeatedly, to the point where the character is later shown as disfigured. They originally shot it from above, but it was deemed too gory, so they refilmed it as a view from below where all you see is Norton's face as he is punching and small amounts of blood spatter up onto him (this is the version that is in the final cut).

The director's opinion was that the original was definitely more gory, but the final version was far more disturbing.

I think I hear what you're saying. I have started to think of "depravity" (as you call it) as the "body horror" of a collectivist body politic. It takes the form of an agent of our collective, like some social gangrene, participating in a grotesque destruction of itself, the social fabric that binds us. Or alternatively, of the whole human super-organism turning on itself, in the case of disaster or zombie apocalypse movies where ppl riot and turn on one another in conflict.

In the real world, though not always, we're often better than the grotesque versions of ourselves we are forced to watch.

Maybe you're becoming more of a collectivist as you age, and you have less patience for the seeming distortion that is part of the experience?

As I get older, some media makes me anxious in a way that did not previously occur. It's not specific to horror, I find it can be as bad with dramas (e.g. Succession). I see that this is a relatively common change in preferences, but that some peers will still opt to over-consume "junk" 24h clickbait news cycles that also make them anxious. I don't understand that inconsistency.

I can still appreciate creepy psychological horror or the "fun" kind of schlock that doesn't take itself too seriously, but stay away from things that just feel too dark (e.g. Hereditary). I'm not sure if depravity is the deciding factor, it's kind of a "I know it when I see it" sort of assessment.

Very interesting, I was with you in the first half of your comment. But Hereditary is one of my favorite movies. And Men In Black is one of my least favorite, for these reasons. MIB is a disgusting film because it is utterly dehumanizing of the other. Aliens, although fully sentient and obviously "human", are fair game for cruelty, casual dismemberment, and mirthful laughter when their bodies are violently splattered onto other characters. Nobody really bats an eye because they're not Homo sapiens; it's literally the color of their guts which makes it okay to explode them.

That's only one example of the kind of depravity that turns me off of a lot of media, including some very fun Star Wars video games. The parallels with racist thinking are obvious to me; if any being can ask you to respect its bodily autonomy, does it really matter whether or not the creature is familiar? I'll probably get (as I always do) some angered responses that I'm taking things too far. I wonder what those people felt when they watched District 9, but perhaps that movie was too obvious about its protagonist for all viewers to generalize their feelings.

(So why am I okay with Hereditary? It's a literal demon. It's not framed as children's entertainment, it's horror; the filmmakers are very clearly not endorsing the violence depicted.)

To be fair you can make the same criticism of James Bond films or anything similar, with people gunned down wantonly for entertainment. More recently, Deadpool. Personally I'm usually unmoved about gratuitous violence.

I believe you've entirely missed the point I was making, as there are only humans in James Bond films and they're mostly (entirely?) "bad" people.

I guess I am missing the point, because I don't see the difference between those and "bad" aliens. Which don't exist. It's impossible to relate to your sense of disgust except by contriving that aliens necessarily represent people with different skin color.

I feel this already spelled out in my previous post, and I feel strongly that you're not arguing in good faith here by calling my position impossible, but I'm content to try once more if only for readers. I can't stop you from replying but I won't be responding further to you.

James Bond movies typically treat all his enemies more or less the same. The only scene I can think of where someone actually explodes frames it as a pretty horrific affair. Characters in the movie and viewers alike are expected to have an uncomfortable reaction when the violence is extreme.

MIB doesn't do that. When a non-human is killed, whether or not they're even a hostile enemy (and they aren't always), there is no level of violence and gore that's off-limits. And it's a goddamn childrens' comedy. Do you think the movie would be the same if the aliens were replaced with humans? Or human-looking "elves"?

> there is no level of violence and gore that's off-limits

This is a PG-13 film. It's necessarily limited. I find it weird that you feel that strongly about a decades-old film.

Gratuitous violence, to me, seems more entertaining when the victims “deserve” it. For example in Django Unchained. Or when it serves to introduce the villains who will get what’s coming to them. Unfortunately, common horror movies inflict it on kids having sex, or being rude. It is a bit of a turn off.

I guess but there's certainly no moral distinction to me.

What I get out of the depravity isn't of educational value; it's not about understanding what humans are capable of.

Rather, it's like a nightmare. Like one of those really dark Goya paintings. I wouldn't hang it on my wall but, for me, it's worth a detour becuase of how it makes me feel.

To each his own, of course. And, interestingly, my older relatives are moving in the same direction as they age (avoiding the kind of horror movies they used to like).

I'm interested in whether you've seen like Hitchcock's Psycho, which is probably a lot less shocking in the way of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a lot more often considered a "classic movie" but similarly based on the horrific acts of Ed Gein.

If you have, did you feel the same way? If not, what was different about them for you?

I saw "Psycho" probably over four decades ago. I think I came to it from its reputation — a terrifying film for its time, Hitchcock, apparently a scary shower scene... I would not have judged it when I was that age as to whether it was "self-actualizing art" or not (whatever that means).

My only recollection was that I found the ending shocking and unexpected.

Learning about it afterwards, I see how there were interesting aspects of "Psycho", particularly for its time, that went over my head when I was young: that the "protagonist" at the start of the film stole money and so should not have been sympathetic, that they switched protagonists half-way through.... It was a departure for sure for Hollywood.

I have been working through the "1001 Films to See Before You Die" for a few years now and so have come upon films like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" at an age now where I seem to have lost my patience for depictions of cruelty.

I liked "A Clockwork Orange" when I was younger, like it less now.

Another example, I had heard about "Pink Flamingos" from its reputation but only saw it recently due to its being on "1001 Films". Hard pass on that film too (although I like some of John Waters later films).

At least ACO has some redeeming qualities, like exploring the human condition, the nature of good vs evil, etc.

A Clockwork Orange is a really great example of how ultra-violence in film doesn’t age well. In the past I could watch the events in the rich folks’ home and understand the actions the Droogs took were bad, thus they deserved their respective punishments. I felt able to discuss their punishments and whether it was okay for the state to enact violence in response to violent offenders. But now… that scene absolutely horrifies me,- the sheer wanton violence of it is just too much and as such I’ve stopped watching the film entirely.

All that has changed in that time, I think, is that I’ve grown older (approx. 20 years). Presumably in that time I’ve better learned about the long term impact of violence. Perhaps I’ve become more empathetic as I’ve matured. Either way, it culminates in no longer being able to recommend A Clockwork Orange as a “must watch”.

(I’m being sensitive around potential triggers in my description of the scene).

Yeah, I don't understand when people describe "A Clockwork Orange" as a dark comedy. I don't remember a time when rape was funny, darkly or otherwise.

Strongly disagree. Horror is the best genre for interesting artistic conversations. What are we afraid of? Should we be afraid of it? How do we overcome it? These are great questions that are easier to coexist with fun action sequences without distracting from the movie's purpose.

Texas Chainsaw is a great film. It explores an uncommon american sociological fear.

I get your point, and whether I agree or not is besides the point.

I would suggest that the best place for interesting artistic conversations is lower budget films, which are often horror films (but any lower budget film is going to have lower expectations, and thus be less risk averse, and more creatively free).

To me it's the overall atmosphere, the cinematography, the sound design and the mix between gruesome horror and grotesque comedy that make "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" a truely outstanding movie. As others have mentioned, there is surprisingly little graphical violence, yet it manages to maintain an unrelenting atmosphere of madness and terror.

If you are a fan of movies on almost any level, you'll want to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I know this is all somewhat subjective, but many many people agree that it's a literal masterpiece. In my opinion any suggestions otherwise are born of snobbery or poor taste.

Your dismissal of other opinions sounds like snobbery.

I wasn't dismissing the opinion, but the advice. Fine, the OP doesn't like the movie. That's different from telling people it isn't worth their time. It very clearly is, even if you don't like it. It's like saying economics students shouldn't read Marx. Of course they should, even if they spend the whole time making angry notes in the margins.

Unfortunately though once you see the film to judge for yourself if it has redeemable artistic qualities or not, it's too late.

I said it was my opinion and I offer my own take simply as a cautionary tale.

Too late to do what? Spend the 83 minutes watching a different movie?

Isn't this whole thread really dissing on the article about Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that the article is snobbery.

And this guy is saying 'no, you're being a snob for not giving it a chance'.

And now you are saying 'you saying people being snobs makes you a snob'.

So, guess, everyone is full of 'snobbery' on this one.

Much powerful art emerges from personal struggles

I don't disagree but I prefer the art that comes of it be a balm (if that makes sense).

Oh man you rustled feathers with this. I'll try to further rustle them by saying that this exact critique applies to many body horror films, including all SAW films (yes, including the first one).

I actually avoided the Saw films for a long time because of this. I finally watched them recently and they were better than I expected. Still nowhere close to my favorite movies... Not even favorite horror movies... But not the total trash that I expected.

EC Comics (and now I am showing my age for sure) attracted me when I was 12 years old or so. I am not sure if the "Saw" films reciprocate (also have avoided them), but the victims in the EC Comics (and the "Night Gallery" TV series is another example) often "deserved" their gruesome end. It was karma ... or "vengeance porn" if you like (wow, with "Death Wish", "Walking Tall", "Legend of Billy Jack", vengeance porn was the Zeitgeist of the 70's).

Older me is put off by "morbid justice", but I recognize the appeal.

"Throwaway lines about barbecue and cuddly animals and planets in retrograde are, naturally, not throwaway at all, a point the script makes comically obvious when Franklin, who uses a wheelchair, asks his sister Sally, the only youth who’ll survive, if she believes in astrology. She replies, “Everything means something, I guess.”"

I don't understand how this makes the "planets in retrograde" mention "comically obvious?

Sort of made me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean

Husband and wife in Scotland, who lived in a cave and raised their children there. They would go out at night and kill people and then eat them. Supposedly they killed over 1,000 people.

Pretty sure it's just anti-scots propaganda: "ooh, don't go up there, you'll get eaten by the natives" is a story as old as exploring.

Side note: Propaganda is what a Yorkshireman does if he sees an accident.

This feels lifted from the Chapo Trap House folks: https://www.patreon.com/posts/movie-mindset-12-90285597

I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is other than as a love story to the movie. I guess I expected more sociological study of society or some such.

Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand?

IMO, it's BS. At best, it seems to be trying to conjure up and provide some deep non-existent insight into characters in the movie masked by a cloudy haze of meaningless verbiage, and at worst, seems to be taking potshots at traditional family structures for being the raison d'etre for seemingly irrational crimes.

Fifty years on, the film reads like sociology: assembly lines make the working class deranged, technology makes them irrelevant, and unemployment makes them hungry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com