The Duke On "Leatherface - Texas Chainsaw Massacre III"
Published May 07, 2004
The Duke On Leatherface - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre III
Way back in 1939, a fella by the name of Vijay Batt followed up the previous years State Express with the 166 minute epic Leatherface. Obviously cashing in on the success of Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Batt was concerned not one jot when fans of the murderising and the eating flesh left the cinema having sat through three hours of Indian Filmic Affairs and witnessed not one solitary meat hook impaling nor any lumberjack paraphernalia of any sort.
In 1990, however, Jeff Burr corrected this heinous act of false marketing, by directing Leatherface - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. To his credit, Burr not only included chainsaws, but also folks getting hung upside down and smacked in the head with hammers, and also a woman being nailed to a chair.
Some fans of Filmic Affairs have no truck with this second sequel to Hooper's classic fable. Take the comments of one Bryce David, for example, who utilises the bandwidth supplied by The Internet Movie Database, to explain how "flat and boring" this picture is. "The definition of flat and boring", is how he summarizes his musings. "I have to say that TCM 3 is the definition of a flat, boring movie", he elaborates in the first paragraph, again highlighting the flat, boring nature of the proceedings. Not only this, but "the character of Leatherface is remarkably flat and boring" also. Conclusion? "It's flat, uninspired and boring."
Now, maybe you were thinking that this individual must be on to something. He certainly seems very convinced of the flat and / or boring nature of the film. But the problem with his thesis is that he is wrong. Allow The Duke to explain why this is.
When New Line released this third installment in the story of the most fucked-up family since The Waltons, they decided that, in keeping with the actions onscreen, they should get all chainsaw-happy and slice the picture asunder. In other words, they took all the stuff that had to do with nailing hands to armchairs and so on out of the film, probably cleaning up quite a few of those Peckinpah-esque gunshot wounds and all that stuff. The result may well have been deemed flat and boring by some folks, most notably Bryce David.
But take heed, Bryce David, for the good folks in the land of Digital Video Disc's have gone ahead and released this slab of wonder in all its uncut, sadistic delight, and the result is a film that is not flat in the slightest of slightestes, and as for boring, well, that would just be a motherfucking misconception.
The Duke (Aaron McMullan to his parents and the clergy) is a Northern Irish writer, performer and insomniac currently residing in London. He is the creator of Mondo Irlando, wherein his scribblings and hollerings can be found. He is currently working towards the completion of his first novel, and his debut "punk / country / folk / whatever" album has recently been released by Ex Libris Records . You can also pop by His MySpace Page and maybe have a coffee and a biscuit.
- The Duke On "Leatherface - Texas Chainsaw Massacre III"
- Published: May 07, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Horror, Video: Suspense and Mystery
- Writer: Duke De Mondo
- Duke De Mondo's BC Writer page
- Duke De Mondo's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
El Senor Duke,
I have argued for years about the supposed rationale behind the orginal Texas Chainsaw Massacre. To say it is a parable of the Vietnam War is an attempt by Tobe Hooper and company trying to add allegory after the fact - and of course such numbnut authors as Carol Clover trying to add meaning to a film that was one of the greatest flukes in motion picture history.
Anyone who has interviewed anyone even remotely attached to this film (with the exception of Mr. Tobe) knows full well the simple completion of the original TCM was a miracle in and of itself. They barely had time to finish the scenes before a tractor drove through the background, much less attempt to give us the predicatable doses of Vietnam analogy. Any film made during this period (or after the Vietnam War) could have some kind of similar parable attached to it if we were bored enough to investigate. Such parables, made up after the fact, are nonsense.
Hooper and company drove out to the country in a pickup, made a movie under incredibly low-budget circumstances and just happened to strike gold. TCM is more an example of what resourceful, hungry, young folks can do under stress, than it is a parable of the Vietnam War. They created a nightmare with a chainsaw, and mimicked several excellent horror films made previously (Deliverance, Let's Scare Jessica To Death) and unknowingly made a horror classic. Put them in the same circumstances again, and they create trash (please refer to Eaten Alive, Hooper's follow-up with the same cast members, which has anything but Vietnam War allegory, unless of course, the alligator symbolizes Charlie).
Jim, Hopper was in Chainsaw 2, not this one. I actually quite enjoyed his performance, even if it was one of those gimmie the money situations.
Chris, thanks for the considered comments. Thing is, we're talking about a film made directly after the first war to be heavily covered by the media. Images of disfigured, dismemebered soldiers filled the airwaves. In creating his own American Nightmare, its difficult to think Hooper wouldn't have ben influenced on some level by that round-the-clock carnage. Like Film Noir, which dealt with America's lack of direction folowing WW2, the horrors of the late 70's / early 80's talked about the mass slaughter of America's youth. Maybe every director didn't set out exactly to do that, but subconciously these things influence the work, and are often much more evident than the filmmakers actively intended.
Duke,
we're talking about a film made directly after the first war to be heavily covered by the media
We're talking about a film made on a shoestring budget where a bunch of kids were hoping to break into the business AND make money. The artistic pretensions bestowed upon this film after the fact are simply restrictions the filmmakers encountered because they had no money - there was no artistic intention except to freak the audience out and make a notorious film kids would flock to see.
Images of disfigured, dismemebered soldiers filled the airwaves
While there was certainly the realities of war shown like never before on TV, nothing even remotely resembled the carnage seen in TCM. I think the film Deliverance, which came out in 1972 (?), was a more accurate inspiration. There were some ugly things that happened in that movie - the ugliness was just taken a step further. I would believe Vietnam analogy in Deliverance long before I would in TCM.
subconciously these things influence the work
Perhaps, but I thought we were talking about conscious analogy intentionally created by the filmmakers. We could go all day about subconscious analogy on every film ever made, doesn't mean it's valid.
Original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a conscious analogy of a Cold War, McCarthy Witch-Hunt America. The filmmakers set out to create such symbolism and also a damn good sci-fi/horror film.
I think Night of the Living Dead (the original) also has artistic pretentions. I think the only pretension TCM has is to scare the living shit out of the moviegoer with a recreation of a nightmare come to life.
Vietnam analogy is giving the TCM filmmakers far more credit than they deserve.....
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/15451)
I think somehow, you disrespected "Touch of Evil", one of the few movies where you can actually watch a director rot from the inside out on screen.
Plus, you didn't mention that Chainsaw 3 features Dennis Hopper in one of the many roles where, if you look closely, you can see him cashing his paycheque.