Skip to main content

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 Or If You Can't Fuck, Kill.

Like any good horror fan, I love the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Not only a fantastic horror flick but, a seminally important one to the horror genre, TCM is one of my all-time favorite movies. But today, I'll be ranting about a different animal altogether: the sequel.

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" is a comment on gender politics, the nature of sexuality, and how these concepts are taught to us at home (by our families, however bizarre they may be).

As I've talked a bit about in other blogs, psychos and sociopaths have issues with human interaction and thus lack any relationship skills or experience. But these human monsters still have carnal urges and when they are faced with those urges and their inability to fulfill them, they kill.

"Monsters" aren't socially allowed to have relationships and therefore are terribly, sexually frustrated.

When Leatherface has Stretch cornered in the radio station, she initially fears he'll kill her. But once he has his giant chainsaw between her legs - proving his desire to have sex with her - she realizes this and attempts to seduce him (distracting him from killing her). When her terror (which he understands) dissolves into sexuality (which he doesn't understand) he becomes confused and frustrated and cannot complete the act.

Unable to to fuck or kill, he uses his chainsaw to destroy the station in an impotent rage.

And as if this statement isn't clear enough, it's followed by a stereotypically male scene in which Leatherface is confronted by his brother who keeps asking if Leatherface has "gotten that bitch, good." to which Leatherface emphatically indicates that he did; bragging about a conquest that he can barely understand, let alone have made.

And take Stretch herself: victimized by a family of men, her final act is to emasculate them and wield their power (or giant chainsaw) for herself. If this doesn't scream, "women's lib!" and "gender equality", well then I don't know what does.

Okay. Pausing the pseudo-feminist interpretation for a moment, the other take on the movie is that everything is just surface value and is simply about the thrill of hacking other people to pieces with chainsaws.

So, now that we're off the gender rant, let's talk about a truly interesting twist: somehow the most classically out-of-control actor of the era (Dennis Hopper) looks contained compared to Bill Moseley's rambling performance.

Wrap up time.
Any smart filmgoer can read subtext into a movie. Does that mean it's real? Well, as one of my favorite sayings goes, "It's the truth, even if it didn't happen."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Witch (2015)

You know the drill - there's ALWAYS spoilers. Don't want the movie ruined for you, come back after you've seen it.

Also - I'm still without an editor - typos and bad grammar await you!

I keep hoping that the cultural obsession with zombies will end; literally every other damn movie that comes 'round seems to feature some sort of shambling, undead being bent on devouring the weak flesh of regular humans. Once upon a time, zombies have have been used as a metaphor for the blind consumerism created by our capitalist society, or the perceived depletion of resources by immigrants, or even the ravages of time and disease on our frail bodies. Now it seems that the deeper social commentary has been lost as audiences mindlessly consume "zombie fiction" in an attempt to keep up with trends. (How very meta - a film buddy of mine commented on this assessment!) All of this is just a sideways rant, leading up to my actual point: it seems that zombie may actually be lo…

Rebuttal: 17 Disturbing Horror Movies You Will Never Watch Again

When I'm not watching movies, I'm reading about movies. I stumble across all kinds of articles, blog posts, book excerpts, etc. in my quest to absorb as much movie knowledge as possible.

Now, I'm snotty and loud-mouthed and opinionated but I'd never begrudge another human their opinion. Seriously. You're absolutely welcome to have any opinion about any thing you want. However, I must warn you, if I think your opinion is stupid, I'm absolutely going to say so.

I've recently stumbled on an article completely brimming with so many idiotic opinions that I'm actually compelled to craft a response.

Here's the gist of the original article: there are some horror movies out there that are so disturbing, you'll only ever want to watch them once. I've have taken her original list and refuted her claims without pulling her entire article over. You can read the original article here.

Let's start at the beginning, with her opening statement:
"Hor…

The Babadook

Spoilers and typos! Enjoy.

We often look back nostalgically on childhood, envious of the joy we felt and the boundless imaginations we possessed. How conveniently we forget the other side of that coin: as children, we experience a depth of terror our adult selves continually try to recreate for cathartic entertainment.

When we try to bring those childhood fears to life on the screen, we often end up with movies about "things that go bump in the night," which is a somewhat superficial approach. While it does provide an opportunity for a supernatural experience, it ignores the root of our fear: the unknown. As children, we lack life experience. We lack nuance. We lack understanding. Not knowing creates in us fear. Yes, we fear what lurks in the darkness but we also fear the adult world because we do not understand how it works. The Babadook works to exploit both those fears.

The short story: a widowed mother of a young boy experiences a mental breakdown and tries to murder he…