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...

Mother!

Alright friends and readers–this one is probably doubly filled with typos and grammar errors because I wrote it while angry. Good luck and happy reading. There are unpopular opinions in every realm. As a film student, you can truly strike a nerve when you say things like, "I fucking hate the self-indulgence of independent films and the way people idolize them." Or, you know, "Low lighting and slow pacing does not a good movie make." Or whatever. You can of course, objectively, understand how this happens. When you are creating art–when you are outside the system  so to speak–you are free to explore things (subjects, techniques, etc.) that may need to be addressed and that freedom can become intoxicating and go to one's head. While it may seem only right  or only fair  to respect and accept each creative endeavor that every artist undertakes, it is unreasonable to believe that the world will remain forever patient with the self-obsession artists have. Th...

The Ones Below (2015)

Standard disclosure: there's ALWAYS spoilers. Don't want the movie ruined for you? Come back after you've seen it. And - I'm still without an editor - typos and bad grammar await you! Enjoy! When I was like 12 years old, my young (impressionable) friends and I watched The Hand That Rocks the Cradle ;  Rebecca De Mornay  is so gloriously evil in that movie that we ended up watching it all the damn time — much to the chagrin of my mother, I assume, who got real tired (real fast) of having to see this movie about a million damn times. What can I say? She was kind of a saint that way. Looking back, unsurprisingly, it's pretty easy to see that The Hand That Rocks the Cradle isn't really a terrific movie — although it's still pretty solid for a 90's thriller. Certainly it boasted some fairly well-known cast ( Ernie Hudson  and  Julianne Moore  — whom my regular readers know that I absolutely hate, in particular.) but, the plot is actually pretty convolut...