"If ever a film should be banned, this is it"- Daily Mail

"This is about the sickest carnival of slaughter ever seen...why did the Greater London Council let this nightmare through?"- The News of the World

"Despicable…ugly and obscene…a degrading, senseless misuse of film and time" - The Los Angeles Times

Showing last night as part of Channel 4's Banned Season, over thirty years after its American cinematic release, does 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' live up to its reputation as one of the most terrifying and violent films ever made? Is its content so shocking and deplorable that the BBFC's decision to delay the British release of the film until 1998 was justified? The answer is a resounding, no. Tobe (pronounced Toby) Hooper's infamous film is now more a curiosity than the nightmarish vision that supposedly greeted cinemagoers in 1974. Watching the film today it seems ridiculous that this darkly comic slice of macabre (which is almost totally lacking in gore) caused such outrage and intrigue. So much has been said about this film it’s almost impossible to review it as a film in its own right, its influence is undoubtedly huge. Not limited to the horror genre there are flashes of TTCSM in everything from 'Jeepers Creepers' and 'The Evil Dead' to 'The League of Gentlemen' it also inspired three sequels (though none of them managed to recapture the original formula – in fact the series reached such lows that Jeff Burr the director of 'Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part III' asked for his name to be taken off the final cut of that abysmal film). This was one of the most original and exciting films to come out of the early 70's new wave and perhaps the most talked about horror film of all time; but it is also one hour and twenty minutes of film (costing a meagre $125000) and five teenagers having the worst afternoon of their lives.

In the blazing hot Texan summer five teenagers are taking a drive through the countryside. They're cute, fresh faced and groovy; Pam is obsessed with horoscopes and is Kirk’s "old lady", Sally and Gerry are another a hip, swinging young couple complete with bellbottoms and a perm and then there's Sally's brother Franklin. Franklin is whiney, wheelchair bound and overweight and the first time we meet him he's rolling down a hill and landing flat on his face after attempting to urinate into a tin can on the side of the road. They've decided to visit the grave of Sally and Franklin's granddaddy (there's been a spate of grave robberies recently and it's better to be safe than sorry) and then swing by the old family house. But by the time they get there they've run out of Gas and though there's plenty of Barbecue at the local Gas Station there won't be any Gas till the morning. On the way they've picked up (and thrown out) a psychotic hitchhiker who took and burnt a picture of Franklin and sliced through his own hand; but nothing seems to faze these kids. So when they reach Granddaddy's house they're in high spirits despite its state of disrepair and since they're stuck there for a while Pam and Kirk decide to venture down to the old swimming hole. Except the old swimming hole's all dried up and beyond it is a house in the distance. It's an idyllic looking spot, white washed and shingled, surrounded by sunflowers, with a parking lot's worth of cars hidden under camouflage netting round the back and a human tooth on the porch; but NOTHING fazes these kids. Kirk decides it'd be fine to knock and to let himself in when there’s no reply, he even decides it's all right to wander down to that red room at the end of the corridor; I mean the locals are bound to be friendly round these parts, aren't they?

What follows is less stalk and slash and more lambs to the slaughter. In its construction this is a very simple little film. Leatherface (the archetypal masked marauder) despatches with the kids quickly and unceremoniously with little of the invention of modern horror films and though the first half of the film is eerie, it is far from scary, even at times verging on dull. There is an awful lot of foreshadowing in the script penned by Kim Henkel and Hooper, the kids spend a long time talking about methods for killing animals (the means by which they will ultimately be despatched themselves) and the horoscopes that Pam insists on reading contain lines like "There are moments when we cannot believe what is happening is really true, pinch yourself and you may find that it really is". This, combined with some clunky seventies dialogue, can make the early scenes in the camper van seem more 'Scooby Doo' than genuinely suspenseful. Where the plot picks up is when Sally gets treated to the guided tour of life inside the Sawyer family home. Suddenly becoming exciting and filled with some hysterical dialogue the film really lifts itself. Leatherface being reprimanded by his father for slicing through a door whilst pursuing Sally is a highlight as is the line "Hey Leatherface, give me a hand with Grandpa" but I think you'll have to watch the film to appreciate that one. The mixture of normality with extreme psychosis and sadism is unsettling and amusing, but it's certainly not scary.

A lot of the success of this latter part of the film can be attributed to the invention of one Robert A. Burns, as Production Designer and Art Director he really goes to town. The house in which Leatherface lives with three generations of male relatives is an absolute work of art. From the makeshift human abattoir to a three-piece suite made entirely out of bones this house is the most menacing character in the film. The plateau of desiccated grandparents and dead pets looks like it could be a Damien Hirst exhibit. It's really astounding stuff and on such a low budget demands the kind of creativity that is often replaced with dollars and special effects in modern cinema; how many Production Designers make trips to Veterinary Surgeons to sort through monkey bones these days?

Invention out of necessity is a theme running through all departments on this film. Tobe Hooper and Wayne Bell's score is disjointed and primitive, mixed in the opening scenes with Country music and news reports it creates a tone of unease right from the start. Hooper used unusual instruments and sounds, which he recorded at home, to create something that isn't quite music. Though this method of scoring is perfect in this film where Hooper is really clever is in its absence. There is as much silence as there is score and this helps give the film (or at least the opening half) a sense of realism and rawness.

This is very much representative of Hooper's overall direction of this film. It is full of ideas and ingenuity and his passion really shines through. The film opens with a voiceover telling us this film is a true story. Hooper based his story (very loosely) on the legendary real life killer (and nutter) Ed Gein (who also provided the inspiration for 'Psycho' and 'Silence of the Lambs') but it is far from true. As a stylistic choice though, billing this as some kind of a reconstruction does add a further level of tension. Hooper's direction throughout treats us to occasional moments of brilliance; from photographs flashed on screen in its opening scenes, to the genuine feeling of claustrophobia Hooper creates in the kid's van, and the now notorious sight of Pam being casually placed on a meat hook; there are some great visual flourishes. Unfortunately the film doesn't consistently hit such highs, Hooper can be workmanlike and uninspired at times and there is little that inspires in the lazy way Franklin is dismembered. His inexperience can sometimes be obvious and you wonder if this film is the result of youthful fervour rather than true talent (particularly when his output since is considered).

The performances too are a mixed bag. Out of the teenagers the only developed character is Franklin (Paul A Partain). Partain delivers a splendidly irritating performance ironically making Franklin one of the only two sympathetic characters in the film. The other is certainly not our 'heroine' Sally (Marilyn Burns). The sheer amount of screaming she does in the last twenty minutes is enough to make you want to kill her yourself and though her hysteria is believable it isn't endearing. It is the Sawyer family that really get to go to town on the acting side of things Edwin Neal as 'The Hitchhiker' is funny and unsettling in his mania, whereas 'The Cook' Jim Siedow is pure comic relief and would fit in perfectly in Royston Vasey. The real star performance though, comes from Gunnar Hansen as the unforgettable 'Leatherface'. The nature of the part means Hansen is unable to use facial expressions or dialogue and yet he manages a performance full of depth and pathos. Though he is imposing through sheer brute force he is no monster. In his ill fitting suit and poorly made mask he lumbers around screen like an overgrown child, panicked by the endless stream of teenagers who keep coming into his home, domineered by a violent father he is a figure of pity and sympathy. Hanson spent time in an institute for adults with learning difficulties in preparation for this film, mimicking their behaviour until (he boasts) no one could tell him apart from the patients. It is evident in his performance, one which is so successful I guarantee you'll be rooting for him and not those irritating teenagers who keep turning up (uninvited).

For all its originality and influence within horror films there was one question about TTCSM that stills lingers. Is this film scary? There is no real suspense and certainly no actual gore (for a film with chain saw in the title I found this a little disappointing). The villains of the piece are either funny or provoke sympathy and in every chase scene Leatherface is so clearly out of shape you're never worried about him catching anyone up. I would recommend that you watch it and appreciate it for what it is, a short, strange little film that changed the face of horror cinema (just don't expect to be jumping out of your seat in terror).

I'll give you that it ain't nearly as shocking as it's reputation would have you believe, but hype aside it still gives me the effing willies. For me horror movies are at their most effective on a big screen with the sound up high when you're alone in the house. If you want to be scared by something then you should go out of your way to see a horror flick under these circumstances.

Why, why, why did you quote the Daily Mail?

I saw it last night, and it was good, but, I felt that the film was too weak and didnt have enough substance to keep it going. The film was obvious, partly because I knew the story before I watched it.

Anyway, for todays audience, its not scary, and hardly horrifying, you rarely see any blood, and when you do, its very little.

I think it should, realistically be a 15.

Todays audience don't seemed to know horror anymore. It's all blood and guts or suspense films.

I've always viewed this film as a physiological horror rather than just horror. The part of this film that all ways get the adrenaline running is the main female characters torture through out the night. Having all her friends killed, being captured, beaten, tortured some more, escaping and then being chased by a mad man with a chain saw.

I think this is why the film was banned in the first place, not because it's violent or gory. Putting yourself in her position, is what you need to think about when watching this film, and it works wonders. She may scream a lot in this film, but what would you do, have a cosy conversation while some old guy is trying to smash your skull open with a hammer?? You can sense her fear in her eyes.

Still a great film in my eyes, even if it has dated a bit, but you have to remember, things were a lot different in those days and films like this weren't rarely seen.

Couldn't agree more.

You make some excellent points but I'm not saying this film isn't scary because it's not gory. The most terrifying film I've ever seen is 'A Tale of Two Sisters' which is relatively gore free, the horror is all about suspense. However in 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' clunky foreshadowing doesn't equal suspense for me. I don't think it's a bad film, this is a three star review; but it's certainly doesn't scare me and I don't think there's anything in the film that justified such an outcry on its release or such a prolonged ban. My comments about gore were related to the ban, not whether the film was scary or not. It's not scary because of the lack of suspense, deliberate comedy, pitable/laughable villains and the lack of any real sense of peril.

This is of course all subjective. Think I'll post my review of a really scary film now...

My opinion (not scientific grounded):

It creeps the shit out of me, even today. And it's probably the most horrible movie of it's generation. And it's of course a very personal experience, like any movie (or other piece of art) and some a surely not effected all at by it. I even like the remake. And I hate the crappy sequels. And the movies which creep me out as much as this one are: Evil Dead 1, The Grudge (original), Mulholand Drive and maybe The Fly.

Zoe - what an excellent review that was, it is really interesting how so many films have been based upon Ed Gein a famous psychopath. If anyone is interested in finding out more about Ed Gein please go to:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers...ein/bill_1.html

Very interesting although very disturbing. If you don't like things which contain a graphical nature in anyway e.g. text and pictorial, don't visit that link.

:: Note :: Thanks again for that amazing review!!!

I completly agree, i think it is a tad overrated but if you view it as a capsule its great to see te 70's, it really shines through in the graininess of it. -was that a bit pretentious?

I feel it is a very uncomfortable film to watch, in the same way Last House on the Left and I Spit On Your Grave are. But, an uncomfortable film does not make a good film.

Yeah the thing i dont like about last house on the left is that it claims its about the brutality of the murders which is fine and i appreciated it as art but then i found out it was going to be a porn film. I think craven just changed it and then said it was art. Still fasinating though.

Then I liked most about 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is that he is one of the easiest movie monsters to avoid. Just don't go into Texas.

*Please note that on that last comment I meant to start off with "The thing I liked most", please refer to the forum about Being Online and Drunk in the Silly section for further clarification about how a mistake like that could happen. Thank you, that is all.*