In 1974, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales described The Texas Chain Saw Massacre as "the latest discouraging entry in a horror movie subgenre that might be called gorenography--films that strive not so much to shock or frighten as merely to sicken." He wrote that "The Exorcist brought the cheap shocks to the mass movie market" and described a "post 'Exorcist' era" where horror movies have "no characters of any depth to identify with or cheer on as the monster approaches; there is little if any cleverly contrived suspense; and the film quickly becomes not a who-dun-it but a who-gets-it-next."

Thirty-three years later, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is still one of the best horror movies ever made. It was even selected for preservation in the Library of Congress. And The Exorcist's reputation isn't too shabby either. Yet somehow the sky has not fallen. Civilization continues unabated. The innocence of children and puppies remains intact. Horror movies still frighten as well as sicken and have characters to cheer on as they face cleverly contrived suspense, like Sally in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. In short, Tom Shales didn't know what the hell he was talking about, and he was wrong.

But those who do not learn the history of Tom Shales are doomed to repeat it. His blunder doesn't stop today's critics, talk-backers and morality experts from knowing for sure that these movies have finally after all these years gone too far. For real this time, no, seriously guys. And it all comes down to a line. A line that should not be crossed. Roger Ebert, usually a smart guy about horror, said of Wolf Creek "There is a line, and this movie crosses it. I don't know where the line is, but it's way north of Wolf Creek." Box office predictor/movie columnist Dave Poland wrote in his review of the bootleg Hostel Part II work print that he watched part of in his hotel room that "There must be a line in this world and Hostel II crosses it at the more basic level of humanity."

Okay, so apparently there's this line. My question is, what is the exact latitude and longitude of the line? "Way north of Wolf Creek" could be anywhere. And I doubt that Ebert and Poland are talking about the same line that Shales would've drawn to protect "the old horror movies" from that foul-mouthed newcomer The Exorcist. Which line should we be using? The one people drew in outrage when Psycho came out? Or Night of the Living Dead? The ones they drew in the '80s, like when Gene Siskel got mad about Friday the 13th movies or when all those parents thought the ads for Silent Night, Deadly Night were gonna traumatize children and ruin Santa Claus? And do we really think our children won't laugh at us for having drawn this line in the future when they are trying to draw a line for the grandkids? Shouldn't we just skip all that and not draw a line?

As a horror fan, a guy who intentionally pays money to see these movies, I figure I can draw a line for myself. A line is a private thing. I won't rub mine in your face and I expect the same courtesy from you. For some reason I don't dig it when they have rape in a horror movie. Kind of hypocritical, since I'm okay with all kinds of murder, but that's just my preference. I'm definitely not into the torture porn, so I stay away from the bondage section in adult video stores. As for the modern horror movies labeled "torture porn" I like some of them. Devils Rejects, Hills Have Eyes remake (but not the sequel), and Wolf Creek. The Hostels were okay; the Saws were semi-watchable I guess. One thing I noticed: they're horror movies, so they're trying to horrify you. Yes, a couple of these have scenes of torture in them. But these scenes are designed to make you wince and squirm. You don't enjoy it. Torture in these movies is what you don't want to happen to you. It's not a device for saving lives like in 24 and in cable news punditry.

Read Part Two HERE

*************
Vern is the author of the new book SEAGALOGY available here.

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us