Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

Ask anyone who has ever seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre about the film and more often than not they will launch into graphic details about the violence contained within the film. Simple fact is though that they will be wrong. Yes the film is violent, but a majority of the violence in that film either occurs off camera or from a wide angle not showing much- if anything. What the film really is, is a visceral attack on the viewer as the film grabs you and never lets you out of its firm grasp until the 85 minute running time is done. What people think the first one is, is exactly what the third one is though. A gory experience where the violence is graphic and almost always occurs directly within the shot. It could've been a lot worse- or better- had the MPAA not been so involved. In fact, what garnered the film a ton of notoriety at the time was the fact that the director, producers and the MPAA battled extensively over the cut of the film until it was trimmed down into an acceptable R rated film.

The MPAA originally saw a cut of the film and slapped the dreaded X rating on the film. New Line Cinema rightfully saw that as a kiss of death and began cutting aspects of the film out in trying to get an R rating that would help them to release it wide in theaters. The studios were still stinging from the second one being released without a rating (which royally pissed off the MPAA) and they wanted a commercial hit in this reboot of the series. According to the documentary on the unrated DVD, eventually it devolved into New Line cutting one or two frames out of certain shots and having to send the film back to the board over and over again. They did get the R rating finally and released the film to theaters where it basically died a quick death opening in 11th place to 2.6 million dollars. It dropped to 15th the following week and then dropped out of theaters. So while it was mired in controversy and bombed at the box office the question remains: Is it a good film? The answer, like I am sure the process of talking with the MPAA, is complicated.

At the beginning we see Leatherface destroying a recent victim when he gives chase to another girl looking in a window. From there the film turns into an almost remake of the original film. We have our protagonists that meet up with a weird hitchhiker and unsettling gas station attendant. A confrontation occurs and the guy and girl think that the good cowboy hitchhiker has been killed by a villain. Further down the road they get chased by Leatherface which leads them to crash into another car driven by a survivalist named Benny and begin looking for help. From there they start to see that these backwoods hillbillies are all sort of tied together in one way or another and things look bleak.

We get the return of a character which leads to a dinner scene that takes up a large portion of the last third of the film before an ultimate confrontation with the chainsaw wielding maniac. In one ending she conquers the family and in the alternate ending she sees that in the end they will never be defeated. Neither ending really works particularly well because they both push into territory that comes out of nowhere. The ending they went with is a groaner because a character mysteriously survives being attacked and in the other we have a more vague depressing ending, but it feels out of place with the rest of the film.

The problem with rebooting a franchise by using the basic premise of the original is that you inevitably lead to comparisons between the two films. That is especially going to happen when you use set pieces that are almost identical to the first film. By using the dinner scene in the third one the director and writers were going to bring up comparisons to the first film's very recognizable moment. What makes it work here is that they really amp up the craziness without incorporating the same vibe as in the first film. In the original, the dinner scene is about as uncomfortable as any piece of film can be as you feel dread for the woman because they family is only interested in hurting her. In this film, the still want to hurt the woman but there is a macabre sense of humor at play as they truly seem to delight in what they are doing. Also, they really play up the Leatherface as a rebellious teen angle in this scene. By finding a different note to play this scene with they make it their own.

Sadly though, that is the best aspect of the film. While it does things differently it still relies on too many of the same familiar beats of the first film. Arguably this film has the best cast of any with Ken Foree and Viggo Mortensen holding down their roles well and bringing some nice gravitas to the proceedings. So in the end you have a film that is a good but not great film but as sequels go it is pretty good.

Also, it had a very sweet Excalibur- Lady of the Lake- type trailer.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 Trailer

The Woman

Trying to be provocative in film can be a double edged sword. Often it can lead to a film getting noticed but also, it can lead to your film getting noticed. That being noticed can then lead to your film having unrealistic expectations being set up for it. Such is the case of Lucky McKee's 2011 film, The Woman.

Chris Cleek is a rural husband with a masochistic edge simmering under his traditional facade. One day while out hunting he happens upon a feral woman bathing in the woods and he traps her and takes her back to his farmhouse, chaining her up in a cellar. He attempts to "civilize" her in between terrorizing his family. It seems clear he abuses his wife and berates her about her appearance as she hides her lithe frame under huge baggy clothes. His son delights in beating up fellow classmates and makes them squirm.

His first attempt to train the feral woman leads to her biting off his ring finger and spitting it back at him. He bathes her in boiling hot water and then washes her with a power washer. Unable to take this his daughter Peggy turns off the machine and protects the woman. Later that night, Chris returns and rapes the woman while his son watches through a crack in the cellar door. He then leaves placing a candle next to the woman. This is similar to an action he took when his daughter Peggy was tucked into bed earlier in the movie. The implication obviously being that he was raping his daughter as well.

His son, later applies pliers to the woman's nipples and ends up hurting her which is seen by his sister who reports it to her mom. The mom goes to the dad who laughs it off which leads to the mom finally standing up to her husband. This is met though with Chris beating her unconscious. At the same time Peggy's teacher shows up and tries to garner some information from the dad about his daughter's behavior. He feels the teacher has uncovered the incest and knocks her out with his fists as well. The teacher is thrown into a dog kennel with two German Shepherd's and an eyeless woman that devours Peggy's teacher. This leads to Peggy releasing the feral woman and 10 minutes of revenge violence ensues.

The film received notoriety when it debuted and woman in the theater supposedly passed out. Another man was escorted from the theater for protesting the film which appeared later on YouTube and became a rallying point for the creators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3lUAZLB4JY

The simple problem is that- this film isn't that good. McKee has a pretty good catalog but here, he is trying to create something that has a larger meeting but it never connects. Most of his message stays on the outer edges of the film and not that I want a film to beat me over the head with its message it would be nice to advance it a little in the context of the film. The film is clearly taking misogynist perpetrators to task, and more fairly- passive aggressive misogynistic individuals- but it is so bleak and so vague in its point that you really need to draw connections. The candle thing is subtle and thus it works, but that is the only thing really that does. The boy has no arc and they never drive in that the boy is repeating the mistakes of his father. I think the stronger film here would've been seeing how the father reacts to his boy's actions as a reflection of his own attitude towards women. As it is we have a film that has something to say but tries to keep it firmly veiled from the viewer. The hype- not entirely the fault of the filmmaker- sort of detracts from that approach though.McKee has made great films- this isn't necessarily one of them.