|
|
Ron Miller's DARK CORRIDORS VOL. 4, No. 40 |
 |
CHAINSAW MASSACRE  Ad for the new 'TCM' |
Let's do it all over again?
Hey, what's the point?
of TheColumnists.com
The original 1974 version of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” succeeded despite its budget limitations because director Tobe Hooper concentrated on milking intensity and mood out of almost every scene. With some nifty camera angles and a cruel sense of malevolence, the film contained some very frightening moments, and arguably a couple of the most disturbing scenes I’ve even seen in a movie.
More on that in a second.
Although I thought parts of it skirted the edge of taste, it was a surprisingly bloodless movie by current standards.
Current standards, of course, stink. I consider myself to be pretty desensitized to graphic violence, but even I thought “28 Days Later” was a little over the top. The goriest thing about the original “TCM,” though, was probably the title.
Texas! Chainsaw! Massacre! Three of the scariest words in the lexicon.
The infamously-monikered cult slasher flick has been remade. The result is a film that manages, almost impossibly, to be less thoughtful than its predecessor.
Not that it’s ineffective. If performing the occasional “oh, my gosh!” sitting high jump in response to things suddenly popping up on screen is your bag, this is your movie. You want an adrenaline shot, step right up. And it has a commendably strong sense of atmosphere, which adds to the chills.
But the first, essential problem that must be confronted by those who would remake is this: What is it exactly that you think you have to add? Directors so rarely seem to have a real grasp on why it is they wanted to remake the original. The story, after all, has already been told. So what are you bringing to the table?
The remake problem is particularly acute with horror films, many of which used their low budgets to their distinct advantage. The original “Night of the Living Dead” was much better than the remake, because the black and white film worked better for the ashen-faced zombie aesthetic. “The Blair Witch Project” used its minimal budget as the springboard for the core concept of the film. Can you imagine a high budget remake of “Blair Witch?” It would star Julia Roberts, have fantastic film and sound quality, and yet, within three minutes you would realize that if these stupid kids had brought a compass into the woods with them, they’d have no worries.
But even where budget restrictions didn’t force the original to be peculiarly inventive, directors should still feel they have something important to say, rather than just more stuff to cram in. “The Haunting” was made into a new version which substituted special effects for atmosphere, resulting in a remake that stank on toast.
I refuse to discuss the
remake of “Psycho.” My primary objection to “Red
Dragon” wasn’t just that Ralph Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde
is the single worst casting decision I’ve ever seen. It
was that the Thomas Harris novel had already been made into an
excellent, well-imagined film--Michael Mann’s 1986 thriller
“Manhunter.”
I recently saw a preview for a new “Dawn of the Dead,”
and I am convinced the filmmakers are just trying to cash in
on the resurrection of the zombie fad in the “Resident Evil”
videogames and in films such as the aforementioned fake blood
festooned “28 Days Later.”
Anyway, the new “TCM” can rip and buzz and hack and scream, but it’s lost the power to profoundly disturb, which was what was so great about the original.
Neither film has much plot worth discussing, so I’ll just hit the high points. Kids on a roadtrip wander into the really, really, really wrong neighborhood, and are terrorized and worse by a furiously disturbed family of cannibals. With me so far? That’s pretty much all you need to know.
One of the scenes in the first movie that really shook me up occurred in the last couple of minutes. Our heroine is imprisoned in the dining (ugh) room of the twisted gang of sadists. They intend to let the elderly patriarch of the clan kill her with a swift sledgehammer to the skull. Two of them grab her and hold her, after one has brought out a bucket to catch the blood.
The whole bucket thing really got to me. It’s just so thoroughly dehumanizing. Killing this young woman was evidently not a sufficiently big deal that anyone forgot about the carpet. In that one gesture, the filmmakers got the point across that this young woman was nothing to this family but meat. In addition to losing her life, she has been utterly stripped of her humanity--of the idea that her life was valuable and important and noteworthy. I think it’s one of the worst things I’ve ever watched, but I marvel at the filmmaking efficiency of that scene.
But it didn’t stop there. The old coot was so ancient that he couldn’t manage a killing stroke. So our heroine has to endure repeated misses and glancing blows while the antiquated killer tries to muster the strength to do the job right. The ferocity of this scene makes an airless cry rise in your throat and you catch yourself as you begin to maybe, almost, oh god please no, nearly wish the old guy would just get it right so you wouldn’t have to watch anymore.
Now that’s a commitment to the macabre.
There’s nothing in the new version that connects with the viewer at that level. It’s all thrill-ride now. It is certainly a slick, well-shot and well-paced ride, which is fine if it’s an original.
But managing to be less ambitious than a nearly 30-year-old slasher flick is not exactly an accomplishment to jot down on your C.V.
If you’re going to bother to remake a movie, you owe your audience something more than a reasonably good excuse to indulge in buttered popcorn. You owe them vision.
©2003 by Patrick McFadden.
You
can comment on this column online. Please address your message
to either "The Editors" or Patrick McFadden. To send
an email, click here: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |