The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and 1970s Incoherence in Horror
On the whole, American history throughout the 1970s is now recognised as ‘a period of extreme cultural crisis’ (Wood, 1986, p. 76), in part, resulting from a variety of contributing factors - a direct consequence of the lasting impact on contemporary culture the Vietnam War held and the abject horrors the American public were exhibited to, the widespread disillusionment in figures of authority and lacking faith in once-comforting systems of societal construction, and a saturation of social unrest merged with new cultural conditions. This brought about a strong expression of upset towards these issues by the American public, and resulted in a ‘state of advanced disintegration’ (Wood, 1986, p. 44) for the once-confident society of the 1950s and 60s. Unsurprisingly, this state of social confusion and the lack of direction it brought about (as well as the lack of a trusted figure to direct the public) is reflected in most of the decades’ filmography, finding an expression (either consciously, or within the subtext) in the consistent mood of incoherence present throughout. Much like the country and its disorientated residents, American cinema of the 1970s was unsure of itself, unclear on the messaging it wanted to impart and openly questioning the authority it had blindly relied on, and, without any ‘serious possibility of the emergence of a coherent and comprehensive alternative’ (Wood, 1986, p. 44), there was a national sense of futility and, as Wood (1986, p. 41) identifies, an ‘ultimate nihilism’ and structural ‘fragmentation’ which plagued the majority of popular cinema pictures.
Some identified examples of this incoherence can be found in Taxi Driver (1976), Cruising (1980) and Looking for Mr. Goodbar (1977), each identified by Woods as dark, nihilistic and confused; although they are explicitly dramas, they are also all horrific in their own way. Likewise, these three examples are all from established studio directors and writers, but this incoherence can be seen in independent, low-budget pictures too, most notably in a film like David Lynch’s Eraserhead (1979), a director whose body of work is famously characterised by consistent incoherence. As we will explore today, and to greater specify a genre - this nihilism, inherent darkness and national sense of disillusionment found a particularly strong saturation in the horror films of the time.
As stated, through the Vietnam War (and, subsequently, the undiluted news coverage of the terror it caused), the American public was exposed to horrific (and real) imagery unseen in any film previously. With this sense of fear, uncertainty and upsetting imagery polluting the social zeitgeist, it was inevitable that the popularity of horror was to soar (both within audiences, and directors exploiting the cultural moment), and along with it, the boundaries of vulgarity and explicitness were challenged in more difficult ways than ever before. This flourished, and subsequently proliferated in American horror films, now ‘more gruesome, more violent, more disgusting, and perhaps more confused’ (Wood, 1986, p. 63) than the relatively soft 1960s output, and thus, more equipped to directly confront the issues present. Nowhere is this graphic aesthetic more apparent than the low-budget, regional horror, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). As we will explore, Tobe Hooper’s highly influential nightmare interacts with both Woods’ (1986) and Berliner’s (2010) theories of incoherence in a multitude of ways, either throughout the physical film, with its consistently chaotic stylistic presentation, through the audience (and creator) confusion brought about by the perversions of narrative expectations, or, crucially, in the uncertainty held by the thematic content and messaging.
Firstly, to explore the literal, explicitly-presented aspects of incoherence, deriving from the consistently chaotic stylistic presentation Hooper uses throughout to unsettle the audience, and remove any sense of cinematic comfort. For a most-explicit case study, we can look to the nightmarish, almost-experimental third-act of the film - the ‘family dinner’ scene and eventual escape of the lead protagonist. As the family meal (itself a twisted perversion of an all-American pastime) devolves into endless screaming on the part of Sally, and evil, answer-defying laughter from the Sawyer family (01:12.02), in a striking ‘indifference to spectator curiosity and informational needs’ (Berliner, 2010, p. 51), the audience is invited, both in an attempt to exacerbate the impact of the horror and rising tension and visually align ourselves closer with our un-characterised protagonist, to better engage wholly in the chaos and structural incoherence of the scene, through a variety of filmic methods. As Hallam (2022) identifies, the inherent ‘chaos of the scene is further heightened through the editing, as shots collide together from multiple angles’ throwing off the audience with ‘men maniacally laughing and leering into the camera (01:13.02), to extreme close-ups of Sally's eyeball (01:14.42), to overhead shots (01:12.03)’ and an intensified dissonance of sound as ‘the screaming accompanied by loud clanging and chants’ all blend ‘into a cacophony of madness’. Whilst operating as a clear reference to Berliner’s (2010, p. 52) concept of the ‘rambling and digressive’ nature of 1970s narratives, fixating on ‘narrative detours’ and adding ‘gratuitous impediments to narrative efficiency and causality’, this visual chaos also serves to bring about an immediate sense of incoherence and visceral reaction in the viewer, through ‘Affect Theory’, and is the most immediate and physical generator of confusion and incoherence to be found.
Looking to the narrative, we can see a mental confusion inspired in the audience, deriving from the perversions of narrative expectations. This manifests in a variety of elements throughout the film’s narrative, though we can explore the outright perversion of both the nuclear model and the breakdown of all elements once significant to maintain a ‘functioning’ American society, namely, ‘patriarchy itself: social institutions, the family, the symbolic figure of the Father in all its manifestations’ (Wood, 1986, p. 44). Here, the idealism of the American dream is subverted through the now occupationally-redundant slaughterhouse family ‘brutally following the logical consequences of consumer capitalism’ and continuing their jobs, now exacerbated to attacks against their fellow humans, whilst the comfort of the nuclear unit is completely destabilised throughout ‘repressed, violent family tendencies’ (Williams, 1996, p. 189) enforced by the masculine and dominating antagonists. As ‘the definitions of normality and monster have become partly reversed’ (Wood, 1986, p. 80), the contemporary audience is inevitably left with further uncertainty, an inflamed sense of fear in the institutions they once held as comforting, and an overwhelming confusion towards the altered status-quo. Though, here, the strongest indicator of incoherence comes from the thematically-confused presentation of this evil family.
Finally, and crucially because this relates to the unconscious incoherence on the part of the filmmakers, when attempting to analyse the critical content within the film, we can see a pervading confusion and incoherence deriving from the uncertainty present within the thematic content and messaging. Though the film presents the Sawyer Family as the maniacal, and presumably-irredeemably evil antagonistic force, the film also affords them a level of sympathy, as victims of the unerring capitalistic drive and the ‘slaughter-house environment’ (Woods, 1986, p. 83) the ideology itself inspires. They hold ‘a degree of ambivalence … in the response they evoke’ and, as is common in horror features, are better characterised than our protagonists, who offer the audience little reason to care or align with them, as a result. Woods even goes so far to suggest that Franklyn (a disabled protagonist) is characterised ‘as grotesque, and almost as psychotic, as his nemesis Leatherface’ (Woods, 1986, p. 83). By placing the villainous motivation as a result of capitalist drive, but still continuing to vilify the family and offer some form of sympathy at the same time, the thematic incoherence is clear - the film itself is unsure of the messaging it is attempting to impart, and there is an unclear commentary to make on the role of the real negative force.
Significantly, these elements coalesce into a confused, incoherent mess by the conclusion. In a sentiment shared by Berliner (2010, p. 52), who suggests that 1970s cinema places ‘an uncommon emphasis on irresolution, particularly at the moment of climax or in epilogues’, Woods determines that the films themselves must be characterised by an inability (or unwillingness) to resolve these inherent contradictions by the end of the film. Undoubtedly The Texas Chain Saw Massacre provides no such comforting resolution, as the family lives, unaffected by the events, and the protagonist escapes, irreparably traumatised and broken beyond mental repair.
Reference List
Williams, T. (1996) Hearths of Darkness : The Family in the American Horror Film. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi.
Wood, R. (1986) Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Berliner, T. (2010) Hollywood Incoherent: Narration in Seventies Cinema. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Hallam, L. (2023) Cruel Summer: The Punishing Heat of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. London: Second Sight Films.
Filmography
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, 1974. [Film]. Directed by Tobe Hooper. United States: Vortex.
Taxi Driver, 1976. [Film]. Directed by Martin Scorsese. United States: Columbia Pictures.
Cruising, 1980. [Film]. Directed by William Friedkin. United States: Warner Bros.
Looking for Mr. Goodbar, 1977. [Film]. Directed by Richard Brooks. United States: Paramount Pictures.
Eraserhead, 1977. [Film]. Directed by David Lynch. United States: Libra Films International.
Comments