The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, as a franchise, has perhaps the most complicated and downright nonsensical continuity of just about any horror franchise. Five (technically six) sequels/prequels so far (Update: add one more in 2022), not counting the remake and its prequel, and none of them got it 100% right. I wont be talking about any of those other films today. I want to focus on the original 1974 film as a stand-alone classic.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, as a film, is something I hold quite dear to me. It features characters to whom I can relate, and of whom I am rather protective, as far as their portrayals go. It touches on issues that are important to me. Its aesthetics connect with me in ways few other horror films have done. It is an amazing film that transcends simple horror.
Good horror should make you uncomfortable. Good cinema should make you think, and thinking about certain things should also make you uncomfortable. For these reasons, this film can be difficult to watch. This is a rather visceral film even though it contains relatively little viscera, though to some viewers it may not be clear as to exactly why this is. The reason why this film works as well as it does, is that it takes these uncomfortable thoughts and wraps them in uncomfortable visuals that are also representative of those thoughts. Our sensibilities are being attacked on two different levels. One might even say massacred... Sorry, I won't do any more lame puns like that.
Food
In science fiction, one of the elements that make the story a good example of that genre is taking current issues in society and placing them in a futuristic or otherworldly environment. A similar standard can be applied to the horror genre except, instead of a futuristic backdrop, we take these issues and place them in a sort of nightmare scenario. That's what happens here. This film addresses topics such as family, capitalism, vegetarianism, and domestic violence, enveloped in a setting of fear and dread. To make it even worse, it all happens practically in plain sight behind the closed doors of an innocent looking country home.
After a creepy opening sequence, the first issue we are faced with is the meat industry. I recall the first time watching this, I found the b-roll footage of the cows awaiting slaughter to be more uncomfortable to watch than most of the rest of the film. I'm sure this was intentional as immediately after they pass by the cows, the character Franklin describes, in detail, the slaughter process. In addition, the middle part of the film consists mainly of the group of young people being bludgeoned, butchered, and led to slaughter as if they were livestock.
The brutality of these killings becomes something very different once you realize why these people are being killed. Your average homicidal maniac would need to have a real sadistic streak to bash someone's head in with a hammer or hang them on a meat hook to keep them out of the way while he chopped up another body with a chainsaw. Leatherface is no average homicidal maniac though, he's just slaughtering some livestock with the same cold indifference that a worker in a slaughterhouse would display. The other side of that, is when they have Sally's head over the bucket and start beating her with the hammer, the terror she is experiencing is the same as an animal being pulled onto the killing floor.
Humans becoming food ties directly into this film's commentary on capitalism and supply-and-demand economics. While it is not entirely clear exactly when the family turned to cannibalism, it is suggested that grandfather being put out of work by automation contributed to the family's need to find other sources of food. Grandpa was the best at killing the cattle with the sledge hammer, but he was no match for progress. Just like John Henry, he got the job done, but ultimately could not keep the same pace as the new technology. Automation made someone a lot of money but put the working man out of business.
Grandfather had a family to feed, and out there in rural Texas, like many rural areas, there is basically one company that employs much of the population. When those jobs are gone, tough decisions must be made. There is a demand that must be filled, the demand for food. Therefore, a supply must be found. The roads provide an unlimited supply of people passing through. For you or me in our current situations, hunting people for food might not even enter our minds, but in desperate times, ethics and abiding of the law are the first things to go. Once that pattern of behavior becomes normal, it's easy for the next generation to continue. There is not as big of a step as we'd like to believe between seeing people as exploitable resources and seeing people as food.
Folks
We all know that a person is often willing to take extraordinary measures when it comes to caring for their family. Family is a key element to this film as well as its sequels. The family element is an effective one, as it shows us what can happen to an average American family in desperate times. This could be our own family, and in each member of this family, we see something familiar.
The hitchhiker is the first member of the family we actually see but we don't find out who he is until later. He's the artist of the family. He specializes in making sculptures and furniture with human and animal remains as his medium. He also fancies himself a photographer. He's socially awkward. He exhibits a rebellious nature in the manner of a teenager or a young man finding himself, as demonstrated by the dynamic between him and his older brother where he answers to his older sibling but also harbors a resentment towards his brother's position as the head of the household. In the end it's his youthful recklessness that does him in.
The next member of the family we meet is the character of the cook (or "old man" as he is credited), named Drayton in the second film but not given a name in this one. He is the public face of the family, the nice old man who runs the gas station. We later discover he's the older brother to the younger members of the family, and something of a father figure, though not terribly effective in that role. He holds it all together, but barely. He appears conflicted by his lifestyle, selling the barbecued meat they make but wants no part in the killing, though when they are attempting to kill Sally, his expression changes from discomfort to glee.
Grandfather is present in this film, though not much of a factor. We first see him upstairs, seated next to what is presumably grandmother's remains. We're not even certain he is still alive until he is brought downstairs to the dinner table. Grandfather was once the patriarch of the family and is now the elderly member that must be cared for by the younger generation. Despite the family hunting other humans for food, there is respect and true family love for grandfather. The reverence for elder family members is present in just about any culture, and is perhaps even more present in this family than in many modern American families. You won't find this grandpa in a nursing home.
The youngest member of the family is Leatherface, a name he got for wearing faces of people the family has killed for food. He does more than just wear the faces, however, he becomes the face. It's as if he has multiple personalities but the personality is determined by that external factor. Another way to look at it is like a child trying on different costumes. When we first encounter Leatherface, he's wearing what could be described as his work clothes. Perhaps the face came from a person or persons who worked at the slaughterhouse, and when he wears it, he does slaughterhouse type work. The old woman face would likely remind him of a mother or grandmother type of figure that once lived in the house, and when he puts it on he mimics that behavior he remembers. When it's time for dinner, he follows a similar influence when he gets dressed up for dinner in the younger woman's face. He has the mind of a child but has to do the work of an adult so he dresses up and pretends, as most children do for fun. Of course, most children don't chase people with a chainsaw, but they might do if given the chance.
What really holds this family together, and something that many of us can relate to, is the dysfunction. Inside the home it's often pandemonium. The older brother is constantly berating his younger siblings. The middle brother is usually taunting or arguing with his older brother. The younger brother is somewhat fearful of his older siblings and does what he can to please them like an abused child or wife do for their abusers. Absent the killing and the cannibalism, we all know this family or even are part of this family. How close are our families to devolving into something like this? After all, as we see when Sally escapes, this house is located on a road people travel on every day. How many people have driven by, oblivious to the bad things going on inside?
...and Fun
I started out talking about how good horror should make you uncomfortable and that's where this film excels. From the creepy opening scene, to the awkward encounter with the hitchhiker, to entering the seemingly empty house with the strange pig noises, to the bone furniture, to dinner with the family, it's just an ever growing cloud of dread. This isn't the kind of horror film that gives you jump scares or has you scared of the dark. This one has you wondering if there is really something like this happening right under everyone's nose. Maybe this film is over the top in it's depictions, but there are cannibals and skin-wearers that have been caught, so it stands to reason that there are others who have not. If anything, this film will have you rethinking knocking on the door of that farmhouse on one of those back roads if your car breaks down.
It might also have you rethinking that next meal. Did that animal you're about to eat live its last moments in terror like Franklin and his friends before they became food? Is it really any less ethical to eat a human than it is to eat a cow? Cannibalism exists in the mammalian class, so there is no biological absolute that makes it wrong. At the very least, an argument could be made that eating a consenting human is more ethical than eating an animal that is unable to give consent. It's just something to think about when you're biting into that sausage you bought at that gas station out there off that long stretch of highway.