Compare old and new Texas chainsaw massacre:
unlike the first film, this one pours on the gore. We see rotting body parts in plenty, as well as legs and arms being hacked off as Leatherface goes through his butchery. Leatherface is also approached differently, as a misunderstood child with a skin condition who only wants acceptance. We see much more of him in this film, but it doesn’t make him any less frightening. As for the friends, we are given subplots to their characters rather than just putting them through the nightmare. Hooper allowed the characters to be filled out by their situation, whereas Nispel uses what has come before to give the characters relation to one another. The camerawork is masterful, but much more action-like than the original. We see much more special affects and different camera work. As for the setting, the house is even creepier, but it seems as though it may have been pushed so far that it isn’t fresh anymore. Also, it doesn’t have the contrast of the first film. The colours stay the same throughout the whole film, and the nightmare of the ending is the same as that of the beginning, which isn’t bad, just a different approach to making the film. Overall, the film is indeed nightmarishly gruesome and wonderfully scary, making it a worthy successor to the original. The main difference between the two films is how the freakish events of the story are treated. In the original, the camera follows the events fearlessly, not caring what it is showing, just filming. The violence is treated so callously that we can’t believe we are seeing it. All the bones and skin and bizarre artefacts in the house are simply there, before us, without having to dwell on them. This is different to the first TCM as they were probably not allowed to show such gruesome scenes due to censorship in those days. The filmmaker’s don’t pay attention to them; they just put them there as though they were decorations in the house. In that respect, the filmmakers seem as sick as the killers, and so we are very afraid. But in the second film, the bizarre surroundings seem to be called attention to. It seems like we are forced to see them, like they were put there for the purpose of scaring us; therefore it isn’t quite as effective.
One of the major changes between the two sets of characters was the willingness not to give up on life and carry on fighting until they died. In the 1974 version it seemed that not one member of the group put up a decent fight to survive and all died in weak and feeble circumstances, in the new version Michael bay gave some of the group more fighting personalities as they didn’t die straight away and tried to carry on clinging for life as much as they could for instance when Morgan was kept on his own in a cell instead of perishing he managed to stay alive and get free with the help of Erin, also Andy after having his leg cut off and being dropped on a massive hook still managed to stay alive for the course of the film before asking Erin to put him out of his misery.Moreover the final girl actually managed to fight back against leather face and ended up chopping his arm off with a hack which was an aspect which played a massive role in leather face inability to kill her off. The characters improvement in strength and desire to fight off the killer is used by the director to give the audience a sense of the times that we are living in; audiences would not expect characters to be killed so easily as they were in past slasher a movie without thinking it is realistic.
unlike the first film, this one pours on the gore. We see rotting body parts in plenty, as well as legs and arms being hacked off as Leatherface goes through his butchery. Leatherface is also approached differently, as a misunderstood child with a skin condition who only wants acceptance. We see much more of him in this film, but it doesn’t make him any less frightening. As for the friends, we are given subplots to their characters rather than just putting them through the nightmare. Hooper allowed the characters to be filled out by their situation, whereas Nispel uses what has come before to give the characters relation to one another. The camerawork is masterful, but much more action-like than the original. We see much more special affects and different camera work. As for the setting, the house is even creepier, but it seems as though it may have been pushed so far that it isn’t fresh anymore. Also, it doesn’t have the contrast of the first film. The colours stay the same throughout the whole film, and the nightmare of the ending is the same as that of the beginning, which isn’t bad, just a different approach to making the film. Overall, the film is indeed nightmarishly gruesome and wonderfully scary, making it a worthy successor to the original. The main difference between the two films is how the freakish events of the story are treated. In the original, the camera follows the events fearlessly, not caring what it is showing, just filming. The violence is treated so callously that we can’t believe we are seeing it. All the bones and skin and bizarre artefacts in the house are simply there, before us, without having to dwell on them. This is different to the first TCM as they were probably not allowed to show such gruesome scenes due to censorship in those days. The filmmaker’s don’t pay attention to them; they just put them there as though they were decorations in the house. In that respect, the filmmakers seem as sick as the killers, and so we are very afraid. But in the second film, the bizarre surroundings seem to be called attention to. It seems like we are forced to see them, like they were put there for the purpose of scaring us; therefore it isn’t quite as effective.
One of the major changes between the two sets of characters was the willingness not to give up on life and carry on fighting until they died. In the 1974 version it seemed that not one member of the group put up a decent fight to survive and all died in weak and feeble circumstances, in the new version Michael bay gave some of the group more fighting personalities as they didn’t die straight away and tried to carry on clinging for life as much as they could for instance when Morgan was kept on his own in a cell instead of perishing he managed to stay alive and get free with the help of Erin, also Andy after having his leg cut off and being dropped on a massive hook still managed to stay alive for the course of the film before asking Erin to put him out of his misery.Moreover the final girl actually managed to fight back against leather face and ended up chopping his arm off with a hack which was an aspect which played a massive role in leather face inability to kill her off. The characters improvement in strength and desire to fight off the killer is used by the director to give the audience a sense of the times that we are living in; audiences would not expect characters to be killed so easily as they were in past slasher a movie without thinking it is realistic.
1 comment:
www
* Good reaserch on both of the films so you know what to write about them in the proper essay
*You compare a lot of key aspects in the film such as the lighting and camera work
* You have Used a lot of refrences to wider contexts such as censorship
* Good explination of some of the main characters such as leatherface being misunderstood
* Refers to the film makers being as sick the killers themselves, so the killers reflect the possible attitude of the directors
EBI
* Could refer to more theories only have final girl
* Try to refer to more wider conexts
* Need to talk more in detail about the other characters that dont play as bigger role
* Name more theorists when talking about the differences between now and the seventies
* Talk more about the zietgiest in 1974 and compare that to what is a sign of the times now and how it effects how the movie is made.
Post a Comment