What Happened Is True

"The unseen is much greater, and gorier, than the seen. If the movie had been more explicit, likely it would not be as involving, or as enduring." 
-Gunnar Hansen, Chain Saw Confidential

Lately, I've been grappling with this aspect of the horror genre--gore, bloodshed, splatter. Is it necessary? For me, the answer is almost always, no. 

While I appreciate the entertainment value of a good old fashioned lynching, it often takes the scare factor out of the equation. A perfect example is a film that I hold in utmost regard, and have recently blogged about, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). 

Funny, this film is still touted as one of the most terrifying, yet has virtually no gore to speak of. That, my friends, is why I believe the film is so scary. Horror is in the mind of the beholder. 

What can you imagine to be the most sickening, gruesome form of torture?  Whatever it is, that's what happened, and what happened is true. 

Teri McMinn as Pam, aka, "meat hook girl" in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). 
You never see the hook penetrate Pam's body, or see any blood (other than the splatters on the wall).

In his book, Chain Saw Confidential, Gunnar Hansen mentions that fans tend to remember Texas Chain Saw as being a lot more gruesome and gory than it actually is. That's because they filled in the blanks with whatever they figured to be the most terrifying, heinous acts imaginable...to them. 

As Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator) says, "It's great. It leaves the worst of the carnage to the audience's imagination. And what you imagine is far worse than anything that could be put on-screen."  

I most certainly agree with Gordon, as I've experienced some fairly grim imaginings. 

Alysson Paradis in 2007's Inside (A'L'interieur)

Julien Maury and Alexandre Bastillo's brilliant film,  Inside, coincides with the New French Extremity of cinema (a delightful blend of arthouse and horror), and is an example of what happens when almost nothing is left to the imagination. In this instance, however, the fear remains. The film is well-crafted, with strong characters and a captivating story. It also happens to contain one of the bloodiest scenes I've ever witnessed. 

Why the contrast? I just find it interesting how there are so many ways to successfully tell a horrifying tale. On one hand, you can credit your audience as the sadistic bastards they are, and allow them to create their own version of hell or, alternatively, you can do it for them. While both methods sound like a great time, I would argue that the prospect of tricking people into scaring themselves is super exciting! 

Climbing inside a viewer's mind and tapping into their fears is an awesome concept, for sure, but what about the artistic element of gore? Last night, I revisited Stanley Kubricks' masterpiece, The Shining, and was once again reminded that there is artistic merit in the horror genre. Big time. 

To end things I will say that, while I don't have a definite preference either way in terms of the presence or absence of gore, I tend to be most freaked out by films that require the use of my imagination. Whether that says more about those films or my mind, I'm not so sure. One thing is for sure, and that is the fact that I continue to be impressed by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and its ability to retain such elite status as a horror giant while omitting the gruesome carnage, amidst a genre thats popularity often relies on gore factor. 

Bloody good scene from The Shining