Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

→ in
Tools    





I guess, Jason, Michael, and Freddy all came after Leatherface and they are the sole antagonists in their films. What Leatherface is is something else entirely. I think the other three have a lot more in common and are part of the Slasher movement while I think Leatherface and TCM pre-dates it and is something else entirely.
So, I had the questionable experience of hitting TCM 2 as a teenager and didn't hit TCM until I was an adult. And if I were to draw some line between the two, where TCM 2 structure-wise, might feel more akin to the other franchises compared to TCM it's not so much the family, since he is the person wielding the chainsaw, but rather the sense that he's hunting characters, encroaching upon their domain. As opposed to TCM, where half of the kills are people knocking on a door, stepping inside, and then getting offed. Though, there are parallels to that and F13 (especially part 2) where counselors will go investigate off limit areas where Jason basically lives.

Though I guess you're presenting a position of "Zombie Redneck Torture Family" vs "Zombie Redneck Torture Loner" being two completely different species. Well, it at least gives a clarification on the answer as to why you feel it's different (and I did ask for your 'why' earlier)
(And re-reading back, Iroquois, also gave a very similar response earlier that I just blurred these two posts together in my head).



If there is any main distinction between slashers and TCM, its that the audience comes to know things personally about Leatherface. We are introduced to his family, see his home life, his moments of reflection after he's killed. While still just as much as a boogeyman as Jason or Michael Myers, he is less just the embodiment of evil, and more a character.


What I always find confusing though about all the resistance TCM gets as being labelled as a slasher, is why does Nightmare on Elm Street get a pass? If we are going to nitpick about Leatherface, Freddy Krueger needs a good hard look as well. Because that is far from pure slasher territory as well.


But, in short, what difference does it make? We know what a slasher is. We know that some movies have deviations from the formula. But there is more than enough connective tissue between TCM or Elm Street and the genre that there shouldn't really be any confusion as to what we are getting when we are putting it on.



It should also be noted that, in Stop Making Sense, Tina Weymouth is the centre of the whole universe. David Byrne is the weird brain trapped in a jar of the band. But she's the heart, the happiness, the groove.



"Slasher" is one of those terms where I don't personally have a solid definition (at a push I'd say "a human killer, on their own, working their way through a series of victims"?), and so I don't have strong feelings about how others use it.

Would I think of TCM as a slasher? I don't know. Maybe not. Do I mind it being labeled that way by others? Nah.

Also, I badly need to watch Stop Making Sense again. Don't get me wrong, I loved it the first time I watched it. But it's also a film where I think that I probably would get a lot more out of it now that the novelty of what was happening on screen has passed.



Yeah, I think the nomenclature has been popping up a lot more the last few years in the media bubble I've been in. It seems like there's just been a lot of John Carpenter/Halloween love in the past few years, and one part of the equation is, "Halloween was the first slasher," or, "x from Halloween was the first y." And then you get the Black Christmas, "proto-slasher that preceded Halloween by a full year," etc, and I'm always just thinking, "TCM came out years before either. Are we just forgetting this iconic movie exists?"


The only answer I can think of is, "Halloween defined the reference template that became the formula from which all the 80s ones are molded after." But then, I just hear ANoES get lumped in as an 80's slasher and think, "that fits the definition even less than TCM."


I guess it matters for the context of the conversation when discussing a certain subset of films.



Stop Making Sense - I've never been that big or interested in concert films. Maybe because I'm not that musical of a person. Maybe it's because they're often done for music that I'm just not that into (probably the latter). This one is pure fun (it also helps that I enjoy the Talking Heads).



I feel like the term "Stalk-and-slash" used to be more prominent at one time, only to eventually be replaced by "slasher". If I had to define what a slasher is, the "stalk" part would be the most important element. Leatherface & family are not stalking anyone, they're just grabbing those that are unlucky enough to happen upon them.
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



Now is Stop Making Sense a slasher...
Well, it does have a Psycho Killer. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Come to think of it, I have the soundtrack on vinyl and I've seen the Documentary Now parody, but I still haven't watched it. Better get on that.



The trick is not minding
Yeah, I think the nomenclature has been popping up a lot more the last few years in the media bubble I've been in. It seems like there's just been a lot of John Carpenter/Halloween love in the past few years, and one part of the equation is, "Halloween was the first slasher," or, "x from Halloween was the first y." And then you get the Black Christmas, "proto-slasher that preceded Halloween by a full year," etc, and I'm always just thinking, "TCM came out years before either. Are we just forgetting this iconic movie exists?"


The only answer I can think of is, "Halloween defined the reference template that became the formula from which all the 80s ones are molded after." But then, I just hear ANoES get lumped in as an 80's slasher and think, "that fits the definition even less than TCM."


I guess it matters for the context of the conversation when discussing a certain subset of films.
Black Christmas came out in 1974, predating both. If we’re going to go on proto slashers, although it exists separately from them, look towards the Giallo that influenced the genre.



Black Christmas came out in 1974, predating both. If we’re going to go on proto slashers, although it exists separately from them, look towards the Giallo that influenced the genre.

Yes, the basic template is Bava's Bay of Blood. Almost indisputably.


And the North American film that appropriated the basic structure of the slasher was almost equally indisputably Black Christmas (we can also consider low budget stuff like Andy Milligan's The Ghastly Ones, but no one saw that to bother emulating it in the first place, and it's also much too weird to really be a proper template for anything outside of Milligan's universe)



The trick is not minding
Correction. I was mistaken about the time line of TCM. It was released in 1974, the same year as Black Christmas. I was thinking it was released in 1975 for some reason.



Correction. I was mistaken about the time line of TCM. It was released in 1974, the same year as Black Christmas. I was thinking it was released in 1975 for some reason.

I keep thinking TCM is 73, BM '77, and Halloween '79. So all (three) of the dates in my mind are slightly wrong.



Victim of The Night
So, I had the questionable experience of hitting TCM 2 as a teenager and didn't hit TCM until I was an adult. And if I were to draw some line between the two, where TCM 2 structure-wise, might feel more akin to the other franchises compared to TCM it's not so much the family, since he is the person wielding the chainsaw, but rather the sense that he's hunting characters, encroaching upon their domain. As opposed to TCM, where half of the kills are people knocking on a door, stepping inside, and then getting offed. Though, there are parallels to that and F13 (especially part 2) where counselors will go investigate off limit areas where Jason basically lives.

Though I guess you're presenting a position of "Zombie Redneck Torture Family" vs "Zombie Redneck Torture Loner" being two completely different species. Well, it at least gives a clarification on the answer as to why you feel it's different (and I did ask for your 'why' earlier)
(And re-reading back, Iroquois, also gave a very similar response earlier that I just blurred these two posts together in my head).
I just think they're very different types of films. Narrative, feel, I mean, TCM is a freaking art-film that just happens to be ultra-violent. Doesn't share much with even my favorite Slashers which, again, have a form of their own.
I also don't consider TCM2 to exist really in the same universe as TCM. It's, intentionally, a very meta movie, like, "What if TCM existed in another universe?"



Victim of The Night
What I always find confusing though about all the resistance TCM gets as being labelled as a slasher, is why does Nightmare on Elm Street get a pass? If we are going to nitpick about Leatherface, Freddy Krueger needs a good hard look as well. Because that is far from pure slasher territory as well.
I completely agree. I just didn't feel like opening a whole second discussion. But, while I feel Freddy is much closer to a Slasher than Leatherface/TCM, and he probably devolves into the Slasher genre in a way later, I personally would not call ANoES a Slasher.
And I guess I care because it gives us something to talk about.



Victim of The Night
It should also be noted that, in Stop Making Sense, Tina Weymouth is the centre of the whole universe. David Byrne is the weird brain trapped in a jar of the band. But she's the heart, the happiness, the groove.
I agree.
It gives one joy to watch her.



Victim of The Night
Of course, if we're going to get really broad with our definitions, let's just call M a Slasher and be done with which was the first.



Of course, if we're going to get really broad with our definitions, let's just call M a Slasher and be done with which was the first.
Maybe Os Crimes de Diogo Alves could be the first, then? I haven't seen it (or either of them as there seem to be two shorts of the same name done in 1909 and 1911) but it's at least claimed to be the first film about a serial killer.
__________________



Welcome to the human race...
If there is any main distinction between slashers and TCM, its that the audience comes to know things personally about Leatherface. We are introduced to his family, see his home life, his moments of reflection after he's killed. While still just as much as a boogeyman as Jason or Michael Myers, he is less just the embodiment of evil, and more a character.


What I always find confusing though about all the resistance TCM gets as being labelled as a slasher, is why does Nightmare on Elm Street get a pass? If we are going to nitpick about Leatherface, Freddy Krueger needs a good hard look as well. Because that is far from pure slasher territory as well.


But, in short, what difference does it make? We know what a slasher is. We know that some movies have deviations from the formula. But there is more than enough connective tissue between TCM or Elm Street and the genre that there shouldn't really be any confusion as to what we are getting when we are putting it on.
Yeah, I think the nomenclature has been popping up a lot more the last few years in the media bubble I've been in. It seems like there's just been a lot of John Carpenter/Halloween love in the past few years, and one part of the equation is, "Halloween was the first slasher," or, "x from Halloween was the first y." And then you get the Black Christmas, "proto-slasher that preceded Halloween by a full year," etc, and I'm always just thinking, "TCM came out years before either. Are we just forgetting this iconic movie exists?"


The only answer I can think of is, "Halloween defined the reference template that became the formula from which all the 80s ones are molded after." But then, I just hear ANoES get lumped in as an 80's slasher and think, "that fits the definition even less than TCM."


I guess it matters for the context of the conversation when discussing a certain subset of films.
I completely agree. I just didn't feel like opening a whole second discussion. But, while I feel Freddy is much closer to a Slasher than Leatherface/TCM, and he probably devolves into the Slasher genre in a way later, I personally would not call ANoES a Slasher.
And I guess I care because it gives us something to talk about.
Gotta admit I've never heard the argument that A Nightmare On Elm Street doesn't count as a slasher. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that Freddy is explicitly defined as supernatural from the jump (as opposed to the others having supernatural status conferred upon them in sequels).
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0