Maybe because he's mentally retarded and also a victim of domestic abuse (he's constantly put down and beaten by his older brother), which probably makes identification harder.
Though less "mysterious" than the more monolithic baddies like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, he's more complex than them because he's both the unstoppable monster AND the scared little child.
I think the word is “intellectually disabled” nowadays. 😬
It’s a coincidence that just an hour ago I was reading about official change of terminology in 2013 from mental retardation diagnosis to intellectual disability because the old one is deemed offensive.
I mean I know the word retard has become an insult, but it was taken from legitimate medical terminology, it wasn’t the other way around.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/08/01/2013-18552/change-in-terminology-mental-retardation-to-intellectual-disability
But back to the topic, I like your description of Leatherface. He is more realistic and complex character than the others.
"I think the word is “intellectually disabled” nowadays."
***
Fair enough. "Retard" would definitely be a nasty thing to say to anyone. I find "mentally retarded" to be neutral and respectful enough, but am happy to go with "intellectually disabled" as well, if that's going to make people feel better.
On topic:
There are definitely many other horror film baddies that were victims before they became aggressors, often as a coping mechanism or for revenge (Pinhead, the Joker, the Penguin, Jason, Norman Bates, Sadako, most film serial killers, etc.), but I can't think of any other characters besides Leatherface that retain both their status as a continuous victim and monstrous aggressor at the same time.
Yeah, I feel the same. It’s about context also. Retard is an insult, but “mentally retarded” was a legitimate medical terminology only 7 years ago and was neutral and not an insult although I think people got offended even before then because of the misuse.
————
Regarding horror villains, yes they were a lot of times victimized in their origin but became more “supernatural” after (like Jason Voorhees,...).
Someone here mentioned Jason, Freddy, Pinhead and Candyman in comparison to Leatherface, that he is realistic compared to them. I agreed with that, didn’t really think about the others.
Wouldn’t you think Norman Bates was also victim and aggressor at the same time? I mean he was victimized by his mother his whole life, and after she died he technically victimized himself with his delusions of being his own mother because “she” continued to put him down.
I know it’s not exactly the same, but philosophically we could look at it that way. 🤔
"Wouldn’t you think Norman Bates was also victim and aggressor at the same time? I mean he was victimized by his mother his whole life, and after she died he technically victimized himself with his delusions of being his own mother because “she” continued to put him down."
***
Yes, that's a very good point, actually. I almost included him with Leatherface in my message, and should have...
Bate's original tormentor is indeed technically dead, but the persecution of his Norman persona at the hand of an (almost) exogenous Other (his mother persona) is still ongoing.
he's a powerful guy. and yes you do feel for him a little.
shareI'm not very keen on the sequels, but have seen the original multiple times.
What I will say is, basing it on the original and not the others, I always thought TCM wasn't purely about Leatherface. Yes, perhaps he was the most memorable character, but he was one of a deranged family. So the others played their part as well. I know you could say that Pinhead was meant to be a side character in Hellraiser, but he transcended into the main character in the sequels. But in the original TCM the villains felt more of an ensemble. The Hitchhiker was memorable too, for example.
Also, the movie seemed to concentrate on how scary and brutal the situation was that Sally found herself in. So you felt drawn into the situation, to sympathise with the characters. Watching the movie for the first time, you came out thinking; "Wow! That poor girl", not; "Hey, wasn't Leatherface cool?"
^This
It's about the whole family for me.
true. i started thinking of leatherface as part of the slasher hero gang when rollingstone magazine did an article with a page size picture of freddy, jason and leatherface in a field together.
shareI think it's rather silly considering unlike some of the others he only had one good movie. I've not seen the other Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies besides the first and the remake. The original is best. The remake was meh. The original sequels from the reviews I have seen of them suck. I hadn't bothered seeing the prequel they made but it goes without saying that unlike Jason, Freddy, Michael Myers, or even Chucky, most fans don't really like anything besides the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
shareThe second opus (also directed by Tobe Hopper) is pretty interesting too I find, even though quite different in tone from the first one. It's more of a farce oriented towards a criticism of consumer society and Reaganomics, same as 'Dawn of the Dead' was, compared to 'Night of the Living Dead'.
I agree that anything else in the "franchise" (what a horrible, horrible word, when used in the context of cinema or arts...) is pretty much worthless compared to the two films directed by Hopper.
part 2 was made to try and capitalize on the now / then (1986) money making slasher franchises. a deal was made with the producing company and the original director, if he agreed to make the sequel this will allow him to make some other passion projects. i really like part 1 and 2. 2 kept it still as the whole family are the focus, with leatherface gaining more sympathy from the audience. 3 was a bit of a letdown but i view it as better today. i think it brought leatherface more to the light as the main baddie, hence they called it leatherface: the tesxas chainsaw massacre 3. 4 i remember sucking, a very big disappointment. after that i don't care about any other tcm movies. so basically it's a trilogy to me.
shareTCM isn’t about Leatherface it’s about the family. It’s not just one killer. I enjoy TCM 2022 a lot but he is really nothing with the solid family that helps him survive. That’s why you hear people say TCM is their favorite horror movie or one of their favorite slashers but not character. TCM had the best murderous family but there aren't many of those
share