Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2: DON'T SEE IT

last night martin and i went to see texas chainsaw massacre: the beginning. it was stupid. very predictable and too much like the first remake. however, after my conversation with moya yesterday, i thought about a few interesting aspects of the movie in relation to the portrayal of thomas hewitt, the chainsaw murderer.

first, the movie shows the birth of thomas. his mother (as all of the members of the town where the craziness occurs) is poor and filthy. she's extremely overweight, serving as an exploited worker in a meat plant. her experience in labor with thomas defines his grotesque character with his entrance into the world. blood flows when her water breaks. she falls to the ground in pain and dies as thomas is pushed from her body. he, as we already know, is deformed. her boss throws him into a trash can.

he is rescused by a member of the hewitt family, who brings him home and raises him as a part of the family. and so the movie proceeds (almost exactly like the first)...

thomas is the typical disfigured, grotesque, misunderstood figure. his face is covered throughout the movie. he spends his spare time obsessing over his deformed face, attempting to "create" a new image with the skin of the innocent people killed. he is asexual- defined in relation to his uncle, who sexually assaults one of the women taken hostage. rather than seek a connection with anyone of the outside world, he hunts them down and slaughters them. but we never understand why. maybe we're supposed to assume it's because he is manipulated by his psychotic uncle. maybe it's payback for a life of torment as a disfigured child. maybe it's just "in his nature" as a violent freak. my point is that we don't know, because thomas is silent throughout both films.

even more interesting, the story is supposed to be based on actual events...

here are a few details from chasingthefrog.com that attempt to clarify the "real story":

How much of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is based on the real life murderer Ed Gein?
Ed Gein's homeDespite being heavily touted as "inspired by a true story," both Tobe Hooper's original 1974 film and the 2003 Marcus Nispel remake are only lightly based on the real-life murderer Ed Gein, who is suspected to have taken several victims between 1954 and 1957. Perhaps the most recognizable similarity is the film's house, whose gruesome content was similar to that found in Ed Gein's home (above right) in 1957.

Did the real Ed Gein ever wear a human's face as a mask like Leatherface did in the film?
The real Ed Gein did wear a human's scalp and face. The real Ed Gein did this however, to help quell his desire to be a woman, not because of a skin disease as with Leatherface in the film. Also included in his uniform, Ed Gein wore a vest of skin complete with breasts and female genitalia strapped above his own. -carpenoctem.tv


Did the real Ed Gein use a chainsaw to kill his victims?
Ed Gein's homeNo, both of Ed Gein's identified victims, Mary Hogan and Bernice Worden, were shot with a pistol. In November of 1957, police found Bernice Worden hanging from the rafters in a shed behind Gein's house. Her body had been gutted like that of a deer, and the head had been removed. Ed Gein was also the suspect in several other missing persons. The element of the chainsaw that was added for the film's story once again emphasizes the loose connection of the film to Gein.
-carpenoctem.tv

Who exactly was Ed Gein and why did he commit such atrocities?
Eddie Gein was the son of Augusta and George Gein. Augusta was a deeply religious woman, who preached the Bible to Eddie and his brother Henry on a daily basis. She warned them about the dangers of loose women, in an effort to keep them from being cast down to hell. She was a strict, hard woman, who never wavered from her own beliefs, which she ingrained into the family. Eddie's father, George, was an alcoholic, and Augusta viewed him as being worthless. She began a grocery business in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and when she had saved enough money she moved the family away from the sin of the city to a farm in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Eddie grew up shy and was ignored by the other kids at school, who saw him as quiet and feminine. If he did try to make friends, his mother scolded him. As a result Eddie turned inward and began to reside in the dark corners of his mind.

He worshipped his mother, and grew upset when his brother Henry criticized her. On May 16, 1944, while fighting a brush fire near the farm, Eddie and Henry split up and went in different directions. After the fire had been extinguished, Eddie grew concerned because his brother had not returned. When police arrived Eddie lead them directly to his "missing" brother Henry, who was lying dead in an area untouched by the fire with bruises on his head. The shy and seemingly harmless Eddie was quickly dismissed as a suspect, and the coroner listed asphyxiation as the cause of death. -crimelibrary.com

tell love that i'm angry

the painful reality of life: it's hard. not just because of these "systems of oppression" that we're always trying to deconstruct, but also the mundane inconveniences... responsibilities, going to work, paying bills.. recognizing that a "vacation" is a taste of a very privileged and ideal lifestyle you'll never fully experience. i wish i could move back to atlanta and live in a cute apartment, go out to lunch twice a week, a club or two every couple of weeks, be surrounded by black people, and dedicate myself to something that i wholly enjoy. is that possible?

which is why i've directed my anger towards love. first- i'm angry in general that we're sold this idea of happiness that is continual. it's bullshit. constant bliss and pleasure is bullshit. happiness comes as moments, periods even, but balanced with stages that are extremely awkward, uncomfortable, and painful... and confusing. and we've been sold the same image of love: that of a constant, unabiding, "i'll know it when and feel it," and uncomplicated state of being with another person. also bullshit.

several realizations & subsequent questions have occurred/arisen within recent weeks...
fighting sucks
how much fighting is too much?
how bad should it be?
is it possible to overcome personal flaws that cause such fighting?
how much pain (emotional) is too much?
sometimes i'm just indifferent to it all
sometimes one gives more than is returned
sometimes one loves the other more
fighting sucks
what if marriage is destined to lead to unhappiness?
what if i never get over my past?
what would happen if i just called?
love is a choice
it could always be worse
it could always be better
sometimes i'd rather deal with the bullshit and have good laughs in between than have all of my complaints resolved and no challenge to just enjoy the moment
maybe we'd make better friends
maybe it's all in my head
maybe i'll get over it
which is better: security in love or love that takes you out of your element?
am i just romanticizing the past, or do i miss it?
no one has all of the answers
why can't there be a guidebook?
we're sooo much alike that sometimes, when i get angry at him, i feel like i'm fighting against myself...
fighting sucks
is it wrong to take a break?
why do i keep feeling trapped by the boundaries that are a "relationship"?
i wish we never became official
everything was so much easier in the beginning
i am trying to run away?
isn't finding someone that dedicated more important that having fun?
isn't fun relative?
maybe it gets better with time...

if anyone has any ideas, please help me out