"But Last House on the Left is important"

One reason why there is resistance in some quarters to serious criticism of The Last House on the Left is that the film does, undeniably, have a place in the horror pantheon. It is highly influential, along with several of its contemporaries from the 1970s, perhaps most notably Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

But acknowledged influence should not insulate a film from serious criticism when it deserves it. The aforementioned Texas Chain Saw features a plethora of ethical concerns, and Marilyn Burns' decision largely to lean into those and participate in the film's fandom does not erase them.

These range from filming in extreme heat to repeated unsafe stunts to lesser-known but perhaps even more concerning events. One was the post-production incident when Hooper deceived Burns into attending the editing suite for "a few photos" of her eyes, only to keep her there for hours, resulting in such emotional exhaustion that editor Larry Carroll, who was in attendance, was shocked:

"I think for Tobe, the performance that he wanted, about the only way he knew how to get it out of [Burns] was basically torturing her, and he did. It was horrific."¹

As with Last House, the way the production ethics of TCM get talked about tends to be limited. Noting the dangers of having a live chainsaw on set, or the legendarily harsh 26-hour dinner party shoot, those are often discussed. But the incident described above, or the moment when Gunnar Hansen briefly thought he was the murderous Leatherface, those tend to be skimmed over if mentioned at all.

A lot of fans are far more comfortable in the case of both films when the conversation turns to the movies' influence. Whatever you think of the merits of either, that they were influential on their genre is undeniable. Here, for those fans, we are back in safe territory: Last House, like TCM, is certainly "important" in that sense.

The trouble comes when that importance is used as a kind of get-out card: "Yes, bad things happened on set, and that wasn't okay, but look at what the film gave to the genre!" Given that "what happened on set" in the case of Last House was that Sandra Peabody spent weeks in fear, was driven to start hitchhiking to get away, and was threatened with being pushed off a cliff, including that "but" at the end of the sentence risks implying that Sandra's mistreatment was unfortunate but excusable.

It wasn't. What happened to Sandra was the single most important feature of the making of Last House on the Left. Especially now that we're in the 2020s and should all understand that abuse is not restricted to incidents where one person literally says, "I want to hurt this other person", centring Sandra is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to reckoning with the film in a way that begins to do justice to the woman who was harmed.

A truth that many in the horror world seem not to want to confront is that it is Wes Craven's name and later reputation that has protected Last House for many years. His later existence as a thoughtful, humane man who created films that spoke more profoundly about violence than horror historically had does not change the fact that in the early 1970s he was something very different.

Craven is protected by the air of glamour that surrounds the auteur even today, despite recent years having confronted us with the dark side of men like Alfred Hitchcock and his outright abuse of Tippi Hedren.² Unlike Hitchcock, Craven did not himself abuse his female lead – but if Marc Sheffler's description of the cliff threat is even remotely accurate, the director knew that something was happening with Sandra and yet apparently did not investigate.

Craven is indeed important to horror. But that is not a reason not to look at his first horror feature film with clear eyes. Indeed, it is a reason to do exactly that. As I have already said, a man who "got better" at handling actors must by definition have started out worse. Today, for example, we would consider his decision to allow a situation where Hess "just went at" Sandra during long, locked-off takes of Mari's rape scene to be ethically insupportable.

The Last House on the Left is indeed important to horror too. But, again, that gives us a greater responsibility to examine it critically and honestly, not less of one. Horror fandom is not always good at this: witness how Ruggero Deodato's undeniably innovative Cannibal Holocaust (1980) tends to be criticised often for its on-screen animal killings, but considerably more rarely for very serious concerns surrounding the age and level of informed consent of the indigenous girl who plays the victim of a violent gang rape.

As we have seen on this blog over an extended period, Sandra Peabody was abused in connection with Last House on the Left. We can and should recognise Last House for its influence on horror and for launching Craven's career. But as with the other films I have mentioned, this profound ethical failure must not simply be ignored because of the movie's fame or the identity of its director.

Last House on the Left is indeed important. But that is not a get-out card for those who would really prefer not to talk about its production ethics – because what happened to Sandra Peabody in its making is more important.

¹ Hansen, Gunnar. Chain Saw Confidential: How We Made the World's Most Notorious Horror Film (2013). p128.
² Specktor, Matthew. "The Baffling Cruelty of Alfred Hitchcock". The Atlantic (9 November 2023).