Horror Debate: What is the FIRST Slasher film?

I am making this because this will be a VERY interesting discussion amongst us Horror fans and its time to see WHAT the slasher genre is build as.

I'll take some remarks from Paste Magazine and give my own critism about it....so Paste Magazine states this:

Paste Magazine wrote:Although Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho provided early inspiration,some argue the first authentic slasher film was Black Christmas, although as the pacing is far off from a typical slasher film. There are many who could also fairly argue if you include black Christmas you must include psycho.

I would say...how could horror fans consider Black Christmas the first slasher when Texas chainsaw massarce was two months prior?

As Paste Magazine puts for a Definition of a Slasher film as:

1. The Slasher Villians are human or were Human.

2. The Slasher choses to Kill or is Compelled to Kill.

3. The Slasher film focus on a Body count.

4. The Slasher movie has a Final Girl or Final Boy.

5. The Slasher film has constructed and graphic Kills.

6. The Slasher film RARELY focused on police/detectives.

For me going by these clear known tropes for slashers....then wouldnt the Texas Chainsaw Massarce be the first modern slasher?

Leatherface is Human

Leatherface choses to kill

TCM focuses on a Body count

TCM has a sole survivor who is a final girl

TCM/Leatherface is entirely based on killing and gore.

TCM doesnt focus on the police or detectives.

So I heavily believe that The Texas Chainsaw Massarce (1974) is the FIRST of Slasher films.

I see Peeping Tom and Psycho films as mere Thrillers and Psychological based horror than Slasher Horror.

Note: Halloween 1978 WILL not be added due to the fact these previous films are older, and Halloween 1978 by far is credited as the film that reshaped the Horror Genre, but it wasnt the FIRST.

Ewe... I will gladly take your bait sir! In the past, I've never so much viewed Psycho as the first slasher film, as I've viewed it as the first 'modern' horror movie. Before 1960, the Horror genre had basically been reduced to giant monster or Sci-Fi style alien invasion films that were largely targeted towards children. No, that's not a joke. Hammer Studios was making strides in Britain with their takes on the old Universal Monster Films, but as far as Hollywood was concerned, Horror films were still kids movies with only a few scattered exceptions.

Then Psycho came along and changed all that. That film gave the genre it's balls back, making it alright for films to be scary again, and geared towards a more mature audience. Pretty much every horror franchise that's come along since has Psycho to thank for its existence in one way or another. No, it's not a straight up slasher according to the guidelines, but it was definitely the prototype for the genre and pretty much modern horror was we know it. The Godfather of modern horror if you will.

That being said, while I'd lean towards TCM as the first 'true' slasher, I can't discount Psycho entirely just because it doesn't meet a set of guidelines that didn't exist yet and wouldn't until the genre was fully fleshed out a couple decades later. Hitchcock and others were still figuring out what they could get away with. It's also hard for me to not consider Norman Bates a slasher, so wouldn't that mean that Psycho has to be a slasher then? I think I'm starting to confuse myself...

Lol, I think I might have to vote for Psycho just to avoid arguing with myself. Psycho isn't even anywhere close to one of my favorite horror films, but I do appreciate it's place in history. I don't think a lot of horror fans alive today realize the massive impact that film had on the genre.

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:Ewe... I will gladly take your bait sir! In the past, I've never so much viewed Psycho as the first slasher film, as I've viewed it as the first 'modern' horror movie. Before 1960, the Horror genre had basically been reduced to giant monster or Sci-Fi style alien invasion films that were largely targeted towards children. No, that's not a joke. Hammer Studios was making strides in Britain with their takes on the old Universal Monster Films, but as far as Hollywood was concerned, Horror films were still kids movies with only a few scattered exceptions.

Then Psycho came along and changed all that. That film gave the genre it's balls back, making it alright for films to be scary again, and geared towards a more mature audience. Pretty much every horror franchise that's come along since has Psycho to thank for its existence in one way or another. No, it's not a straight up slasher according to the guidelines, but it was definitely the prototype for the genre and pretty much modern horror was we know it. The Godfather of modern horror if you will.

That being said, while I'd lean towards TCM as the first 'true' slasher, I can't discount Psycho entirely just because it doesn't meet a set of guidelines that didn't exist yet and wouldn't until the genre was fully fleshed out a couple decades later. Hitchcock and others were still figuring out what they could get away with. It's also hard for me to not consider Norman Bates a slasher, so wouldn't that mean that Psycho has to be a slasher then? I think I'm starting to confuse myself...

Lol, I think I might have to vote for Psycho just to avoid arguing with myself. Psycho isn't even anywhere close to one of my favorite horror films, but I do appreciate it's place in history. I don't think a lot of horror fans alive today realize the massive impact that film had on the genre.

Ok! I see your viewpoint and I can definitely respect why you chose it over TCM but man I always viewed Psycho more as a Psychological Thriller more than a slasher genre based but many could conclude it has many of the known slasher traits.

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:That being said, while I'd lean towards TCM as the first 'true' slasher, I can't discount Psycho entirely just because it doesn't meet a set of guidelines that didn't exist yet and wouldn't until the genre was fully fleshed out a couple decades later. Hitchcock and others were still figuring out what they could get away with. It's also hard for me to not consider Norman Bates a slasher, so wouldn't that mean that Psycho has to be a slasher then? I think I'm starting to confuse myself...

Although it may not meet all the requirements of a slasher, I'd consider it the root of all slashers. Just think of some themes slasher movies borrowed from it: creepy kill music, shocking ending, killer's backstory.

aurllcooljay wrote:

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:That being said, while I'd lean towards TCM as the first 'true' slasher, I can't discount Psycho entirely just because it doesn't meet a set of guidelines that didn't exist yet and wouldn't until the genre was fully fleshed out a couple decades later. Hitchcock and others were still figuring out what they could get away with. It's also hard for me to not consider Norman Bates a slasher, so wouldn't that mean that Psycho has to be a slasher then? I think I'm starting to confuse myself...

Although it may not meet all the requirements of a slasher, I'd consider it the root of all slashers. Just think of some themes slasher movies borrowed from it: creepy kill music, shocking ending, killer's backstory.

And that begs the question on what would Peeping Tom be categorized as?

Jason Voorhees wrote:

aurllcooljay wrote:

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:That being said, while I'd lean towards TCM as the first 'true' slasher, I can't discount Psycho entirely just because it doesn't meet a set of guidelines that didn't exist yet and wouldn't until the genre was fully fleshed out a couple decades later. Hitchcock and others were still figuring out what they could get away with. It's also hard for me to not consider Norman Bates a slasher, so wouldn't that mean that Psycho has to be a slasher then? I think I'm starting to confuse myself...

Although it may not meet all the requirements of a slasher, I'd consider it the root of all slashers. Just think of some themes slasher movies borrowed from it: creepy kill music, shocking ending, killer's backstory.

And that begs the question on what would Peeping Tom be categorized as?

It's an interesting question. I think it's a matter of perception and personal preference when it comes down to it. Some of the arguments I made in support of Psycho could be applied to Peeping Tom as well, but I've never really considered that film a slasher. TBH, I've never actually seen it, but everything I've seen of it in documentaries or read about it make the movie feel to me like a weird snuff film. That's more of a personal opinion though, and what makes this question so interesting. It's hard to take personal feelings out of the equation, and I don't really think we should.

The Paste article used the term Proto-Slasher, and while that's not a particularly sexy classification, it may be a fair one for films like Psycho and Peeping Tom. They were slasher films before the sub-genre was a thing and the rules were established. I guess another question would be, is it fair to disqualify these films because those rules didn't exist yet until later films that Psycho in particular helped inspire? I don't think I'd take the Paste articles rules as gospel either. Many sources have their own definitions for what a slasher is, some as simple as a movie with a 'Body Count', a definition I personally believe is wayyyyy too broad. I've also run into a lot of people that would vehemently argue that 'Alien' should be considered a slasher movie. Personally, I think the stabby, stabby part is essential to any slasher film. That may be why I kind of dismiss Peeping Tom as a slasher since, from what I understand, it kind of lacks the visuals of the actual 'slashing part'.

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:

Jason Voorhees wrote:

aurllcooljay wrote:

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:That being said, while I'd lean towards TCM as the first 'true' slasher, I can't discount Psycho entirely just because it doesn't meet a set of guidelines that didn't exist yet and wouldn't until the genre was fully fleshed out a couple decades later. Hitchcock and others were still figuring out what they could get away with. It's also hard for me to not consider Norman Bates a slasher, so wouldn't that mean that Psycho has to be a slasher then? I think I'm starting to confuse myself...

Although it may not meet all the requirements of a slasher, I'd consider it the root of all slashers. Just think of some themes slasher movies borrowed from it: creepy kill music, shocking ending, killer's backstory.

And that begs the question on what would Peeping Tom be categorized as?

It's an interesting question. I think it's a matter of perception and personal preference when it comes down to it. Some of the arguments I made in support of Psycho could be applied to Peeping Tom as well, but I've never really considered that film a slasher. TBH, I've never actually seen it, but everything I've seen of it in documentaries or read about it make the movie feel to me like a weird snuff film. That's more of a personal opinion though, and what makes this question so interesting. It's hard to take personal feelings out of the equation, and I don't really think we should.

The Paste article used the term Proto-Slasher, and while that's not a particularly sexy classification, it may be a fair one for films like Psycho and Peeping Tom. They were slasher films before the sub-genre was a thing and the rules were established. I guess another question would be, is it fair to disqualify these films because those rules didn't exist yet until later films that Psycho in particular helped inspire? I don't think I'd take the Paste articles rules as gospel either. Many sources have their own definitions for what a slasher is, some as simple as a movie with a 'Body Count', a definition I personally believe is wayyyyy too broad. I've also run into a lot of people that would vehemently argue that 'Alien' should be considered a slasher movie. Personally, I think the stabby, stabby part is essential to any slasher film. That may be why I kind of dismiss Peeping Tom as a slasher since, from what I understand, it kind of lacks the visuals of the actual 'slashing part'.  

Always down to what we know and dont know sadly Alfred Hitchcock isnt alive to tell what he believes.

Proto-Slashers sounds about right.

Psycho is actually based off a book. Don't know how accurate the movie is to it, but it does come across as some kind of crime drama. I just personally consider it the roots of slashers because of the themes derived from it. I haven't seen Peeping Tom either and cannot comment on that.

aurllcooljay wrote:Psycho is actually based off a book. Don't know how accurate the movie is to it, but it does come across as some kind of crime drama. I just personally consider it the roots of slashers because of the themes derived from it. I haven't seen Peeping Tom either and cannot comment on that.

Understood! and love to see you back!