There are few men in the world who can espouse the virtues of Moby Dick and The Haunting with equal aplomb, and even fewer who have their own action figure complete with detachable severed head. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's Gunnar Hansen is such a man, and 25 years after his transformation from college grad student to chainsaw-wielding cannibal he remains as opinionated on the subject as ever. Born in Reykjavik, Iceland, Hansen moved to the US as a child and went on to pursue English and Scandinavian Studies at the University of Texas, where he first heard word of a horror movie shooting in town. Deciding to audition "as a joke", Hansen met with Chainsaw director and writer Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel and was promptly cast as Leatherface, the inbred, soulless killer whose mask of human skin and relentless chainsaw turned the character -- and Hansen -- into an instant horror icon.

Following its release in October 1974, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre gained immediate notoriety, receiving both wary critical praise and widespread protest for its violent and disturbing themes. As the filmmakers went on to create sequels that possessed all the qualities detractors had wrongly ascribed to the original, Hansen successfully pursued his long-term ambition -- writing -- and has since written several books, screenplays and documentaries. He also has worked as a director and in 1987 returned to acting, taking small roles in low-budget horror fare such as the Chainsaw spoof Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers. Witty and articulate in person, Hansen remains nonetheless best known for his subhuman cinematic counterpart, and in this interview he comments on the past and future of Chainsaw and his possible role in future series installments.

11th Hour: As you know, it has been 25 years since the release of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. What do you feel its influence has been on films today, in particular independent or horror films?

Gunnar Hansen: Well, other than the obvious Chainsaw jokes like in Idle Hands...I think the main thing about Chainsaw was that it broke a fundamental rule in horror movies, which was that horror movies were always kind of polite. They always let the audience know that there was going to be a period where they were safe. And they always cut to that shot where they're standing by a desk, and in the background you can see the Capitol Building, and you know that for the next three or four minutes nothing is going to happen to you. I think Chainsaw broke that rule, because once it starts, even though nothing really happens for the first 20 minutes, the audience is uncomfortable for the whole time. The audience never knows what's going to happen. And I think that was the big change in horror movies.

11th: Are there any movies specifically that you see its influence on?

Hansen: Well, there are movies like Eaten Alive, which are clearly derivative. But of course, that's [Chainsaw director] Tobe Hooper's own movie so.... It's clear that when you watch Eaten Alive, what you're really watching is The Cook having escaped into the marshes of Louisiana. It unsuccessfully tries to have the same kind of sense that Chainsaw Massacre has.

11th: Have you seen The Blair Witch Project? A lot of people are comparing it to Chainsaw in that its an untraditional, low-budget movie that's genuinely frightening.

Hansen: No, I haven't seen it yet. There's a little theater -- it's actually a converted car parts place -- and they show all kinds of stuff, a lot of art films and some contemporary stuff too. I hope it's going to be there. Otherwise it's a 50-mile drive and you get stuck with Star Wars for six weeks.

11th: Another recent horror film is The Haunting, the original of which I read was your favorite. What do you think of such a big-budget remake?

Hansen: I don't know that I even want to see it. A couple of months ago, I watched The Haunting again, because I was curious to know whether it held up. Both in the sense of, it was a long time ago for me, and 30 years later am I the same person, and 30 years later, is it the same movie? And I was amazed at how well it held up. It was just as scary the second time to see it as when as I saw it as a kid, although the subtext was a lot more apparent to me, the issues with the lesbianism in one of the characters. The problem I have with the sequel is, you watch the trailer and think, "I've seen all the good parts of this movie."

11th: I saw the movie last night and to be honest there are no good parts.

Hansen: Another reason I'm skeptical about seeing it is, the power of the original movie lies in that you don't see much of anything. And I'm worried about a picture which tries to remake the film and then violates the basic element of its success. I'm always a little skeptical of CG too; I thought that it was really unfortunate that they made the Mummy a CG character because it never seems very real. You never feel like he's in the room with you.

11th: What would you think if someone were to remake Chainsaw along those lines?

Hansen: Well, it's been done, of course, in Chainsaw 4. I think they really show the problem of doing a remake. You have the problem of, let's say, Psycho, where you wonder what's the point at all of making the remake when you're doing it shot-for-shot. Or you go in the other direction and you recast the film, or a lot of the elements in the film, and then you wonder why you're doing a remake when you've abandoned the elements that made the original really work. I guess my problem is, why do a remake? If people start talking about a remake, "Oh, that was such a great movie" -- if it was such a great movie then you don't need to do a remake! We've had a long and bad history of doing remakes that always fall short of the original. We take European films which are very good and make them into something very mediocre and Americanized and diluted -- I mean, look at The Vanishing. I think remaking Chainsaw would be a big mistake.