Cronenberg

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

Well, it was about time I started my Cronenberg month. I decided to
finally watch two of his student films Stereo (1969) and Crimes of the
Future (1970). I had tried to watch them before but gave up on them,
do to lack of masochistic tendencies when it comes to boredom. And
yes, they are quite boring. Actually so boring that I started to watch
the clock with more anticipation than the films them self. These films
are, however quite interesting in the light of his later cannon. One
can see that Cronenberg was already then obsessed with mutations,
abnormality vs. normality and so on. He has the need to talk about
this but does not know how to make a story out of these subjects...
yet.

Only for hardcore Cronenberg fans and masochists.

All the best
Thorkell

_____________________________________________
Sokkaveien 1
Drammen 3018
Norway
Tel: 00-47-32835774 & 00-47-45859097

[Stephen Fuegi]

Since I am probably both ( :>) ) where did you find them? Are they included in a box set?

 

Cronenberg is a director I grew up with, and I saw him grow up as a director over the years. I like all phases of his career (well, except maybe his very early days, and there are still a couple of his really early films I haven't seen, seeing those will probably be the extent of my Cronenberg month, when I get around to it).

 

Steve Fuegi

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

They are included as extra on the "Fast Company" DVD (it is a region 0
DVD so anyone out site the states can play it).

All the best
Thorkell

--
Með kærri kveðju,
Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson

[Kasper Lauritzen]

I believe they were available on Google Video some time ago - and also released together recently on R2-dvd. I tried to watch "Stereo" but (like with Thorkell) it didn't really interest me after the first 20 minutes. However, I would very much like to give them another try - being a Cronenberg-fan :-)

BTW, although "Dead Ringers" and "Videodrome" are his masterpieces (and I can see why people would think that about "Naked Lunch" as well, I just don't :-)), I'm also really fond of his early films. Films like "Shivers", "The Brood" and "Scanners" have a very
'50-sci-fi touch in them (at least to some extend), but with Cronenberg's vision they're also highly modern in terms of dealing with terror from within, sexuality, transformation, psychology and so on.

I wonder what everybody else thinks of his early films?

Best regards,
Kasper Lauritzen

2009/1/15 Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson <thor...@gmail.com>

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

"I wonder what everybody else thinks of his early films?"

I think Cronenberg was a late starter. Most of his early stuff is
interesting but are not as well done and deep as his later films. The
Brood is his first great film, IMO.

I just re watched The Horny Turd (Aka Shivers) and had a great time.
It is the perfect B-Horror film but you have to admit that it is not
well directed. The idea is great but Cronenberg just doesn't know how
to pull it off... yet.

I gave it 7/10 because it is so much fun but technically it only deserves 6/10.

Cronenberg has said again and again that he is an atheist but the
message of this film is very conservative. In fact the Catholic church
could use this when teaching their youths about their view on sex. :)

Any other good names for Shivers? :)

All the best
Thorkell

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

And I just finished rewatching The Vampire Phallus (Aka Rabid), which
is one of the few films by Cronenberg I never liked. My view of it did
not change, the third time around. It is in fact a remake of The Horny
Turd (Aka Shivers) but with out all the fun and interesting social
commentary. And the storyline is quite repetitive. Rose stings with
her thorns (yes, I did get the clever name bit) and that person goes
crazy. Rose stings again and again the victim goes crazy. And she
stings again and... and again... and again... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz 4/10

All the best
Thorkell

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson

[Nick]

Thorkell, as I said yesterday, have been catching up with all these
great messages.

Your enlightening comparison of THE SHINING and LAST YEAR makes
intriguing sense. It sort of follows a thought I've always had about
LAST YEAR: it's like a Mario Bava slasher movie, but without any of
the murder scenes.

Regarding Cronenberg, maybe the most interviewed of all movie
directors, he tells in one of them about making SHIVERS. It was the
first time he'd actually had a full, professional crew and a very
tight schedule. According to him, there was considerable resistance
from the crew toward the film itself (some of the scenes he was
shooting) and his method of coverage. As is always the case when
caught up in the juggernaut that is a shooting schedule, Cronenberg
held on to his vision and moved forward.

It's interesting that you call the film "conservative." Years after
SHIVERS, there was (for some) a celebrated back and forth between
Cronenberg and critic Robin Wood. The director was just then
receiving serious and mostly positive critical assessments. In that
cloud of praise, Wood launched a significant, dynamic attack to the
contrary, calling Cronenberg's films politically and socially
reactionary and, as you say, conservative. Cronenberg counter-
launched an equally dynamic response, to which Wood again responded.
The entire episode provides an interesting glimpse into the way
Cronenberg thinks and how he maneuvers. Wood can be a persuasive
critic; his books on Hitchcock still provide the most compelling
critical analysis we have of that director's work. In many ways he
was equally clear about Cronenberg, but his overall estimation was
that Cronenberg's films were socially reductive and dangerous! If I'm
not mistaken, Cronenberg, in his first response, outed Wood as a
Marxist critic and a homosexual! I think the Marxist bit was no
surprise, but the other forced Wood to deal specifically with "coming
out" in his response. At the time, it was a rather controversial big
deal.

Have always thought Cronenberg to be an acquired taste. He is a true
auteur, that's for sure, and he's spent his entire career protecting
his autonomy. His sense of story is what differentiates him from the
others, I think. He thinks not in terms of character, but in the
progression of an idea. In other words, most film narratives spring
from character conflicts that create the need for action and reveal
the story's theme. Cronenberg's method, though, is the exact
opposite: his themes dictate character conflict and action. That's
why there are often (in his own scripts) moments of surprising,
convenient coincidence just before his stories reach their third
acts; Cronenberg fulfills an idea and not cause and effect action.
That's also why a film like CRASH, which is all idea, seems so
unified and strangely organic. Cronenberg's cold logic and his visual
audaciousness is perfectly in tune to the way this concept intersects
car crashes and human coupling. Same thing with DEAD RINGERS, a
masterpiece, I think. Dramatically speaking, the film's story remains
on one note; the brothers' progression from beginning to end is
unabated and single minded. What makes it work, I think, is the
fascinating way Irons negotiates the role, bringing depth to an
almost classically tragic progression. In fact, when you consider it,
Cronenberg's films are full of incredible performances, which leads
me to believe that Cronenberg knows precisely what he's doing.

Your response to RABID is funny! Though I think, again, it's the way
Cronenberg conceives his narrative that's at odds with your
expectations. RABID certainly has a forward moving plot, but it's not
the cause and effect development that I think he's focused in it.
It's not like INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, or any other paranoid
epidemic story you can think of. Rather, it's the method in which the
"virus" is transferred, and the contrasting way the main character
maintains her sort of innocence: that's what Cronenberg is interested
in, and that's what carries the tale. The icky way she proceeds, from
beast to human, and the actual method of feeding (that little thing
in her arm pit): the viewers' sense of being progressively "grossed
out" as we move through the story is what he intends. And I don't
think that finding some of it funny is an inappropriate response.
Cronenberg's serious tone may seem at odds with derision, but when
you consider some of what goes on in this and his other films,
derision is not out of the question. In RABID, all the big public
scenes - the subway, the mall, and even the infected doctor foaming
at the mouth in the police van's window - are meant to be taken as
crazy, over the top satirical gestures. Even the last shot of the
movie strikes me as being a satirical comment. And when you consider
that the main character is played by an internationally known porno
actress, the inherent meaning amplifies significantly. Would I be
wrong to call that last image tongue-in-cheek? Robin Wood was
particularly taken by that last shot, as I'm sure you can imagine.
Just an observation.

Have been watching the Fassbinder epic. Talk about an auteur! If he
had not died at forty, he would only be 64 this year. Had he lived,
what in the hell would he make of the world today?

Nick

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

First, let me thank you for your email Nick. Very interesting.

I have in fact no problem with Cronenberg, I just don't think his
first films are all that great. He really does not find his own two
feet before he makes The Brood, IMO.

I just saw "Pop! Goes your head" (aka Scanners) again. Many consider
it one of his early masterpieces. I do agree that it is good (7/10)
but it does have its problem. Cronenberg is no Altman and the story is
just too big for him. Too many characters, too big of a soap opera
plot... He did this so much better in Videodrome where he focused on
fewer characters and didn't care too much for the plot along the way.
But still, a film with many great scenes and interesting ideas. Kind
of a horror X-Men film.

As to your points on Rabid. Yes I think the arm pit thing is amazing.
It is the main reason why I watched it again. It is poetic, symbolic
and fascinating. I just feel like Cronenberg could have done so much
more with it, but in stead he focused on the virus and forgot the
she-phallus.

All the best
Thorkell

[Kasper Lauritzen]

"Pop! Goes your head" (aka Scanners) = giga-lol ;-)

2009/1/19 Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson <thor...@gmail.com>

[Nick]

Thorkell, watched DEAD ZONE tonight. Interesting in that it's not an
original Cronenberg script. His direction, though, remains simple and
clear throughout, and Walken is splendid. In fact, Walken is so good,
one can almost forgive the melodramatic turn of events in the film's
third act. What's also interesting, and revealing, is how Cronenberg
attempts to undercut the horror melodrama by focusing on the Walken
character as a tragic figure. Since it's not his own story or script
it's easier to see the directorial wheels turning. His film making
technique remains terrifically matter of fact; he doesn't really do
anything extraordinary with the camera except move it from time to
time and capture very simple, direct images that are neither
ambiguous or cluttered. This kind of simplicity has become unique in
films made in North America. Simplicity may be one of the most
challenging and daring things for an artist in any field to
accomplish. Nick

[Kasper Lauritzen]

> watched DEAD ZONE tonight. Interesting in that it's not an original Cronenberg script.

Reminds me: Does anyone know what the story behind "Dead Zone" is? Why did Cronenberg want to film it and were perhaps other directors attached to the project at first?

2009/1/20 Nick <nfa...@mac.com>

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

I was 14 or 15 years old when I saw The Dead Zone (when it first came
out) and it had a huge impact on me. I remember that I saw it again
and again when I got it on VHS. So, this is one of those films which
are so soaked in nostalgia that I can't really judge fairly. But I
agree with all of your points Nick. I also think the score is
fantastic. Just take the song played during the credits. It is so spot
on and hunting. I remember I was so taken by that song that I placed a
tape-recorder in front of the TV and recoded it so I could play it in
my room.

Another interesting thing regarding this film is the Christ
references. Again, I find them interesting in the light of Cronenberg
claiming that he is an atheist. Why then use all these references?
Where they already in the script and did he feel like he had to do
them because they where there or did he just think that they served
the story perfectly, even though he believes that the story behind the
symbols are a lie?

I think Dead Zone suffered greatly because of how "normal" it is. It
reminds me of Ivan's Childhood in the Tarkovsky cannon. Ivan is a
fantastic film but it is so ordinary compared to other films by
Tarkovsky that many Tarkovsky fans don't appreciate it for what it is.
In fact, if it had been directed by someone else, then the same
individuals would maybe have credited it higher. And you will see the
same thing with many other authors. Just look at Lynch. His "normal"
films are generally not as appreciated as his stranger stuff. I'm not
saying that Dead Zone is one of his best, but I think it is quite good
and much better than many Cronenbergs fan give it credit for.

And I don't remember the story behind Dead Zone Kasper but my DVD does
have a commentary so I will listen to it when I rewatch the film.

All the best
Thorkell

[Nick]

Don't know THE  DEAD ZONE story, per se,  but suspect Cronenberg was, at the time, spreading his artistic wings. SCANNERS was made with funds from the Canadian Film Board. Most of the films Cronenberg made before VIDEODROME and THE DEAD ZONE, were financed in Canada. They were all low budget films that had consistently earned back their cost and made modest profits.  SCANNERS, though,  was the real break-out film in terms of financial success. It was a hit. I'm sure that had something to do with Cronenberg's first collaboration with Hollywood studios. Both VIDEODROME and DEAD ZONE were released the same year, in that order. VIDEODROME was a Universal picture, and it did not actually do well when it came out. Cronenberg was lucky because DEAD ZONE through Paramount did, which is what led to THE FLY, which was also a hit. 

It's not surprising that Cronenberg tried his hand at being a director for hire. He made horror movies - at least, that's what Hollywood thought - and King on the big screen was then a hot commodity. Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING boosted King's cultural persona significantly, and was one of Stanley's most financially successful films. Tobe Hooper's TV version of SALEM'S LOT (79) had been a critical and audience success, too; before that, CARRIE, in the early seventies. So it makes sense that Cronenberg would find good reason to join this rank and file. The material presents interesting challenges, and actually does to some extent connect with Cronenberg's focus on the transformation of a human being from within. Making a Hollywood film (though that's not where it was shot) could increase the director's future opportunities. And since the film was a success, that's exactly what happened. THE FLY, which was released three years after DEAD ZONE, was a huge hit. With it, Cronenberg went from being a Hollywood gamble to a bankable A director. What happened after that is very interesting. 

If you follow this kind of thing, Cronenberg was ( and still is) offered all sorts of mainstream Hollywood fare; big budget, studio films that he apparently sniffs at for a while, then passes.  I think he was once attached to SPIDER MAN, for instance. Today, the news is he's attached to a big budget, studio Robert Ludlum adaptation. So far, Cronenberg has remained outside that circle. Toronto has remained all these years his command center, and, instead of big, popular, cineplex features, he's been content to work independently, with modest budgets, on material that's usually challenging and often transgressive. The fact that Hollywood still comes knocking at Cronenberg's door tells me that his film, even the most esoteric, turn profits. Cronenberg's budgets have remained low, low, low; which means it's easier for him to turn a profit than it is for most Hollywood pictures. (That's Clint Eastwood's secret, too.) 

So, basically, Cronenberg waited for just the right time to enter Hollywood, did two Hollywood finance pictures back to back, one of them hit, and he's been working ever since. 

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

I just saw The Brood again. Has anyone here seen it? I would very much
like to know what all of you thought about it.

I have always loved this film. Yes it starts slow but the end it just
amazing. The scene with the birth of the child of rage is one of
Cronenberg's greatest. No wonder he was furious when it was cut out of
the film in Canada. It is the best part of the film.

Cronenberg has often said that this was his Kramer Vs. Kramer film.
Yes, they both came out the same year but Cronenberg's film was
released half a year before Kramer Vs. Kramer. Personally I think The
Brood is a much better film on the harm divorce can have on children.
And it is much more realistic, even though it does have some Sci-Fi
things mixed into the story (or maybe because it does).

I feel that this is the first grown up film Cronenberg made and his
first (of many) masterpieces. What do the rest of you think?

[Nick]

If Strindberg had ever written deliberate horror stories, he would
probably have come up with something like THE BROOD.

I can understand your fondness for the film. Like all of Cronenberg's
ideas, there's more than melodrama at work in his story. The
consequences of child abuse are dramatized in horror fiction form,
which shows us that, again, Cronenberg is more a cinema stylist than
a mere genre director. I say "again" because that's exactly what he'd
been doing from the very beginning. Thank god he latched onto the
genre trappings. If he hadn't, I doubt we'd be discussing him today.
Those early shorts that you had trouble sitting through are purely
intellectualized visions; the lack of narrative makes them very
difficult, indeed, to navigate.

Contrasted with SCANNERS, THE BROOD is a chamber piece, for sure. And
the doctor, science fiction aspect of the story is cannily revealed
as the narrative progresses to great effect. But I wonder, why is
this more "adult" than SCANNERS? SHIVERS and RABID, I get: they are
both good examples of a young director flexing his muscles. But
SCANNERS seems as focused, though on a larger scale, as THE BROOD.

Am interested in knowing, that's all.

One thing that always gets me in THE BROOD is the high level of
performance. Oliver Reed's focused eyes, soft purr of a voice, and
enigmatic face carries those therapy session scenes with a chilling
conviction. And Samantha Eggar: wow. Some of the scenes between them
reminded me of Bergman. (Even the way Mark Irwin lights them.) The
little girl, too; her face is a frozen mask, as ambiguous as Eggar's
is revealing. They actually look like mother and daughter. I like the
way Cronenberg gives us mere glimpses of Raglan's character, without
straining his narrative to explain more than we need. For instance, a
little bit, but effective: the husband's first confrontation with
Raglan in the office - Reed in bathrobe - is punctuated with a very
subtle bit of character business. The husband makes a demand, and
Raglan, turns his back on the man, looks in the mirror and fiddles
with his hair. Raglan's vanity spelled out in a single gesture. The
film is full of subtle bits like that. Maybe that's what you're
getting at when you say this is Cronenberg's first film as an adult?


I like the movie a lot, don't get me wrong. There are things in it,
though, that strike me as being off. This does not mean that I value
Cronenberg's work any less. In fact, I believe all his films (even
the most recent)have these weird, off moments that creep into the
experience. In THE BROOD, the big thing that gets me - and you're
going to laugh, I know it - is this: who bought all those nice little
hooded snow jumpers for the brood kids? And why are they all color
coordinated? I know, I know; quite beside the point! But even though
I actually admire the film a great deal, those goddamn suits always
bother me!

Nick

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

Yes that's what I meant with the adult part (also, The Brood was made
before Scanners).

Regarding the suits. LOL!!!!!! That's so funny. I guess that Raglan
was rich and The Brood Children where very important to him (they
where in fact his best proof of his work) so it would only be natural
that he would buy the suits for them. Why these colors? The man had
bad taste? :)

I look forward to revisiting other films by the master. I'm not sure I
will watch all of them. I feel like it was enough to see Fast Company
once, but who knows. I might watch it again, if I have the time (have
you seen it Nick?). The one film I really look forward to seeing again
is M. Butterfly. I have not seen it since it first came out and just
got the DVD from Germany.

All the best
Thorkell

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

I just saw Crash again. I had forgotten how pitch perfect that film
is. The cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is in perfect
harmony with the inner rhythm of the film, the acting has never been
better in a Cronenberg film, the writing is poetic and precise and the
production design is spot on.

This is probably Cronenberg's most controversial film, but is the
content really that controversial? I see the crash as a metaphor for
sexual conduct. And let´s face it. It is true. You can't have sex with
someone with out it affecting you some how, at least emotionally and
sometimes even physically (sexual disease, accidents during ruff sex
...). In the Brood we saw rage and anger manifest it self physically.
What was inside became flesh. Here what is outside changes the flesh.
Let me explain this a little better.

The film begins with showing us that the couple has an open marriage
and then it goes on to show us what affect these sexual encounters
have on these people. Notice that the cars match the personality of
each character. It is in fact just an extension of their libido. There
is so much in the dialog that supports this interpretation and in the
way the film is filmed. The accidents are made to look sexy and the
impacts are made to look sexual. The film is in fact very much like
Bitter Moon (Roman Polanski), which is also about open relationships
and the affect they can have.

So if this is a correct interpretation then the message of the is
anything but controversial. It is in fact something most of the people
who opposed this film could agree with. Strange that the most
controversial film by Cronenberg might in fact be his least morally
controversial to date.

A pure masterpiece in my mind 10/10.

All the best
Thorkell

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson

[Nick]

Yes, I know SCANNERS is after THE BROOD, but I still sense that it
finds less favor in your judgement, and am interested in why? You
see, to me SCANNERS is the film where Cronenberg's obsessions and his
directorial skill finally comes together, seamlessly combining his
ideas with characters that move through an effective science fiction
like narrative. As much as I agree with you about THE BROOD - and I
do agree, despite these energetic discussions - it seems to me that
THE BROOD is really two movies in one: a realistic chamber story
detailing the consequences of abuse from generation to generation,
and a mad-doctor horror, monster movie story. I love monster movies
and do not denigrate the film by categorizing it as such. Not at all.
In fact, Cronenberg's skill as a writer cleverly interlocks the
story's two aspects with a disarming humanity and intelligence.
That's what makes it a superior piece. But I do think the film's
"realism" if I can call it that, butts up against its more
fantastical gestures.

Cronenberg must have suspected a division of narrative conventions,
why else would he have stylized the brood child's autopsy sequence;
the only scene in the film disclosed in flashback, and the only place
where Mark Irwin uses red filters? I venture to guess that the
autopsy sequence, which is a necessary bit of exposition, was one
that Cronenberg rightfully wanted to include without taking up a lot
of time, even though such an event in a realistically focused
narrative would have been a more explosive and decisive realization.

I hate to add this next bit: that the film's weakest character,
writing wise, is the father, who's presence is meant to be in
contrast to Nola, and who's narrative task is to find out the truth.
The fact that he seems completely ignorant of the history of abuse in
Nola's family makes him more a figure of melodrama as opposed to a
full bodied, crisis ridden character. Given his single minded task in
the film, we're more drawn to the ambiguousness of Raglan, Nola, and
the other secondary characters we meet. His final meeting with Nola
is, as you point out, the film's highlight. But his irrevocable
action in that scene, climactic as it is, has neither the weight of
tragedy nor the character ambiguity that we've perceived in many of
the other characters along the way. He does what he does to save his
daughter; the theme of rage made flesh does not seem all that
implicit. Nola's "I disgust you" is an apt observation. A more
cumulative reaction on the Father's part, at this point, would have
validated his character and give the film the kind of tragic form
that Cronenberg has since been so successful in rendering.

Cronenberg's crisp direction and the film's brisk pace (I don't think
it's slow at the top), shows me that Cronenberg is a sophisticated,
subtle stylist, that he's learned much from film to film, and what
he's learned is truly, at this point, a fair match to his
considerable intellect. Consequently, when he gets to SCANNERS, there
seem to be fewer laps of narrative logic, and a more unified, though
stylized, vision of the world. Of course, there are clinker in
SCANNERS, as well. The head security guy, for instance, is a broadly
etched villain. And the revelation that Dr. Ruth is quite mad, plus
his final scene, should have been given more time and more dramatic
weight, but are sort of dispatched with penny dreadful ease. These
things, I feel, weaken the over all effect of the film. But despite
these things, SCANNERS seem to me the most complex equation
Cronenberg has dramatized up until this point.

Am going back and forth between Fassbinder and Cronenberg. A break
between the episodes of Franz's journey are necessary. Fassbinder's
layering of information in that film is quite extraordinary and
takes a terrific amount of concentration.

Have not seen FAST COMPANY, but will put it on the Netflix list. I
saw M BUTTERFLY when it was first out and remember just hating the
hell out of it. If memory serves, I felt that Cronenberg never
adequately dealt with the story's major issue: how could a man have a
sexual affair with another person for all those years without
knowing, well, what he didn't know? The story's based on fact, yes,
and on stage such a thing can be more effectively poeticized, but the
immediacy of a theatrical experience did not, in this instance,
translate. In fact, I remember roaring with laughter at all the big
dramatic moments, much to the irritation of others in the theatre! I
also remember thinking: if Cronenberg can't penetrate the intricacies
of transgender intercourse, he should stick with the body parts he
can actually show on screen.

Nick

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

I think your review on The Brood is excellent Nick and I agree with
you abut the father. You are quite right. But regarding Scanners.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is a good film but I just thought the
story was a bit too soap opera like and that Cronenberg did not manage
to keep the film together, mainly because he had too big of a cast. He
is much better with smaller casts, and one main hero at the center
(unlike Altman who was best when he had many character in the lead).
And just for the fun, I gave The Brood 9/10 and Scanners 7/10.

Now to M. Butterfly. I just saw it again. I loved this film the first
time I saw it, maybe more because I'm a huge Puccini fan and I love
the Opera Madama Butterfly. I thought it was so clever to turn the
whole thing around. In stead of the westerner treating the Asian woman
badly, we have the Asian... well you know what happened. But I will
admit that this plot works as well/badly as the end in The Sixth
Sense. It is great the first time around but kind of boring once you
know the plot. So, in a way, it relies too heavily on the plot. I also
think the film is not paced well enough.

Regarding the sexual thing. We don't get to see much but it is
explained. Butterfly says that he/she had made up some ancient art of
love which he believed in. And is it really so hard to believe that he
was in the wrong hole with out knowing it? I know of cases where that
actually happened.

I think it is, all in all, a good film. Not his best but far from
being as bad as many say it is. It might be his most underrated film,
in fact.

Did you see my Crash review Nick?

And by the way, Fast Company is one of his worst, so consider you're
self warned :)

All the best
Thorkell

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

Just saw A History of Violence again. I liked it better the 2nd time around. I guess I was disappointed when I first saw it because it was so unlike anything he had done before. I wish though he will return to his body-genre films.

Amazing opening scene! I just saw The Dark Knight again (I did not think it was as great as everyone else thought so I gave it another go and liked it even less). It is interesting to compare the editing in these films. The first shot in AHOV is five minutes long and you are just sucked into the film. Editing of The Dark Knight is so frantic and quick that I was never part of what was happening. I guess the difference is like riding a roller coaster and watching one. A well edited film gives you time to get into the roller coaster and buckle up. The Dark Knight never gave me time for that. And the amazing thing is that it is nominated to Oscar for editing. I don't know if I'm just too old or of the world is becoming tasteless but I prefer the way AHOV is edited. Give the viewer time to get to know the character. Give them time to invest in the film before you drive off.

Anyway, AHOV was quite good; 8/10

All the best
Thorkell

P.s. Is anyone else watching Cronenberg this month?

[Nick]

Thorkell, Forgive my lengthy diatribes. Have time on my hands these days and this Cronenberg cycle fascinates the hell out of me.  

Some thoughts on CRASH: 

1.

 Am drawn to Cronenberg because he's remained independent throughout his career. Even his most recent, which are not horror films, reflect an individualistic preoccupation with the mysterious ways human being see, act, and connect. CRASH is the most mysterious of then all. Cars crash into each other the way human beings collide. The film is both literal and metaphoric, its narrative progresses through both a series of automobile accidents and sexual episodes. There's no traditional exposition explaining it all; the film creates its own pattern of communication. It's a cold, perverse masterpiece, visually hypnotic and intellectually confrontational - in every way imaginable. Cronenberg's film throughly inverts something fundamental, something that we intrinsically trust and even take for granted about our lives, relationships, even our bodies. There's really no other movie like it. 

2.

The one scene that grabbed me like no other was the dialogue between husband and wife during intercourse (shown with disarming frankness): wife asks husband about another man's penis, this anus, the taste of semen, sucking a penis, would you put your penis in his anus, and so forth. The scene went on and on: a quiet but unrelenting assault that crisscrossed almost every line of convention, thought, taste imaginable. As a director myself, I've evolved a personal definition of art that has served me well: the function of art is to speak the unspeakable in public; doing so, we learn we are not alone. The husband and wife sex talk did that, did it in a way I'd never seen before or since in a film. Brecht wrote, Art is not a mirror, it's a hammer, a sentiment that seems applicable here, at least in my personal reaction to this moment. What happens in that scene is chilling, but also, in the way it unblinkingly forces taboos out into the open, energizing, wickedly thought provoking, and in a strange way therapeutic. (There are those, I'm sure, who are merely grossed out!) 

3.

The film is about the married couple, specifically the husband. And fetishism, which at first seems to be the point, is not the theme. It's taken me a while to figure this out. Dramatically, the film is similar to SCANNERS in its development. The husband, like Cameron Vale, lives a dysfunctional life, but is eventually drawn into an alternative world where his dysfunction becomes a source of validation. In SCANNERS, this progression is literally spelled out in the dialogue. Not so in CRASH, which progresses in a strictly nonverbal, cinematic way from beginning to end. Vale merges into his brother just as the husband becomes like Vaughn. 

The marriage in CRASH remains ambiguous throughout, but the film's focus on the husband makes it clear that the wife's role in this evolving experience is neither a motivating force nor is it an equally shared partnership. What makes this complex, though, is that the wife indeed participates in every aspect of the husband's life; and though she does not motivate his actions, she clearly facilitates them. In this, they seem equally matched. In a way, it's like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, without the theme of guilt we associate with that story. She's there to facilitate her husband's complete fulfillment. And that search for fulfillment is, in  fact, the film's theme. Fetishism is the method and not the point. The Macbeth comparison goes even deeper. Macbeth is a soldier; he represents force; Lady Macbeth is the one with imagination. Mind and body made one in marriage. The wife in CRASH flies airplanes, the husband only drives cars. The wife's imagination, I believe, is what holds their marriage together; she knows her husband so well that she perceive his needs, his desires before he does. The sex scene I discuss above gives us an example of this unique husband and wife dialectic. In that scene, as he's methodically penetrating her, her questions enter his imagination as fantasy, then are later fulfilled in reality. 

[Nick]

Here's my take on this one. Have been thinking and writing on this stuff for days. Waylaid somewhat by an inconvenient medical issue (not serious), thinking and writing is all I've been able to do. So please forgive these lengthy messages. Receive them as proof of my enthusiasm and feel free, one and all, to bombard me with as much dissent as you wish. Nick  

After the overly subjective SPIDER, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE seems like a film made by a new man.  Even so, all the Cronenberg concerns are there, but along with them there's something new. The movie is an emotional experience. Cronenberg's  still interested in ideas - all his movies are, even the horror movies from the 70's - but this story, and the way it progresses, hooks us in an entirely different way.  I like the fact that Cronenberg strips away all that is unnecessary. The script is terse, spare, keeping the point right in front of our noses.  Subtle performances play against its undeniable melodrama. Cronenberg allows the characters room to breath. Hence, the ideas are laid in the viewers lap. We discover what's there.   

For the most part, the movie seems to be about a family that's living what appears to be an idyllic existence, only it's not, really. There's a hint of violence beneath the surface from the very beginning.  The cook tells that great story about the woman who, dreaming, stabs him in bed with a fork, of all things. He married the woman, and "it was good for six years."  (What a great throw away little bit of thematic exposition!)  The cheerleader love scene disarms because it starts out cute and funny. Is this really a film by David Cronenberg, we might wonder? And just when we're not sure, the husband and wife go into a "69" position as the scene fades out. What other director would show us how much these two people are into each other, and how their attraction has remained frisky and adventurous over the years with such a simple, but frank, gesture?  Balance that scene with the bit on the stairs, and you get the entire point of the film.  On the stairs, it's the first time husband and wife face each other without play acting. What happens there is real; it starts out of need (he needs her to stay, to not lock him out), progresses to rage, and finally erupts into passion.  It's not a rape, though some seem to have taken it as such. No, it's really a scene; they are talking to each other, only instead of words they communicate though action. It's all of CRASH in a single instance. 

All through, Cronenber's direction is bold. He keeps us focused on the family and the changes that occur once the dad is revealed to be something other than what they thought.  This, I think, gives the movie its emotional power.  When the son shoots the gangster: my god, is that not Greek Tragedy in a picket fence, front yard?  What we learn about the son, at the very same moment the father does, becomes something amazingly primal, and yet remains, within the conditions of the story, quiet, personal, and conflicting. 

The scene with William Hurt is actually played like comedy, which shows that Cronenberg knows what he's doing.  A third act switcheroo is touchy; this is when most Hollywood movies fail. But juxtaposing the comic and the serious, the way he does, with the Hurt character's genuine motive being what it is, Cronenberg maintains the very tone and structure of the entire movie in this unexpected third act scene.  (Bill Hurt is having a ball playing that guy. It was fun to watch him, and oddly disturbing when he gets blown away - which I think is the exact point.) 

When all is said and done, the movie actually becomes a classically structured comedy. The family is reunited at the end. (The little girl, still an innocent child, loves her Daddy no matter what; she sets his place at the table!)  That dinner scene, with it's prolonged silence, allows the viewer to participate - like we're sitting at the table with them.  To me, what's happening is simple: no matter what, this is a family, and for the first time, stripped of illusions, they are facing each other. They were play-acting before, and now they're not. 

I wouldn't say this is Cronenberg's best film. There are too many steps in his overall career to lay that on just one picture. But I do think it shows us how far he gone and how much he's learned over thirty years of work. It also shows us what a self taught, independently minded film artist can do with mainstream material. If anyone else had directed A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (other than maybe Roman Polanski), I suspect it would have come out as a kind of kick ass revenge thing. Cronenberg certainly "kicks ass" but he also opens other doors as well. What we see behind them makes all the difference in the world.   

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

Dear Nick. Thank you for your review. I agree with you on most parts. One thing I would like to add. The film starts like a western and I think that's no accident. To me, the film is very much about violence in the US. It is founded on violence (just like Tom's past) and it is not so easy to get away from that past, no matter how small town peace loving you want to be. America has a very violent nature in its core, best exemplified in the gun laws of the country. I'm not saying that it is the most violent place on earth, just that the film is also dealing with that aspect.

All the best
Thorkell

[Nick]

Yes, you're right. Someone  else I called the film a modern western. And the subtext you describe certainly gives the narrative's melodrama exquisite, undeniable meaning.  

[Guillermo Garrido Lestache Vidal]

I liked AHOV since the first time I saw it on cinema. I found that apart from the cinematography you mention there is the way the plot is developed, so confusing and yet logical. It's one of my favourite cronenberg films, but I also give it  8/10.
 
PS: I was totally dissapointed by The Dark Knight.

---

[Nick]

Heath Ledger's Joker seems to spring forth from such a deeply disturbing place in the actor's psyche, it's no wonder it charged audiences' imaginations all over the world. His Joker is confident, intelligent, and, in the best "outsider" kind of way, conflicted - incredibly, grotesquely, and wittily conflicted!  Ledger, we now realize, was a better actor than a lot of his movies initially revealed. Giving him the room to create this performance is the one good thing director Nolan did in THE DARK KNIGHT. Gary Oldman is pretty good, too. (But then, when isn't he?) There are other interesting things to be found in the film, for sure. But on the whole, it struck me as being a patchwork of of ideas pasted together, with the volume pitched as high as it can go. Watching the film, I detected lapses in logic and scenes that are set up and never paid off. Which may mean Nolan's film was cut for time, or maybe even narrative clarity. Who knows? In a couple of years when they release the director's cut, which I've heard rumored to be nearly three hours long, we'll find out. 

You have to give Nolan credit though: most of his films are, at the very least, ambitious; I always get the feeling he's reaching for something that never completely makes it to the screen. I suspect he's caught in a mindset that permeates all the film makers in Hollywood: the artist's desire to express, and the studio's need to sell. Nolan feels the need to express, but is actually a better salesman. I didn't hate THE DARK NIGHT as much as I've hated all the director's other films. The sense of gloomy awe and impending tragedy (made most vivid by Ledger) gives the film a dreamy kick. But in the long run, I thought the Hitckcock inspired EAGLE EYE was a more satisfying suspense, (over the top) action movie; IRON MAN had Downey Jr.'s witty performance to carry it; and, best of all, that mad Russian director's WANTED broke all unities of time, space and logic to create one of the most poetically satisfying films of its kind ever. THE DARK KNIGHT'S mediocrity has been elevated out of proportion because Heath Ledger's Joker transcends almost everything else in the movie. 

[Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson]

I totally agree with everything you said Nick. I did not mean to say that I hated the film. Far from it. It has an amazing set and there where some very interesting ideas there. But it needed some are to breath. The way it was cut was like in "Previously on..." TV series. I do hope the directors cut will be at least 3 hours long. The film needs it.

 

All the best

Thorkell

[Kasper Lauritzen]

I'd prefer AHoV's editing as well, however, I think "Quantum of Solace" was even worse than "Dark Knight" in terms of fast paced-MTV-cutting. Of course I do admire Ledger's performance in "Dark Knight" and as a Superhero-movie it's one of the best. Only as a Nolan-film it's far behind. A lot of his other films work with some major themes (childhood and demons in "Batman Begins") and visual keys (most obviously photos in "Memento" or the watertank in "Prestige") helping one to keep track of the complex stories, because they are central to the story he tells.

I was very aware of finding such keys when I went to the cinema to watch "Dark Knight" and I didn't really come out with anything. The closest would be anarchy which would then be an excuse to make this "a patchwork of of ideas pasted together" like Nick describes above, but I don't buy it.

"Dark Knight" lacks of a solid ground or higher idea to make it a whole and as good as his other films ("Insomnia"... so-so)

BTW, I would like to encourage everyone to watch "Following" by Nolan: It's an amazing debut film, again using a non-linear narrative and is a perfect example of my idea of "themes" and "keys".

Kasper

2009/1/29 Þorkell Ágúst Óttarsson <thor...@gmail.com>

[Nick]

Hey Kasper, hated CASINO ROYALE so intensely, I just couldn't drag myself to SOLACE under any circumstance. The new Bond is not Fleming's creation, which I guess isn't that much of a surprise, but it somehow makes a difference to me. (Even Roger Moore's send up had some basis in the original Fleming concept.) In ROYALE, when Craig answers the bartender's question, "shaken not stirred?" with, "do I look like I give a shit?" it felt like a deliberate slap in the face! (To make a comparison, "who gives a shit" is like Spock having plastic surgery on his pointy ears.)  Later, when Craig does the heart attack business in the front seat of his car, I had to be restrained!   

As far as Nolan is concerned, from film to film, including FOLLOWING, I'm always aware of what he trying to do, but never feel he actually does it. Even in the fairly straightforward THE PRESTIGE, his ideas push up against each other and never really merge. You're right about DARK KNIGHT, there's no "higher ground or higher idea to make it whole." Since the film lacks a thesis statement, the title character becomes a supporting player and all that reversal stuff at the end seems more manipulative than moving. Nick