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