The Cronenberg Thread

His best? I dunno. Discuss.

I bet he did say that. I love the romance angle of The Fly as well.

shivers
videodrome
scanners
fast company
dead ringers

Existenz
Naked Lunch
The Fly
Scanners/Brood (tied)
Spider
Dead Zone
Rabid
Shivers
Dead Ringers
Crash

Never seen Fast Company so that's excluded. Crash is the only actual real bad movie of the lot, but he's also never made a truly great film either.

Thank you. Not to mention the storyline is just a re-hash of Videodrome.

Scanners is his best, and Crash is underrated. Okay, so it's not a great film, but I can't think of any better way for the translation from the book.

Dead Ringers -- has its probnlems, sure, but also has Jeremy Irons.
Naked Lunch -- it's a rare horror/sci-fi director that gets the kind of performances from his actors that he gets out of Peter Weller in this. Spot-on, funny, and... just fuckin' great.
The Fly -- See above.
The Dead Zone -- Walken!
Spider -- I loved this movie. Also had the pleasure of seeing it in a theater with a fussy five-year-old, upon which others in the theater started shouting at the mother. "This is not a movie for kids!" Beautiful.

Agreed. You know what would make a great movie? War Fever.

i think it is the best film formally he has made

So, yes. Ebert liked it way more than I did, though.

POV:
Dead Ringers
Dead Zone
Scanners
Videodrome
The Fly

I really want to see Shivers.

Not that I find his style starchy -- more like gooey (ha) -- but as the Star Wars threads (and esp. movies) have reminded me, it doesn't just take a good actor to be a good actor. It takes a relatively decent filmmaker as well. Th fact that Cronenberg consistently gets such good actors and such good stuff out of them is a testament to his ability to work with actors, and that's a laudable talent. Makes the movies better for all of us. A round of applause, please, for Goldblum in The Fly and Irons in Dead Ringers and even Jude Law in eXistenZ. Cronenberg doesn't always give these guys top-shelf material to work with, I won't argue that, but he apparently gives them the room to actually *act* in movies that are not perfect, and that's good direction.

It COULD be, depending on many, many things. At least the very thought doesn't make me want to die like pretty much any other director on this shit would.

I always feel compelled to compare Cronenberg to David Lynch and as much as I admire Lynch, I think Cronenberg is much more successful at doing the same types of things Lynch attempts. For example while Lynch flirts with bad acting, camp, b-movie conventions, and general awkwardness, Cronenberg seems to operate in that territory quite naturally. He kind of skirts a thin line between the arthouse and schlocky failure that I find very exciting. Where other directors working in a similar vein might come across as too clever and knowing, Cronenberg manages to make movies that can be truly confounding and get the most intense reactions out of people.

So anyway, I think he's very underrated. Crash and Naked Lunch in particular are quite underrated. Total classic.

Really? Unintentionally?

Shivers
Naked Lunch
Videodrome
ExistenZ
Dead Ringers

I like Crash and The Fly, too, and Scanners (although I was anticipating the head-blowing-up scene too much to really appreciate much else of the film).

I'm not the biggest fan of Crash, but I think a lot of that has to do w/ the subject matter (and the portrayal of it) (the fierce unyielding atavistic obsession the characters have re: the fetish), so I'm thinking the movie worked really well. I'm thinking "atavistic obsession" could summarize DC's career succinctly.

the only other director who can finesse some of the same essence out of a scenario the way that he can is nicolas roeg. they're working in two different arenas, in general, but both are adept at channeling the anxiety of being an awkward fleshy thing with a brittle skeleton beneath, and i very much like the endings in their films. and the beginnings middles and rests too.

ok, strike the only out of that sentence. i hate that kinda talk.

* Commentary by Jeremy Irons
* Behind-the-scenes featurette
* Cast/filmmaker interviews and filmographies
* Dead Ringers Psychological Profiler (menu-based quiz)
* Theatrical trailer

ok, i see. still im not gonna need to buy this. the criterion edition from a few years back has much better features.

I'm going to shock everyone by saying that Existenz is probably the one I enjoy the most.

I adore eXistenZ, it's incredibly funny! Poor Jude Law's excessive uptightness really makes it.

I like just about everything Cronenberg's ever done, including Crash. When I lived in Paris the Cahiers du Cinema people did a big retrospective, they screened all his films and brought Cronenberg there to give a few talks & such. He is super nice and seemed rather surprised by all the attention from that realm, i.e. the film scholar/auteur worshipping contingent instead of, you know, Fangoria. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

As part of the retrospective they had an exhibition of various props and plans and things from his films.. This turned out to be extremely hilarious, because on the ground floor of the same building there happened to be an exhibition of a century's worth of advertising art for Lu, the dessert company. So you'd walk in and it was all bright sunlight and cheery vintage Art Nouveau posters and candy and cookies, and then you got to go downstairs to this gloomy, dark basement (really!) and look at tools for operating on mutant women. I wonder if Cronenberg ever made it over there to see what they'd done, I think he would have been amused.

xpost
Holy shit, "psychological profiler"? That's messed up. Awesome.

Personally, I think I like Crash and The Dead Zone the best.

Dead Ringers, the Dead Zone, Scanners, videodrome: all great. I LOVE his Naked Lunch adaptation; again, adapting this was a thankless job and he got a lot of flak for not doing the book (like he could really film the book) and instead focusing on Burroughs biography, but I think he made a real masterpiece here, his best and most emotional film.

I liked the fish gun in Existenz and that was all.

i think anyway, i switched over in protest at this botch up.

what made you say that? it was howard shore, btw.

The Crash score is by Howard Shore and it's really, really great.

yeah i know it was howard shore, but i was surprised by the running guitar motifs - i thought he was famous for/usually employed to provide orchestral scores?

Also, he's fun as an actor, like in Last Night and Nightbreed.

And I discovered the Brood around the same time I first saw Oliver Reed in Ken Russell's The Devils.

god i love existenz!!

Or you'll actually watch the film and enjoy it.

please destroy

Also I don't think Crash was trying to be that, Alex - shocking people just isn't interesting.

My faves:

Dead Ringers
The Fly
Naked Lunch
Videodrome

so are you sure that's your dad?

Well, that was something. The beginning was really really frosty and weird. Interesting sort of uh.. comic timing toward the end, the audience would laugh and then sort of recoil like OMGWTF.

Re: Violence, the Boston Globe critic seems to get it.

David Edelstein at Slate writes an incredibly stupid review that seems to have little to do with the film and a lot to do with his own issues.

David Edelstein at Slate writes an incredibly stupid review that seems to have little to do with the film and a lot to do with his own issues.

-- dar1a g (dar1a_...), September 25th, 2005.

I enjoyed his review. His enthusiasm makes me count down the days when it opens in South Florida.

The sudden bloody discharges are lightning-fast and deliciously satisfying—orgasmic, even. But they also leave you sickened, because Cronenberg cuts briefly—in an extra frame, like a comic book's (sorry, graphic novel's)—to men with heads shattered and faces beaten, literally, to bloody pulps. But here's the thing: Those extra frames don't sicken us morally. Even though A History of Violence is suffused with loss—[..]—the right people are always on the right end of the (righteous) violence.

No, no, no..

Edelstein, fwiw, has been grappling with violence and vigilantism in film for a while now. See, for example, his reviews of In the Bedroom and Kill Bill. He worries about the bloodiness in History of Violence, but I never thought it was overdone. I agree with Rosenbaum, who said (in a review that apparently isn't online yet) that the shots of bloody faces don't dwell on the gore in a fetishistic way but linger on them just long enough to convey the real-life consequences of shooting someone in the head.

http://www.moviepublicity.com/image_assets/history_of_violence_DF_00511.jpg

Now, the score was intrusive and overwrought at the start, this was deliberate. Same for acting seemed to be v awkward and wooden in the opening scenes as well. I guess what I am saying is, do you think this stuff wasn't deliberate & therefore that is why the film wasn't good, or that regardless, even if it was meant to come across that way, it was just a bad idea that didn't work?

Everything was so telegraphed and cliched, moments like when Maria Bello says "because we were never teenagers together" (or whatever) were so awkward and incongruous and screamed ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

To me, this was like an Oliver Stone movie gone emo. It's like, if you're going to have a good pulp scenario, fucking work it! Don't give your movie a title like "The History of Violence" and act like it's some sort of treatise on identity and the universal human condition! Don't have stupid teenage bully revenge scenarios and boring gangsters in dark cars with SCARY eyes! John Dahl used to be really good at this kind of thing. Or yeah, make everything really stupid and overblown, make U-TURN, at least it would be fun. But instead with Cronenberg all we get is the weak, wibbly middle-ground that tries to sell itself as "complex". Ugh.

I still love and respect all of you and your opinions, though!

not very. The sex scenes actually had both of us laughing out loud!

I loved the film. The acting is certainly not wooden: in the case of Viggo Mortenson, he makes the transitions between cornfed Midwesterner and gangsta like a pro I never expected him to be. Maria Bello quivers and rages with an intensity she's never quite shown before (her greatest moment: the look of disgust she gives Mortenson after their tryst on the stairs). As for William Hurt - well. Talk about a pro. If this had been a play, I would have given him a standing ovation. His ham-on-rye performance summons the pity, terror, and comedy that the film's schematic, over-explicit script (its weakest element) wants us to understand.

Cronenberg's work with sex and gore are pretty consistent. This film doesn't try too hard to shock or make a bold statement, but places it right in the middle of the completely ordinary. I don't see it as some sort of artistic contrast or shocking "My god, there is weird shit among this normal town," it's just kind of... there. And people have to deal with it. Seriously, if the film was filled with "You must deal with these things you've been through! You're tearing this family apart!"-style arguments filled with a rising in the score, it'd be every other schlocky film.

He was marvelous. I especially loved the scene in which he blasted Ed Harris with the double-barrelled shotgun. He looks at his father with the creepiest mixture of contempt, love, and fear.

The teenage son was great, by the way.

the pastiche of hunky dory domesticity was so over-the-top hollow that it was tough for me to take (so many lines in the early going -- the script was horrible)

Sure. Very true, and interesting that it got less hollow and wooden as it progressed. I suppose Cronenberg could have tried to find a way to not play it this way at the beginning, but didn't do so. I read that it was a work for hire so he probably looked at this kinda awful and generic Hollywood script and thought, now what can be done with this?

as for the sex scenes, i thought they were handled very well... i actually thought they were totally erotic. some douchebag in front of me was taking camera phone pix though and after putting up with it for about 15 seconds i leaned forward in my chair and said in his ear quite loudly, "Put your phone down." apart from that distraction, which well and truly took me out of the movie, i thought the sex scenes were great. maria bello and viggo mortensen are both very sexy, sexual seeming people. i thought that when maria bello said 'we never got a chance to be teenagers together', she didn't mean it to be serious. she meant it as an enigmatic setup to a fantasy that she had always wanted to live out. the sex scene on the stairway is a surprisingly common fantasy among a lot of women. to be raped safely by someone who loves you. this was obviously a little bit removed from that, but it did have the added notion of just being another role playing exercise. i don't know how to get into the mechanics of explaining it, but i've been with girls who have fantasized about that. danger/thrills are sexy to most people.

the scene with william hurt was hilarious... for some reason, the setup actually reminded me a little bit of the cremaster thing in the guggenheim... sort of similarly videogame-esque.

and to end it the way this ended, knowing that a happy ending would probably come eventually, but not feeling the need to go on any longer showing it happen, left it feeling very real and honest.

and other thoughts....

I've seen every movie of note he's made in the last 20 years, except for M. Butterfly.

Did I mention I also hated Sin City?

Magnum Force is a'ight.

...

I sure am! Both Dirty Work and the Cronenberg film are agreeably superficial examinations of violence.

Also, they should have just tried to hire Adam Brody as the son rather than getting someone with the same mannerisms and the same hair.

This is true.

2) How the fuck did this POSSIBLY get an R rating?? Surely that's some of the most graphic violence ever seen onscreen (I lean towards the notion that the gore is dwelled on to emphasize the range of emotions that can be conjured by such extreme violence - horror, disgust, shock - then awed laughter - then back to disgust). I mean, "Ichi the Killer" is one thing, but I thought this was much more intense.

3) I was also sort of surprised by the first sex scene - is there another instance of two lead characters in a flagrant, fairly graphic 69 in a mainstream movie ever?

hardly

xp

HOTT

Ach, I was using a bit of poetic licence here. With some hindsight, I think the main problem is the family dynamic. I do think there is something in the use the use of a "smalltown America" construct. It is supposed to imply universality, even if the majority of the audience for this film will be childless people who live in major urban centers. There is nothing exceptional about these characters at the beginning of the film, and we're supposed to identify with them, but we're also asked to laugh at them as well as fear for them.. It's totally flawed.

On top of that, all of the characters who make up the family seem totally disparate, their reactions to each other follow no discernible pattern of emotional logic and our understanding/enjoyment of the film is key to seeing them as a family unit, even before we can see them as compromised or fragmented or in danger.

Sometimes a tear is just a tear!

the last scene reminded me of something but I can't remember what.

I don't think I really get Cronenberg as a director. Though I did love Spider. There's some kind of deliberate thinness or something to his style. In my head I think it's a Canadian thing.

but that doesn't explain Rush.

yes I know Egoyan is a vastly superior director; they get compared only because of their candian-ness.

OK, so let's say it was a "genre exercise" on Cronenberg's part. Something to be appreciated for its formal aspects. Well OK, thought that's never going to make for a very satisfying thriller. It makes it neither one thing nor the other. I dunno. I'm rambling now. I just know that my friend at work thught it was appalling and I realised that I'd have a hard time defending it by any criteria I am comfortable arguing for the use of.

Ha ha - x-post with all this Canadian talk.

This is only true until his last two movies which are just okay.

Although the bloody faces were cool.

-- @d@ml (nordicskilla@hotmail.com), April 1st, 2004.

I think we were stoned, though.

and Sarah Polley is! I think. Anyway I like that movie as well.

YOU LIKE EXISTENZ

If it had been eaxctly the same actors, set pieces, shots, etc then YES!

The only exceptions to this rule for me are Woody Allen and David Lynch, but I think I have a limit on how much I can watch ANY cinemtaic idea or concern recycled over and over by the same person.

I'M not arguing this for Existenz though.

Jude Law vs. James Woods!

I've seen Fast Company. It's okay. Some interesting shots, but the plot is a joke.

No, not at all. I was arguing the need for SOME diversity in a filmmaker's body of work. Non-specific.

IN WHAT FUCKED UP WORLD DOES THE FORMER TRUMP THE LATTER?

yeah Calendar just kills me.

hardly
-- kyle (akmonda...), October 4th, 2005."

Kyle, name another mainstream film that has such unrepentantly gory, generally unstylized (a'la not "Sin City") violence. I'm genuinely curious - "Irreversible" had that vicious fire-extinguisher-to-the-face scene, but I can't think of anything else that had me that truly shocked.

Also, why was Viggo's ass so shiny in the stairs scene? It seemed almost buffed and waxed. I was prepared to notify the Gaffe Squad if I caught a glimpse of Cronenberg in the reflection somewhere.

yeah the rest of the film was just a daisy-strewn waltz through the fucking park

I thought of one - the "American History X" curbing scene... that was tough to watch.

(x-post: Of course "Irreversible" is brutal non-stop - and it fits the criteria being discussed, in that it is definitely about brutal violence with real consequences - but it's definitely arthouse fare. "A History of Violence" is out in wide-release.)

Something.. the construct was intensely weird, and I can't put my finger on exactly what was off about it. Right away it was this feeling about that family, "you're not from around here, are you.." I don't know, the pulp genre elements and sort of uncomfortable interaction were obvious but in a way, it make sense because.. if there's this underlying tension or unresolved problem, people still tend to act as if everything is A-OK. Especially in small town America.

Funny about Egoyan, I was fascinated by his early stuff esp. Speaking Parts (Family Viewing is good too) but thought Sweet Hereafter and Exotica were unfortunately v obvious and not as good!

eXistenZ is a treat. It's kind of about Jude Law being a bad actor.. And there is nothing cyberpunk about it at all, which adds some extra comedy - the video game world is just gritty and run down, and all the weird gadgets and things are organic, and they end up going where in this crazy futuristic video game world? A Chinese restaurant and a trout farm. Willem Dafoe as Gas = totally classic. I don't know, maybe there's this issue one could have with the film pointing at Big Philosophical Problems and taking those problems quite seriously, but doing so in a way that's very funny and requires extra splattery props and effects. I don't mind this at all.

otm!

These are the only two I've seen except for maybe some early short thing with some sort of video gimmick that I saw in school. So if I'm missing out on Egoyan's brilliance, so be it. I still say he can't touch Cronenberg.

Egoyan eats dinner with my friend sometimes because they are relatives. He got my friend to do a little graphic of some traditional armenian design thingy that was on a wall in the background of ararat somewhere.

Alex, READ MY POSTS! I never said anything about Cronenberg not being diverse.

Anyway, I think Cronenberg and Egoyan and Lodge Kerrigan are all great. It's CANADA that's the problem!

I read your post! I was just responding to a question which wasn't asked! The same way you did! ;)

i think what cronenberg always tries to acheieve is an unsettled mood. he's not aiming to be naturalistic and criticising scenes for being cliched (esp the cheerleader scene) implies that they were played straight when they were riddled with discomfort.

the sex and violence shots linger too long on purpose - very self-referentially saying 'here's something you don't normally see which i'm going to show you'.

rambling, but i just think cronenbeg's expert at unsettling an audience in a way few other directors can. return to the form of dead ringers, for me.

DING DING!!

Really though it's not as if anything in this film is even vaguely controversial. I mean every single man on the planet WISHES his secret, hidden problem that he tries to keep secret from his family was that he has an incredible knack for brutally sending evil gangsters to oblivion. "Baby, I have to tell you something about myself. It might be hard to understand and if you want to leave me after I tell you this I can't blame you. I spent my formative years as The Punisher." Oh yeah FACE THE MUSIC MOTHERFUCKER. YOU GANGSTER-MURDERING... JERKFACE, I can't BELIEVE you would just have this QUASI-SUPERNATURAL ABILITY to just y'know KILL BADGUYS with near impunity and not TELL YOUR FAMILY?!?!?

During the vaguely unnecessary staircase fuck, I actually thought for a minute "She smells the killer gene!" etc. etc. obv badguy slayers give off a pheromone which is irresistable to ladies who never wash their hair.

Actually I think a lot of things in this movie could be described as "vaguely unnecessary" but you could say that about Kung-Fu Hustle, too, and that's the best film I've seen this year.

Haha, it's strange, everyone in Canada I've spoken to loves Cronenberg, but tend to think Egoyan's movies are overrated and sucky.

But History of Violence: it's not very good, is it? If it's a Dahl-type genre thriller, it's not really exciting enough; if it's a Hitchcockian identity movie, there's no real mystery; and if it's an examination of suburban mores (yawn), it has absolutely nothing to say that wasn't said (better) in the first series if Six Feet Under (and a MILLION other movies.)

As it is, it's this weird kind of halfway house, with a silly-as-hell noir copout ending. Hurt's performance is terrific, but it's wrong for the movie.

That said, "(adopts wiseguy voice)I shoulda killed yew in Philly" is my new catchphrase.

"Unbreakable" was honestly more interesting by a long shot, too. Except I much prefer the son shooting Ed Harris in the back with a double-barrelled shotgun than I do the son pointing a revolver at his own pops followed by painfully awful dialogue for five neverending minutes.

I'm glad I saw this movie and I thought it was entertaining, but not entertaining enough to excuse the lack of anything really gripping on offer. I will be purchasing "I, Robot" and "The Island" on DVD long before I ever think of purchasing this. But you all already knew that.

(I think Kung Fu Hustle was my favorite movie this year too!)

(Should I join the military and marry Ally?)

Apparently the new Egoyan movie is TERRIBLE.

There's still time to delete this whole thread.

I found AHOV kind of...ok. That's about it. It was kind of OK. I don't even remember it being gory or shockingly violent at all!! I mean I had to think pretty hard, when Tom said "destroyed faces," to remember that there was those scenes were people got punched and their noses disappeared. I don't really remember much of this movie.

my film geek red telephone ran in the middle of night.

when william hurt's standing there in the door frame, a woman sitting up behind me starts going "kill him! KILL HIM!" -- and every time we wanted that, we got it .. with the kid in the high school .. with everyone who crosses viggo.. and every time, it's like YEAH!!! URK!!!!!!

i really like the things madchen noticed. they're things that i either didn't notice, or didn't noticed that i noticed.

All references to Joey mention how he was crazy or angry. Tom's unsettlingly sane and calm! Even in sex, he shows some motivation but never agression. There are as many people like this as there are superhuman hyper-violent people like Joey. You've got this unbelievable character, with the approximation of a real person stuck somewhere in-between. There's this visual tic that showed up on Mortensen's face in the transitions. There's an outright denial that there's a multiple personality situation in play, which is kind of true: everything that constituted Joey dropped off the face of the planet when Tom came into being, and it's a conscious effort to bring Joey back. It's Joey that slaps her on the staircase, etc.

Videodrome/eXistenZ are about people who are "normal" but are pursuing something they think is deviant or subversive for sexual pleasure. Lately, Cronenberg is kind of on a roll lately with characters that deny part of their pasts. With Spider you ended up with a man who was insane, but with AHOV you end up with a walking caricature of all that's good and right that contrasts with the "evil" past...

Weird audience reaction when I saw it as well. Some people walking out trying to puzzle out something about the plot, others going "OMG that was awful," others kind of stunned. Nervous laughter as well as laughter with the movie (more of that toward the end).

That was my favorite scene in the movie by as many miles as the drive to Philadelphia.

I guess what amazes me about the critical reaction is that so many reviews are working angles of this - 'oh, he's undermining our societal attitude toward violence'/'violence comes back to haunt you'/etc. - like this message isn't just as much of a cliche as anything Hollywood produces.

And if I'm not enthralled by the concept (which I'm not), then all I've got are some relatively ungruesome fights/shootings, bad performances and weak humor.

That's what the Lord of the Rings movie was about?

The son scenes work on basically the same level, but without anything quite as psychologically rewarding. Basically he seems to harbor latent Michael Corleone-ism. And whoever mentioned Adam Brody upthread OTM!

I like how he always has some decompressed (omg am I some film auteur bullshit artist for using this word?) scenes in his films and they seem to go on a while, but Cronenberg usually barely breaks the 90 minute standard.

The quality of the performances, the skillful editing, grounding the tale in a believable if overstated reality...I can go on. All these things redeem his "ideas"; I mean, who cares about IDEAS anyway? It's the execution. You think the film sucks, I think it's marvelous. If we can't disagree about movies, the world's in dire shape. Let's have a drink.

I don't want to sound like a dick, but I'd honestly like to know how it was effective as a thriller, jaymc. The end was never in doubt to me - there was no question that Viggo would settle his Philly business and wind up back on the farm.

I'm just referring to much of the commentary and praise surrounding the film, esp. from daily and mag critics, who seem to think that the 'violence comes back to bite you on the ass'/'never outrun your past'/etc. is something new and innovative. I wouldn't care if the film had been otherwise successful.

If only, John.

'violence comes back to bite you on the ass'/'never outrun your past'/etc.

I haven't seen the new one yet but now I don't have to thanks to this brilliantly succinct encapsulations!

http://nypress.com/18/38/film/seitz.cfm

Hate to think how arid it would've been without Ed Harris and William Hurt having a ball. As mysteriously overrated as "Spider was underappreciated.

I wonder what non-auteurist heartland multiplex audiences make of scenes like the staircase fuck. "Edna, this remind you o' Crash?"

>Cronenberg can hardly be accused of being a non-diverse filmmaker. This isn't John Ford or anything.<

Alex, you know he made non-westerns, yes? War films, comedies, "The Informer"? Try "The Sun Shines Bright," which on certain days I think is his best work. (And it's a remake of an early '30s Ford film with Will Rogers, "Judge Priest," which was quite good to begin with.)

They go "Man I hate Dr Morbius, constantly making asinine comments on all the threads about films and sports and politics on that there I Love Everything web-enabled BBS. How come these movies never show any wang?"

He wrote some of it without WGA credit in collaboration with this Josh Olson guy; from a Salon interview:

I didn't know this script was based on a graphic novel for a long time, because nobody told me. When I found out, Josh and I had already done a couple of rewrites. I said, "What do you mean, graphic novel?" and he said, "Oh, didn't anybody tell you?" They found me a copy and I looked at it, and I thought, well, we've gone so far in a different direction that this is actually irrelevant. In fact, if someone had brought me the graphic novel and said, "Are you interested in adapting this?" I'm not sure I would have said yes...

Q. Did his screenplay include the two intensely physical erotic scenes we see in the film?

It did not. I added those scenes.

Jams Murphy OTM on the hideous early Viggo-Bello dialogue; when I read in that same interview DC says "no irony" was a rule -- shit, there goes his only out.

Not one of Howard Shore's better scores; my friend recognized one of the closing-credit themes as a short walk from Return to the Shire.

There's a lot going on, nearly all of it sledgehammer-obvious, even compared to "Unforgiven" as MZS mentions.

I though the peak was the shots wrapping up the stairs hatefuck -- Bello kicking VM away, her showering, the blue night-shot of the scrape on her back.

It struck me, and I just remembered, that some sense that all kinds of security are built on some kind of.. well, force and the willingness to use it. That's not so clear, but what I mean is, all the scenes with the local sheriff had this feel of playing up the effects of just straight up intimidation and potential for violence as the real forces keeping some sort of order in the community, the letter of the law being pretty much irrelevant.

I don't get this "violence underlying everyday life" theme. If your everyday life involves you desperately, schizophrenically hiding your bounty-killer past, then yes, it's about the violence the underlies everyday life. Otherwise it's about the violence underlying the life of a man desperately, schizophrenically hiding his bounty-killer past.

I agree with Dr. Morbius about the dialogue of the first 30 minutes or so. It really seemed over the top, and it's really hard to believe Cronenberg sees it playing straight down the middle.

I'm not saying it's done geniously (Blue Velvet does some of the same stuff, way more geniously), but I think it's all there.

As far as it being a metaphor for W's foreign policy, as Croney and Viggo are talking up in their interviews, I guarantee you that's not crossing the mind of viewers who aren't reading it beforehand. The quiet dinner finale brought Bill (compassionate bomber of Serbia / executioner of brain-damaged man / welfare abolitionist / serial postadolescent tomcat) Clinton to my mind.

"The Fly" is still his triumph to me; an accessible, disgusting romantic comedy/tragedy derived from a '50s B movie (and the peak of its two stars). It had the emotion and resonance this one only has in jolts.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/dvd_review.asp?ID=780

(I originally wanted the "overall" line to read "Better than A History of Violence," but that was just as a joke.)

-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), October 18th, 2005.

otm. generally i think this movie sits well with the rest of cronenberg's ouevre, in that it's theme of 'violence underlies human behavior' is part of the greater theme in his work: that human beings are essentially fragile biological machines.

the way it veered between that (and of course the plunging into all sorts of cliché and massively obvious signposts with relish) and some really gripping intensity was unsettling: i was laughing pretty much throughout the last violent scene, when tom/joey escapes his bro's henchmen, because his knack for killing and not getting killed was somewhat ludicrous by that point (plus "how d'you fuck that one up?"), but that amusement was ruptured by the violence being just slightly more graphic than you expect, and viggo mortensen's amazing acting - his eyes switch-flicked between genial and psychotic so effectively.

also viggo mortensen was HOTT. um, as was the son. i couldn't quite decide which was hotter.

I like my DC films with new orifices (or uses for them) or detachable body parts.

Some critic brought up "dreamlike" mise-en-scene, and not so much charcterizations as "role-playing." Which was my defense of Eyes Wide Shut, but too many strings were showing in this film.

I see the "lie" in History of Violence in the way the straight characters continue to deny the level to which they're invigorated by their own opportunity for debasement. The son's snitfit where he makes a crack to his dad "you gonna rub me out?!" is directed so that it's clear the son's gas tank (which was filled during the school hallway scene) just got topped off.

If the thing had been executed (yuk yuk) with any sort of aesthetic *conviction*, I might've bought it, but it was like a schematic Brechtian thing with little verve.

And really, at no level of stylization is THAT kid kicking THOSE bullies' asses deserving of any response but WTF?!

The William Hurt scenes were so smashingly effective because Cronenberg and Hurt purposely went over the top; I was laughing as hysterically as you were, as was the audience.

A History of Violence
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005

I’m not sure how much I can add, belatedly, to what k-punk, girish twice, Chuck, Jodi — followed by k-punk’s reply and Jodi’s counter-reply — Jonathan Rosenbaum, and others have already said about A History of Violence. But I do think that it is David Cronenberg’s best film since at least Dead Ringers (1988). Quite some time ago, I wrote extensively about the body horror in Cronenberg’s early films: which meant a lot, and still means a lot, to me. I was a bit disappointed, however, about the way that Cronenberg’s distancing himself from genre, in order to embrace “art film,” got in the way of his adaptations of writers with whom he shared a sensibility (William Burroughs and J. G. Ballard). And I was still more disappointed, when, in his more recent films, even though sometimes with increased artistic power, Cronenberg moved away from that explosive sensibility altogether, and towards an implosive concern with the anguish of wounded white male interiority — a subject with which I have little sympathy, as I think that we (since I have to be included as part of that “we”) need to get over it, and go on to more important things than whining over our supposed (more fantasmatic than actually real) loss of privilege. (In fairness, I should note that my friend Bill Beard, in his excellent book on Cronenberg, not only gives a far less pejorative account of this progress, but also argues that such a process was in fact already the real concern of Cronenberg’s earlier films as well, despite all the posthuman exploration that I, among others, have read into them).

The editing of A History of Violence is very tight and powerful, like that of Spider. But the important thing is that A History of Violence for me is that the film is not psychological, not about interiority, in the way Spider definitely still was (and the way many of the Cronenberg films of the last fifteen years or so have been). By “not psychological”, I don’t mean not affective, but that the affect in some way is impersonal or transpersonal. In Spider, dread was tied in to the protagonist’s point of view: a POV that we know is distorted and fantasmatic, but which we cannot escape from, or get an independent perspective on, despite this knowledge. The epistemological deadlock — or better, prison — that is at the heart of that film was reinforced by the way in which the adult protagonist (Ralph Fiennes) appears in the frame as a silent observer of his own psychotically distorted childhood memories.

The editing and pacing of A History of Violence create a similar sense of dread, even when what is explicitly going on (the members of a picture-perfect nuclear family eating breakfast, pouring the dry cereal, etc.) is entirely “normal” and banal. But Viggo Mortensen, playing the protagonist, is so closed off and opaque that we can’t really read (or more accurately: feel) what he’s going through as subjective anguish. (I’m assuming anyone who has read this far has seen the movie, or at least knows the basic premise: Tom Stall, exemplary small-town family man, turns out to have a dark past as Joey Cusack, psychotic mob hit man). As Tom, Mortensen is simply too blank to “identify” with; as Joey, he doesn’t display any of the self-congratulatory feeling that even Clint Eastwood (wonderfully minimal in expression as he is) does ultimately allow himself when he is in vengeful mode. In an email exchange, Bill Beard suggested to me that Cronenberg and Mortensen are operating by subtraction: “A History of Violence produces something radical simply by subtracting standard conduits of viewer empathy from what is unmistakably a mainstream-movie framework.” So we get, for instance, generic small-town Americana such as is found in the paintings of Norman Rockwell, and in the films of Frank Capra and (more recently) Steven Spielberg; everything is literally as it is supposed to be, but some dimension of warmth (or smarminess) is unaccountably missing, and this makes it all rather creepy. I’d only add to Beard’s account that the greatness of Mortensen’s acting, in particular, lies in the way he switches from one to the other of his two ‘characters’ or personalities, so that ultimately he seems to be trapped in a no-man’s-land between them. He’s a man without qualities, which is why both of his personas seem unpsychological. The conventional way to tell this story would be to make one of the personas more basic, more in depth, revealing the other persona to be just a mask; but this is precisely what Cronenberg refuses to do.

All this is even more evident in the two extraordinary sex scenes between Mortensen’s character and his wife Edie (Maria Bello), which are at the heart of the movie. The first involves playacting, as Edie drags Mortensen-as-Tom off to a secret tryst in the course of which she dresses as a cheerleader, and they pretend to be making out while their (whose? hers, I think) parents are sleeping in the next room. The second is when Mortensen-as-Joey drags Edie down the stairs and brutally fucks her in what is at least a near-rape (she ultimately seems to consent, though it’s clear that she continues to feel loathing as much as desire). What unites these two opposed scenes is that they both seem similarly distanced and performative, except that there is no sense of any realer or truer self behind the mask of the performance. The first scene is a parody of what adolescence is supposed to be like; the second is a parody of what maturity or adulthood all too often turns out to be like. This is why I felt a bit queasy during the first scene, and found it almost as disturbing as the second one. Both scenes suggest a kind of void, and a failure of contact: the two people never really come together. (Is this what Lacan meant by declaring that “there is no sexual relation”?). It’s not a void that one can feel anguished about, however; for the selfhood, or sense of “thrownness” at least, that would allow one to feel anguish is precisely what is missing, what has been replaced by a void.

All this is to say that the split or doubling in A History of Violence is ontological, rather than existential or psychological. The split between Tom and Joey, and between the two sex scenes, of course corresponds to the two worlds of the film, both of which are themselves cinematic — and thereby social — fantasies: the wholesome, Capraesque or Spielbergesque small town (Ronald Reagan’s America, or George W. Bush’s red states) on the one hand, and the big-city-at-nighttime on the other. (I initially thought of film noir for these scenes; but on further reflection I’m reminded more of the big city in violent-revenge-fantasy films like Charles Bronson’s Death Wish, or, more recently, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s Sin City — it’s not irrelevant that A History of Violence, like Sin City, is an adaptation of material that first appeared in comic book form).

The result is that A History of Violence offers us a kind of spookily abstract modeling of cultural formations: of American fantasies about family, the good life, violence, empowerment, and self-reinvention: and in particular of how these participate in the construction of masculinity. This is very different from exploring the disintegration of masculinity — or of American culture, for that matter — from the inside. I call this ‘abstract modeling’ not just because Cronenberg’s presentation is so distanced and subtractive, but also because in a very real sense the abstraction is all that there is: the “inside” — something more personal and subjective, that would give the abstraction existential density and individual quirkiness and variability — simply doesn’t exist. This is Cronenberg’s version of postmodern flatness: the depths do not exist, everything is visible and apparent. This also explains the title of the film: this move really is a “history,” in the sense that it tracks the emergence of violence, and the different forms it takes at different times and in different circumstances. Violence is generated — almost as a autonomic effect — out of tiny rifts in the social fabric, or in the fabric of social myth (I mean, in the myth of noir as much as in the myth of wholesome “we take care of our own” Americana). This is why we get the story of Jack (Ashton Holmes), Tom’s teenage son, who erupts with violence in a parallel way to his father: as if what came back out of the past in the father’s case were generated as it were spontaneously, out of his very need to struggle, as an adolescent, with the (entirely stereotypical) problems of autonomy from the father and coming to terms with normative formations of masculinity. (I think that Jodi’s reading of the film as the son’s fantasy is valuable in the way it works out the son’s perspective; but I don’t accept it as an overall reading of the film, because it overly psychologizes the film and privileges the son’s perspective more than the film itself does, and thereby gives that perspective too much existential weight, ignoring how the film suggests it is just another social cliche, another purely superficial mode of articulating an otherwise blank subjectivity).

To say that A History of Violence is ontological and historical, rather than existential and psychological; and to say that it shows violence to be itself a surface or superficial effect of a structure or abstract model that is itself all surfaces (I’m calling it a “structure”, but the point of this is precisely that there is no underlying “deep structure” in any sense of the term): to say all this is also to say that the dichotomy or structural opposition that the film presents us with is false, and that the film ‘deconstructs’ the opposition, rather than affirming it. In other words, A History of Violence is like a Moebius strip. At any given point, it seems to have two sides; but the two sides are really the same side, each is continuous with the other, and slides imperceptibly into the other. There is no way to separate the Capra/Spielberg side from the noir/revenge nocturnal side. The common interpretive tendency in cases like this is to see the ‘dark’ side as the deep, hidden underside of the ‘bright’ side, the depths beneath the seemingly cheerful surface. But in A History of Violence, everything is what it seems. Both sides, both identities, are surfaces; both are ’superficial’; and they blends into one other almost without our noticing. The small town, with its overly ostentatious friendliness, is a vision of the good life; but brother Richie’s enormous mansion, furnished with a nouveau-riche vulgarity that almost recalls Donald Trump’s penthouse, is also a vision of the good life. In their odd vacancy, they are both quintessentially American (this could be, as Cronenberg has hinted, an allegory of America’s current cultural divide: blue states and red states, which actually are more continuous with one another than anyone on either side recognizes… this is something, perhaps, that only a Canadian could see, as it is invisible both to us Americans, who are too caught up in it, and to people from outside North America, who are too far away).

The Moebius strip would be Cronenberg’s version of the postmodern idea that there are no depths, only surfaces. Or (the same thing, to me) that there are affects, but not identities to be owners of those affects. And this two-sides-as-one would be why/how Cronenberg can be so unrelentingly grim, instead of having to resort to camp, in the ways that David Lynch and Guy Maddin both do (in the ways, I would say, that they are both forced to do, because of the extremities of their visions). K-Punk is right to assert that, for both Cronenberg and Lynch, it’s wrong to explain away the dualities and dichotomies of their films by saying that one side is the dream or fantasy or underside of the other. Rather, we have to grasp the total congruence of the film’s two halves (this comment would apply to Mulholland Drive as much as to A History of Violence. The difference is that where Lynch marks the two sides in the form of manic camp on the one hand and depressive bitterness and paranoia on the other, Cronenberg flattens both of them out, empties them both out. Lynch is thus a maximalist, Cronenberg a minimalist).

To say that Cronenberg’s vision in this film is ontological is also to say that he recognizes no hierarchy of levels. A History of Violence isn’t a film about existential male anguish, precisely because it works equally well, without privileging any one of these, as a study of the vacancy of the isolated inidividual, of the bourgeois nuclear family, of America as a fantasmatic formation or imaginary community, and of the “human condition” in the most general terms. But if it works most bitingly and corrosively on the level of family, this is because the Spielberg/revenge dichotomy-that-isn’t-one, which is Cronenberg’s largest cinematic reference point, tends to play out most overtly in terms of Family. The small town, of course, is grounded on the nuclear family, and its “family values”; Joey became Tom, in large part, by becoming a family man (which is why Edie worries, when she discovers the hidden identity, what the family really is, what their name is or could be). In Philadelphia, Richie makes a speech to Joey/Tom about why and how he never married & would never marry: it ties you down, makes difficulties, if you are married, then when you have a fling with somebody else (as you will inevitably want to do) you will have to do it with elaborate secrecy, etc. All this is a prelude to Richie’s trying to kill Joey, not in spite of, but precisely because of the fact that they are brothers (Richie never got as far in the mob as he wanted to, he says, because his family tie to his crazy brother held him back, just like getting married would). But by the end of the film — the last scene — being a married husband/father/family man is just as hollow as Richie’s life was — and retrospectively, it always was this hollow. Cronenberg rejects and undermines what is to me the one most absolutely offensive thing about all of Spielberg’s films (and about all of Spike Lee’s films too, for that matter): the absolute insistence on taking on the responsibilities of fatherhood, and thus restoration of a 1950s nuclear family, as an unquestionable and totally redemptive gesture. I hated that insistence before I had children; and now that I am a father, I hate it even more. The hollowness of the final scene of A History of Violence — the son getting out a setting for the place of the now-returned father at the dinner table — is devastating in its absolute oppressive rightness.

phew!

that'll take a while to process.

Didn't buy Viggo as smalltown diner guy or Philly thug.

If "In the Bedroom" was a revenge flick for the NPR crowd, AHOV is one for _________?

btw, the grosses aren't all that great ($25 M or so), and this was supposed to be DC's first 'broad appeal' project in years. Can the masses tell his heart wasn't really in it, or do they just find it airless?

I like the way people keep referring to Cronenberg's idea of small town life as "generic," when in fact it seemed quite real to me. People driving around blasting hip-hop. Kids smoking pot on the corner. Hardly Capra, very contemporary. That was my first real clue that I was in for something far deeper than the usual "darkness lurks beneath the surface of small town life" trope.

On September 23, a great American movie opened in the US, and New Line, the distributor, revealed it at just 14 theatres. I am not complaining - I love and respect old-fashioned opening plans where just a few cities get a picture at first and then the word goes out. And New Line had their arguments: it wasn't that David Cronenberg was prepared to have this movie called Recoil! or The Last Day in Tom Stall's Life. No, this movie has a chilling edge of academic authority or analytic dread. It's called A History of Violence. And it's the first unmistakably great American film since Mulholland Dr., even if it is made by a Canadian.

Cronenberg is 62 now. Born and raised in Toronto, he still lives there, and his work is followed at an international level, but without the solid, financial reward that can change a man, or an artist. When he made Spider a few years ago, an uncompromisingly bleak study of schizophrenia in which Ralph Fiennes had hardly a word of dialogue, Cronenberg's determination to follow his own vision nearly destroyed the enterprise for lack of funds. And there will be some viewers now inclined to see A History of Violence as a sell-out, a desperate excursion into full-blooded film noir about the kind of things that happen - notoriously - not in Canada but in the United States.

Tom Stall is a gaunt-looking fellow with a dreamy smile on his face and an easy manner that fits in to the small Indiana town where he owns a diner called Stall's. He looks a lot like Viggo Mortensen. He has a wife, Maria Bello, and two decent kids. The teenage boy is mocked at school for not being as male as Indiana prefers. But Tom and his wife still have a wild, tender sex life of the kind that might not be owned up to in all towns in Indiana. But even though this is "sleepy" Indiana, the air is as taut as an old wire ready to snap. Something terrible is coming, and we know after just a few minutes that Cronenberg has devised and outfitted the terror in keeping with the "Let's do an experiment" tone of the title.

In the past, Cronenberg has been one of the world's most creative experimenters with the horror genre. I suspect that was because he felt able to push that genre towards his own necessary economy plus the quite startling dismemberment or parasitic possession of his vision. This was evident in They Came From Within, Rabid, The Brood, The Dead Zone and even The Fly, which was the first glorious blooming of his special sense of humour. But still, there was something very deliberate in Cronenberg that felt unable to get into what you might call popular genre. But like many ascetics, familiarity with his own medium has made his search for formal beauty more fundamental. And that is what is so American: for nearly always, I think, the most radical departures in American come with the telling of the old, old stories.

So this is a myth composed by a master that operates at the level of pulp fiction, or graphic novel - its actual source material. Ed Harris and later William Hurt take a huge exultant pleasure in knowing that they are playing stock figures from that tradition. And they know that we are loving hating them. But beyond that this is a superb story of a marriage, in which a great lie has been told, but guessed at? And even hoped for? The interaction of Mortensen and Maria Bello is actually the core to what the title is about, and their two love and sex scenes are the essence of this stunning movie. And when the family next sits down to dinner together the air is still taut with new discoveries and the affirmation of very old truths. By letting himself make a simpler kind of picture, Cronenberg has left us not so much with his glittering intelligence as a kind of question that the US has to ask itself.

Quite deliberately, I am not telling you the story of A History of Violence. That's because it employs a formula you've seen before, but gives it a radically new rhythm, one in which the atmosphere of the title is not just the energy that renews the country and which makes it safe and dangerous again. This film is a preparation for the uncertainty of the last few shots.

Just as with the close of The Deer Hunter, where survivors sing softly, "America the Beautiful", we are left to weight the balance of irony and forgiveness.

Those two films are ideal material to be shown to soldiers just returned from a war where the ordeal of survival eclipsed all thought of what the war was about.

Thomson is OTM about the "new rhythm" of "AHOV."

"radical new rhythm" -- just ridiculous!

It wasn't released as one (it got a slow roll-out, per usual for mainstreamish arthouse fare), every review focused on the Cronenberg connection, it wasn't advertised as standard action/vengeance flick.

You could make that statement for something like Starship Troopers - and the fact that wasn't a typical action/vengeance movie led to some bad feeling from the audience - but AHOV was released as an artsy Cronenberg film. If there was subversion attempted, it was a failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4426386.stm

THE HEAVENS WEEP :-(

I wonder if it'll be even better than Nip/Tuck..

(Also, my main reaction was: that was the most violentest violence that was every violented. jeeeeezUS!)

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

I thought this guy nailed AHOV:

"Dear A History of Violence,

This is hard for me. I hardly know what to say. Maybe I should just shoot straight with you. You're a B-picture. Now, I don't mean this in a bad way. Lots of really cool movies fall into this category. But really, you and I had a good time and all, expecting some big twist that never came (good for you!) and having that steamy rendezvous on the stairs and oh yeah, William Hurt. He was awesome. But you're just not quite top ten material, and if that hurts you I'm sorry. I know lots of other viewers love you, but to me, it's like you just reflect back whatever anyone wants to see in you. Critique of violence in the Gulf War II era? Okay. Portrait of fractured masculinity? You got it. Subdued Cronenbergian treatise on the body in crisis? I'm your film. Etc. Etc. I mean, look, I enjoyed our time together but surely you didn't think this was serious, did you?"

http://www.geocities.com/michaelsicinski/2005notgoodenoughformyexactingtaste.htm

It was #6 apparently.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a happy family man running a diner in idyllic small-town Indiana, with a lawyer wife (Maria Bello), a teenage son (Ashton Holmes), and a little girl (Heidi Hayes). One night he responds so deftly and definitively to the violent threats of two killers that he becomes a local hero. A Philadelphia mobster named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) hears of the story and soon arrives in town claiming that Tom has another name and background -- that he was once a gangster himself who mutilated one of Fogarty's eyes with barbed wire.

Is A History of Violence a popular genre movie, soliciting visceral, unthinking responses to its violence while evoking westerns and noirs? Or is it an art film, reflecting on the meaning, implications, and effects of its violence, and getting us to do the same? David Cronenberg's genius here is the way he makes it impossible to settle this question.

You can't logically claim that it's both kinds of movie at once -- the devices and intentions of one interfere with those of the other. Yet Cronenberg is so adept at tinkering with our thoughts about violence that he comes very close to pulling off this feat. He provokes confused emotional responses -- laughter at serious moments and spontaneous applause at some of the violent ones -- that might embarrass us, but Cronenberg isn't engaging in parody or irony. Nor is he nihilistically pandering to our worst impulses: the filmmaking is too measured and too intelligent. He implicitly respects us and our responses, even when those responses are silly or disturbing.

There's hardly a shot, setting, character, line of dialogue, or piece of action in A History of Violence that can't be seen as some sort of cliche. Its fantasies about how American small towns are paradise and big cities are hell are genre standbys that Cronenberg milks at every turn. But none of this plays like cliche; Cronenberg is such an uncommon master of tone that we're in a state of denial about our familiarity with the material -- a kind of willed innocence that resembles Tom Stall's own disavowals. (Warning: what follows is full of spoilers.)

Cronenberg keeps his camera too close to Stall's violence to let us feel detached from it. He also takes care to show the immediate consequences of violence -- such as what a shotgun can do to someone's face -- without rubbing our noses in it. But our proximity never allows for any simple identification with Stall -- or if it does, we eventually feel penalized because we don't really know who he is. (His elected surname surely isn't irrelevant.) There's a similar ambiguity in that Cronenberg has spent most of his life and career in Toronto; you might call him a next-door neighbor to the American dream, which includes the cherished idea that we can start our lives over again with a clean slate. We seem to believe and doubt that idea with equal conviction, and the uneasy laughs the film draws out reflect this familiar brand of doublethink.

So do the two remarkable sex scenes between Tom and his wife before and after she learns about his violent past (reportedly Cronenberg's main contributions to Josh Olson's script). In the first, she starts out dominant, playfully dressed as a cheerleader ("because we never got to be teenagers together"), though he winds up on top; the second is spurred by his rough aggression, and she's turned on even though she no longer wants to share the same bed with him. Both scenes testify to the uncommon skills of Mortensen and Bello: they expose more layers of personality than we can possibly keep up with.

At Cannes last May Alexander Horwath -- director of the Austrian Film Museum and one of Europe's best film critics -- caused a minor scandal by loudly berating his colleagues for laughing during a screening of the film. It's easy to feel superior to this behavior, especially since Cronenberg himself has said he doesn't regard laughter as an inappropriate response to certain scenes. But I think Horwath's anger is in some ways a sensitive response. Cronenberg isn't a posthumanist cynic like Lars von Trier, whose nihilism we honor by jeering along with him. Cronenberg is a troubled moralist who doesn't succumb to political correctness about violence, and the meaning of our laughter, however "appropriate," is part of what bothers him.

I've seen the film twice, with very different audiences -- at a gala in Toronto with the filmmakers and cast present and at a local preview with a mainly younger crowd -- and it was uncanny to hear both the laughter and spontaneous applause occur at precisely the same places. The most memorable instances followed two scenes in which Tom's teenage son, Jack, is taunted, insulted, and provoked at school by a classmate.

The first time, in a locker room, Jack defuses the tension, lightly mocking the insults by accepting and even embroidering them. The second time, in a hallway, he again tries to remain cool, but when that doesn't work he beats both the bully and his friend to a bloody pulp. The audience all but cheered -- boorishness won out. Even after we learn that both boys have landed in the hospital, their families might sue, Jack has been suspended from school, and Tom is furious, Jack's stupidity and momentary loss of control are still being celebrated. (A moment later, a similar point gets made when Tom says to Jack, "In this family, we don't solve problems by hitting people." Jack snaps back, "No, we shoot them," and Tom slaps him in response, immediately disproving his point. This time no one applauded, at either screening.)

Jack's comebacks in the locker room got some laughs, but certainly not applause. I'd wager this has to do with our programmed responses to genre; thoughtful responses (which you might call "art-house" responses) are likely to come later and more slowly. But in either case Cronenberg sets up our reactions, both simple and complex, with equal care. Combined with the visceral responses he creates, our thoughts become more than theoretical -- we wind up experiencing them in our gut.

Oh, who needs logic! art doesn't need logic. seriously.

(most of my comments are Oct 18, Mo)

This is so true. Most of Kings & Queen worked because of the vertigo it induced in me. The shift in tones in AHOV, sometimes within the same scene, were almost Hitchcockian, with Cronenberg's similarly clammy regard for people perversely warm and human this time around, thanks in no small part to Bello and Mortensen.

And I detected no self-importance in AHOV, for the same reason I don't view Blue Velvet as a Horrifying Critique of Reagan's America. AHOV is a B-movie purified. Whether you think B-movies need purifying is a whole other question.

Sicinski is pretty much the smartest non-professional critic I know of. He could've put Crash in his top ten and I would've rushed to give it a second look.

trailer for DC's latest:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809794102/video/3182401/

no no no no no

ok, huh? Mafias and prisons? I want Cronenberg back.

Looks like Viggo's playing Ed Harris from the last one here.

hm

it's sure to have some brutal violence though, i guess
as long as it's got his brand of grime and grit and general uncontainable ooziness, even if not hyper-viscerally rendered, i'm fine

i feel a constant pain in my lower right abdomen, is that a warning sign for the Cronenberg disease?

anybody ever seen this? worth going to...?

Crimes of the Future screening at the Castro with music by I Am Spoonbender

it's definately worth seeing, but not with added "live score."
the long gaps of silence in that film are integral to its aesthetic.

yeah I'm a little perplexed at their addition - as a band they're quite good and definitely attuned to Cronenberg's aesthetic and ideas but I don't see why they're necessary. Cronenberg's rumored to attend, maybe he'll shed some light on it.

A phenomenology of tragedy: illness and body betrayal in The Fly
by Havi Carel

Many interpretations... read [The Fly] as a film about monstrosity ...Illness is taken to be a metaphor for the changes in Seth, changes that continuously turn him away from the human and towards the monstrous. .

...I suggest an opposite interpretation: instead of seeing Seth’s illness as a metaphor for monstrosity, I suggest that monstrosity is a metaphor for illness. Seth’s physical corruption as he becomes more and more monstrous is, in fact, a depiction of illness, and elicits disgust in the viewer that is identical to the disgust elicited by physical corruption brought about by illness. The external deformation of Seth as he becomes more and more fly-like, shown so spectacularly in the film, is a representation of the internal destruction and physiological chaos caused by disease....

http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=95

The Fly was a genuine Hollywood film, a love story, rich in morbid humour, and a metaphor for genius and for any and every disease mankind has faced. As never before, in the relationship between Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, Cronenberg's compassion was revealed. Indeed, The Fly is only incidentally a horror film; it is primarily a screwball romance, one of the great movies about the kinship of freaks and... the rest of us.

^^ david thomson w/ the only worthwhile analysis of this film

uhhhh...people (incl. I think Cronenberg himself) have been saying that about The Fly for years. xpost.

I love every Cronenberg movie I've seen but The Brood is my favorite. I made my girlfriend watch it and not only was she totally creeped out and disturbed but shortly after that she became pregnant.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

He has creepy gyno stuff in the Brood, the Fly, Shivers, and of course DEAD RINGERS...what is the deal with this man?

He played the gynecologist in The Fly.

There's creepy gyno stuff, yes, but there's also a more general obsession with bodies in general, and how squicky they are, and how they break down.

Oh, see, I hadn't read the Morbs post. The Fly is a perfect example.

i thought i'd heard he said the fly was about how in a love affair one person always turns into a monster.

^^also this

I'm looking forward to the new Cronenberg about as much as I am the new Paul Haggis flick.

Hey, Haggis wrote the screenplay for Casino Royale, which I think is great. He's not all bad.

There's creepy gyno stuff, yes, but there's also a more general obsession with bodies in general, and how squicky they are, and how they break down.

True, but it's worth noting that Cronenberg has never pushed specifically male sexual biology for grossness points.

what about the armpit peepee

i've seen the trailer for "eastern promises" . it was kinda lame, i hope the movie won't be.

http://emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=6811

Man, yeah, he's got hella stuff about getting PREGGERS...I can't imagine him making a movie about twin proctologists.

Makes him all the scarier, me being a girl and all. UGH that birth scene in the Brood.

what about the armpit peepee

It comes out of a armpit girl vagina that is attached to a actual girl. So "maleness" angle here is kinda secondary. Fact, it ranks kinda high on the girl-sex-grossness scale.

Man, watch that Eastern Promises trailer. Naomi Watts plays a MIDWIFE...there's a scene of her in surgical scrubs. I can't wait to watch interror as a 14-year-old-girl dies in a puddle of her own leukorrhea or something.

Actually I think it looks like a good movie. The only problem I can foresee is the fake Russian accent. I'm afraid it'll remind me of that letter being read by Lisa's Russian pen pal in the Simpsons, which changes in the middle to being written by a man overthrowing their house. "SINCERELY, LITTLE GIRL."

haha

Cronenberg movies suck.

"Cronenberg has modestly described himself as looking like a Beverly Hills gynaecologist"

Apparently Scorsese said this about him!

But he was MORE THAN HAPPY to keep the title, apparently.

hmmmm

http://www.filmfestivals.com/berlin99/img/cronenberg.jpg

I don't see the problem.

more recently:

http://25frames.org/media/news/david_cronenberg.jpg

He looks like a guy.

No, he's fine-looking man, it's just like, "Hey, J.G. Ballard, describe me as looking like a gynecologist. Like I played in the fly. Not that I'm obsessed with gynecology, it's...bodies...in general."

Are you accusing Cronenberg of being... creepy?

THIS IS NOT HERESY AND I SHALL NOT RECANT

No, I know what you're saying, and you're acknowledging an undercurrent that's in most of his movies, which is a male protagonist dealing with women as if they are an "other." But I don't feel like he's dishonest or self-deluding about it. Almost the opposite. And I think the reckless abandon with which he goes about displaying this tendency is interesting and possibly admirable. In Dead Ringers, a gynecologist becomes convinced that women are mutants and designs special and in fact sadistic-looking tools for these women. I do not imagine that Cronenberg himself is that horrified by the female form, but he's taking a tendency, possibly one of his own, grabbing the ball and running as far and as fast as he can with it.

I know, I love that about him too. And I dig that he's so open about it. I just didn't entirely agree w/yr statement that there's "a more general obsession with bodies in general, and how squicky they are, and how they break down." I mean, there is for sure, but maybe the gyno thing hits home for me bcz, you know, sitting in those stirrups can be scary enough without fearing you're going to get experimental treatment with some silver Geiger pterodactyl leg or explode with sacs that grow clowns of creepy Canadian boys.

(It's something I've always noticed due to the "AAAGH!" factor rather than the gender politics.)

He would be honored to hear you say that. :)

Ok, so he's creepy. Creepy R People Too.

I sure love that man.

Have you seen Shivers, kenan? It's my favorite one.

I finally did, just a few months ago.

I still like Naked Lunch better.

So. . . Eastern Promises.

I was simultaneously excited and uh oh about this one from the previews (excited cuz it's new Cronenberg and uh oh cuz it looks like it might suck) and apparently it's written by the guy who did the awesome Dirty Pretty Things and it's getting really good reviews.

I heard one review describe this as a less weird Inland Empire haha!

Whoa, when is it released? WANT TO SEE.

I saw Videodrome for the first time the other night....holy wow.

Oh, sorry, I can do my own homework. IT will be released two Fridays from now. I'll scribble that into my day planner or something.

I see that it will be release this coming Friday, where do you see two?

Oh wait SELECT THEATERS nevermind.

My theater is far from select, but it is quite close to a Cik•Fil•A.

the early revies says it's excellent.
something in between the godfather and inland empire...
sounds tasty..

naked knife fight, hooray

I'm pretty sure no amount of good reviews from people I trust will be enough to convince me this won't suck.

I R EXCITED

"I'm pretty sure no amount of good reviews from people I trust will be enough to convince me this won't suck."

Yeah I'm sure it won't be as good as Black Dahlia.

hey, Eric didn't even like BD much.

At least this figures to be less pretentious than History of Violence. I hope.

Haha I thought he said it was the most exciting movie he saw last year. Maybe I'm misremembering.

there was some good stuff in BD but I spent more time laughing at it than genuinely enjoying it

(xp) Yes. I was underwhelmed with Dahlia.

I might have said something about it being the not-worst movie I saw last year, which may have understandably led to confusions.

(btw Redacted isn't out til December)

Ebert gives Eastern Promises four of four stars

What was pretentious about A History of Violence? I'm not arguing that it wasn't, just asking.

It didn't even start with the mesopotamians. Some history.

j, we had a whole thread on it! My problem: B movie as a Grand Statement.

At least this figures to be less pretentious than History of Violence. I hope.

It's less pretentious, but the stakes are also much lower. It's the slightest (formally, narratively and idea-wise) Cronenberg I've seen.

Haha have you seen Fast Company?

I couldn't finish the Hoberman review, it seems like the more he praises Cronenberg (he again calls him the best North American filmmaker of his generation), the fewer ideas he has about him.

Haha, no. Nothing older than The Brood, so I guess that could explain my response.

x-post

Yeah, it was more interesting back in the day, the reviews, when his movies were cold and schlubby and no one liked them.

I want to get the Criterion Videodrome, are the extras good?

"him the best North American filmmaker of his generation"

thats easy: no competition,except david lynch

See, no one said that after SCANNERS, at which point I think he'd made a half-dozen movies.

Lol @ Lynch and Cronenberg as only major North American directors of the 80s and 90s.

I guess it's to read the Death of Cinema thread.

^time

My problem: B movie as a Grand Statement.

otm... he tried to squeeze way too much out of a pretty thin premise.

I still haven't seen that one.

not the only one, but waaaay above all others

"... he tried to squeeze way too much out of a pretty thin premise"

depends how you look at it.
you can also enjoy it flat, as lots of people did

I thought the movie totally worked on the level of Viggo KICKING ASS.

He showed up on Colbert last night, fwiw. Not as a guest, just as an odd cameo, in a LOTR costume. He gave Colbert a very big sword. I don't even remember the premise.

AWESOME

I thought the movie totally worked on the level of Viggo KICKING ASS.

This is true. The steam room scene is great.

slight? it can't be boringer than spider, can it?

I want to get the Criterion Videodrome, are the extras good?

-- Abbott, Friday, September 14, 2007 7:25 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

YES

good commentary and packaging too.

so what kind of "big statement" was Cronenberg trying to make with AHOV?

the film touches on some themes beyond the gangster stuff, maybe. but i don't see that making the film pretentious.

what's wrong with a b-movie as a grand statement anyway. ffs.

I liked Eastern Promises (although a little less that AHOV--which it is much cleaner than thematically--and a lot less than Dirty Pretty Things--which it's just not as good as.) Watt, Mueller-Stahl, Cassell are all good (if at times not entirely believable in their respective Roles), but it's really all Mortensen's movie. The bathhouse fight scene is great.

i thought this thread will be more popular,now when the movie is out...does it mean i can wait for the dvd?

not the only one, but waaaay above all others

^Spielberg, trendies

I saw it last night. Fabulous. See it now on the big screen—you'll be able to see the FOOD better.

this was an awesome movie.
Hitch would have been proud of it.
cronenberg is proving he is currently the best director on playing with genres,injecting deep subtext about modern society and psychology.
and it's very enjoyeble as well.

Saw Eastern Promises a few hours ago: much thinner than AHOV (this one more obviously betrays B-movie origins), and not as satisfying, although Mortensen is quite excellent in a performance that shows with what grace and power he can move.

I found it totally satisfying and actually preferred it a tiny bit to AHOV. I liked AHOV a lot, I just wasn't all that interested in the guy's marriage/ family, blah blah.

an american friend who normally watches things like norbert just saw this and says it is freakin terrific

viggo, naomi and vincent cassell - cronenberg is such a perv

loved it. beth's right - this is like ahov with the fat removed.

i've read several capsule reviews that mention cassel being miscast and thus the weak link, but i didn't see it.