The Cronenberg Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1538 of them)
I'll drink with you, Soto.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, yeah, that's what it boils down to - I found it to be ineffective in the performances and narrative background (unsurprising given the thin source material), and the editing was unspectacular to me (do you mean the momentary shots of violence's aftermath)? So in my book it was a complete failure.

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.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:59 (eighteen years ago) link

(xpost)

If only, John.

Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:02 (eighteen years ago) link

'sex/pornography is violence,violence is sex/pornography' etc.

'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!

walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:32 (eighteen years ago) link

or even just one encapsulation

walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:33 (eighteen years ago) link

which one?

Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:35 (eighteen years ago) link

I like the second one because it almost rhymes.

walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:49 (eighteen years ago) link

But the first one's tautology is so correct, since the film itself has two complimentary sex scenes that involve attraction via role-playing. Man, if the rest of the movie was as interesting as that one element, I'd probably be as excited as anyone else here about it. Alas...

Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 7 October 2005 00:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Jeez, Milo, hate art much?

dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 7 October 2005 02:35 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean, take a complex work and reduce it to a single note, and then blame the artist..!

dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 7 October 2005 02:38 (eighteen years ago) link

The end was never in doubt to me, either. So ... I mean, it's not like the kind of thriller where it could go in one of a million different directions. But I appreciated the mood a lot: everything was ominous and ripe with tension.

jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 7 October 2005 02:53 (eighteen years ago) link

and intimacy.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I think I would love this film if it had fifteen more minutes between when he leaves the farm and when he arrives in Philly.

kurt broder (dr g), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:13 (eighteen years ago) link

Dude, Milo, I'm still with you even if nobody else is.

400% Nice (nordicskilla), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:24 (eighteen years ago) link

I love art. I just don't much care for this art.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:48 (eighteen years ago) link

I finally saw History of Violence today and basically liked it, still thinking about its thesis (like, whether it has a coherent one). One thing I'm thinking is that Tom Stall seems very Canadian. As opposed to Joey, who's very American. I guess it would have been too obvious to have him resettled in some small town in Ontario.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 16 October 2005 03:56 (eighteen years ago) link

I'd say AHOV is DC's weakest since "M. Butterfly," but even MB might be a more interesting failure. I can't bring myself to hate it -- "You never lived in Portland?" and "How do you fuck that up?" might be the two funniest movie questions of the year -- but it's a passionless stylistic exercise. Scorsese's "Cape Fear" got sillier, but at least it had that 'playhouse' scene and embraced the pulp elements more primally. When you have nothing but bare-bones archetypes, you're walking a thin line, and when the quaking Chess Club-type son stomped the WB-drama bullies, the movie lost me. This Seitz guy from NY Press nails it, esp in the last 3 paragraphs:

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.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 13:08 (eighteen years ago) link

non-auteurist heartland multiplex audiences

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?"

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 13:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Whatever you say, Joey.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 13:37 (eighteen years ago) link

"This reminds me of something I read on that message board, I Hate Everything."

William Paper Scissors (Rock Hardy), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link

>Cronenberg didn't write this script, which is rare<

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:15 (eighteen years ago) link

"Only out"? I don't understand.

dar1a g (daria g), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:19 (eighteen years ago) link

Re: that NYP review I think Zeitz sort of missed the point. Not that I think it's a masterpiece, but I think there's more going on than he credits. He's reading it very literally.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:26 (eighteen years ago) link

only out = only excuse

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:41 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, the theme is obvious, the violence that underlies everyday life, etc. But most themes are obvious. I thought he nibbled at it in some interesting ways, most interesting being the movie's fundamental ambivalence toward violence and its acknowledgment of its ambivalence. Zeitz criticizes the violence for generally producing good rather than bad results -- the motel massacre at the beginning aside, bad guys are always on the losing end. But that was deliberate, clearly. The whole movie is set up in that tension between the knowledge that violence breeds violence etc. and the actual events of the story in which violence puts an end to violence. I thought the point of the dining table scene at the end was that the whole family is now sort of in on what Tom/Joey has known all along, which is that domestic security is inevitably built on some kind of blood sacrifice. Like suburban housing developments on old battlefields, etc. Not an original insight, OK, but I thought it was handled with some elegance and a fair amount of black comedy.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:51 (eighteen years ago) link

domestic security is inevitably built on some kind of blood sacrifice.

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.

dar1a g (daria g), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 03:38 (eighteen years ago) link

I couldn't believe how simpering Viggo was with the murderer who barked his coffee order at him. It really was, as a poster above said, a kind of psychosis, an unwillingness to confront.

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.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 03:56 (eighteen years ago) link

Well the theme was most cartoonishly elucidated in William Hurt's little soliloquy about "When mom brought you home from the hospital I tried to strangle you in your crib. She caught me and whacked the hell out of me." Then he says something like, "I guess all kids go through that." There's also the weird little story from the fry cook about the woman who stabbed him with a fork -- "So I married her!" And of course the sex-is-violence scene. All kind of reinforcing this sense of rumbling bloodlust, the excitement and allure of it balanced against the damage, etc.

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.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 04:39 (eighteen years ago) link

(Also I think there's a difference between playing something straight and meaning it straight.)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 04:40 (eighteen years ago) link

Certainly those themes can be found in the dialogue (similar to the talk about parents, killing pests, etc in "Psycho"); DC is no dummy. But they just seemed too telegraphed in an 'arty exercise' way.

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:57 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, I didn't buy the Bush analogy, and I was looking for it.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:21 (eighteen years ago) link

O joy:

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

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 20 October 2005 20:29 (eighteen years ago) link

saw this, late last night. liked it

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 20 October 2005 20:47 (eighteen years ago) link

Haha... I just saw that you fingered The Fly this morning and was heartened by it.

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

Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 20 October 2005 22:21 (eighteen years ago) link

i really, really liked this.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 21 October 2005 08:23 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, the theme is obvious, the violence that underlies everyday life, etc. But most themes are obvious. I thought he nibbled at it in some interesting ways, most interesting being the movie's fundamental ambivalence toward violence and its acknowledgment of its ambivalence. Zeitz criticizes the violence for generally producing good rather than bad results -- the motel massacre at the beginning aside, bad guys are always on the losing end. But that was deliberate, clearly. The whole movie is set up in that tension between the knowledge that violence breeds violence etc. and the actual events of the story in which violence puts an end to violence. I thought the point of the dining table scene at the end was that the whole family is now sort of in on what Tom/Joey has known all along, which is that domestic security is inevitably built on some kind of blood sacrifice. Like suburban housing developments on old battlefields, etc. Not an original insight, OK, but I thought it was handled with some elegance and a fair amount of black comedy.

-- 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.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 21 October 2005 08:32 (eighteen years ago) link

i really loved this film. i wasn't expecting it to be so...silly, in places. i didn't expect that one of the genres mashed up in it would be a healthy dose of "oooh! he's BEHIND YOU!" pantomime action, and i didn't expect william hurt to be so hammy and look like sir alan sugar.

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.

The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 21 October 2005 09:07 (eighteen years ago) link

I just want to reiterate that Viggo turned FORTY SEVEN yesterday.
Dear god I hope I look like that when I hit 47. Holy frijoles.

TOMBOT, Friday, 21 October 2005 11:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Well not exactly like that but you understand what I mean.

TOMBOT, Friday, 21 October 2005 11:59 (eighteen years ago) link

47!!!

The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 21 October 2005 12:11 (eighteen years ago) link

I understand they were probably going for blankness, but I really didn't find Viggo ... there.

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 October 2005 12:52 (eighteen years ago) link

I liked it, both pn visual and thematic levels. My date was a little unsettled, however, but then she did choose it!

BARMS, Friday, 21 October 2005 13:27 (eighteen years ago) link

I think it worked extremely well as a satire of contemporary America, specifically underscoring how violence and lies are what really bind homes together. Family values, indeed. It can even work as a broader, more primal satire of America, period, positing that the entire country - its founding, its morality, its pride - exists as a sort of big lie.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:14 (eighteen years ago) link

for me, the 'big' point which was best made was the ease with which violence seeps into 'normal' life - the son and the mother, basically, neither of whom had any previous experience of violence or any predisposition to it, being suddenly given psychological leeway to let it show in their own lives.

The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:28 (eighteen years ago) link

positing that the entire country - its founding, its morality, its pride - exists as a sort of big lie

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.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:36 (eighteen years ago) link

in other words, what Lex said.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:37 (eighteen years ago) link

And then the unease of the final shot/scene, with the family together wondering "What next? do we continue to live the lie, now that it has been revealed to us? Can we?" With the daughter present as a reminder of the innocence the other three so clearly crave but know they can never have, or even pretend to have anymore.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:04 (eighteen years ago) link

Viggo's "I should have killed you in Philly" is one of the most satisfying moments I can remember in the movies.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:19 (eighteen years ago) link

And yet, I don't even remember that. When I see the line quoted I can't remember if Ed Harris said it.

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?!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:39 (eighteen years ago) link

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.

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.

Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:47 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.