LATE TO THE PARTY: VIDEODROME

Nice! Kinda disagree on the "use science responsibly" message. Aside from the smuggled-in happy ending of Shivers, Cronenberg's body of work paints science and technology in a relentlessly negative light, making me wonder if Cronenberg believes it's even possible to use science responsibly. It will be interesting to see whether his pessimistic POV will carry into the upcoming Freud/Young flick.  

Wait, Shivers has a happy ending?   I seem to remember a not-at-all happy ending of the world overrun by sex zombies, although it's been awhile since I've seen it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

Wait, Shivers has a happy ending?  

It's presented like a bleak, "the parasites have won" Invasion of the Body Snatchers ending, but I've always thought Cronenberg was on the side of the parasites, and a world free of sexual inhibition.

Cronenberg's filmography pretty consistently reflects a terror of sex, so no, I'm not sure he's on the side of the parasites. But it's hard to believe the guy's a puritan either. Lets just say he's got a complicated relationship with sex, and leave it at that.

I love Videodrome, it's probably my favourite Cronenberg movie. Downright prophetic, in a strange way--at a time when everyone who criticized TV saw it as this blandifying, homogenizing force, Cronenberg saw it as something that could be perversely edgy and "underground", foreshadowing the internet. It probably helped that Cronenberg had Toronto's CityTV as a model (at the time, City was indeed a pretty edgy station; its manager, Moses Znaimer, who may be the main inspiration for Woods' character, believed very passionately in TV as a vital medium, and at the same time, was kind of a sleazebag who'd do anything for ratings. And yes, they showed porn.) I can't remember if they ever explicitly identify the movie as being set in Toronto, but it clearly is--aside from the obvious landmarks, I believe Debbie Harry's character is based on a radio personality of the time, and of course Brian O'Blivion is essentially Marshall McLuhan, another Torontonian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

Nice! Kinda disagree on the "use science responsibly" message. Aside from the smuggled-in happy ending of Shivers, Cronenberg's body of work paints science and technology in a relentlessly negative light, making me wonder if Cronenberg believes it's even possible to use science responsibly. It will be interesting to see whether his pessimistic POV will carry into the upcoming Freud/Young flick.  

There's this quote from the book Cronenberg on Cronenberg where he pretty much sums up his views: "You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do."

Cronenberg is probably my favorite director of all time, and Videodrome is my favorite film of his. It's an essential film, and yes it is fucking prophetic. It's hard to watch that film now without seeing how much has come true through the development of the internet. 

Cronenberg is very pro-science and exploration. I believe Videodrome is more about the flow of information and it's ability to be distorted and manipulated. Videodrome is about Fox News via a science fiction story. The masterminds behind it only give a damn about what Woods' character is into insofar as they can access and manipulate it for their own gain. In The Fly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with what Brundle is doing, it's a positive thing, what messes him up is impaired judgment from being drunk. In that sense, the telepod is basically a car, complex but wholly manageable if you're careful, dangerous if you're not. What he goes through afterwards is simply the tenets of drama.

The Brood is a little more complicated, as Raglan is horribly arrogant and narcissistic with very questionable methods, but his primary goal is altruistic. He's not an all together bad guy and in the end he tries his best to fix the idea that got away from him.

I think Cronenberg more inherits the "science gone wrong" idea from the horror genre than believing it himself. It's a good structure for a story. It's usually more about the personality flaws of the "mad" scientist than anything intrinsic to "tampering in God's domain" or anything. In fact, The Brood is pretty explicitly about the personality flaws shaping the results of the treatment--the treatment can be seen to have positive results in many cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreMrNiceGaius 

There's this quote from the book Cronenberg on Cronenberg where he pretty much sums up his views: "You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do."

This is what I take from watching them.  I never really feel like Cronenberg is painting the science itself in a negative light as all of the bad things that happen happen because of human fallibility as opposed to inherent flaws in the science.  Whomever upthread mentioned Brundle's getting drunk in The Fly is spot-on.  And what makes this even MORE special is that even with that fallibility on full display, Cronenberg never comes across as pessimist either.  He kind of reminds me of the Coens in that respect - they're all about having real, normal people make bad (but understandable) decisions and seeing what comes from them.  That's pretty much exactly what Cronenberg does, albeit to a greater extreme in a lot of cases.  Take Deborah Harry's Niki Brand - at BEST she has a few issues, and at worst she's "fucked up."  But Cronenberg never even considers the "at worst" - he takes her and presents her as who and what she is.  He accepts her.  There's a lot of compassion for his characters, even when he's putting them through the wringer.

See, I think the Coens kind of hate their protags for the most part (or at least enjoy pulling their wings off). The affection on display for their characters in True Grit is what ultimately sets it apart from their other work.

I've read Cronenberg on Cronenberg, and I remember the quote mentioned, but I think it's interesting that his work tells a very different story than his interviews do.  Again, it's why I'm so interested in his take on Freud and Jung; Cronenberg hasn't dealt with science issues in years, and it will be interesting to see where he picks up from where he left off.