The Cronenberg Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1050 of them)
Definitely.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:42 (9 years ago) Permalink

A lot of his short stories would translate well into films. As would probably his last three novels. Cocaine Nights and Super Cannes expecially, seeing as they paint such a good visual image throughout.

Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:42 (9 years ago) Permalink

And I reckon Cronenberg would be the best director for his stuff.

Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

i like him so much i will be a bit upset if someone says he sucks. 'rabid' was kind of shit tho

franken-vader, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:51 (9 years ago) Permalink

i think that crash is brilliant--a conflation of machine and flesh that continues and expands his themes (which are the themes of all of us--it takes the la of five ecologies and turns it on), that is isolating, slick, beautiful, erotic, well versed and morally complicated.

i think it is the best film formally he has made

anthony, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:56 (9 years ago) Permalink

Ugh Cocaine Nights is terrible. No one should direct that.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:59 (9 years ago) Permalink

xpost
Did you really find it erotic, though?

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

Formally, yes. Sexually, no.

Just Kidding (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

actually thats a perfect answer

anthony, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't know what "formally erotic" means, but I do understand why it's the perfect answer. May also explain my disconnect from the movie.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:08 (9 years ago) Permalink

Ebart: "Cronenberg has made a movie that is pornographic in form, but not in result. Take out the cars, the scars, the crutches and scabs and wounds, and substitute the usual props of sex films, and you'd have a porno movie."

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

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

I thought Spider was a total z. At least Crash was unintentionally funny. I find the stuff really entertaining but I think the 80s were his peak - charismatic leads help make his style a little less starchy.

POV:
Dead Ringers
Dead Zone
Scanners
Videodrome
The Fly

I really want to see Shivers.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:54 (9 years ago) Permalink

That should be I find the early stuff

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:54 (9 years ago) Permalink

shivers is great, like if romero directed an orgy flick

j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh, and Howard Shore music scores for Videodrome, Crash & Scanners... FUCKING CLASSIC.

Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

yeah I saw a lot of clips of Shivers on an IFC documentary about horror films back in 2000 (I turned 21 that October, freaked out and spent every weekend eating pizza and watching tons of Craven, Romero and Cronenberg films on the station - all hosted by Tom Savini!) and it looked terrific.

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

charismatic leads help make his style a little less starchy

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.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

apparently cronenberg's gonna make a movie out of london fields - i'm quite curious about this!

j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

You're kidding. I need a link.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404207/ - admittedly just 'announced', with no status update for over a year so, hmmm, maybe not so likely to happen. i'd see that movie for sure though.

j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:29 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh, I could have looked that up myself. I was hoping for an article.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

Holy shit a DC London Fields would be NICE.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:37 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes. Yes it would.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:38 (9 years ago) Permalink

I can't tell if its a shame or not that he never got to do Basic Instinct 2. It almost happened!

miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

If he'd done the first one, it would have been a great movie. It almost was anyway, but it lacked any subtext whatsoever.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

TS: verhoeven vs. cronenberg

j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

Holy shit a DC London Fields would be NICE.

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.

box of socks, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:50 (9 years ago) Permalink

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. We have a good laugh about that now and then.

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.

walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:53 (9 years ago) Permalink

I forgot to mention: search his appearance in the film Last Night.

walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:56 (9 years ago) Permalink

At least Crash was unintentionally funny.

Really? Unintentionally?

walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

Doesn't matter if you're describing Crash as "funny" or "unintentionally funny," you're still missing the point.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

Here I am again, defending a movie I don't even like.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

I've never read the book so I'll admit I'm probably missing the point. Still, it's a great film on its own merits.

walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

Don't taunt me like that. It's own merits are not great, so... you can grok the rest of my arguments from there.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

What is your argument exactly? Crash is not great because you didn't like it and people who enjoyed it are missing the point? Finding humor in the movie is wrong because... why exactly? If the humor was intentional it betrayed the source material? Or if was unintentional then it's not worth enjoying? I'm not trying to taunt you but I'm curious what someone who otherwise likes Cronenberg would have against Crash (other than deviation from the source).

walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

Now you've really lost me. You though it was supposed to be funny?

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 07:37 (9 years ago) Permalink

I mean, if you thought it was intentionally funny you did not see hte same movie as I did. If you though it was unintentionally funny ... well, I don't quite know what to think about that.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 07:40 (9 years ago) Permalink

POV Cronenberg:

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).

emil.y (emil.y), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 10:38 (9 years ago) Permalink

Best Cronenberg moment ever might be in Scanners when the main character is ambushed in the artist's barn-studio and his psychic counter-attack is portrayed as the most ridiculously hammy head swing and grimace into the camera. It looks like a castmember of Fame playing "tough".

Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 10:50 (9 years ago) Permalink

Crash and Fight Club are amazing fetish movies.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 14:51 (9 years ago) Permalink

What, no mention of DC's star turn in Friday The 13th: Space Travel Sucks? FOR SHAME!

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.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 14:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

"last night"!

cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

New DVD of Dead Ringers June 7.

slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

scanners
dead ringers
videodrome
dead zone
crash

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.

firstworldman (firstworldman), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:43 (9 years ago) Permalink

i already have the previous criterion edition of dead ringers, is this the same thing just reissued or a whole new DVD with new features?

latebloomer: B Minus Time Traveler (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

anyway firstworlddude otm

latebloomer: B Minus Time Traveler (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:53 (9 years ago) Permalink

DVD Features:

* 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.

latebloomer: B Minus Time Traveler (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 17:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

Dead Ringers
eXistenZ
Videodrome
Crash
Scanners

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.

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 17:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

'Shivers' is great. Remove the parasites and you have almost an adaptation of Ballard's 'High Rise.'

robertw, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 18:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

There might not be a contemporary director whose fans vary so widely on what his best and worst work is. I even know some people who would call Dead Ringers his great sellout.

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

L'Histoire d'Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 18:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

thank the Academy.

Eric H., Tuesday, 30 September 2014 20:14 (Yesterday) Permalink

I liked it, it was much stranger than I expected. The boy being competitive with the younger kid was funny.

Is it just me or was the burning woman struggling with a ghost made of fire? Probably not but I kept thinking there was some extra figure in the scene.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:10 (8 hours ago) Permalink

no it was just the worst CGI ever put on film

Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:11 (8 hours ago) Permalink

That they bothered using cgi instead of a stunt person with real fire was part of what made me wonder.
That is part of the annoyance of so many bad cgi scenes, that they easily could have been avoided.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:16 (8 hours ago) Permalink

That had to have been deliberate

please delete outrageous tanuki crappyposter (wins), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:26 (7 hours ago) Permalink

Not going to entirely dismiss the notion that it's a "commentary" on something but it's pretty jarring considering the rest of the film (including the ghosts/hallucinations) is presented in such a flat, realistic manner

Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:14 (7 hours ago) Permalink

I vaguely recall reading something about Croney getting pissed off when questioned about it at Cannes but I can't seem to find it

Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:24 (6 hours ago) Permalink

idk

"I really love CGI in the sense that it's another tool," he said. "When I made Naked Lunch, there was no such thing as computer generated graphics. Even in Maps to the Stars, which is relatively naturalistic, there's a lot of CG that's wonderful. It was set in Hollywood, but it was mostly shot in Toronto. We just shot five days in Hollywood. And yet I could put the Hollywood Hills in the background easily because of computer graphics. That's a fantastic tool for a director, and that's why I love digital. But because it's exciting, it does get overused, of course."

Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:52 (6 hours ago) Permalink

the freud-jung movie wasn't great but there were a few interesting stylistic choices. but yeah for a movie with that subject matter it was pretty uninvolving

there are one or two moments of flagrantly shoody CGI in moonrise kingdom, i sort of like it

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 14:26 (5 hours ago) Permalink

I always wondered why in Naked Lunch when you see that big thing Julian Sands was stuck in, they created a fake Julian Sands instead of putting the real actor in it. Another case of what seems to me unnecessary effects.
That Giger looking humping thing looked pretty rough too but otherwise I thought the special effects were brilliant. I can only guess what he would have replaced with cgi if he could.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:12 (5 hours ago) Permalink

w/out cuts this also appears to be "unrated" or NC-17 to me

Surely this is because of the guy wanking and not any of the violence. Brightly lit full-on penis shots are begging for an MPAA panic attack.

This is really Bruce Wagner's movie - it's got bits and pieces from Force Majeure and I'm Losing You - and so much autobiographical stuff (he was a limo driver at the Beverly Hills Hotel; he is heavily involved in new age mysticism but is a raging cynic, etc. etc.)

Cronenberg had never filmed a single shot in Hollywood before this movie!

Your Ribs are My Ladder, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:19 (5 hours ago) Permalink

hoew in the world do you clowns suspend your disbelief over rear projection in old movies?

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:42 (4 hours ago) Permalink

Brightly lit full-on penis shots are begging for an MPAA panic attack.

Wolf of Wall Street was rated R and featured a brightly lit full-on penis shot of Jonah Hill wanking it in a crowded party

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:48 (4 hours ago) Permalink

hoew in the world do you clowns suspend your disbelief over rear projection in old movies?

heh Existenz features some of the worst - or most obvious - back projection ever (in the driving scenes) and I've always wondered if it was a deliberate stylistic choice

sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:50 (4 hours ago) Permalink

it is in Far from Heaven and prob a few Coen joints I am forgetting.

anyway i have a number complaints about this movie and the fire is nowhere close to the top 20.

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:57 (4 hours ago) Permalink

figure all the fake-looking stuff in eXistenZ is v intentional

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:57 (4 hours ago) Permalink

It could just be that Cronenberg makes sure effects look great when they're integral to the story but doesn't really care when they're not

⌘-B (mh), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:11 (4 hours ago) Permalink

Wolf of Wall Street was rated R and featured a brightly lit full-on penis shot of Jonah Hill wanking it in a crowded party

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 1, 2014 10:48 AM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

did it? man, I must have blocked that out

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:15 (4 hours ago) Permalink

it is in Far from Heaven and prob a few Coen joints I am forgetting.

election features an amusing rear projection as a kind of fellini pastiche; film is chock full of intentionally crickety analog effects

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:15 (4 hours ago) Permalink

although that's not a coen joint

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:16 (4 hours ago) Permalink

i was watching some 1960s richard fleischer movie (which one? I forget) and it had a rather amazingly seamless instance of rear projection in a car-ride scene

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:16 (4 hours ago) Permalink

really; i wonder if Sophocles thought Jocasta's suicide was "non-integral." xxxxp

WotW cock scene was v different than this; also the MPAA cuts a break to bad big-budget comedies. (also this one is clearly not a fake johnson, but it is flaccid)

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:17 (4 hours ago) Permalink

True, I haven't seen this one yet so I have no idea what's important

⌘-B (mh), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:19 (4 hours ago) Permalink

in general, or w/r/t this movie?

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:19 (4 hours ago) Permalink

I always wondered why in Naked Lunch when you see that big thing Julian Sands was stuck in, they created a fake Julian Sands instead of putting the real actor in it. Another case of what seems to me unnecessary effects.

― Robert Adam Gilmour,

because it emphasizes the illusory nature of what Bill sees? It's the actor playing Kiki who's obv fake. Sands and Kiki are having sex; instead, he imagines a mugwump eviscerating Kiki.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:23 (3 hours ago) Permalink

I should probably watch it again, I barely understood the film but I enjoyed quite a lot of it. Not that I think I'll understand it the second or third time.

Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:29 (3 hours ago) Permalink

nice one, amateurist B)

⌘-B (mh), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:47 (3 hours ago) Permalink

Wolf of Wall Street was rated R and featured a brightly lit full-on penis shot of Jonah Hill wanking it in a crowded party

Should have clarified - full-on bright penii played for a laugh (see also: Walk Hard) generally treated differently than dramatic and sexualized full-on bright penii (in Maps (genital spoilers) the guy is tugging on it watching Julianne Moore make out with another woman).

Your Ribs are My Ladder, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 17:15 (3 hours ago) Permalink

genital spoilers

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 17:16 (3 hours ago) Permalink

Jonah Hill's genitals are spoiled.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 17:18 (3 hours ago) Permalink


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