Cronenberg
 

The "Recommend me a movie thread" reminds me I don't get Cronenberg's praises. I think his films lack subtlety in the imagery, the way themes like violence or sex are treated, and the actors' directing and dialogues.

Am I the only one to think that way (I know many people love him here) ?

I personally much prefer the way John Carpenter deals with all of those themes. He's ok but I'm not a huge fan of his.

Cronenberg is amazing, probably the best and most consistent director of our generation, even moreso than David Lynch (though Lynch is more interesting and better overall because he has explored many different mediums -- cartoons, comics, books -- and succeeded in every way). He's definitely my favorite non-Japanese director. He explores themes that most directors wouldn't touch -- and he directs in such a cold, focused, and direct way. He films the unfilmable and expresses the unexpressable. And The Dead Zone is one of the only films ever to make me cry. And Dead Ringers.. man... what a fucking film. I like that his films don't get marred down by scenes... everything fits, everything flows well, and none of his films are overly indulgent. Well, okay, Naked Lunch is a little bit -- but just the fact that he filmed Naked fucking Lunch is remarkable.

His films are bizarre in that, even in his "mainstream" ones (Scanners, The Fly, the last couple of films he did), they still offer plenty of food for thought, he doesn't dumb anything down.

I noticed in the other thread that you like Sofia Coppola's "lost in translation" and "virgin suicides"... what's odd is that they are filmed in a very deliberate, cold, detached style, which is what Cronenberg is known for. Obviously, they don't explore any similiar themes, but I find it kind of funny. You were right, by the way, Eyes Wide Shut sucks ass.

Anyway, since I'll never get a chance to again, ranking Cronenberg films now...

1. Videodrome
2. The Dead Zone
3. Dead Ringers
4. Crash
5. Eastern Promises
6. The Brood
7. Naked Lunch
8. The Fly
9. History of Violence
10. Shivers
11. Rabid
12. M. Butterfly
13. Spider
14. Scanners
15. Existenz

Something weird I've noticed is that a lot of his films end with gun violence. Even though he doesn't really have any action films, a gun usually comes into play at the end of his films. Just something weird to note.

Regarding John Carpenter, he's also made some of my favorite films. "They Live", "Big Trouble in Little China", and "In the Mouth of Madness" are amongst my favorite film.

i need to see more carpenter and croneberg. i have seen dead ringers and videodrome. both were excellent. i can definatly see what you mean by the emotional detachment in his movies, but oi find that to be interesting.
i have only seen carpenters halloween which did not impress me much

the thing with him the way i see it is that he does not attempt to make movies that look "real"-- they are very theatrical, always-- that's a stylistic choice and that is a good thing, in my mind. it says to me "you're entering an altered state of mind", not "this could happen in your neighborhood". if you want him doing subtletly, look at spider, but that's my least favorite movie of his.

i think the guy is fucking brilliant. he's like nobody else.

I am not a big fan of horror movies. my horror loving friends love them some Cronenberg though.

ace director, i can't praise him enough.

Cronenberg has only made two horror movies (Shivers and Rabid). One could argue the Fly as a horror movie but that's about it.

Shivers isn't scary, just very creepy.

My favourite director.

i don't think cronenberg's horror is everyone elses "horror"

i'd say not just the fly but scanners is horror, so is the brood, and while videodrome is not classic horror, how else would you classify it if you had to? fear, paranoia, violence & gore-- the stuff of horror. it's just not retarded shit but there's a side of horror in all/most his movies.

He's psychologically frightening. His movies mess with your head in a weird way.

funny this thread happened as i just saw videodrome for the first time last night... i definitely like me some cronenberg... history of violence might be one of my favorites ever...

history of violence was very very good

i do like cronenburg for sure but i also find his films quite depressing in many ways. i mean they leave me feeling sad afterwards for some reason.

history of violence was incredibly meh.

i had to double check that it was actually a cronenberg film.

oh it was fucking good, fucking good--

that fight scene in the bath was pure fucking cronenberg, come on.

he got his inspiration, he said, from the televised beheadings. his point was that tv violence makes shit "easy" whereas in real life killing a person is hard & brutal work.

great movie, i loved it.

in eastern promises?

eastern promise i really want to see.

fuck yeah-- the body, coming undone-- that's like his signature

ah ah yeah, but he was talkin' bout history of violence :D

oh shit ha ha ha ha

yeah

the only thing like that in history of violence was his brother's head

ewww

great fucking movie. maria bello was hottttt.

you see? there's an explanation for the movie, there's a reason you know to know before going to the theater and watching it.

give me an end, not means; if i can't enjoy the result then i don't care about the means.

i'm not saying it was bad, it wasn't something to get excited about, that's all. and, my fault, i was expecting more.

my favorite part was the angry sex scene (amazing acting, context, psychologically justified and cinematography) and, to a lesser extent, the wife wearing a schoolgirl uniform but that's for other reasons...

yeah i was talking about eastern promises ha ha ha

i fucked up

--

about hm a history of violence, i fucking loved it-- the crazy guy changing his life to this nice man & BLAM

it was great. the sex/rape scene was fucking brilliant.

ha ha yeah hm maria bello in a cheerleader outfid yum

i missed eastern promises in theaters because assholes only left it for a week!

I have not liked one of the 6 Cronenberg films I have seen. That's a rare feat for a director to achieve within me. His outrageous work is silly and his restrained work is mind-numbingly dull.

Shinya Tsukamoto is often described as a successor to Cronenberg. This upsets me because I LOVE everything I've seen by Tsukamoto (the outrageous and the restrained).

everyone has different taste

I liked Shivers, and Rabid, but nothing much after that.

I thought this was about the beer.

Of course they do, and I would never argue that.

I just want Torn Curtain to know he's not alone. :p

And film too, apparently.

crash and dead ringers are my favorites.

eastern promises should have got more praise, especially for viggo's acting. there were just so many great films and great performances during oscar season that i think it was forgotten as it came out in september.

history of violence really shocked me at how good it was. I really was expecting pure shit just from the concept. Same with Eastern Promises. I thought the concept was lame but it ended up being fucking awesome. Even cronenberg's "mainstream" films are brilliant.

I maintain that existenz is his worst film. What's weird is, it explores a lot of similiar themes as videodrome. It's not even a bad film, it's just.. .you know... nothing. Love the rice gun though!

I think something that puts off most people about Cronenberg's films is that you have to WANT to like them. You can't just sit there and hope to be impressed, as the pacing of his films is often very glacial. Also, there's a lot bubbling under the surface. It's like Dead Ringers: on the outset, it's a very simple story of two twin gyneacologists, one who begins taking drugs and his life begins to spiral downhill. But the look at the way the twins are connected in every way -- the subtleness of certain quotes and scenes, compounded by an amazing music score -- is just heartbreaking and unnerving. Also, his films are often intentionally vague but not in a Lynch way... they all make perfect sense, he just doesn't give you all the details. I think his films are just constructed perfectly.

Funny Tsukamoto was mentioned. I said on the "dedicate a post to your favorite director" thread that he was my favorite director. And he is. And having seen every single Tsukamoto film (even the shorts) and every single Cronenberg films, I'm shocked you don't see him and Cronenberg's similarities. They're virtually identical in style (not colors, which Tsukamoto is known for, but moreso the pacing and framing of shots) and explore a lot of the same themes. Seriously, A Snake of June and Bullet Ballet could've easily been Cronenberg films. Anyway, both brilliant directors, who are very generous with the running times of their films as well :) (look at someone like Miike or Lynch who seems to HAVE TO make every single film well over 2 hours to get their point across -- too much of a good thing) Another funny thing about both directors, as I said earlier, is Cronenberg seeming to focus on guns in a lot of films but only in the ending, with one exception (A History of Violence which features tons of gun action). Tsukamoto also does this, ending many of his films with gun violence, including A Snake of June, Tetsuo II (which is ABOUT a guy turning into a gun but there isn't much gun action until the end), and of course Bullet Ballet (which is about a guy making a gun, amongst other things). Very interesting. Anyway, now that Tsukamoto's been mentioned, I want to say that everyone NEEDS to watch Tokyo Fist, easily one of the best films ever. It makes Raging Bull look like a fucking joke.

Also, find it strange M. Butterfly hasn't been mentioned.

i really loved existenz, and wasn't the gun made of chicken bones? but still... the reason i loved it was that yes it was like videodrome, imagination taking over the body... for me spider is the one where i was like meh...

anyway i only quoted this bit, but the rest are great comments!

I like the atmosphere of Spider but I can see how you'd think it was his worst.

Admittingly, I haven't given existenz too much of a chance, as I've only watched it a couple times compared to the rest of his movies which I've watched by myself and with others many, many times. I keep meaning to dig it out and rewatch it, but something about the film kind of irks me. I can't quite put my finger on it....

One Cronenberg film I had difficulty enjoying for the longest time was definitely Naked Lunch. I saw the movie before I read the book and then I read the book (and most of burrough's works) and saw the movie again and still didn't like it. But after watching it six or seven times in the past decade, I can finally appreciate it. Great film.

I dunno. It's not that I don't see any similaritites between them. Both directors create films that solely focus on "strange" characters. My beef with Cronenberg though is that I haven't seen a film of his where any of the characters were particularly likeable. It's like he's trying so hard to be strange and off-putting that he forgets about everything else. His films are just very cold and completely unengaging to me. And I TRIED to enjoy several of his films. I'm a big horror fan, and could not even enjoy his "horror" offerings. I wouldn't mind Cronenberg's glacial pacing if I actually thought his stories were worth the time. Tsukamoto's Bullet Ballet was genius, gorgeous to look at, and even the violent "despicable" characters showed moments of weakness, and humanity. Cronenberg's characters, even the "likable" ones are empty shells for me.

Tsukamoto on the other hand actually has a sense of humor about himself and his films. There's tons of seriousness buzzing about in his work, but its balanced by subtle humor and touching character quirks. I thought Gemini and Snake of June were (underneath the chaos and sexual depravity) very sweet and uplifting love stories. His films can be disgusting and tender all in one breath. Look at Vital, which I thought would turn into another boy loves corpse sleaze-fest a la Cronenberg's tacky body horror... instead it ended up being a VERY sweet and melancholy story about depression, loss and relationships. None of the characters turned out to be who I thought they would. I genuinely think he is a brilliant director and its a shame he is so often compared to Cronenberg. Even his wacky horror flick "The Goblin" was a fun little fairy tale with some genuinely disturbing images and ideas sprinkled throughout.

To sum up.... Cronenberg does nothing for me... and Tsukamoto might be well on the way to becoming my fave director.

Hm. That's really, really weird. I always get a cold feeling from Tsukamoto's films as well; his characters are very very unlikeable... well, they're not despicable, they're just not enjoyable to watch.

I wouldn't even count Hiruko the Goblin when talking about Tsukamoto, just like I wouldn't count Fast Company when talking about Cronenberg. Every director makes crappy movies for money (see Jodorowsky doing the Rainbow Thief, Lynch doing Dune, Miike doing One Missed Call, etc...).

I just find it odd that you could like one so much and not the other. Personally, they're my top 2 favorite directors.

Different strokes I guess.