Skip to main content

I admit it. I live in a highly excited state of overstimulation.

Videodrome
(1983)

(SPOILERS) I’m one of those who thinks Cronenberg’s version of Total Recall would have been much more satisfying than the one we got (which is pretty good, but flawed; I’m referring to the Arnie movie, of course, not the Farrell). The counter is that Videodrome makes a Cronenberg Philip K Dick adaptation largely redundant. It makes his later Existenz largely redundant too. Videodrome remains a strikingly potent achievement, taking the directors thematic obsessions to the next level, one as fixated on warping the mind as the body. Like many Cronenbergs, it isn’t quite there, but it exerts a hold on the viewer not dissimilar to the one slowly entwining its protagonist Max Renn (James Woods).

Cronenberg movies are evidently a popular choice for sampling. “Ease yourself back into consciousness”, uttered at the outset as a wake-up call by Bridey (Julie Khaner), Max’s assistant, was used all the way back in Bomb the Bass’ 1991 Dune Buggy Attack, and the line makes for an effective primer of Videodrome’s assault on perceived reality. The movie is at once Cronenberg’s most transhumanist foray, explicitly (and explicitly) visualising, in a (relatively) low-tech ’80s hardware way, the melding of man and machine. Or, as Time Out’s Chris Peachment suggested, an environment where Cronenberg may “eradicate the difference between hardware and software by giving his hero a pulsing vagina-like slot in his stomach through which he can be programmed by…

Max’s environment is one of both very ’80s obsessions (video nasties, desensitisation to sex and violence and the debate on their influence, addiction to media at the expense of one’s real life) and ones that have inevitably proved “prophetic” in terms of their becoming not only underpinned but also entrenched in our current paradigm. We accept them, are resigned to them, but no longer discuss their potential malignance. They’re here to stay, so what would be the point of obsessing over our interdependence with our iPhones and interaction with our Alexas?

In Videodrome, Max, the president of CIVIC-TV (ha), an exploitative TV station, is looking for the next big thing, something to bust taboos, but he bites off more than he can chew when he “discovers” the very Eli Roth titular torture porn parlour; soon he is hallucinating – or is he? – and receiving (predictive) programming in the form of Betamax tapes inserted into an aforementioned vaginal orifice.

Kim Newman was both impressed with and clear about Videodrome’s failings in Nightmare Movies. He noted that “the detective story… eventually breaks into narrative anarchy” and that “Once Renn has been exposed to Videodrome, the film cannot hope to sustain its storyline, and as Paul Taylor wrote in Monthly Film Bulletin, ‘becomes most akin to sitting before a TV screen while someone else switches channels at random’”. One might attest such a collapse is entirely the point – we aren’t supposed to know what reality is, any more than Max – but whether that works dramatically is another matter. In Videodrome’s considerable favour, Cronenberg keeps things tight, Renn’s journey toward “the new flesh” taking less than ninety minutes.

James Woods, who also rates the movie highly, also recognised its shortcomings, as did his mum: “She said ‘I’m sure there’s some kind of message here, but honestly, it’s silly. It’s bullshit.’ If it’s not a narrative story, she wasn’t keen…!” He suggested Cronenberg “wasn’t really sure what the story was, and I think my mom sensed that in a way. She said ‘look, I get all this video stuff, Marshall McLuhan and all that. But the story just doesn’t captivate you, you don’t care about that character… And I have to say she was right. Why do you care about him?

I’d actually disagree, to an extent. I don’t think you “care” about Renn, the sleazeball opportunist, as such, but Woods’ magnetic, wired performance reels you in. And I do think the world Cronenberg has created is compelling, as opaque as its logic may be. Woods recalls how there were only “70 pages of the script” when he was offered the picture and how they shot three endings, as the director wasn’t mad keen on the one he had (“And I think the final ending of Videodrome was my idea, that it was a self-fulfilling prophecy that he’d just explode, or implode essentially”). “There’s no plot. It just goes on like that for an hour” might be a critique both of Videodrome and Videodrome.

What Cronenberg manages with Videodrome, without saying it outright, or even intending it, is an exploration of simulation theory. Does Max implode at the end? Or does his “hallucination” of himself implode? Cronenberg arrives at this place through a largely materialist process. His suggestion that “I am fascinated with what reality is, because it became obvious to me very early on that reality is neurology” is very much the Ahrimanic (in Rudolf Steiner’s language) application of defining the world from the outside in. Not the mind, or the soul even, as the constructive force, but rather electrons firing in and around grey matter.

Cronenberg observes limits in the degree to which the philosophy of this area fascinates him, such that he wouldn’t go as far as pushing the envelope: “Philosophers like Kant and Plato have driven themselves crazy trying to figure out the reality behind the reality”. Accordingly, his ideas coalesce perfectly with the outlook of the Klaus Schwabs of the world: “If neurology is reality, that’s an incredible theme—how to structure a narrative that will discuss that? Immediately you’re into changing the body to change the reality, and that’s what led me to all of those things like Videodrome”.

Consequently, while it’s quite easy to view a selection of Cronenbergs – particulary ’70s-’80s Cronenbergs – and come away with the impression that he has quite a nihilistic attitude to existence, that “What certainly survives is Cronenberg’s wholesale disgust with the world in general”, the man himself would evidently protest such a characterisation. This goes back to his willingness to see things from the “virus’s” point of view. His icy, dispassionate stance allows him to deem any progress/regress as a positive, be that Cameron Vale’s body bursting into flame in Scanners, Seth Brundle mutating into an insectoid monstrosity in The Fly or Max Renn’s hand merging with a firearm here: as he says of taking drugs/alcohol “it’s not just a question of people being destructive, it’s a question of people trying to transcend their own reality”.

With this kind of outlook, it’s unsurprising that Cronenberg doesn’t see his grue as gross or repulsive: “You know, they talk about me as the inventor of body horror. But I’ve never thought of it as being horrific”. Videodrome more than any other of his films – excepting perhaps The Naked Lunch – is a celebration of the distortion and disruption of form, taking its cues from the carnival ride of the previous year’s The Thing (albeit, Videodrome was originally scheduled to open in 1982). In Videodrome, the spark to this is depravity, indulging baser instincts (so like The Naked Lunch, then).

Max discovers he has been the target; there is no broadcast (albeit, who knows the subjectivity of this, or any scene after a certain point in the proceedings). We are told violence opens up receptors – chakras? – in the brain and spine and heart: “Why deny you get your kicks out of watching torture and murder… But why would anybody watch it?” (one might argue Max is watching the “real” thing, but the allusion is clear: why would anybody watch Hostel? The original conception of Videodrome, Network of Blood, in whichstrange, wealthy people… were willing to pay to see bizarre things” isn’t a million miles from Roth’s elite cullings).

Nikki Brand (Debbie Harry being convincingly overstimulated) is such an express fantasy figure to Max, by the end you’re indeed doubting she was ever real. She’s absolutely Max’s object and outlet (“Torture. Murder”: “Sounds great”), and leads him into an S&M world with little reluctance on his part (at one point, she “brands” her breast with a lit cigarette).

In the arena Newman refers to as the movie’s “bodily evolutions”, sex becomes blurred with tech (as it later would in Crash), and Max “buries his head in a mammary screen”. The superbly named Brian O’Blivion (Cronenberg’s so clinical in his detachment, it’s often only in such overt gestures as this that his sense of humour is revealed) warns Max “Your reality is already half video hallucination. If you’re not careful, it will become total video hallucination. You’ll have to learn to live in a strange new world”. Which could be a description of today. Indeed, the perverse hilarity of Brian’s daughter leading therapy sessions whereby “Watching TV will help patch them back into the world’s mixing board” is no longer a joke: “He saw it as the next plane in the evolution of man as a technological animal”.

What this evolution counts on is the detachment of the subject, a passive willingness to be programmed. Brian announces “The television has become the retina of the mind’s eye… That’s why I refuse to appear on television… except ON television”, while Max habitually recites the justification mantra “Better on TV than on the streets”. But the key to his “joining” the cause is indifference. Videodrome has purpose and intent: “Because it has something that you don’t have, Max. It has a philosophy, and that’s what makes it real”. At the end, Max is intoxicated with his fugue realm, and with his shallow obsessions, such that he’ll readily kill himself for a titillating fix: “Don’t be afraid to let your body die. Just come to me, Max. Come to Nikki”. Materialism, even virtual materialism, is everything.

Tellingly, and in succession to Scanners, the architects of this new world are corporate interests, as led by Barry Convex (Leslie Carlson) of Spectacular Optical. Like any conglomerate worth its salt, its fingers are in many pies: “Inexpensive glasses for the third world, missile guidance systems for NATO. We also make Videodrome, Max”. It’s the technocrats like Gates (with a shot) and Bezos (with a synch) rushing us to the new frontier. Cronenberg isn’t judging of this, at least thematically (“If you’d asked me, I wouldn’t have said, ‘This is the way that the world is going.’ But in retrospect, it’s pretty obvious”). He simply suggests the permeation of media.

Newman believed the elusiveness of Videodrome’s coordinating narrative ultimately detracted from its impact, “swamped by Cronenbeg’s flesh-twisting horrors and flashes of a dozen different films” and “since the last three-quarters of the film appears to take place inside its main character’s head it is difficult not to interpret the final blackout as another part of the ongoing illusion”. Which it may be. It goes back to Woods’ mother wondering why you should care. It’s tempting to see this as part and parcel of Cronenberg’s presiding ethos (“As someone who is very antireligious, I wasn’t particularly interested in giving my characters religious belief... I’m very interested in the creation of reality that a group of people will do together. But there are so many ways that one can do that”). Cronenberg attributed the omission of an ending in which Max ends up with Nikki on the Videodrome set as, in part, down to his atheism. Ahriman would be very proud. And doesn’t need David to believe in him.

I well remember – long before I first saw it – the poster for Videodrome and various suggestive stills. And then that its video release was shorn of about three minutes, seeming to ally it further with the video-nasty theme. In retrospect, it clearly remains in the vanguard of ’80s effects and evergreen in thematic resonance, just like The Thing, but lacking that movie’s coherence. Which, as noted, may be the point. Is the really disturbing part of Cronenberg’s vision that we are all in Videodrome and didn’t even realise our passage. Or that we aren’t in it, yet are entirely pliable to programming as if we were?


Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

You’re the pattern and the prototype for a whole new age of biological exploration.

The Fly II (1989) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg was not, it seems, a fan of the sequel to his hit 1986 remake, and while it’s quite possible he was just being snobby about a movie that put genre staples above theme or innovation, he wasn’t alone. Fox had realised, post- Aliens , that SF properties were ripe for hasty follow ups, and indiscriminately mined a number of popular pictures to immediately diminishing returns during the period ( Cocoon , Predator ). Neither critics nor audiences were impressed. In the case of The Fly II , though, it would be unfair to label the movie as outright bad. It simply lacks that *idea* that would justify the cash-in.