Cronenberg Ranked — Part One
David Cronenberg has never been a stranger to violence and horror. The first real feature film that he wrote and directed was Shivers (1975) after compiling a filmography of short films and documentaries — the longest being Crimes of the Future (1970) which must have been a personal passion project that he decided to direct, produce, write, edit, and shoot all on his own. From then on, Cronenberg would quickly descend into a world of fake blood and goo, extremely unique and impressive practical effects, and surrealist plotlines.
I'm not quite sure if I should start the list from the best or from the worst. I don't think it matters all that much, so I'm going to start out with my favorite and go from there. *SPOILERS AHEAD*
The Fly (1986) —
The Fly was, if I remember correctly, my introduction to Cronenberg which I can only assume is the same for many other fans. It is, after all, his most popular and well-known film. Despite this, or maybe because of it, The Fly has some of the most explicit and detailed practical effects and makeup compared to most of his other films. The film follows scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) who secretly invents a working teleportation device that is isolated between two pods. Once Brundle tries to teleport himself, instead of an orangutan, a fly becomes trapped inside the pod with him, becomes fused with his own DNA, and slowly transforms him into a large fly-man hybrid creature. I compare it to Kafka’s Metamorphosis story. However, the fact that this one has a scientific justification for the transformation makes it scarier than it would have been otherwise. The fly getting inside the pod at the same time as Brundle was not because of negligence or a broken system. Part of the reason why it is such an unsettling story is that it happens by pure accidental coincidence. That idea of having no control over what is physically happening to you is a very familiar experience from childhood and it becomes warped into an even more familiar nightmare. One of my favorite scenes in the film is when Brundle is first feeling the physical effects of the fly DNA, and he starts to easily peel off all of his fingernails as the outer parts of his body begin to decay.
This scene is very cringe-inducing, and I think comes from a place of familiarity that one could probably only place in a dream. A more common example is watching your own teeth fall out of your mouth, but regardless, the feeling of being trapped in a decaying body is probably more familiar to people than they care to realize. I put this one at the top of my list because I think it should be the “Everyman’s Cronenberg.” It acts as both a good gateway into the rest of his filmography and a really great film on its own.
eXistenZ (1999) —
The first thing that I wrote down right after watching this film was that “This is my Inception.” As that phrase would suggest, the film features layered realities and a question (from both the characters and the audience) of how one can determine what reality actually is. This, as well as many other films on this list, showcase a certain kind of reality that Cronenberg likes to feature in his films. A world that is futuristic and different from our own, but not in the ways one would expect. Similar to how Star Wars carries a unique look by making futuristic environments look run down and trashy, eXistenZ carries a very dirty feel to its environments that is usually uncharacteristic of a future world and which connects well to the main character, Ted’s, reluctance to play along. Ted (Jude Law) is tasked with helping to protect and escort famous game designer Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) from assassins as she attempts to figure out if her video game has been damaged. The game “console” itself is a very recognizable prop from this film (as well as from many other Cronenberg projects) because of its odd biological components. Allegra’s game runs on a piece of technology that is half organic and half mechanical.
The resemblance to a fetus is certainly not an accident and it is even implied, but not directly confirmed, that it is in some way, alive. In order to play the game, one must first get a “bio-port.” This is essentially a hole punched right above the tailbone that acts as a direct plug into the nervous system through the spine. Once the game is plugged into the bio-port, it acts as an advanced form of virtual reality. The bio-ports are an extremely clinical and sexual part of the film and connect back to the dirtiness of the environments around these two characters. Ted is understandably reluctant to use his bio-port, which he describes as an open wound, inside the dirty backroom of a repair shop. this constant awareness of the open bio-port coupled with the unsanitary conditions makes the audience feel uncomfortable in a way that may be difficult to initially pinpoint. I think the technical term is “yucky.” The theme of combining machines, body parts, and sexuality together will continue to come up in many of Cronenberg's other films. I think this one has a very entertaining and clever story and Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh add some odd comedy to an otherwise trippy film.
Videodrome (1983) —
Part of the reason this film is number three on the list and not number two is that it is fairly hard to follow on a first watch. However, the effects and imagery in this film are even more inherently sexual than eXistenZ was which gives it a huge advantage over the rest of the films on this list. The film follows TV executive Max Renn (James Woods) as he attempts to seek out the next big show to air on his network. Max is convinced that the future of TV is rooted in explicit violence and sex and becomes enamored with Videodrome, a show that airs scenes of violent torture followed by the murder of the victim at the end of each broadcast. Cronenberg based Max’s TV station, CIVIC-TV, on a real Canadian TV station that would broadcast soft-core porn to gain more viewers. It is not surprising then to see how unsettling the themes of this film are when they connect to the reality of how people consume entertainment despite the film’s over-the-top way of showing it. I think, in many ways, Videodrome is making the same claims as Funny Games does just in different ways. I would say that Videodrome is more accessible and enjoyable than Funny Games for the average viewer but both have similar themes of using violence as contemporary entertainment. As always, there is a handful of memorable icons that place it in Cronenberg’s own little world of horror. One of my favorite images from this film is the video slot that grows out of Max’s stomach later on in the film that is used to control him.
there is an important difference to note here with how this effect was made to look. theoretically, this “slot” could have been made to look like a literal cut down Max’s stomach like it was a fresh wound. however, it actually looks as if it has been there all along and has been a part of his body the whole time. This is another example of a Cronenberg character not being in control of his own body, a body that he thought he knew, and becoming infected with strange new additions to his physical self that are exploited by other people. Like the eXistenZ game pod, the similarity to a vulva is probably not an accident and I think it could be seen as a kind of karma against Max’s own exploitation of women for entertainment.
Dead Ringers (1988) —
Dead Ringers is fairly calm compared to some of the other films on this list. It does have bits and pieces of signature body horror, but it doesn't dominate the film. Instead, the focus is on the twin brothers Beverly and Elliot Mantle (both played by Jeremy Irons) as they slowly intertwine themselves into each other’s lives. In short, the film is about the unhealthy relationship the brothers have and how it slowly twists into a connection that even they aren't able to control. The film is based on a book of the same name by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland, but I have never read it so I’m not sure how different Cronenberg and Snider’s version is. On today’s episode of “How is David going to make it weird?” we have spooky gynecological tools for mutant women! One of the more unexplainable parts of the film is the delusion that Beverly gets while high on pills in which he believes that women are beginning to mutate beyond current scientific understanding and therefore he must invent an entirely different set of tools to operate on these new mutant women.
from what I can tell after having watched the film twice is that these tools are never wholly explained and there does not seem to be any closer look into Beverly’s delusions aside from these tools. One can only assume they are accurate to the mutant women’s anatomy, but the audience is never explicitly shown what it would look like. I think it's a great choice to leave any direct comparisons out of the audience’s point of view because these tools are our only clue as to what these women might look like and people are free to determine that on their own. I put this film as number four on my list because of how subtle it is and that the story is mainly character driven rather than event or thing driven. That’s not inherently a bad thing at all, but I personally prefer a film with more special effects and a spookier concept.
Crimes of the Future (2022) —
As I mentioned before, Cronenberg had already made a film called Crimes of the Future in 1970 as one of his first big projects. However, this film doesn't seem to have anything in common with the 2022 one aside from the name. I'm not quite sure why Cronenberg decided to give this one the same name, but it certainly still fits with the story so I can't complain. I think this is one of his most coherent and extensive world-building films. The idea of a future in which humanity has to regulate different kinds of evolution is very creative and intriguing to me. The film follows two performance artists, Saul (Viggo Mortensen) and Caprice (Léa Seydoux), as they take advantage of Saul’s unique condition to support their art and personal relationship. Saul suffers from a futuristic condition in which his body evolves at an extremely rapid pace and makes him grow new organs that do not serve any purpose with the rest of his body’s functions. In order to reduce Saul’s discomfort, and create more ambitious performances for their followers, Caprice uses a specialized operating table to publicly operate on Saul and remove his extra organs.
I absolutely love the scene in which Caprice and Saul use the operating table for the first time. Because these futuristic humans have evolved to not feel physical pain anymore, the act of surgery becomes very sexual and intimate and it is an odd yet touching experience to see them connect on a deeper level during the performance. Because Cronenberg is so well known for his practical effects, I was excited to see what he would do for a new film since most of his other newer ones are not centered around body horror. I was pleased to see that most of the effects were done practically aside from some parts of the surgery scene. Apparently, according to Cronenberg, he tried to see if it would be possible to do that whole scene practically with a fake torso but it just didn't look right so he used CGI to do some of the major cutting shots. I also really love the “evolution war” that breaks out between the evolution purists who think that humans should stay as traditionally human-like as possible and the evolution extremists who think that humans should evolve to eat plastics instead of food in order to keep up with the dying planet. I think that concept is really inventive and could still connect with today’s society in a weird way. The only major issue I see with this film is that it's probably not super popular with a more traditional film crowd. Even when people love horror, I feel like they would still want a more straightforward narrative. Obviously, there isn't anything wrong with that but I could consider this film more artsy and may affect some people’s enjoyment of it. Overall I was pleased with this film and what it was trying to do considering it's so new. I'm glad Cronenberg hadn't lost his creativity after all these years.
Naked Lunch (1991) —
I have very mixed feelings about this film. It's based on the book of the same name by William Burroughs who is a Beat Generation writer known to have taken many drugs and substances while writing his books. To Cronenberg, that’s free real estate. Because of the drug-fueled craziness of the book, Cronenberg was able to go all out on things like effects, puppets, costumes, and set design. My biggest problem with this film is that it's pretty incomprehensible. To be fair, I have only seen it once. However, I remember the story being pretty hard to follow and many of the scenes seemed almost disconnected or unrelated to other ones. I wouldn't call this an error on Cronenberg’s part though because Burroughs’ original book tells the story in the form of short “vignettes” that could be read in any order. Knowing that I can understand why the plot is so loose. To me, the film is much more enjoyable if you just appreciate the look and feel of the atmosphere it provides. I think that's how many people watch Lynch’s Eraserhead as well. it doesn't really have a proper story, but the visuals are so surreal and dream-like that the story doesn't matter all that much. The film follows Bill Lee (Peter Weller), a pest control guy who likes to get high off of unconventional drugs in his free time. When he tries a seemingly experimental drug made from a centipede, he begins a long hallucinogenic trip filled with bugs and paranoia that someone may be after him and his precious writing. The film is filled with bug imagery but the most memorable one to me is Bill’s beetle typewriter.
This beetle makes itself out to be untrustworthy and very clearly wants to take advantage of Bill in some way. I think it's very poetic that a bug killer becomes tied to a hallucinogenic conspiracy involving giant bug monsters who use him to their benefit. I also love the design of the beetle. It has a head and mandibles like a regular bug would have around its mouth which would indicate that it does have a mouth where one would expect it to be. However, later on in the scene, it's revealed that the beetle is speaking from a fleshy hole under its wings. This hole is not openly explained and yet adds to the uncomfortable nature of Bill having to type something on it while the beetle dictates. In most of Cronenberg’s films, he seems to have perfected the act of creating a situation that is very un-sexual and making it sexual. In many cases, he uses the moment that the audience would least expect to turn sexual and create some sort of odd tension that seems like it shouldn't be there.
Scanners (1981) —
Scanners is a film that I remember being bored with while watching. However, I was only bored during the middle parts. The beginning demonstration of the scanners’ telepathic abilities was very well done and memorable. During this scene, various clicking noises are audible whenever the camera focuses on Darryl (Michael Ironside, the scanner in question) which makes it easier to understand how scanning works while also making him look more sinister. I also think the facial expressions that Darryl makes while scanning aren’t just to show that he’s focused. They also imply that he’s proud of his abilities and show that he gets some sort of sick pleasure out of scanning someone to death. He reminds me a little of Alex in A Clockwork Orange since they both seem to be very proud of their power over weaker people. I also loved the ending in which the two brothers have a telepathic showdown to see who’s the stronger scanner. I think I remember there being a big reveal about them being brothers right before this so the fight carries a lot more weight. And I appreciated that since it kind of explains why both of them can scan at a similar level.
The most memorable part of this entire film for me was when Darryl is finally beaten and all of his veins start to bulge out and pop. It's a really extravagant and interesting way to kill off a villain and I'm glad I sat through the meat of the film to get to this part.
Spider (2002) —
Spider was a more recent watch for me because, for a while, it just wasn't available to watch anywhere. It might have been available as a physical disc but I decided to wait it out and eventually it got added to iTunes. Out of the films that I have seen in his filmography, Cronenberg has three films that are very mellow and quiet compared to his other stuff. Spider is one of them, and arguably the most mellow out of those three. The film follows Dennis Cleg (Ralph Fiennes) as he walks around his hometown reminiscing while the bulk of the film is told through flashbacks that unpack the extent of his mental illness. I'll be honest and say that if this film didn't have Ralph Fiennes in it, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much. I would have still watched it to complete Cronenberg’s filmography, but the story was just a little too slow and quiet for me. It’s a pretty creative way to show a character with mental illness but I don't find that much from it that was memorable for me. The film is directly based on a book of the same name by Patrick McGrath, which I have never read, but it seems like it’s a pretty accurate adaptation. From what I can glean from the film, the reason Dennis’ nickname is Spider is because, as a child, he would use string to create web-like hanging and pully contraptions that would eventually be used to kill his mother and father. The parents getting metaphorically trapped inside of a spider’s web is a cute comparison but nowhere near as disturbing and creepy as Cronenberg’s other stuff.
The Dead Zone (1983) —
Here we are at basically the halfway point. This is probably the last of the films that I would still say that I generally like despite its flaws. I'll save the rest for a separate, more negatively charged, list. With that said, I don't think I have all that much to say about The Dead Zone. I feel like it’s pretty similar to Spider in that it just sort of follows a regular guy around who happens to have a warped perception of reality. More specifically, this film follows a school teacher, with the most regular name ever: Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken), who has a near-death experience which leads him to be able to see people’s past and future lives just by touching them. There are a lot of political corruption and crime subplots that steer the film in different directions. Some people might be more entertained by that but I just don't get anything out of it so it feels a little lifeless compared to the rest of these films. And if this sounds like it could be a Stephen King story, you'd be right because it is one. I don't think Cronenberg is the best person to make a film adaptation of a Stephen King story. King has a very specific vibe of supernatural that is, in a lot of cases, extremely subtle. And I think that Cronenberg is more suited to an openly extravagant world of creatures, hallucinations, and science fiction, without trying to rely too much on realism. I'm honestly more surprised that Cronenberg hasn't adapted a Lovecraft story yet since those seem more catered to what he’s good at. I would love to know what Cronenberg thinks of Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna since they are known for working together to adapt multiple different Lovecraft stories into pretty great films.
