David Cronenberg is a filmmaker who I have read more about than I have watched the work of (that sentence works).
My local arthouse recently played a double bill of Cronenberg's first two films, and it made for a great juxtaposition and look at a filmmaker forming his core ideas and figuring out a distinct cinematic vocabulary.
Shivers
In the exclusive apartment complex Starliner Towers, something is growing: a new parasite has been set loose inside the building and is rapidly moving through the population. Can anyone stop it?
I watched this movie years ago. I have only seen a few Cronenberg movies, but my local arthouse was hosting a double bill for Halloween, and I thought it might improve my impression of the film to see it on the big screen.
Cronenberg's first movie, Shivers is technically rough and features some wooden performances. However, despite these things the film still works, and the central idea remains incredibly compelling.
There is an air of an industrial film, or docudrama about the film's style. The blocking is awkward, and sometimes feels like a filmed play, while the editing style reminded me a bit of Russ Meyer, particularly when the film would intercut a conversation with images of what the characters were talking about.
Some suspect decisions (the doctor’s backstory as a pedophile is casually dropped and everyone is nonplussed) come across as sloppy scripting, while the characterisation is pretty minimal. All of the characters are types.
The lead performer, Paul Hampton, is completely miscast as the doctor who is the ostensible protagonist of the film. The character is meant to be ineffective, but the performer is so lethargic and out of sync with the actors around him that he works agains the effectiveness of the film.
Some of the supporting players are good - Joe Silver is legitimately charismatic and believable - but otherwise the acting is secondary. I did like seeing horror luminaries Barbara Steele (Black Sunday) and Lynn Lowry (The Crazies) show up, but their roles are pretty small.
While the movie is flawed, the thrust of the story - watching the parasite progress through the complex - provides more meat for comment. The parasite was designed as a replacement for organ transplants, as a way to replicate and replace the function of bad organs.
It is the first example of Cronenberg's fascination with new forms of life, and the way in which transformation of the body can create a new sense of reality.
As the parasite overtakes the various occupants of the apartment complex, they are more concerned with spreading the parasite than killing people. By the end of the film, Cronenberg's distanced, awkward camera set ups make the film feel like a docudrama about the parasite - it does add to the disconcerting feel of the film.
The blandness of the photography lends a starkness to some of the imagery that gives it more punch.
As with a lot of debut features, there is an energy to Shivers that makes it more fun to watch. You can feel the filmmakers' passion - even if the film's tone is unrelentingly dispassionate.
Continuing Shivers' idea of a bodily modification evolving toward a new kind of existence, Rabid is a more distilled and developed version of the thesis underpinning Cronenberg's early horror films.
From the beginning, Rabid is technically a leap forward. Cronenberg makes use of a moving camera; the lighting shows more understanding of atmosphere; and the acting is more consistent.
My one issue with Rabid is with the character development - while they are better than Shivers, the characters are largely ideas.
The big selling point of both movies is the strength of Cronenberg's ideas, but at this point I enjoyed those ideas despite the thin characterisation.
It might be the case that Marilyn Chambers did not have enough to do - I never had a clear idea of who she was, and I never cared about any of her relationships. All this stuff feels besides the point.
As with Shivers, Rabid's central concept is fascinating but I still did not like the characters. There is a third act attempt at a tragic love story (a concept that Cronenberg would return to in The Fly), but it came too late to work for me.
Overall thoughts?
While I do not think either film are that impressive on their own, together they feel of a piece. I caught more of Cronenberg's sense of humour, and it was interesting to see how he developed his characterisation and sense of world-building. The world in Rabid feels lived in and expansive, and while the characterisation is not great, the acting is solid and means there is greater sense of stakes as the plague takes hold.
I am keen to re-watch The Brood, and see how Cronenberg's ideas evolve, particularly in terms of the characterisation of the central couples in that movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment