Film Is a Battleground #7: Time Heals Some Wounds (Videodrome, demonlover, Masked & Anonymous)
What’s special about this week’s effort? Issue Number 7 is the first to debut at filmisabattleground.blogspot.com, sport a title, and feature a tenuous thematic relationship between the films. Three films of varying quality set not quite in the present and not quite in the future for your perusal.
VIDEODROME (on DVD)
demonlover (on DVD)
MASKED & ANONYMOUS (on DVD and cable)
VIDEODROME (David Cronenberg, 1983)
*** (A must-see)
The consensus on the occasion of the release of Criterion’s DVD of VIDEODROME, seems to be that the film marks the beginning of Cronenberg’s serious work. Though clearly central to Cronenberg’s oeuvre, one would be hard pressed to identify how VIDEODROME significantly surpasses, in terms of serious social commentary, from SHIVERS or THE BROOD.
The social satire of SHIVERS works on two levels. Textually, Cronenberg uses images and ideas derived from INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD to express his ambivalence about the benefits, both culturally and individually, of the sexual revolution. Meta-textually, this somewhat conservative, certainly cautious, idea transmits itself in the guise of a disreputable, exploitative film financed on the basis of its explicit nudity and gore.
THE BROOD contains elements possibly derived from Polanski’s REPULSION, ROSEMARY’S BABY, and THE TENANT to examine the systemic way abuse is hidden and misunderstood within a community. It’s a subtle, sensitive, and terrifying film in much the manner of Lynch’s TWIN PEAKS and MULLHOLLAND DR.
True, VIDEODROME is the first of Cronenberg’s films to explicitly explore the confluence of art, technology, and the body, but the earlier horror films examined and satirized society in ways atypical for the genre. VIDEODROME remains as odd and chilling as it was on its debut. No other director manages to create quite the same sort of discomfort in audiences as does Cronenberg. There is something about watching intellectual turmoil manifest itself physically that makes viewing VIDEODROME, THE DEAD ZONE, CRASH, or SPIDER uniquely unsettling.
So, granted, the best of Cronenberg’s films prior to VIDEODROME have recognizable antecedents whereas VIDEODROME still seems to owe its birth to an unknown, unspoken source. I would propose that those influences evident in the earlier films were fairly superficial, endemic to genre filmmaking, and that Cronenberg’s personal thematic concerns manifest themselves clearly.
Furthermore, satire, especially when present within the structure of a genre film, rarely receives its due upon initial release. Witness the scheduled re-release of David O. Russell’s THREE KINGS. Largely ignored or patronized upon its release in 1999, the film has drawn more interest now that it is topical. That the film has always been morally, aesthetically, and politically relevant does not seem to factor into Warner Brothers’ decision to re-market the film. This is evidenced by the studio’s reaction to the documentary Russell made for use as a bonus feature for the DVD release. Explaining the studio’s reasoning for rejecting inclusion of the documentary, spokeswoman Barbara Brogliatti revealed the manner in which corporations ignore or deny the content of their product: “This came out to be a documentary that condemns, basically, war. This is supposed to be a special edition of THREE KINGS not a polemic about war."
Ms. Brogliatti is correct that THREE KINGS is not a polemic about war. It’s more accomplished than that. It does however plainly criticize the decisions of the George H.W. Bush Administration during both the first Gulf War and its aftermath. The AP article from whence the above quotation is taken also reports, but does not quote the following statement: “The heads of Warner Bros. rejected the documentary this week, saying it was inappropriate to distribute a documentary about the director's personal political views in conjunction with his 5-year-old drama.” Warner’s understands that the current war in Iraq exists not be questioned, but as a marketing tie-in to be exploited.
Or, to take an example from Cronenberg’s career, there’s eXistenZ, his 1999 film, an updated re-examination of VIDEODROME’s themes: art, morality, technology, reality, and the body. eXistenZ ranks among Cronenberg’s best work yet roused few of those who reflexively tout VIDEODROME’s greatness to its defense. Receiving little backing from Miramax (if it had received half the attention, or ad budget, of the KILL BILL films the world would be a better place) it appeared and disappeared from screens largely unnoticed.
Almost all writing about film that appears in the media is essentially writing about film business as opposed to film art. Most critics revel in the proximity to fame and wealth gained by forgoing responsibility in favor of insider status. To be deemed important is far easier than to be important. The few critics who insist on dealing with film as art are threatened with irrelevance as only commercial films are widely distributed theatrically. How much influence can one have by championing a film being shown for one week in New York, Chicago, or Seattle then appearing on DVD months later, if at all?
So, in lieu of a discussion of relevant works of film art, reams are wasted contemplating THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11. Not that those films should not be contemplated and discussed, but the scope and volume of the discussion should be in the proportion to the quality of the film rather than the quality of the hucksterism. To discuss the theology of Mel Gibson’s film while ignoring the theology of Neil LaBute’s films is negligent behavior and if the time and energy devoted to Michael Moore had accompanied the original release of THREE KINGS perhaps a more informed, aware nation would not have allowed the raw material of Moore’s film to exist.
demonlover (Olivier Assayas, 2003)
* (Has redeeming facet)
Assayas has wandered far from the allusive seduction of LATE AUGUST, EARLY SEPTEMBER and IRMA VEP. Much like Robert Altman’s PRET-A-PORTER or Woody Allen’s CELEBRITY, demonlover embodies the result of making a film for which one has an idea, but no solution for dramatizing that idea. The common element of these three films is that the grand ambition of the idea which stems from the writer-director’s desire to demonstrate profound truths about society magnifies the shallowness of the finished film. These films are watchable yet bereft of insight. demonlover offers more shock value with its suggestive (rather than explicit) use of sex and violence, but its lack of coherence lends the film an air of chic nihilism rather than profundity.
MASKED & ANONYMOUS (Larry Charles, 2003)
** (Worth seeing)
A non-narrative experiment heavily indebted to Sam Shepard (you’d think Jessica Lange would be capable of a better performance, familiarity with the vibe and all) just now showing up on pay cable. I can’t in good conscience recommend it for everyone, but it should intrigue and delight sympathetic viewers.
Larry Charles and Bob Dylan’s funny and self-referential script, wherein each character speaks in phrases that sound lifted from unwritten Dylan songs, clearly separates the real actors (John Goodman, Jeff Bridges, Giovanni Ribisi) from the movie stars (Lange, Penelope Cruz, Val Kilmer). Both Dylan and Mickey Rourke are consistently compelling, though I don’t think you could classify what either does as acting, per se. The action culminates with Dylan and his band giving a live performance of “Dixie,” one of the most compelling musical scenes in recent film history.
VIDEODROME (on DVD)
demonlover (on DVD)
MASKED & ANONYMOUS (on DVD and cable)
VIDEODROME (David Cronenberg, 1983)
*** (A must-see)
The consensus on the occasion of the release of Criterion’s DVD of VIDEODROME, seems to be that the film marks the beginning of Cronenberg’s serious work. Though clearly central to Cronenberg’s oeuvre, one would be hard pressed to identify how VIDEODROME significantly surpasses, in terms of serious social commentary, from SHIVERS or THE BROOD.
The social satire of SHIVERS works on two levels. Textually, Cronenberg uses images and ideas derived from INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD to express his ambivalence about the benefits, both culturally and individually, of the sexual revolution. Meta-textually, this somewhat conservative, certainly cautious, idea transmits itself in the guise of a disreputable, exploitative film financed on the basis of its explicit nudity and gore.
THE BROOD contains elements possibly derived from Polanski’s REPULSION, ROSEMARY’S BABY, and THE TENANT to examine the systemic way abuse is hidden and misunderstood within a community. It’s a subtle, sensitive, and terrifying film in much the manner of Lynch’s TWIN PEAKS and MULLHOLLAND DR.
True, VIDEODROME is the first of Cronenberg’s films to explicitly explore the confluence of art, technology, and the body, but the earlier horror films examined and satirized society in ways atypical for the genre. VIDEODROME remains as odd and chilling as it was on its debut. No other director manages to create quite the same sort of discomfort in audiences as does Cronenberg. There is something about watching intellectual turmoil manifest itself physically that makes viewing VIDEODROME, THE DEAD ZONE, CRASH, or SPIDER uniquely unsettling.
So, granted, the best of Cronenberg’s films prior to VIDEODROME have recognizable antecedents whereas VIDEODROME still seems to owe its birth to an unknown, unspoken source. I would propose that those influences evident in the earlier films were fairly superficial, endemic to genre filmmaking, and that Cronenberg’s personal thematic concerns manifest themselves clearly.
Furthermore, satire, especially when present within the structure of a genre film, rarely receives its due upon initial release. Witness the scheduled re-release of David O. Russell’s THREE KINGS. Largely ignored or patronized upon its release in 1999, the film has drawn more interest now that it is topical. That the film has always been morally, aesthetically, and politically relevant does not seem to factor into Warner Brothers’ decision to re-market the film. This is evidenced by the studio’s reaction to the documentary Russell made for use as a bonus feature for the DVD release. Explaining the studio’s reasoning for rejecting inclusion of the documentary, spokeswoman Barbara Brogliatti revealed the manner in which corporations ignore or deny the content of their product: “This came out to be a documentary that condemns, basically, war. This is supposed to be a special edition of THREE KINGS not a polemic about war."
Ms. Brogliatti is correct that THREE KINGS is not a polemic about war. It’s more accomplished than that. It does however plainly criticize the decisions of the George H.W. Bush Administration during both the first Gulf War and its aftermath. The AP article from whence the above quotation is taken also reports, but does not quote the following statement: “The heads of Warner Bros. rejected the documentary this week, saying it was inappropriate to distribute a documentary about the director's personal political views in conjunction with his 5-year-old drama.” Warner’s understands that the current war in Iraq exists not be questioned, but as a marketing tie-in to be exploited.
Or, to take an example from Cronenberg’s career, there’s eXistenZ, his 1999 film, an updated re-examination of VIDEODROME’s themes: art, morality, technology, reality, and the body. eXistenZ ranks among Cronenberg’s best work yet roused few of those who reflexively tout VIDEODROME’s greatness to its defense. Receiving little backing from Miramax (if it had received half the attention, or ad budget, of the KILL BILL films the world would be a better place) it appeared and disappeared from screens largely unnoticed.
Almost all writing about film that appears in the media is essentially writing about film business as opposed to film art. Most critics revel in the proximity to fame and wealth gained by forgoing responsibility in favor of insider status. To be deemed important is far easier than to be important. The few critics who insist on dealing with film as art are threatened with irrelevance as only commercial films are widely distributed theatrically. How much influence can one have by championing a film being shown for one week in New York, Chicago, or Seattle then appearing on DVD months later, if at all?
So, in lieu of a discussion of relevant works of film art, reams are wasted contemplating THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and FAHRENHEIT 9/11. Not that those films should not be contemplated and discussed, but the scope and volume of the discussion should be in the proportion to the quality of the film rather than the quality of the hucksterism. To discuss the theology of Mel Gibson’s film while ignoring the theology of Neil LaBute’s films is negligent behavior and if the time and energy devoted to Michael Moore had accompanied the original release of THREE KINGS perhaps a more informed, aware nation would not have allowed the raw material of Moore’s film to exist.
demonlover (Olivier Assayas, 2003)
* (Has redeeming facet)
Assayas has wandered far from the allusive seduction of LATE AUGUST, EARLY SEPTEMBER and IRMA VEP. Much like Robert Altman’s PRET-A-PORTER or Woody Allen’s CELEBRITY, demonlover embodies the result of making a film for which one has an idea, but no solution for dramatizing that idea. The common element of these three films is that the grand ambition of the idea which stems from the writer-director’s desire to demonstrate profound truths about society magnifies the shallowness of the finished film. These films are watchable yet bereft of insight. demonlover offers more shock value with its suggestive (rather than explicit) use of sex and violence, but its lack of coherence lends the film an air of chic nihilism rather than profundity.
MASKED & ANONYMOUS (Larry Charles, 2003)
** (Worth seeing)
A non-narrative experiment heavily indebted to Sam Shepard (you’d think Jessica Lange would be capable of a better performance, familiarity with the vibe and all) just now showing up on pay cable. I can’t in good conscience recommend it for everyone, but it should intrigue and delight sympathetic viewers.
Larry Charles and Bob Dylan’s funny and self-referential script, wherein each character speaks in phrases that sound lifted from unwritten Dylan songs, clearly separates the real actors (John Goodman, Jeff Bridges, Giovanni Ribisi) from the movie stars (Lange, Penelope Cruz, Val Kilmer). Both Dylan and Mickey Rourke are consistently compelling, though I don’t think you could classify what either does as acting, per se. The action culminates with Dylan and his band giving a live performance of “Dixie,” one of the most compelling musical scenes in recent film history.
Labels: bob dylan, david cronenberg, david o russell, demonlover, larry charles, masked and anonymous, olivier assayas, three kings, videodrome
posted by Bret LaGree at 13:35
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home