Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Got a Tip?

The Essentials: David Cronenberg’s Best Films

null“eXistenZ” (1999)
It’s easy to dismiss this effort from Cronenberg as too lightweight to make much of an impression on us now, and too easily lost in the rush of apparently similar fin de siecle technophobic genre pictures to really score points back when it was released. But “eXistenZ”  though undeniably flawed, is a delirious, prophetic romp, that has aged remarkably well, all things considered, accurately and mischievously foreshadowing the age of atomization wrought by the internet. It’s also run through with a disarmingly self-reflexive streak: one of the characters even bellows “Death to realism!” before flambéing a videogame console. Willem Dafoe is asked “Don’t you ever go to the fucking movies?” before having his throat blasted out with a cattle-gun. And Jennifer Jason Leigh gives a welcome lead performance as game designer Allegra Geller who must enter her own game, eXistenZ, to prevent its “meta-flesh” from becoming contaminated. On hand is a hammy and simpering against-type Jude Law (itself a courageous choice of role for so pretty an actor) playing a greenhorn marketing trainee with a phobia of having his body “penetrated surgically,” but it’s hardly a character study, or even anything we’re supposed to take particularly seriously (perhaps its closest recent analogy is in fact “Maps to the Stars” in that regard). This is a film as much built around fastidious minutely detailed production design as recognisable human behavior or particularly cutting social insights. But even that is not really a criticism when the design is this fascinating, from the bone-grafted guns to the in-jokey references, that cannibalize Cronenberg’s own back catalogue (particularly “Videodrome,” though for a new and even more vacuous generation addicted to their entertainments) and even include a nod to Philip K Dick in the fast food joint from which the characters eat being named “Perky Pat’s” in honor of one of Dick’s short stories. Not his most resonant or provocative work, still “eXistenZ” is surprisingly well worth a revisit. [B/B+]

Spider (2002) Cronenberg“Spider” (2002)
Few enough of us summon “eXistenZ” top of mind when thinking about Cronenberg, but we’d wager even few think of “Spider,” the second of two peri-millennium pictures from the director that missed with both audiences and critics. But 13 years after release, a little like its immediate predecessor, “Spider” feels like it’s served its time in that forgotten gray area, and deserves a reevaluation — one it can stand up to on account of being, actually, really good. Starring a committed-as-ever Ralph Fiennes as a man recently released from a mental institution who glides through life without speaking, haunted by the past, it’s been described as a detective film where the investigator, perpetrator and victim are all inside the head of the same person, which feels like an accurate and compelling summation to us. Cronenberg, with frequent collaborators composer Howard Shore and cinematographer Peter Suschitzky, creates an atmosphere rich with dread and psychological unease, and unusually for such a coolly cerebral director, it really feels like he gets his hands a little dirty here, muddying up the boundaries between reality and fantasy, past and present (Miranda Richardson and Gabriel Byrne appear as Fiennes’ parents), in a manner reminiscent of “Naked Lunch” but without the sly smile. Instead, there’s a wide streak of melancholy in “Spider” again unusual from such a rigorously unsentimental filmmaker, which adds layers to what eventually becomes one of the director’s most disturbingly real-world chillers. While it doesn’t sit altogether comfortably in any of the categories Cronenberg spans, it deserves to be looked at as mire than the director idling between big films, his engine barely ticking over. As a transitional film between the body horror concerns of “eXistenZ,” and the dawning of the next highly accessible, Viggo Mortensen-led chapter in Cronenberg’s many-splendored career, it’s perhaps the underrated title of his that’s most ripe for rediscovery. [B+]

A History of Violence“A History Of Violence” (2005)
Considered, if not a “return to form” for Cronenberg, then the discovery of an entirely new form, “A History of Violence” is his first teaming with Viggo Mortenson, who plays Tom Stall, a small town family man with a hidden past. The film, notably shorn of all otherworldly, surreal or schlock-horror elements, nonetheless simmers with tension, erupting into violence in the second half, but haunted by its possibility all the way through. Family man Tom, married to Edie (Maria Bello) gains unwanted status as town hero when he successfully defends his diner from thieves, whom he kills with chilling ease. The repercussions of this event raise old ghosts from the grave of the past, (Ed Harris and an Oscar-nominated William Hurt are terrific in revelatory supporting roles as Tom’s nemesis and brother, respectively — the film really reestablished both actors). Josh Olson’s screenplay, based on the graphic novel by John Wagner really plays up the B-movie, gritty pulp aspect but this is Mortensen’s show: suggesting so much going on beneath a frozen surface, he makes even silences feel thunderous. Before this, Cronenberg was most famous for his science-fiction/horror flicks, but here he, like his protagonist, turns away from the excesses of his past, channeling his interests instead into a taut, yet resolutely real-world story. As a psychological, sometimes melodramatic investigation of the effect on violence on its victims, its perpetrators and those who, despite trying to run from it, find it their natural state, it is a fantastically controlled and compelling performance piece. And the  anticlimactic ending does divide us slightly, with half us feeling unfulfilled and the other half sighing “that’s the point, doofus”  even that is a minor quibble. ‘History’ ushered in a new phase for Cronenberg, but it arrived fully formed. [A-]

READ MORE: David Cronenberg Calls ‘The Dark Knight’ Movies “Boring,” Says Christopher Nolan’s Best Film Is ‘Memento

null“Eastern Promises” (2007)
After tentatively stepping into mainstream territory with “A History of Violence,” Cronenberg consolidated that move with the again-almost-straightforward crime thriller “Eastern Promises,” but what’s perhaps surprising is how successful the film is on its own terms. While some of the director’s trademark concerns are in evidence (bodies, and their mutilation, still fascinate, be it through tattoos, the stubbing of a cigarette on a tongue, the dispassionate dissection of a corpse or the roiling, writhing, inordinately fleshy, naked fight in the steam room), here they are relegated to character background or incidental action; they don’t inform the main thrust of the plot. Instead we get an engrossing, well-researched, low-key mafia movie, only here the city is London and the Mafia is Russian. And in Naomi Watts‘ midwife, dogged in her mission to solve the mystery of a young girl who died in her care, we are given possibly the first Cronenberg protagonist since “The Dead Zone”‘s Christopher Walken who we are actively encouraged to like. But it’s Mortensen who steals the show (though Armin Mueller-Stahl and Vincent Cassel both give him a run for his money). His Nikolai is a mass of contradictions and moral conundrums, marshaled into a conflicted but frighteningly disciplined killer: it’s a character we’re happy we’re going to see more of, if the mooted sequel happens. Yes, there were those who lamented the evolution of the Cronenberg movie from the cerebral schlock of yesteryear to the brainy accessibility characterized by “Eastern Promises,” based on a terrific, crackling script by Steven Knight, but while it might be classical in form, there’s a steely, sinewy tensile strength to his films from this period that by rights deserves to be seen as as much a Cronenberg hallmark as viscera and VHS tapes. [A-]

About The Author

Related Articles

9 COMMENTS

  1. I am a big fan of Cronenberg. I have seen almost all of his films (just "Stereo" and "Maps to the Stars" are left to complete the list). I have also read "Cronenberg on Cronenberg" book, that really shed a light on the background of these films and the director.

    I agree with most of the reviews here, very good insights. I do also think that "Videodrome" was probably the best Cronenberg film ever made (so much technophobia and technophilia at the same time, very McLuhan-inspired media perception as well). Only few notes:

    eXistenZ is underrated film in my opinion. Considering the new renaissance of virtual reality, this film is even more relevant today. Cronenberg\’s vision is accurate to the uncanny level (of course if you take the body-horror part as a metaphor). For someone involved in games and virtual reality – this is one of the best films in ever made.

    I was also very glad to see "Cosmopolis", felt much more Cronenbergian than the three previous films. While maybe it is not one of the best films of his, but it is still great. It is a good reflection of today\’s new-rich, who are often very young entrepreneurs who have good programming and math skills and use their new technology to play in the old world systems and win. The film did have more potential than it managed to fulfill.

    Thank you for this article!

  2. Both Maps to the Stars and Cosmopolis are Fresh on Rottentomaotes, which means a majority of critics liked both films. MTTS is a brilliant film, and the one that Julianne Moore deserved her Oscar for. She won the Palm d\’Or at Cannes as Best Actress for Maps, and many other awards. It\’s a far superior film to Still Alice, and 20 years from now, Maps will be revered while Still Alice is viewed as a glorified Lifetime TV movie. I also agree that the rating of C for the already highly rated Cosmopolis doesn\’t make any sense now. If anything, it gets better with age.

  3. Wonder why Cosmopolis got a good reviews from The Playlist/Indiwire critics like E.Kohn(B),A.Thompson(A-),N.M.Smith(B-)J.Kiang(B+)D.Taylor(B+)and suddenly it gets C.This movie was one the bests movies of 2012.

  4. I never understand why David is consistently overlooked? You look at lists of philosophy driven films and never see any of his films listed? You look at lists of great visual film makers who make intelligent art and you see hacks like Nolan who make M Night Shameathon style one message movies: scene 1 motivation Bruce Willis is Dead, Scene 2 motivation Bruce Willis is Dead, Scene 3 motivation Bruce Willis is Dead, Reveal Bruce Willis is dead, they get listed, Cronenberg refuses to beat dead horses to a pulp so he\’s not on the list? Cronenberg continually being ignored by film watchers is proof that film is not an intellectual art form and that our culture in the Americas is symbolically retarded. If you look at his discography he has made more consistently great films than people like Paul Anderson yet doesn\’t get 1/100 of the credit or mention for doing so? Film watchers are illiterate your supposed to read film just like a book it is a medium of interpretation of symbols. Funny how people who can\’t read words don\’t go near books but people who can\’t read metaphors think they are experts on visual art? Critics consistently can not understand his vision that is a clear sign of true auteur genius because critics are ignorant of symbolism and too lazy to read up on film theory so in its place seek familiar settings and reliance on drama aka boring movies for stupid morons. Hey critics your in the wrong theater if you want to see a play. I agree totally with David on Nolan. Nolan proves film goers are drooling brain dead zombies I saw theaters pact full of anti Bush politics people dying to watch and cheer on George W in a hooded tux called Dark Knight. That film was seriously offensive and overly blatant in its right wing propaganda and government apologetics. They should have had the tag line \”You would like it If Batman did it.\” Basically proving idiots will accept anything including the violation of their rights if the person doing the violating is perceived cool enough. Inception was a complete rip off of What Dreams May Come with out any of the emotional content and so boring I thought I was watching a sequel to the Titanic, Memento as I already stated is just a dead horse beat in reverse not exactly a genius move, yet it has gotten him mention on every list? Naked Lunch is a master piece and the only mention it gets from movie blowers is its too weird and incoherent, from people who gave Happy Feet 10 stars on IMDB a complete piece of plagiarisms compiled into one big dung heap.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img
Stay Connected
0FansLike
19,300FollowersFollow
7,169FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles