r/DavidCronenberg

-I recently watched this movie for the first time and then read reviews from when it was released. I can't believe the disrespect it got from critics, but I'm guessing because it came out at around the same time as a lot of brainless slasher and creature features, this was a case of being genre-film ghetto-ized.

That's a shame because THE BROOD has some actual substance. True, it features killer dwarves and body horror straight out of ALIEN (1979), but there's also larger themes like divorce and all of the ugliness that can create (literally, in reference to the aforementioned killer dwarves).

-One of the main criticisms I read about the film was the supposedly ugly nature of the violence. It's true that for the most part, these scenes go on long enough that they seem to be happening in real time, which might add a certain verisimilitude some viewers would find disturbing. At the same time, however, perhaps Cronenberg wanted them this way so we'd have no choice but to take them seriously.

This is strictly armchair psychology on my part, but my understanding is that the inspiration for THE BROOD was Cronenberg's own difficult divorce around the time of FAST COMPANY (1979). Doubtless, that period in his life was one of great mental and emotional stress, so perhaps the violent scenes in THE BROOD represented the director projecting his own feelings about how the divorce process left him bloody and broken (figuratively).

-Even in hindsight, I find the character of Nola, the maternal figure played by Samantha Eggar, endlessly fascinating from a psychological standpoint. What does it say that in her rage, she manifests creatures who resemble cracked-mirror versions of her own daughter Candice? What does it say that the "brood"-lings don't appear not to have capacity to love anyone back, including Nola, yet she seems to care more for them than for Candice?

Also, if the "brood"-lings are born of rage, why don't any of them ever resemble Nola's own parents, whom she has legitimate beef with? If the creatures are meant to be the objects of her visualized anger, why is her anger so acutely directed at her own kid?

-Having now watched SHIVERS, RABID, and THE BROOD, I've enjoyed seeing the evolution of the "evil scientist" character. In Cronenberg's earlier two movies, they were either entirely devoid of personality or seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their actions, but Oliver Reed's Dr. Raglan is noticeably different. He may start out in the film as an amoral figure, but he seemingly has that elusive moment of conscience before the end.

-The strong technical aspects of Cronenberg's movies continued with Mark Irwin serving as his cinematographer for the second time. There are scenes involving the brood-lings invading a kitchen as well as a classroom that yield genuinely disturbing moments, in no small part because these spaces as photographed (and through production design too, I'm sure) felt either clean and downright antiseptic, or warm and inviting. This makes the inevitable clash with the presence of the chaotic brood-lings all the more powerful.

-Overall, I appreciated that the movie was trying to say something about not just divorce, but generational trauma; specifically, that those who are victims of it are in danger of perpetrating it on their own children. Exactly how to prevent such a vicious cycle from perpetuating is something I didn't glean THE BROOD, but perhaps there no easy answers. Maybe the best way forward is to just be aware it's a thing.

Next up to watch: SCANNERS (1981).

Shot on Red Raptor using Laowa probe and macro lenses. We were able to shoot right into the fly's mouth at the tip of its proboscis. The lighting turned out too monochrome on this piece. We were going for a green cast because of The Fly (The Movie) but this is where we learned we need to use contrasting colors or just stay neutral and let the the insects colors express themselves without contamination. As is, I feel like it looks tinted green rather than lit green which is the risk you run with monochromatic lighting. Anyway, this is tough work. You are dealing in micro adjustments for focusing which is very hard on a conventional tripod. When we filmed the fly's mouth we were ecstatic. It took an entire day trying to land that properly framed and in focus.

do dash cam compilations count?

Apologies for taking so long to post this follow-up. There was an unexpected gap between watching SHIVERS and RABID, but I wanted to pair my notes on the two movies together. 

-Loved the opening sequences of both movies even though I found them to be very different. SHIVERS begins with a commercial for the Starliner, which actually reminded me of real-life promo videos. It's mannered, almost distant.

RABID, on the other hand, kicks off with images that look like they belong in a Terrence Malick film: a woman (Marilyn Chambers) standing quietly as the wind whips through her hair; her male counterpart staring back from a distance; the two of them wordlessly riding off on the motorcycle. Along with being more emotional, it feels instinctual, dreamlike.

-Each film does an excellent job building up tension. Normally, I don't enjoy having my nerves frayed, but I'm more likely to rewatch the early scenes in SHIVERS for the scenes preceding the first reveal of the parasites. Now I wonder if certain details were purposefully misleading (eg, did the mad scientist really kill himself as I had thought or did something else happen to him? I recall the death happening off-screen and another character later says it was suicide, but perhaps it warrants a rewatch nevertheless).

-Both movies are about mad scientists and monsters, but I think SHIVERS executed the latter better. The creature designs of the parasites were compelling and, as I understand it, would go on to influence ALIEN. The vampiric protrusions that emerge under Rose's (Chambers) arms in RABID were gnarly, but the resultant zombies had less personality.

-Based on the later films of his I've seen, I didn't necessarily expect these early Cronenberg works to have such a darkly humorous streak, which I think is especially true of SHIVERS (although RABID does feature a cackle-worthy moment in which a family on vacation in a Winnebago directly contributes to a tragic accident; it's relatively restrained after that). One of the most bleakly funny moments involves the protagonist Tudor standing at his balcony and vomiting up a parasite, which plummets down towards the sidewalk until bouncing off an umbrella held by two elderly neighbors out for a walk.

They don't bother investigating, assuming the object was just a bird that flew into their building. In addition, they're physically too far away from Tudor to see what actually happened. The theme of "distance", both of the tangible as well as the emotional, recurs throughout SHIVERS as here in the Starliner, there is little in the way of community and day-to-day existence seems sterile on the whole.

As a result of the "distancing" that's part and parcel of life, a horrifying truth is happening right under the characters' noses--not just the aforementioned neighbors, but everybody's. Yet no one knows until it's too late.

-Although I really liked both SHIVERS and RABID, if I preferred the latter just a little bit more, it's because I found the character of Rose to be highly sympathetic. She provided more of an emotional hook for me than any of the ensemble in SHIVERS. Completely blameless for her descent into a "Typhoid Mary"-type of figure, she isn't strictly a predator, even if she is most definitely cause of the conflict and misery in RABID. To me, that makes her complex and fascinating.

I won't pretend to be any kind of expert on mental health, but I can't help assuming that Rose's vampiric protrusions are some kind of defense mechanism resulting from the serious physical and mental trauma she just suffered (I mean, imagine your last memory is of being in a fiery vehicular explosion, and then you wake up and are told you've had a bunch of your skin replaced with skin from God knows where?). It's like she's in a disassociative state. The character does appear to be unaware of what she's done, despite being conscious of having these specific urges and knowing they're dangerous to those around her.

Next up for the class I'm taking: THE BROOD (1978) and, if there's time, FAST COMPANY (1979)!

In 1973, Canadian magician Doug Henning premiered a Magic Show/Musical called “Spellbound” at the Royal Alexandra theatre in Toronto. It wasn’t very well received based on existing reviews, and was later heavily rewritten for its Broadway transfer. The Broadway version had music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz of Wicked fame and ran for almost 2000 performances, but the original Toronto version strangely had a libretto by David Cronenberg (The Fly, Videodrome, etc.) and music by Howard Shore (Lord of The Rings, Silence of the Lambs). As far as I know, this is the only stage production either of them have ever been involved in. The Broadway version has a lot of material publicly available, including a full cast recording and sheet music, but I can’t find anything besides a few advertisements and reviews for the original Toronto version. I don’t think it ever was licensed by any major publishers so I doubt any material was ever published, and there definitely wasn’t a cast album recorded, but I think it’s definitely in the realm of possibility that archives of the script and music exist. I don’t know who would have them (besides Shore, Cronenberg, or the Doug Henning estate), but I’d love to see what a Shore/Cronenberg musical would look like. If anyone knows anything else about this strange show or has any idea where to start looking please let me know! Thank you!