for those of you who haven't seen Rabid i highly recommend it. Cronenberg has a new film coming out and although it's more in the veign of his last more psychological thriller Spider i always find it interesting to go back to the body horror that Cronenberg became an auteur of.
back to Rabid, this DVD has to be one of the best horror dvd's out there. In a short interview Cronenberg discusses some of the troubles he had with censorship torwards Shivers and Rabid and the Canadian public's response to both films.
also the criterion edition of Videodrome is excellent. they go into length about how the fake torture scenes were made and some kinky actors that ended up being recruited :D
What exactly is the monster in Rabid? Because there is a movie I heard about and I am now tracking it down. I finally found out that it was a Cronenberg movie and I know the monster and the movie ,and the monster, had quite a bit of a sexual theme to it.
in rabid the main monster is a vampiric like woman who has this biting/sucking organism in her armpit that sucks the blood out of her victims. it sounds to me like what you're looking for is Rabid.
Out of her armpit ! ! ! ! ! ! It is now on my list..........................
Really enjoyed SHIVERS . Very good film. Haven't seen RABID yet, but have been curious about it.
Yep the armpit thing I remember and also the disturbing desripition of it.
I'm also going to go after Shivers just cause it sounds good.
Is Shivers also on DVD?
Doesn't this film star Marilyn Chambers? She was a '70's porn star for a bit -- Did "Behind the Green Door".
I remember Rabid getting atrocious reviews when it came out, but perhaps Cronenberg was just ahead of the curve.
peter johnson/denny crane
It did star Marilyn Chambers. Other than that, I didn't particularly care for the movie as it gets lost in its story development, and frankly drags at times. However, it does have its adherents.
I am a big fan of Cronenberg's style. His whole psycho-analytical, body violence stuff is pretty good to see in horror films, and also very wierd. Videodrome is fun, wacky film, well fun can be a bit of a strong word when it comes to masochistic crazy texts. I enjoyed Crash, though I don't particularly care to watch it too many more times. Existenz was interesting enough, with my favourite scene the restaurant scene, with the formation of the bone and teeth gun. Nice and icky.
Haven't seen Naked Lunch, but with a talking Typewriter, I don't think I'll be too dissappointed.
I just got myself a copy of Shivers and The Fly [the excellent film with Jeff Goblum] and have been planning on seeing the Shivers sequels [though I'm not sure as to Cronenberg's involvement in them]
In fact, recently I've been on a Cronenberg binge recently: last week in my Love Stories and Film Narrative class we were shown Dead Ringers, which was an odd film, but it was good, in that wierd Cronenberg style.
I haven't seen Spider yet, what do people think of it?
I own Spider -- Just watched it again recently --
If this were the only film that Cronenberg had ever done, he would be hailed as the heir apparent to people like Bergman or Antonioni -- not to overpraise Cronenberg, but if you just had this film to go by, film afficionados would be eagerly awaiting the next deep study of the psyche from this promising and serious new director.
Spider seemed to slip below a lot of radar out there I think precisely because Cronenberg did The Fly & Videodrome, etc., and therefore people didn't have to take him as seriously.
It is a very strong, very serious film about schizophrenia. It can be quite brutal, and not in a particularly "fun" way, either.
Saying that, it seems odd to say I "love" the picture, but Ralph Fiennes' & Lynn Redgraves' performances are about the best you can see in cinema. It is a cold, brutal, depressing story, with a sad, poignant ending. Exquisitely rendered.
Some day this film will be studied in detail in classes.
peter johnson/denny crane
Cronenberg did the best of all the Stephen King adaptations with the Dead Zone. Walken did a good turn as the haunted Johnny Smith.
Cronenberg's new movie is A History of Violence starring Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris.
peter johnson wrote:
[on Spider]
> Some day this film will be studied in detail in classes.
> peter johnson/denny crane
>
Well, considering over the 3 odd years in my Cinema Studies subjects we have had a couple of Cronenberg films to study, I would totally believe that. Especially since his films are mainly used for all the psychoanalytical stuff, which Spider seems to be quite full of.
It did slip under the radar, which is why I've been meaning to see it. Whilst I do prefer his body-horror type stuff, after watching Dead Ringers I've enjoyed the more serious, less gory side of Cronenberg.
Count me as another RABID fan. Chambers is amazing. She could have easily excelled as a mainstream actress if she hadn't decided to go the hardcore route.
The ending is one of the most bleak and hopeless in Horror history IMO.
WATCH THE TRAILER FOR RABID HERE (http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=312527)
(did that cop shoot Santa with a German MP-40?!)
Post Edited (09-26-05 12:11)
haha true Gerry, it is pretty bleak (like a lot of Cronenberg's endings).
Re. dean --
While it doesn't surprise me that Cronenberg IS being studied for his psychological content in Film Studies classes, it DOES surprise me to no end that if this is the case, then how the hell do they avoid Spider?
Seriously, it is a Good-good picture, though, as I've said, bleak as all getout.
Just see it -- get back with what you think --
That goes for everyone!!
peter johnson/denny crane
peter johnson wrote:
> Re. dean --
> While it doesn't surprise me that Cronenberg IS being studied
> for his psychological content in Film Studies classes, it DOES
> surprise me to no end that if this is the case, then how the
> hell do they avoid Spider?
> Seriously, it is a Good-good picture, though, as I've said,
> bleak as all getout.
> Just see it -- get back with what you think --
> That goes for everyone!!
> peter johnson/denny crane
>
It's probably because the films are tailored to fit in with subject matter at the time, and that his earlier films suit it more.
I just dug up an old subject reader for my Film Theory class from a couple of years ago to explain:
For example, we saw The Fly for the start of the area of 'Psychoanalysis and Horror, which involves Julia Kristeva's theory of the Abject, and Abject bodies, so therefore it suits that topic [big scary disgusting monster fits in with this quite well]
Videodrome was the next week, continuing on the same topic, but adopting a more psychoanalytical feel for it all [rather than just the physical horror] by studying again Kristeva's theory of the abject within the film's view on sex and the body. One of the questions is 'Videodrome explores the pursuit of the unattainable; the individual's desire to merge with, or take the place of, the Other' - explain"
Kinda confusing if you have no idea what I'm talking about, I know, and kinda confusing still to those who do [it's complicated and I still don't fully understand it] but it does make sense.
Since I haven't seen Spider, I can't really comment on where it would fit and how, but I'm sure it could get a mention. We get further viewing lists as well for films that also fit well with the topic of that week [but we can't show every film now can we?] and now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprise if Spider was on there somewhere, but I can't find it all my books at the moment to check.
Anyway, with such glowing praise I think I'll go rent it out in the next few days and give it a watch.
Oh and on another note, I saw the trailer for Cronenberg's new film. Doesn't look too bad from the bit I saw.
Arm yourself with a bottle of Scotch.
Pick a rainy afternoon --
peter johnson/denny crane