This a genuine question for cronenberg fans
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — David Cronenberg
rtodd110 — 11 years ago(September 10, 2014 08:56 PM)
This a genuine question for cronenberg fans
I've seen almost all his films
An he made this comment about a scene in a history of violence claiming he is against glorifying violence.
How can someone who has built his career on violence be against it? His films have some extremely grotesque over the top violence to the point where someone could interpret it as being glorified. It's a contradiction, I really am curious to see what people think because I was surprised he made that comment. I understand there are movies that are non stop action violence and I can see how it appears glorified, but a history of violence eastern promises the fly scanners the brood etc. All have insane scenes of brutal violence. Any thoughts? -
samantha3 — 11 years ago(September 11, 2014 10:06 AM)
As MetalWorks says, the violence always has consequences for the characters. And DC does the opposite of glorifying it; he puts it in our faces so you can see how ugly it is. No slow motion, no stirring music, no bad-boy stuff, nothing "artistic" about it. If you don't get what he is doing, too bad, but for instance if you had watched and especially listened to the theater showing of the sauna scene in EASTERN PROMISES, for example, you would have realized that the audience was shocked and horrified. To achieve that effect in a modern adult audience in a theater says something for DC's work, and it isn't that he glorifies violence.
Now, Quentin Tarentino -
ma_marcil — 11 years ago(November 24, 2014 12:33 PM)
I totally agree with the fact that Cronenberg does not glorify violence at all. Even in a sci-fi/horror movie like The Fly, the violence was very matter-of-fact and gritty and blunt in my opinion and it really made a difference. That's not to say that Cronenberg does not have a sense of humour, because he definitely has one, but the tone of many of his films is successfully gloomy and creepy and unnerving, and the way he presents violence only accentuates the impact of the atmosphere he is conveying in his movies.
Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?How did that happen? -
Nakrophile — 11 years ago(January 02, 2015 06:20 AM)
You only need to watch A History of Violence to understand his perspective. Yes, that film is very violent, but that's not really the point is it?
Well, unless you were one of the people in the cinema I saw it with afterwards who kept saying how great it was when Viggo stomped on that dude's throat, but that just shows us how stupid the average person is.
Anyway, excellent subject line. No he does not.
Time to blow -
mattiasflgrtll6 — 11 years ago(January 08, 2015 02:04 AM)
It's funny how you mentioned A History Of Violence since if anything, it's supposed to make the violence
very
uncomfortable and even deals with the moral question if violence is ever okay or not. Any instance of violence in that movie made me shudder, and I am saying it as someone who has seen Braindead. The reason AHOV's violent scenes are disturbing but not Braindead's is because that movie deals with violence from a psychological perspective and is supposed to show that what these characters do is not okay and violence can tear apart people's lives, whereas the violence in Braindead is crazy, mindless fun.
I do still think it's a
little
weird that he has that opinion though, as the violence in Scanners, while disturbing, seemed like the most
goofy
violent movie he has made.
On the other hand, it still explains how he thought when doing Videodrome, since that movie is a cynical satire of entertainment violence.