David Cronenberg’s name is synonymous with the “body horror”
subgenre. Other directors have earned
their reputation with films that focus on the graphic degeneration of the body
– Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator (1985)
is a classic example of body horror, while Lloyd Kaufman and his Troma Studio
acolytes have built an entire quirky universe around punkishly grotesque
imagery – but no one has gone as consistently far as Cronenberg in turning
psychology into biology. Few
contemporary filmmakers can challenge the Canadian director’s facility for
creating memorably extreme visuals, but Cronenberg clearly has more on his mind
than appealing to the most twisted fantasies of Fangoria subscribers. Though
Cronenberg is the undisputed master of this tiny subgenre that he virtually
invented, he has shown an increasing tendency over the past several decades to
step outside of horror altogether, as in his psychologically sophisticated
historical drama A Dangerous Method
(2011). Cronenberg’s oeuvre is
increasingly difficult to pin down, blurring the line between multiplex,
arthouse, and grindhouse cinema in ways that are bound to confound viewers of
all stripes.
Considering how adept Cronenberg eventually became at
inserting subversive messages and state of the art effects into conventionally
satisfying narratives, it seems almost surprising that his early film work is
comprised mostly of work-for-hire jobs on Canadian television shows and generically
“experimental” short movies. Stereo (1969) is fairly insufferable
even in a condensed “fan edit” posted on YouTube (which cuts the film’s length
down by nearly 50 minutes, and adds some smartly chosen ambient background
music to the original cut’s mostly silent soundtrack). Based on the 5 minutes or so that I managed
to sit through, Crimes of the Future
(1970), which is also currently available to watch on YouTube, isn’t much
better.
This Invasion of the
Body Snatchers-esque plot is an ingenious premise for a low-budget horror
film. The apartment building setting works
as a convincing microcosm of society, even though the film was likely shot on
fewer than ten sets. The script’s
structure, which charts the progress of the spreading disease as it works its
way through the building (as opposed to following a conventional protagonist)
helps cover up the weaknesses of the mostly amateur cast, none of whom have to
do too much dramatic heavy lifting. Cronenberg
starts at a high level of tension with the struggle between the doctor and his
patient and then just keeps raising the stakes from there, climaxing in a
wonderfully insane scene in which an uninfected man is trapped in a pool
surrounded by dozens of deranged hosts waiting to turn him into one of
them. The final shot, showing the
apartment building’s psychotically smiling residents driving in succession out
of the facility’s garage, successfully suggests the beginnings of a world
invasion in the most economical way imaginable.
Shivers is a wonderful case
study in how to get maximum impact out of a minimal budget, and it is one of
the most clever horror films of its era.
Though it isn’t as politically bold as George Romero’s initial zombie
films, as relentlessly scary as The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre (1974), or as technically assured as Halloween (1978), Shivers
is nonetheless a terrifically resourceful horror film, and a fine proper start
to David Cronenberg’s feature film career.
Cronenberg followed up Shivers
with another film about experimental surgery leading to the spread of a
devastating disease. But while Rabid
(1977) is as logical a follow-up to Shivers
as is imaginable, it somehow lacks the inspiration and conviction of its
predecessor. After a woman (Marilyn
Chambers) is injured in a brutal motorcycle accident she is taken to a plastic
surgery facility (the nearest proper emergency room is too far away) where
doctors hope that an experimental skin grafting technique will allow her to
survive. While the transplants keep the
woman alive, they also have the inexplicable side effect of creating a weird
vaginal orifice under her armpit, from which a phallic stinger emerges,
allowing her to feed off the blood of other people while turning them into
rabid zombies. The disease quickly
spreads beyond the facility and into the nearest major city, causing mass panic
as the military is called in to try to contain the outbreak.
Taking the disease out of the plastic surgery center
distinguishes Rabid from Shivers, but Cronenberg didn’t have the
budget and/or the technical skill at this point in his career to convincingly
depict a city-wide crisis. While some of
the film’s flaws can be charitably blamed on lack of funds or experience, it
frankly seems that the script was a bit underdeveloped as well. The nature of the disease simply isn’t very
well established before the action spills out into the city, with too much of
the time in the plastic surgery facility devoted to a succession of similar
kill scenes. While Chambers’ condition
is uniquely grotesque, her victims’ eventual zombie-like state is strictly
generic. There are hints of
socio-political commentary in the military’s poor handling of the outbreak (recalling
Romero’s 1973 film The Crazies), but
these never amount to much. The acting
is also a serious problem in the film.
Chambers makes for a passable scream queen, but Frank Moore, as her
character’s concerned boyfriend, is wooden even by the low standards of horror
film protagonists. Cronenberg gets some
mileage out of simply going farther than other filmmakers would dare to go – a scene
where a man goes home to find that his infected wife has slaughtered their baby
is seriously hardcore – but his ideas aren’t particularly well thought-out or
executed throughout most of Rabid.
UP NEXT Fast Company and The Brood
Really impressed! Everything is very, very clear, open is a description of the problem. It Luxury Dog Collar, Small Dog Collars contains the information.
ReplyDelete