Crimes of the Future

A grotesque oddity, Cronenberg's 2nd feature, Crimes of the Future, evokes the same sense of transcendent magnetism as films like Eraserhead and 2001. The story unfolds like a series of connected dreams, ones which emerge from the edge of consciousness.

The narrative plottings and concerns are not unlike those that exist in other Cronenberg films. However, their unfolding feels so much looser and uninhibited, creating a similar sensation as removing rocks from your shoes, causing it to almost float along. I love this type of avant-garde cinema that feels like it can do anything at any point in time.

Beauty products designed by the deranged and ideological dermatologist Anton Rouge have lead to human mutation on such a cataclysmic scale that the entire population of sexually mature women has been eradicated. Rouge has since disappeared or perhaps died, and the film follows a languid disciple of his, Adrian Tripod.

Tripod is long and gaunt. A vampiric black coat coiled tightly around him creates a stark counterpoint to his pasty, white skin. It's his internal musings that serve as the only spoken words in the film. Shot without synchronized sound, Cronenberg extracts all dialogue while focusing exclusively on a shearing combination of indefinable noises which work somewhat like a score.

Sterile, geometric spaces encompass the characters' surroundings. They feature rational modern architecture full of straight lines and intersecting right angles. These austere and formal geometric patterns are not only inherent in the architecture but also constructed as obscure props, most noticeably during the film's introduction of its pedophilic cult where a dark void-like space is illuminated only from large, glowing monolithic rectangles.

Cronenberg creates a strong counterpoint between the composed and simplistic architectural geometry and the abstraction of mutation and intellectual perversion. In doing so, he sets up an evolutionary hierarchy where humanity, as we know it, sits in the middle between individuals who are undergoing a "psychic relapse" due to "intense genetic pressure" (basically these people are losing evolved human attributes like feet and have begun growing fins and flippers instead) and amoral, paraphilic entities who have moved beyond human emotions and ethics.

This is Cronenberg at his most experimental. Crimes of the Future certainly is not an easy watch, but I found it to be engaging. I see the film's intentional opaqueness as one of its strongest attributes, because it becomes so otherworldly. That being said, I can also understand how it could be perceived as a frustrating and unapproachable method of filmmaking.

Crimes of the Future (1970) was made a year after Stereo and with a larger budget, Cronenberg came out with an even more bizarre film based around sex and human nature. In this film he takes his cold, clinical and dark view of the world a step further. A world filled with emotionless people who are devoid of individual thought and repressed beyond imagination. A doctor uses this to his advantage whilst sexually experimenting amongst patients within a mental hospital.

This film is kind of hard to describe without giving away to much. But I found it to be comparable (somewhat) to THX 1138. In many ways you can compare the two. Cronenberg shot this faux documentary style accompanied by narration. The film reminded me of those videos that psychiatrists use when documenting extraordinary cases of psychosis and what not. Maybe that's what he trying to accomplish (if he was he succeeded). However some of the scenes in this movie are not for all viewers (those easily offended will be turned off by the subject matter).

All in all it's a more polished film than Stereo and his film-making had matured. Cronenberg also experiments more with sound and editing. The technique he uses gives the viewers the impression that they're under a state of semi-hypnosis (I don't know if they'll appreciate that or not). A interesting experimental film.

For fans only. Recommended.

This film, I believe, is only about 70 minutes long and succeeded in being one of the longest movies I have ever seen. I actually fell asleep for about 10 minutes toward the end. I appreciate this movie to an extent since the concept itself is interesting and the narration, when it happens, can be quite funny. But it gets old quickly. I think it is more interesting to remember than it is to watch. I view this movie and "Stereo" the same way. The narration is funny at times and has a very satirical and original style but it is not enough to keep one awake, let alone keep ones interest. I think the lack of sound is due to Cronenberg's laziness and lack of desire to do any recording and mixing. Maybe I should give him more credit than that. Maybe it was lack of funds and knowlege. After all he was paying for those out of his own pocket and was, to paraphrase his own words, still teaching himself how to make movies.

This line is normally where I put the plot, but the plot is unclear to me... a group of people who live in an institution for bizarre venereal diseases, perhaps?

This film is David Cronenberg's follow-up to "Stereo", and aside from a slightly bigger budget and moving from monochrome to color, it is clear that his themes have not shifted much (if at all). He loves the medical institutions, the sterile surroundings of the hospital, and the imposing architecture (camera shots repeatedly make the building look bigger and the hallways longer than the reality most likely is).

He again talks of medical abnormality, something he would visit again in "Rabid" and "The Brood" and "Scanners". The special effects are played down here, with a discussion of new organs having few visuals to back up the idea (some indecipherable mass in a jar). The film as a whole is really an artistic exploration of minimalism. Most scenes involve characters sitting still for minutes at a time, hardly any words are spoken (though numerous discomforting sounds are heard). The whole film's plot is drawn out by a voice-over (perhaps calling to mind Chris Marker's "La Jetee").

What differentiates great directors from poor ones is, in my opinion, the ability to know your limits and to stretch the limits while keeping the budget in mind. Cronenberg fits into this category of greatness. Like early Kubrick ("The Killing"), he knows he has no budget but makes up for it with stark contrast and searing images. While this is by no means Cronenberg's best work, it is clear to see that given another script and a bigger budget, he has the vision. He frames each scene very carefully, the camera actually taking in more than is actually there in the process.

Your average viewer would watch this and, even at the very short 62 minute running time, declare it a waste of film. Who wants to watch a bunch of ugly men in a courtyard while a voice talks about venereal disease and the need to impregnate a child? But a film student or scholar may see the film differently. Clearly, knowing what we know now about Cronenberg's success makes me biased. But still, the germ of directing genius is present here.

Have become a great admirer of David Cronenberg and find his films and style interesting. His films are unsettling and the subjects that he chooses to explore are very difficult ones, but that is what makes him and his films interesting. Most are good to brilliant and none of them for me are terrible or irredeemable (though a few disappointed). A few too belong in the appreciate rather than love category.

There were directors that started off shakily, Stanley Kubrick for example started with his worst film 'Fear and Desire'. Cronenberg was one of those directors, with this and 'Stereo', before improving significantly with 'Shivers'. Which wasn't perfect, but explored the major theme of sexual exploration and consciousness of mind that was introduced in 'Stereo' much better and the other five or so after doing the theme even better than that. Found his first great film to be 'The Brood' and his best films 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'. After seeing 'Stereo' and 'Crimes of the Future' not far apart only recently, it is hard to decide which was worse between those two. None of them are unwatchable, but for Cronenberg they were both underwhelming and the flaws in both films are exactly the same.

Beginning with the good things, 'Crimes of the Future' doesn't look too bad at all for early Cronenberg and for a film made on a low budget. Actually thought it was one of the better-looking early Cronenberg films and feel the same with 'Stereo', both look better than 'Shivers' and 'Rabid' despite both of those films being better overall. The photography shows inexperience at times but mostly is quite skillful and atmospheric. The location does have a good deal of unsettlement, if not as eerie as 'Stereo' and the lighting adds a lot to the atmosphere.

Some interesting diverse themes here in 'Crimes of the Future' (but they were explored in much more detail and more compellingly in other films). Intriguing concept, Ronald Mlodzik is surprisingly hauntingly nuanced and the ending is memorable.

On the other hand, the flaws that were in 'Stereo' are not improved upon, other than the acting being marginally better (not saying much for most, got the sense their hearts weren't in it properly) and that it was a little less confused. That's pretty much it for the improvements. Found it to be very dull, going at too slow a pace for a story that was pretty slight, making a very short length feel longer. Too many overlong and drawn out scenes are the problem in this regard. Also felt that it was too clinical and emotionally distant, usually do feel something watching Cronenberg whether it's being disturbed, being amused at some dark wit or being moved. This is a not so common case of feeling nothing in a Cronenberg film.

Cronenberg's direction is similarly clinical and it comes over as bland apart from being relatively technically sound. Despite saying that the slight story was less confused, again that was actually not saying much either because it is still muddled and one may have to ask anybody who's watching it with them what's going on and they are likely to not know. The dialogue is self-indulgent and eccentric and the over-use and over-complicated (the writing here not the delivery, the delivery is infinitely better here) feel present in the narration of 'Stereo' is here too at times if not as much. One never cares for the characters, who come and go a lot which confuses the narrative. Then there is the soundtrack/sound effects, which sometimes was not necessary and often went overboard on the weirdness.

In conclusion, an interesting failure that is still worth a one time watch. 4/10