Crimes of the Future

This flick is off the wall even for Cronenberg. And I'm amazed that such well known actors made this dark and almost plotless film.

It opens withan outrage and ends with a whimper. The dialogue is vague and depressing as is the premise that future art will be of pain and suffering.

"crimes of the future" is an efficient film, it does a lot with little, without big sets and gigantic practical effects, everything is very simple but very convincing, the scenery compositions are dirty with a dark photograph, always looking for an intrinsic degradation, the effects practical are good, the few CGI are weak, but the sound editing is magnificent, always looking for sounds that seek the viewer's discomfort, another positive point is the performances, the duo Vigo mortise and Léa Seydoux are very good, Viggo manages to show all the pain and anguish of her character with her body and vocal posture, Kristen is another highlight, making an anxious and paranoid character the actress delivers a very good performance, despite her little screen time, but the best point here, I bring the classic and brilliant Canadian director, david cronenberg, is his script, which, despite being a little confusing, has as its main premise the limit of art, its contradictions and subversive appreciations, its criminal lity, and with that it makes a self-reflection of its own filmography, the film is also a critique of state bureaucracy and government intervention in art, all on a derogatory dystopian futuristic science fiction plan. The feature has some problems, the biggest one is perhaps the subtexts that are open and not always completed. We don't have the best version of Cronenberg here, but his style remains authorial and inviting. Grade 7/10.

I was really excited to see this movie, and while I enjoyed the movie, I was ultimately left dissatisfied, because Cronenberg is capable of making better films. This movie basically explores a lot of the same themes as Crash, eXistenZ (did i spell that right?) and Dead Ringers, and sort of throws them together. I think it was miles beyond what eXistenZ was, but not as good as Dead Ringers, and nowhere near as good as Crash.

The pros: Acting is great, Scott Speedman was surprisingly really good in his performance, concept of the film is great

The mehs: Soundtrack, I feel like you could slap any of Howard Shore's Cronenberg soundtracks onto this one, and it wouldn't matter, it's there, it probably doesn't need to be though, for me it doesn't add anything, which makes me wonder if I would have enjoyed this move more if it didn't have a soundtrack...and I think I would. I think maybe going for something ambient over orchestral would have worked better as well, but I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. People have been talking about how gross some of the stuff is in the movie, but in all honesty, after watching it, I feel like Cronenberg and or the production company pays people to talk about how hard it is to watch, to build hype. Pretty tame in the gross out department if you ask me, which is fine, because I think all of the surgical stuff that's happening was delivered at a very appropriate level, not off putting to watch.

The cons: the costume design is hokey, Viggo Mortensen's ninja poncho hoodie thing looks silly, the set design is really boring, the design of the various apparatuses that characters are connected to (the autopsy machine, the eating chair thing, the bed) all look like cheap plastic crap, and I don't think that was intentional, the way they're presented is as elaborate pieces of technology, but they look cheap and idiotic, and it really killed any engagement that I had, it kept reminding me that I was watching a movie with bad props, I'm glad he used props instead of CGI, but these just look like crap. The props and makeup in Naked Lunch worked, these look like they were props that were discarded from Naked Lunch's props department because they weren't good enough to use. Lastly the final con of the film is the script, the entire plot is fantastic, it's well thought out, but when you're dealing with complex themes and subject matter, why would you write a script that tries to explain what's going on like a 3 year old is watching the movie? The script is patronizing to the viewer, and I felt cheated when I listened to the dialogue. Characters don't need to explain to the audience what's happening when we're already watching it, most of the dialogue is a narration of the plot and the themes, and it's irritating to sit through.

This movie starts out great, with an awesomely dark opening scene to set the mood. It's really weird immediately and reaches high levels of grossness, but I surprisingly dug it. In many movies set in the future, it really isn't much different except for the technology and a few aesthetics. But here, we see a really interesting depiction of where humanity ends up, some of which I find scarily possible.

Unfortunately, it's extremely dull with just the slightest hint of a story and doesn't amount to anything. By the end I was checked out, or else I might've been furious at how it ends. I think many people will think this is one of the worst movies they've seen. (1 viewing, 6/8/2022)

My thoughts on "Crimes" is more of a deep-dive into the metaphorical meanings within Cronenberg's on-the-nose, satirical (albeit horrific) and sometimes humorous view of modern-day technology (ex: eating chair, sleeping bed, autopsy bed), exhibitionism and voyeurism (ex: Saul, Caprice, Timlin, two women with drills), pop culture (ex: Klinik/Ear Man, others), celebrity status (Saul and Caprice), and ultimately the "plastic" society that we have become (ex: plastic eaters, non-plastic eaters, and those "evolving" into eating plastic. There are also the "policing agencies" (Cope, Wippet, Timlin) that tries to regulate and/or terminate humanities permanent decline into a meaningless existence of seeking out ever-greater, "shocking" sensualities (ex: government's attempts to regulate social media and the moral decline of society).

The story clearly identifies "plastic" as the synthetic, cheap, easily consumed and digested content in social media (I think of "Barbie Girl" by Aqua, Madonna's "Material Girl"). Each of the main characters is participating in the so-called "art" in some way with a brief glimpse of a "normal person" who dies from eating "plastic".

The boy Brecken, from the outset, has already "evolved" into a full plastic eater. The mother, representing parents of young "social media artists" today, smothers him. This represents the consequences of parents allowing their children to consume and produce cheap, easy to consume exhibitionism eventually leading them to be killed by it (ex: kids being killed by their stalkers, older men being fans of young girls) as if the parent was the actual murderer.

Through the entire story, the main character Saul resists "evolving" into a plastic eater (ex: "tumor-like organs" that grow inside him = the cancers of society) using alien-looking tech just to eat and sleep (Ex: cpap, hospital surgical devices, feeding tubes, mechanised beds etc). Finally, after just giving in to "evolving" into a plastic eater does he find complete contentment and peace. However, never does he realize that his "painless" exhibitionism is the very cause of his morphing into a plastic eater; he's now desensitised to it all.

Along the way, we also meet two woman voyeurists who drill holes into people's heads representing the mindless, intellegence draining people of YouTube Channels and pornography; they create content that displays to everyone their so-called "inner beauty" but is secretely "horrific" for us to watch, and we can't turn our eyes away (ex: Adrienne, Ear Man, zipper device, etc.). In addition, Ear Man (Klinik) demonstrates how even the hippocritical Producer of his "Art" (ex: the music and entertainment industry) can be the very one who exploits the financial successes but joins the "popular" view of hating it (ex: anonymous likes, dislikes, etc.).

There are many more metaphorical references throughout the story and Cronenberg uses the genre as a warning of the future "horrors" of becoming "Plastic Eaters". Cronenberg asks us If we are disgusted by what we are watching and thus why are we not disgusted by what we "consume" in today's media? He suggests that if we are not disgusted by what we're watching, we're already a plastic eater. Indeed, ultimately society will become senseless, meaningless, painless, completely devoid of the characteristics that make us human if we don't stop eating plastic both metaphorically (ex: social media, empty entertainment, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pop culture, celebrity status, etc.) and physically (ex: oceans being full of plastic-fish eat it, we eat the fish). Neither has any nutritional value.