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.

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

Like Apocalypse Now, The Shining, (Fassbinder's) Satan's Brew, and others, this movie makes you feel like you're watching the state of insanity as rebellion. The protagonist in Crimes of the Future, Adrian Tripod is free from all judgment. It is exhilarating and hilarious to watch him respond to his environment. Cronenberg's writing of the voice-over narration is frightfully intelligent and ahead of its time. I believe this short film will gain popularity exponentially in the next ten years with its inclusion on the Fast Company DVD. Ronald Mlodzik's performance is overwhelmingly detailed and his delivery of the narration (if it is him) has more confidence, if not arrogance than anything I've experienced in cinema. Perhaps Alexandra Stewart in Chris Marker's San Soleil can rival, or Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. You must see this!!!

Crimes of the Future (1970)

** (out of 4)

Normally I'd use this portion of my review to describe the "plot" of the film but I must admit that I have no idea what the plot of this film is. Basically it takes place at a disease clinic where several people are staying and we're introduced to a doctor and a mysterious disease that has killed off sexually active women.

CRIMES OF THE FUTURE was the second feature film from director David Cronenberg and it's a lot like his first STEREO. Both films are very experimental and I'm going to guess that you could show both of them to a hundred different people and you'd probably get a hundred different explanations of the plot. Heck, you'd also probably get quite a few walk-outs because neither film is what you'd call normal or for the mainstream.

I honestly felt the same for both pictures. I honestly respect both of them a lot more than I was actually entertained by them. I thought Cronenberg did a good job with the direction and there's no doubt that you're watching a film from someone with a vision. I also thought the performances were nice. There was a bizarre atmosphere to the film as well, which is something else I liked. With that said, did I enjoy watching the film? No, I didn't. Would I ever watch it again? No, I wouldn't.

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.