Crimes do Futuro

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.

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.

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 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.