Crimes of the Future

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.

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!!!

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.

This is an unusual filmic experience, hypnotic, trance-like, not totally rewarding but still fascinating. On the soundtrack you can only hear the narrator, strange noises (sounds of sea-creatures) and for some stretches, total silence. Signs of Cronenbergs weird imagination is present throughout the narrative. I especially liked the quite extraordinary concept of "creative cancer".The sterile, modernistic architecture lends the movie a strangely desolate, surreal tone and sets, at least my, imagination in motion. It´s like stepping into another reality, something Cronenberg has continued to achieve in the best of his subsequent movies. It´s an experimental film, but it succeeds in drawing the viewer into the picture, not solely with its narrative, but with its images and composition. In fact, it´s not unlike what Kubrick did, in much larger scope of course, with 2001. Recommended for Cronenberg fans, and those of you who aren´t afraid of something different.