ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

OVO JE PISAO DEVILOCK:

unapred izvinjenje ako je ova tema vec bila obzirom da sam nov ovde....
anyway, pretpostavljam da ovde ima fanova ovog kanadskog reditelja? imate li neki njegov film koji bi posebno izdvojili? covek koji je uspesno realizovao brojne nezahvalne teme kao sto su ekranizacije romana i rimejkovi starih filmova kao i ispoljio sjajne ideje jos u svojoj prvoj, da nazovemo to trilogijom filmova shivers, rabid i brood koje je kasnije razradjivao u vecim projektima tipa videodroma, scannersa i dead ringersa. nemoguce mi je da izdvojim jedan film koji bi mi bio najomiljeniji, u principu jedino mr. butterfly i crash mozda se izdvajaju slabijim utiskom, ostalo je zaista genijalno. pa cak i existenz mi se prilicno svidja iako sam susretao poprilicno podeljena misljenja.
na ovogodisnjem kanskom festivalu predstavljen je njegov poslednji film spider, psiholoska drama sa ralf fajnsom u gl. ulozi. trebalo bi uskoro da zaigra i u domacim bioskopima, bar po najavama.

OVO JE PISAO TAURUS-JOR
Covek je postavio pitanja, a ja ovde samo postavljam glasanje. Uzivajte!

E tu sam te čekao 'taure nemas vrwemena da odgovaras na mejlove al zato postavljas glasanje! Salim se, nego kako da ti posaljem lični mejl?
Plus daj reci za koga ti glasas s'obzirom da si trenutno na forumu najveći poznavalac doticnog rezisera. Ja glasam za "Muvu" - uzasavao me kao klinca i teško sam to preboleo ali sam onda shvato koliko je to kompleksno i kvišeslojno delo (ala serem).

Seme, ja mozda znam znanje. Ali ne poznajem veceg poznavaoca Kronenberga od mog prijatelja Ghoula. No gde mogu da pomognem, pomoci cu ti.

Ja bas spremam jedan esej o Videodromu. Necu stvar sagledavati iz uobicajenog ugla. Ljudi kod tog filma stanu u trenutku kada im se cini da su pogubili sve konce. Pa kazu - iako nista ne razumeju - "jooooo, pa ovo je remek delo". Ili kazu "pa, ovo je moglo da bude remek-delo, da se film u poslednjoj trecini nije sasvim raspao".

Mejl adresu cu ti poslati putem licne poruke, pa mi ti onda posalji svoju. OK?

Glasao sam za BROOD. Ali je konkurencija bila mnogo jaka. Mogao sam glasati i za MUVU, UKLETE BLIZANCE, VIDEODROM... mozda cak i za JEZU ili SUDAR.

Volim MRTVU ZONU - ali kao ekranizaciju Kinga. Svidja mi se i M. BATERFLAJ, koji ljudi inace ne vole. Ne vidim sta im smeta. Mozda to sto veoma brzo uvidjamo da je ambasadorova ljubav zapravo musko, pa ne mozemo kasnije da poverujemo da je neko toliko slep da ne razlikuje dupe od mindze. Bogami, kad je neko u onakvom transu...

GOLI RUCAK mi nije los, ali ti pre gledanja treba uputstvo za upotrebu, to jest upoznavanje sa motivima iz Barouzovog dela, ali i sa faktima iz njegovog zivota.

KONTROLORI su, prosto, ulazak medju krug rezisera kojima i laik zna ime, ali nista vise od toga. Negativac, Deril Revok (Majkl Ajronsajd) je hiljadu puta ubedljiviji od pozitivca. Kakav prostodusni tupan!

BESNILO (RABID) je cistokrvni horor sa SF elementima, ali mi posle nekog vremena postaje monoton. Ubistva se samo redjaju a ne donose nista novo. Ali porno diva Merlin Cejmbers pokazuje da ume da glumi. Inace, kao i JEZA ovaj film je snimljen za kanadskog distributera tvrdih pornica, CINEPIX. Kazu i da je Kronenberg mastao da rezira horore.

eXistenZ je odlican film, ali nije nista originalno. Imas jasne posvete Videodromu i Golom rucku. To je, uostalom, prvi put da je Kronenberg na neki nacin poceo da se ponavlja - premda mislim da je to ucinio namerno.

Ako bih baš morao da poredjam Kronenbergove filmove po redosledu količine mog divljenja i obožavanja, to bi izgledalo ovako:
DEAD RINGERS (film koji obožavam intenzitetom koji duboko zalazi u fetišizam i neskrivenu idolatriju; nikada niko nije niti će –verovatno čak ni sam Kronenberg- napraviti nešto tako suptilno-gnusno-fascinantno-transcendentno. Film kao medijum je stvoren da bi se pravila ovakva dela – OVO je kvintesencija majstorskog baratnja svim elementima filmskog izraza radi delovanja na SVE nivoe dovoljno evoluiranog ljudskog stvora. Završetak filma, kada Ajrons zove žensku telefonom a onda zanemi kada ne zna da odgovori na 'prosto' pitanje: 'Ko je to?' i ode u onu ruinu od stana da se pridruži svom mrtvom bratu u figuri Blizanaca u Tarotu –jebo te, pa to je beyond words!)
THE FLY (Remek delo. Šta još reći? Hoćete dokaze? Zar niste gledali film? Neko je ovo nazvao najvećim monster moviejem još od King Konga, i ja se potpuno slažem, sem utoliko što ovo i nije monster movie u bilo kom klasičnom smislu reči.)
SHIVERS (Ultimativna crnohumorna 'satira' koja se, baš kao i u Barouzovim delima, preko socijalnog nivoa prostire sve do antropološkog, biološkog pa time i metafizičkog nivoa ljudskog postojanja. 'Sex is invention of a clever venereal disease.' Hehehe. Indeed.)
VIDEODROME (Kako već na jednom drugom forumu rekoh, prilikom gledanja ovog filma mi se desilo nešto što nikad pre ili posle nisam doživeo: posle nekih 40-ak minuta osetio sam toliku količinu uživanja, oduševljenja i strahopoštovanja pred onim što Kronenberg tu radi da sam stvarno bio na ivici da isključim video, malo predahnem, dođem do daha itd, pa da onda nastavim. Na žalost, ubrzo potom film sve više pokazuje znake toga da K. nije imao gotov scenario kada je počeo da snima film, i da je puno toga menjao tokom snimanja, pa se i pored mnogih genijalnih momenata sve do kraja film ipak spušta na nivo donekle podnošljiv smrtnom čoveku. Da je nastavio onom uzlaznom linijom pre kraja filma ja bih se rasprštao iznutra kao onaj lik na podijumu, u filmu, ili bi mi glava explodirala kao u Scanners).
NAKED LUNCH (Ovo nema veze s činjenicom da je roman-povod moje omiljeno književno delo, jer je film ingeniozna nadgradnja nekih motiva iz tog, i drugih Barouzovih romana sa detaljima B-ovog života neraskidivih od njegovog pisanja...)
CRASH (Najhladniji, najlepši, najledeniji K-ov film, sa najboljim skorom H. Šora. HAUNTING on all levels!)
THE BROOD (Najmračniji, najmelanholičniji, najcrnji K-ov film, skoro bez imalo humora. The shape of rage...)
SCANNERS (Savršena ilustracija toga da K. ponekad ima i SUVIŠE dobrih ideja po filmu a da bi ih sve dosledno i do kraja sproveo. Ovo je pre skup ingenioznih zamisli i nezaboravnih scena nego koherentna priča, ali bato, KOJE SU TO SCENE!!!)
RABID (Najkonvencionalniji K-ov film, i žanrovski –horor- najčistiji: perfektna jesenja atmosfera i apokaliptični ugođaj /ubistvo Deda Mraza!/ krunisani srceparajuće-nihilističkom završnicom. Za divno čudo, M. Chambers je vrlo dobra, mada bih ipak više voleo da mu je producent dozvolio prvobitni izbor za glavnu ž. ulogu – SISSY SPACEK!)
EXISTENZ (U Videodromu se K. na svoj način osvrće na svoju dotadašnju karijeru, i inteligentno podsmeva i sebi i svojim kritičarima. Na još explicitniji način on to radi i u EXISTENZu, ali samoreferentnost u spoju sa naglašenijim elementima humora i akcije nekako baš ne leže ovom filmu.)
DEAD ZONE (K. je uradio najviše što je ljudski moguće da se izvuče maximum iz te i takve polu-trash premise i napravi iole ozbiljan film. Ipak, i pored genijalnog K. Vokena i dobrog mooda sve te političke zavrzlame čine ovaj film preterano extrovertnim za intimistički K-ov ugođaj.)
CRIMES OF THE FUTURE (Samo za inicirane. Negledljivo za ostale.)
STEREO (K-ova oda kanadskoj neljudskoj arhitekturi, neprevaziđena u tom smislu sve do CRASHA. Savršen trip-film, uz NAKED LUNCH koji je, naravno, usual suspect po tom pitanju)
M. BUTTERFLY (Da je ovo potpisao bilo ko drugi rekao bih 'Hej, baš dobar film!' Glavni nedostatak ovoga jeste u tome što je ovo jedini K-ov film koji je mogao i neko drugi da napravi, a da film time ne bude bitno slabiji ili drugačiji.)
FAST COMPANY (Nisam gledao, ali znam više nego dovoljno da mogu da ga i bez gledanja, za sad, stavim na samo dno, i molim se da mu niko ne da pare za RED CARS, njegov dream project o trkačkim automobilima.)

SPIDER (Pročitao sam ama baš svaki text o njemu na netu, i prilično sam siguran da će ovo ući među prvih 5 njegovih. Po svemu sudeći, biće najbliži dejstvu DEAD RINGERSA. Šta više od toga čovek može da poželi?)

zaista je lepo videti ljude s kojima u potpunosti delite misljenja.
uglavnom, glas je otisao dead ringersima, mada opet kazem da mi je skoro nemoguce da izdvojim samo jedan film koji se nesto posebno izdvaja. jos jedna zanimljivost vezana za d.r. je da je prvobitna zelja kronenberga bila de niro, ipak ma koliko ga cenim mislim da je bolje sto je odbio ulogu.
a da je sisi spejsek zaigrala u rabidu mislim da bi ovaj glas ringersima bio ozbiljno ugrozen
pozdrav svima

Jas' glasao za Dead Ringers, nemam vremena da objasnjavam zasto sam da pitam: zasto mora da se glasa za jedan film?

Umm... zato sto je to prvo nacelo demokratije?
Jedna persona, jedan glas....

or so they say.

Ja sam glasao vec triput, ali za takvu beneficiju morate da spavate sa moderatorom sajta.

Pa ko voli, nek izvoli

The Fly je istinska tragedija.
Nema negativca u tom filmu.
U zivotu nema negativaca ni pozitivaca.
Jebemo, bivamo jebani.
Mislimo da stvaramo nesto veliko, a stvaramo bol.
Prvenstveno ga stvaramo sebi, a onda i drugima.
Ali bol je znak da smo zivi, zar ne?

Crash prica o zivotu na ivici.
Razumem tu pricu.
I ja zivim na ivici.

The Fly je istinska tragedija.

AMEN TO THAT. ONE OF THE GREATEST OF ALL TIMES.

Nema negativca u tom filmu.

NEMA GA NI U JEDNOM CRONENBERGOVOM FILMU!

U zivotu nema negativaca ni pozitivaca.

TRUISM.

Jebemo, bivamo jebani.

KAKO KO.

Mislimo da stvaramo nesto veliko, a stvaramo bol.

ZASTO 'MISLIMO'? I ZASTO SAMO BOL? NISTA VISE?
NO PAIN NO GAIN! THAT'S THE PRICE OF THE GAME.
'KO CASU ZUCI NE POPI...' ILI KAKO VEC TO IDE.

Prvenstveno ga stvaramo sebi, a onda i drugima.

PREVISE UOPSTAVAS. JA, RECIMO, UOPSTE SEBI NE STVARAM BOL, ALI TO NADOKNADJUJEM TAKO STO  PREMA DRUGIMA RADIM U 2 SMENE.

Ali bol je znak da smo zivi, zar ne?

I RADOST JE ZNAK DA SMO ZIVI, YOU DEFETISTIC SUICIDAL NIHILIST!

Crash prica o zivotu na ivici.

I O JOS MNOGO TOGA DRUGOG.

Razumem tu pricu.

REALLY?

I ja zivim na ivici.

TO IPAK NIJE RAZLOG DA SE UBIJES. ILI JESTE?
U SVAKOM SLUCAJU 1) 'SHVATATI OZBILJNO OVAJ ZIVOT ZNAK JE KRAJNJE NEZRELOSTI' (mudrost mog dragog prijatelja, Dejana O.)
2) AKO NISI ZAPAZIO ZICU (CRNOG) HUMORA KOJA SE PROVLACI KROZ VECINU CRONENBERGOVIH FILMOVA, ONDA  N I S T A  NISI RAZUMEO U NJEGOVIM FILMOVIMA!

SO, TAKE IT EASY.
RELAX.
PUT A SMILEY ON YOUR FACE.

Smiley

Zamrla nesto diskusija o Kronenbergu. Je li, Ghoule, hoche li Spidera (ne Jerusalema) biti na FEST-u ili nece?

E da, ima li tog filma na piratima - makar u Nisu?

Kronenbergov SPIDER je sasvim sigurno kupljen (METRO, čini mi se), i sigurno dolazi u bioskope. Planiran je za FEST, i jedino ga možda ne prikažu ako se distributeri ne dogovore sa organizatorom oko PARA (čujem da im se sve manje isplati da daju svoje filmove FESTU...) –ali one way or another, videćemo ga u bioskopima negde marta –aprila.
  Video klubove nisam proveravao, ali 1) ne verujem da ga ima, jer idioti-pirati izgleda nabavljaju filmove samo kad krenu u Americi (film se odavno daje u Kanadi, Engleskoj, Francuskoj, Italiji...); i 2) i da ga ima, ne bih ga gledao na kaseti, jer je to film excepcionalnog vizuelno-zvučnog ugođaja i suptilne atmosfere koja će se pogubiti i na savršenom piratu, a kamoli na onom kakav obično ovde stiže. Zajebo sam se tako da, umirući od nestrpljivosti, pogledam CRASH čim je stigao kod pirata, i zvuk je bio tako loš da pola dijaloga uopšte nisam čuo (sećaš se, oni skoro ceo film kao da šapuću...), a slici da i ne govorim.
 Dakle, strpljenja... Biće... Avaj, ako ne na Festu, onda tek na proleće.

Body Language: An Interview With David Cronenberg

Wired News freelancer Scott Thill interviewed ultimate creep-out director David Cronenberg for the story, "Cronenberg Drifts From Tech Horror, but Shocks Remain." Here's the full, unedited transcript of the interview.

Wired News: Where does a crime drama like Eastern Promises fit into your body of work, no pun intended? You started out as a sci-fi and horror pioneer.

David Cronenberg: Well, I think it fits in beautifully. For me, there's no difference, I have to say. There's no difference between doing a scene featuring strange body parts crawling around or dialogue. It's all about trying to make it work, getting the best out of the actors, the dialogue, the lighting, the drama. Creatively, it just doesn't feel different to me. The challenges are basically the same. For example, if you look at Eastern Promises, we have a lot of tattoos on the main character, so I tried to make sure that they looked correct, that they're accurate, that the meaning they have works for the movie. In the scenes where Viggo is getting tattooed, I wanted to make sure it looked correct in terms of how it's done. That's sort of special effects, but it's also drama. Stephan Dupuis, who won an Oscar for The Fly, did the tattoos, so I'm working with the same people. But we get excited about different things. The fans have to realize that this is exciting for me. It feels the same. I can't look at it analytically, you know?

WN: Body and horror are still central to the film. Bodies are getting cut up, slashed, impaled. You have Viggo battling to death in a bath house while totally naked.

Cronenberg: Yeah, and of course body horror was not my term. It was a term someone used to describe what I was doing, so it is not a category in my head that I use to make films. Those analytical things come after the movie is made; they don't come before it for me. In fact, they don't come to me at all unless I'm talking to someone like you and we discuss it. But in terms of making the movie, it never comes up. It's just not a thought.

WN: How does the body play a role in this film in difference or perhaps in similarity to the films you've made before?

Cronenberg: Well, you have to realize that almost all of filmmaking is body, for anybody. You can't photograph an abstract concept. You are photographing the human body, and primarily the face. So I think that any filmmaker, if he's honest about it, will realize that at the bottom of what he's doing is body orientation and body consciousness. Even when I'm doing a dialogue scene and lighting Viggo's face, I'm trying to get his cheekbones and hair right, trying to get that smile and attitude. It's all body language. It's just as important and difficult to get right as any of the more extreme things I have done in movies like Existenz, which I suppose is the most recent film of mine that you'd consider sci-fi.

WN: There seems to be a pullback from the tech in Eastern Promises as well. The weapons used are simple knives. I didn't even see a gun.

Cronenberg: There are no guns in the film. There's a mention of one, but that's about it. Of course, on the set, there's tons of technology all the time. Whether or not it actually gets into the film, you as a filmmaker are dealing constantly with it. In many cases, it's new technology. New stuff comes out all the time. After all, I'm making a movie every two or three years at my fastest. Every time I come on the set, there's new stuff. So I get to play with the toys, and I do enjoy it. I made a short for Cannes in my bathroom using a Panasonic HVX-200, a sort of prosumer version of a hi-def camera. It was very exciting to be able to make a short like that with my family, and then watch it projected on a huge screen at Cannes for an audience of 2,500 dressed in tuxedos. And the short itself wasn't about technology, but the tech had to be there before I could actually make it, you know? So, once again, the experience of making a film always involves playing with and mastering a great deal of technology, whether it's actually in front of the camera or behind it. It's still there for me to get my hands dirty.

WN: In a way, the pullback of tech within the film hasn't really dampened the impact of its violence, what little there is of it, for the viewer.

Cronenberg: I completely agree. In fact, it's quite the converse. The screenwriter himself didn't have any guns in the screenplay, and I like that, even though it's not completely accurate given the London of today. There was a time when the cops in London prided themselves on never having to carry guns, but that's passé. Everyone there carries guns now, and there is a lot of gunplay there now, as there is everywhere. But a gun is not intimate, you know? Even if you're standing three feet away from someone, you can abstract that person, who is at a real distance from you. But if you have to stick a knife in someone, you're going to feel their blood, you're going to feel their sinews, and you're going to smell their breath. It's a very intimate thing, and you have to be the certain kind of person who can and would do that. In a way, it's actually scarier and has much more impact.

Think of it: We're in a very bizarre era right now where snuff porn that never really existed before is now available, via Muslim extremists mostly. But if you want to see beheadings or stonings, you can see them any time you want on your computer, which brings it close to home. And it's low tech too: Not the internet, but a woman being stoned to death. What could be more primitive that that? And you can see it if you want. It's quite scary and strange, but also very intimate.

WN: I go back to Videodrome, where the televisual "new flesh" was that sort of abstracted reality. But this film seems to reinscribe the hyperreal nature of the real flesh using not much more than knives, which is more terrifying.

Cronenberg: That's right, because you can get so abstracted that you lose sight of what violence really is. When we talk about violence, we're talking about destroying the human body in the most physically possible way. And a thing like a gun sort of separates you from that, as does art, religion, statistics and so on. There are all kinds of things that veil that reality. And there are things like, "Well, I killed him but he's going to heaven, so that's OK." It gives you an out. But if you don't believe that, you have to see murder as an act of absolute destruction, which puts it into its proper perspective.

WN: You called stoning "primitive," but do you find that to be the case? Does it matter how the body is destroyed, if the point is that murder is absolute destruction? The American campaign of shock and awe was basically code for raining technology from the skies until it abstracted the human body almost entirely. People don't even see them here.

Cronenberg: But they do on the ground, that's the thing. And it's usually the bodies of the people they love very much. It's nice to do shock and awe as politics, but in terms of human reality, it's an atrocity. There's no other word for it.

WN: Right, so to call a beheading, stoning or throat-slitting like the one in Eastern Promises primitive seems to be a technical argument.

Cronenberg: I don't know that I used the word primitive, but maybe I did.

WN: Well, it's not just you, which is why I'm asking. It's been going around. I'm just trying to get a sense of where artists like you draw the line, if at all, between barbarism and technological abstraction.

Cronenberg: I'm a completely nonviolent person. I've never even punched anyone in the face. I haven't even slapped anybody. Believe me, I'm not a violent person, but there is violence committed in the world every second, and it has to be absorbed and somehow dealt with. There's no way we can get away from knowing about it, especially now. What I'm saying is that it is always hideous. I'm not saying that it is never justified, because if you're attacked by someone who wants to kill you for abstract reasons -- some religious or political ideal, let's say -- on a normal, animal level, you have the right to defend yourself. In certain circumstances, I would probably do it too, so I can't say that it is never justified. But it's never desirable; that's my attitude. It's never desirable. You know, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife and I don't believe in karmic recycling. So murder for me is an act of absolute destruction. You are destroying a unique creature that never existed before and will never exist again, someone whose life experience is unique, and I take that very seriously. It's quite tragic and, of course, the human condition as well, because we all die. But to have a life cut short is a tragic thing.

WN: There's a scene in Eastern Promises that drives that point home, where a gangster who had his throat cut is found in a freezer. He may have been a bastard who deserved the violence while alive, but in death he seems like just so much waste.

Cronenberg: And we don't really know how justified his death was. Was it really over money? Was he squealing to the police? Is that really worth a human life? After all, when you see the guy alive, he's got a sense of humor, and some kindness. Even he has redeeming aspects to his character. Did he really deserve to die?

WN: Speaking of, the major recurring weapon in the film seems to be a crude, short curved knife. What is it?

Cronenberg: It's a carpet knife. (Laughs) It's not an exotic Eastern European knife or anything like that. In the script, it doesn't mention what kinds of knives they use or anything like that. So my rationale was that these guys are walking around the street with these knives, and if they're stopped they can just claim to be carpet-layers, that they bought them at the hardware store for a couple of pounds. The knives are cheap and disposable, and they're hard to identify, therefore they're good assassination weapons.

WN: Kind of like box-cutters?

Cronenberg: Same idea. I did vaguely have that in the back of my mind, I must say.

WN: Forgive me for getting analytical again, as that is what us writers must do...

Cronenberg: That's OK, I understand the process and I don't mind it. I just have to sometimes remind journalists and critics to not confuse their process with mine. That's all. In other words, what you are doing is valid, but it's not what I do when I make the movie. And sometimes they don't realize that. They think that you have this list of themes that you're looking at when you make a movie, but that's not how it is with me. But it is certainly valid to do that after the fact.

WN: Fair enough. You've made a film about culture clash as well as violence at the hands of throwaway technology, and I'm trying to figure out if there is a message or if this is just a crime film by David Cronenberg.

Cronenberg: Well, it's more an exploration than a message. A message assumes you have an answer. But really, every film for me is just an exploration of the human condition. That's really it. And of course it is in heightened dramatic form, but that sort of illuminates the nature of the human beast. It really is just an examination and exploration of a lot of things, but it's not as if I have the answer to anything. As you know, it has about four minutes of violence and it's a 100-minute movie, so most of this movie involves people talking. (Laughs) But I don't get people asking me, "Why are you obsessed with people talking?" Instead, they ask me why I'm so obsessed with violence, and I tell them I'm not. I spend very little screen time on it. I'm not naive enough to know that it doesn't have a huge impact.

WN: Yeah, but as you know, you throw in a few minutes of a nude death match with carpet knives in a bath house, and you can kiss My Dinner With Andre goodbye.

Cronenberg: (Laughs) Well put, well put. In fact, My Dinner With Andre would have ended well if they would have had that fight with knives and forks at the dinner table.

WN: So you don't consider these last few films with a heavy focus on interiority like Spider, A History of Violence and Eastern Promises as a move away from those with the same heavy focus on technology and horror like Videodrome, The Fly, Dead Ringers and so on?

Cronenberg: Well, like I said, in my life I'm still exploring technology, so I don't really feel that I'm moving away from it. I don't even think it's a movement. It's almost by accident that I did these two movies. People think that at a certain stage in your career you can do any movie you want. I often talk to Marty Scorsese about that. People think you can do anything you want, but you can't. There's a lot of money involved. There were a lot of other films that floated by after A History of Violence, and some of them were sci-fi films that kept on floating for various reasons. But if I would have done them, we would have been talking about that move, rather than this one. You'd be asking me why I came back to them.

WN: Nah, I would never ask you that question.

Cronenberg: Right, because it's not as interesting a question. But I don't really feel I've moved away from anything, and certainly I don't want to bore myself by doing the same thing I've already done. And I know fans have nostalgia for the movies that they grew up with, but for me to redo something like that would be boring. A few weeks ago, I got a script from my agent and told him, "I did this movie 35 years ago. It was called Shivers." When I did it then, it was for the first time. Why would I do it again, at this distance? On the other hand, I wouldn't ever rule out doing another sci-fi or horror film as a matter of course. Not at all. If something came along that was intriguing and challenging, I wouldn't hesitate.

WN: And not to be flippant about it, but your films, from Shivers onward, redefined tech and horror cinema. But today, there are so many movies that have taken those films to such an extreme degree that they no longer have the capacity to shock or disturb.

Cronenberg: Yeah, I think, without trying to sound egomaniacal, that is true. Those movies have been picked apart piece by piece, and recycled quite a bit. But that's the nature of the film business, or creativity in general: We are all feeding off of each other. There's no question about that, so I guess it's not a surprise that I'm moving somewhere away from all of that.

WN: Twenty years from now, they're going to remaking the crime drama.

Cronenberg: Well, that's probably true.

WN: Or car film: You made Fast Company early in your career, and adapted J.G. Ballard's Crash.

Cronenberg: I also wrote a script about eight years ago called Red Cars, which I would still do. It's a possibility. It's about the American driver Phill Hlll winning the Formula One championship for Ferrari in 1961. It's nostalgia tech: The Formula One cars of today are rockets compared to those of 1961. That's an era I still have a lot of affection for. When I reread my script, I still like it. Fast Company was pretty interesting for me, because I got to play with funny cars and drag racers with 200 horsepower that would go over 140 miles an hour in six seconds. I'm sure they go much faster today. As a gearhead, I had a lot of fun doing that movie.

WN: Did you have similar fun decrypting supposedly unfilmable novels like Crash or Naked Lunch? Any plans along those lines for future films?

Cronenberg: The challenge is never, "Hey, let me make a film out of an unfilmable novel." It's more along the lines of, "Crash is an amazing novel." And it wasn't so much about cars, I think. That's the thing. Car enthusiasts probably didn't enjoy Crash that much. (Laughs). Some of the cars in that film were actually pretty banal. But yeah, you only work on something that intrigues and challenges you. Through the two-year process of making the film, you want to discover something exciting to you. The challenge is not making a musical; the challenge is making a musical that intrigues you. It's much more specific. It's not so abstract and general.

WN: So let's close on humor. I know Viggo has a wicked sense of humor, and I've seen footage of you two cracking wise on the junkets.

Cronenberg: We get kind of crazy. We have a lot of fun, and say really silly things. When I'm touring and promoting a movie, it's a lot more fun to have someone like Viggo along for the ride.

WN: Right, but the films themselves, although dark, are always hilarious. At least to me. I couldn't stop laughing through Naked Lunch.

Cronenberg: No, Stephen King said he laughed all the way through it too. When we showed it in New York, where they really understood William S. Burroughs, they laughed from the first line of dialogue, which was, "Exterminator." They just cracked up at that. All of my movies are funny on one level or another.

WN: Yeah, Eastern Promises has dark comedy as well, mostly situated around its violent scenes.

Cronenberg: Well, of course, the guys are violent. It's a violent group. And it makes sense that their humor would be rather dark and warped. I mean, they're not about light comedy. The other thing is that they're Russians, who are pretty fatalistic, heavy, depressed, intense, emotional, morose, all of that stuff. So the humor had to fit the characters. You couldn't impose it from the outside.

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/12/body-language-a.html

samo 12 glasova.
sramota!
     

Nisam ni znao da ovaj topik postoji (it gouz vej bek), glasao sam za nejkid lanč zato što može biti samo jedan, ali mi, uz Ručak, i videodrom i ringersi dele prvo mesto.

I ja sam tek sada vidio topik, ali ne mogu da glasam. Treba tek da pogledam The Brood i Naked Lunch a i ako uzmemo samo ovo što sam do sada gledao, kako do đavola da odlučim između Dead Ringers i Muve?

Tema je tavorila pet godina u mracnim dubinama zaborava i strpljivo cekala da izadje na svetlost dana...ja nisam glasao jer ne mogu da se odlucim za koji film

Fala vi gosn' Alex.  
Da iskoristim 2000 post na kronija, jer čovek koji je uspeo da uverljivo filmuje Barouza to zaslužuje. Ujedno to je i razlog zbog kojeg sam glasao za Ručak bez obzira na snagu ostalih filmova.

Ruuučaak!

Nesto danas razmisljam u dokolici kako bih kompletnog Kronenberga koncipirao na tri DVD-a. I pazi sad!

DVD1: LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH - Cronenberg At His Uncompromising Best:
1. Shivers/They Came From Within (1975)
2. The Brood (1979)
3. Videodrome (1982)
4. The Fly (1986)
5. Dead Ringers (1988)
6. Crash (1996)

DVD2: FROM INTERZONE TO DEAD ZONE - Other Significant Works:
1. Scanners (1981)
2. The Dead Zone (1983)
3. Naked Lunch (1991)
4. eXistenZ (1999)
5. Spider (2002)
6. A History Of Violence (2005)

DVD3: PROMISES - Lesser And Hard-To-Find Works
1. Stereo (1970)*
2. Crimes Of The Future (1971)*
3. Rabid (1976)
4. Fast Company (1979)
5. M.Butterfly (1993)
6. Eastern Promises (2007)

Ako bih picajzlirao, mozda bih M.Butterfly prebacio na DVD2, umesto A History Of Violence, ali potonji, ma koliko mejnstrimaski bio, ipak je znacajniji u Kronenbergovoj karijeri. Takodje, M. Butterfly se i dalje ne moze naci na DVD-ju, sto ga stavlja u kategoriju "Hard To Find".

Odakle je ovo izvađeno? Wow! Spider, Lurd... Devilock... Ko je Devilock!? Noćni Letač?! Blast from the past...

To se Alexdelarge interesovao za daleku proslost ZS.

Cron je pod stare dane otkačio... Kažu da bez starca nema udarca, ali ovoga puta nije tako. Doduše, film je dosta solidno počeo, ja sam se taman obradovao, kad - PUF! - sve je skliznulo u najgoru melodramu. Dok sam gledao kao Cron ređa stereotip za stereotipom, shvatio sam da Fast Company i nije tako loš film. (Šalim se, naravno, FC jeste loš film)

Istočna obećanja su snimljena samo da bi se šokirala mediokritetska publika... U tkivo film aje ubačen po koji "neopdobni" prizor (higlight bi, valjda, bio scena u kojoj Viggo landara svojim vršnjakom tokom borbe u sauni), ali to ne menja činjenicu da je DC ovoga puta snimio film koji nije trebalo da snimi. Bolje da se posvetio PainKillers prijektu...

Doduše, film mucho bonito izgleda, i ima pola tuceta prizora koji podsećaju na dobra stara vremena. Zbog njih film valja pogledati... Evo, uštedeću vam trud:

Mene sokirao nije;pogledao sam film nedavno i uopste mi nije jasno kog djavla se bavio ruskom zajednicom/mafijom u Londonu.Cemu taj homoerotski diskurs?

Kronenberg je definitivno u krizi,mada ruku na srce ovaj film mi je bolji od A History of Violence.

Naravno da nije šokirao tebe i mene, ali naš ukus je izvitoperen višegodišnjim gledanjem svega i svačega. A što se homoerotike tiče, meni bi to bilo sasvim na mestu da je urađeno na pravi način. Ovako, nedopečeno,  deluje pobezveze.

Quote from: "Alexdelarge"mada ruku na srce ovaj film mi je bolji od A History of Violence.

Takođe, iako ne volem niti jedan.
Ovde ima finih zasecanja, mračnih inicijacija i Vigove kloake a tamo je Marija Belo kao iskusna čirlidersica, pa šta ko voli...
Zašto bi neko obraćao pažnju na plot, dijaloge, "glumu" i sl. kada je i Kronenberg za to bio potpuno nezainteresovan.  

podsećanje na kronenberga u naponu snage i ludila:

http://ljudska_splacina.com/2009/11/rabid-1977.html

Cosmopolis - Official trailer #2 (english)

Jedva čekam ovaj njegov nov film. Nadam se da bi ipak mogao biti dobar...

Kosmopolis u Kanu! http://www.filmovanje.com/movie/kan-cannes-2012/item/cosmopolis

Komopolis je odlican roman, i najverovatnije necu dati sansu filmu, jer generalno ne volim da kvarim ukus dobre knjige razvodnjenim video produktom hack'n'slash seckanja i odstranjivanja svega bitnog iz originalne price.

Howard Shore & Metric - Cosmopolis OST



http://freakshare.com/files/9s7o42tv/C-HS.rar.html

skidam ovog časa, ali reci: valja li?

Slušam upravo i meni se za sada sviđa, prilično je atmosferično i pomalo podseća na Crash (tj. na neku elektronskiju verziju), a što se tiče deonica gde dominira Metric, meni je i to sjajno, ali ja sam veliki fan dotičnog benda, pa imaj i to u vidu...

ovoga puta se Cron nije poljubio u usta sa glavnim glumcem, ali ga je dobro pričvrljio.

Takođe... Petison je uredio foto editorijal inspitisan Konenbergovim filmovima... Evo omaža videodromu, a ostale fotke pogledajte sledeći link ispod...



http://www.thescreeningroom.ca/2012/05/is-scanner-robert-pattinson-a-dead-ringer-for-cronenbergs-videodrome.html

Quint finds David Cronenberg's Robert Pattinson starer Cosmopolis to be talky, political, bizarre and poetic. Cannes 2012!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56026