David Cronenberg VS. John Carpenter
- Thread starter batmon
- Start date
DocMcCoy said:
Carpenter, no contest. I like Cronenberg, but his style is very detached and his movies can seem a little emotionless sometimes.
Isn't the lack of emotion intentional in a lot of his movies? It mirrors the detached, clinical perspective that pervades much of modern life. For example, doctors or scientists of some kind play the part of villain, antagonist, or at least instigator in so many of his movies: Stereo, Crimes of the Future, Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, The Fly, Dead Ringers, and eXistenZ. In a bunch of his other movies, that same emotionless feel mirrors various states of detachment or alienation from reality/society/whatever, i.e. Videodrome, Crash, and Spider. You can even look at the cold, mechanical, totally brutal scenes of violence in A History of Violence and see that same sort of detachment (from "self" or your own body/actions, whatever you want to call it).
So, while it can be alienating for the viewer, I think that it's wholly intentional. Cronenberg is probably one of the best popular examples of the idea of abjection in art.
Carpenter, no contest. I like Cronenberg, but his style is very detached and his movies can seem a little emotionless sometimes.
Isn't the lack of emotion intentional in a lot of his movies? It mirrors the detached, clinical perspective that pervades much of modern life. For example, doctors or scientists of some kind play the part of villain, antagonist, or at least instigator in so many of his movies: Stereo, Crimes of the Future, Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, The Fly, Dead Ringers, and eXistenZ. In a bunch of his other movies, that same emotionless feel mirrors various states of detachment or alienation from reality/society/whatever, i.e. Videodrome, Crash, and Spider. You can even look at the cold, mechanical, totally brutal scenes of violence in A History of Violence and see that same sort of detachment (from "self" or your own body/actions, whatever you want to call it).
So, while it can be alienating for the viewer, I think that it's wholly intentional. Cronenberg is probably one of the best popular examples of the idea of abjection in art.
dwyhajlo said
ocMcCoy said:
Carpenter, no contest. I like Cronenberg, but his style is very detached and his movies can seem a little emotionless sometimes.
Isn't the lack of emotion intentional in a lot of his movies? It mirrors the detached, clinical perspective that pervades much of modern life. For example, doctors or scientists of some kind play the part of villain, antagonist, or at least instigator in so many of his movies: Stereo, Crimes of the Future, Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, The Fly, Dead Ringers, and eXistenZ. In a bunch of his other movies, that same emotionless feel mirrors various states of detachment or alienation from reality/society/whatever, i.e. Videodrome, Crash, and Spider. You can even look at the cold, mechanical, totally brutal scenes of violence in A History of Violence and see that same sort of detachment (from "self" or your own body/actions, whatever you want to call it).
So, while it can be alienating for the viewer, I think that it's wholly intentional. Cronenberg is probably one of the best popular examples of the idea of abjection in art.
Yes.
I would add that Cronenberg's movies all have heart, they have heat...it is always just bubbling underneath the surface. It makes for amazing tension and gives depth to what would otherwise be an Atom Egoyan film. Egoyan's films are very good examples of when detachment and lack of emotion do not work. Only he can make a busload of children dying as tragic as a parking ticket.
I actually think the Carpenter and Cronenberg comparison is a good one. Lynch is too psychological, even when things get really odd, you still feel like it's all in everyone's heads. With Carpenter and Cronenberg, there is a really feeling of the "other".
ocMcCoy said:Carpenter, no contest. I like Cronenberg, but his style is very detached and his movies can seem a little emotionless sometimes.
Isn't the lack of emotion intentional in a lot of his movies? It mirrors the detached, clinical perspective that pervades much of modern life. For example, doctors or scientists of some kind play the part of villain, antagonist, or at least instigator in so many of his movies: Stereo, Crimes of the Future, Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, The Fly, Dead Ringers, and eXistenZ. In a bunch of his other movies, that same emotionless feel mirrors various states of detachment or alienation from reality/society/whatever, i.e. Videodrome, Crash, and Spider. You can even look at the cold, mechanical, totally brutal scenes of violence in A History of Violence and see that same sort of detachment (from "self" or your own body/actions, whatever you want to call it).
So, while it can be alienating for the viewer, I think that it's wholly intentional. Cronenberg is probably one of the best popular examples of the idea of abjection in art.
Yes.
I would add that Cronenberg's movies all have heart, they have heat...it is always just bubbling underneath the surface. It makes for amazing tension and gives depth to what would otherwise be an Atom Egoyan film. Egoyan's films are very good examples of when detachment and lack of emotion do not work. Only he can make a busload of children dying as tragic as a parking ticket.
I actually think the Carpenter and Cronenberg comparison is a good one. Lynch is too psychological, even when things get really odd, you still feel like it's all in everyone's heads. With Carpenter and Cronenberg, there is a really feeling of the "other".
DocMcCoy said:batmon said:I pulled both directors out my ass. Both have cult followings.
Do they have to be the SAME to critique the flavor, taste,etc of an apple and orange.
No, not at all. Just wondered if you were coming from a specific angle with it.
No real or specific angle angle at all.
There are similarities. Both have those great late-nite 80's HBO classic i used to peep.
Do they have to be the SAME to critique the flavor, taste,etc of an apple and orange.
No, not at all. Just wondered if you were coming from a specific angle with it.
No real or specific angle angle at all.
There are similarities. Both have those great late-nite 80's HBO classic i used to peep.
bassie said:I would add that Cronenberg's movies all have heart, they have heat...it is always just bubbling underneath the surface. It makes for amazing tension and gives depth to what would otherwise be an Atom Egoyan film. Egoyan's films are very good examples of when detachment and lack of emotion do not work. Only he can make a busload of children dying as tragic as a parking ticket.
Haha, it's been a while since I've seen that one. Exotica wasn't bad, though, was it? I think it's possible that, "emotionally", he was carrying way too much over from Exotica to The Sweet Hereafter. Overall, though, I do get the feeling that he's one of those directors that the CBC really wanted us to like at some point in time.
I agree, I don't think that the Lynch-Cronenberg comparison is very apt, beyond the fact that they make unconvential horror films. While Cronenberg deals a lot with the body and alienation, Lynch (as far as I can tell) is much more about manifesting psychic terror, which is something that I think Inland Empire does an excellent job of underlining. I think I need to read Lynch on Lynch, but that doesn't cover Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire.
Haha, it's been a while since I've seen that one. Exotica wasn't bad, though, was it? I think it's possible that, "emotionally", he was carrying way too much over from Exotica to The Sweet Hereafter. Overall, though, I do get the feeling that he's one of those directors that the CBC really wanted us to like at some point in time.
I agree, I don't think that the Lynch-Cronenberg comparison is very apt, beyond the fact that they make unconvential horror films. While Cronenberg deals a lot with the body and alienation, Lynch (as far as I can tell) is much more about manifesting psychic terror, which is something that I think Inland Empire does an excellent job of underlining. I think I need to read Lynch on Lynch, but that doesn't cover Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire.
dwyhajlo said:bassie said:I would add that Cronenberg's movies all have heart, they have heat...it is always just bubbling underneath the surface. It makes for amazing tension and gives depth to what would otherwise be an Atom Egoyan film. Egoyan's films are very good examples of when detachment and lack of emotion do not work. Only he can make a busload of children dying as tragic as a parking ticket.
Haha, it's been a while since I've seen that one. Exotica wasn't bad, though, was it? I think it's possible that, "emotionally", he was carrying way too much over from Exotica to The Sweet Hereafter. Overall, though, I do get the feeling that he's one of those directors that the CBC really wanted us to like at some point in time.
I agree, I don't think that the Lynch-Cronenberg comparison is very apt, beyond the fact that they make unconvential horror films. While Cronenberg deals a lot with the body and alienation, Lynch (as far as I can tell) is much more about manifesting psychic terror, which is something that I think Inland Empire does an excellent job of underlining. I think I need to read Lynch on Lynch, but that doesn't cover Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire.
Off track slightly but, while Lynch on Lynch is a great and highly entertaining read, as fas as I recall it doesn't offer that much insight into the inner workings of the man. I think the most illuminating insight I ever had was the BBC interview when he described the duck's eye.
While both he and Cronenberg were always lumped into the same bracket for years I think they're pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum.
Haha, it's been a while since I've seen that one. Exotica wasn't bad, though, was it? I think it's possible that, "emotionally", he was carrying way too much over from Exotica to The Sweet Hereafter. Overall, though, I do get the feeling that he's one of those directors that the CBC really wanted us to like at some point in time.
I agree, I don't think that the Lynch-Cronenberg comparison is very apt, beyond the fact that they make unconvential horror films. While Cronenberg deals a lot with the body and alienation, Lynch (as far as I can tell) is much more about manifesting psychic terror, which is something that I think Inland Empire does an excellent job of underlining. I think I need to read Lynch on Lynch, but that doesn't cover Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire.
Off track slightly but, while Lynch on Lynch is a great and highly entertaining read, as fas as I recall it doesn't offer that much insight into the inner workings of the man. I think the most illuminating insight I ever had was the BBC interview when he described the duck's eye.
While both he and Cronenberg were always lumped into the same bracket for years I think they're pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum.
well there are some superficial similarities. they both tend to go for odd narrative forms, and there can often be a comparable mood or atmosphere, ie the alienation described very acutely above. Lynch's alienation comes from surrealism where as Cronenberg's is driven by a kind of dehumanisation of the characters. The suspension of disbelief is frequently interrupted - hang on, how can he make a gun from that fish? wait a second, those two characters have switched over? Beyond this i suppose the comparison doesn't run that deep.
Ulysses31nicholas said:there can often be a comparable mood or atmosphere, ie the alienation described very acutely above. Lynch's alienation comes from surrealism
I disagree. I don't think Lynch's intention is to foster a sense of alienation. His movies are generally extremely intimate.
Eraserhead is pretty much him filming his own neuroses; Blue Velvet has some fairly graphic scenes dealing with generally private subject matter; Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and Inland Empire explore the very innermost workings of their subjects via dreams or dream logic. I mean, Inland Empire could be described as a visual representation of someone's very personal nightmare.
EDIT: I think the real similarity between Cronenberg and Lynch is that they both try to find the fundamental roots of what it is that we find truly scary or horrifying.
I disagree. I don't think Lynch's intention is to foster a sense of alienation. His movies are generally extremely intimate.
Eraserhead is pretty much him filming his own neuroses; Blue Velvet has some fairly graphic scenes dealing with generally private subject matter; Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and Inland Empire explore the very innermost workings of their subjects via dreams or dream logic. I mean, Inland Empire could be described as a visual representation of someone's very personal nightmare.
EDIT: I think the real similarity between Cronenberg and Lynch is that they both try to find the fundamental roots of what it is that we find truly scary or horrifying.
DustedDon said:Stuart Gordon deserves a mention here. He's like a poor mans J. Carpenter, never had a big budget but made some quality HP Lovecraft like genre entry's with The Beyond, Re-Animator, Dagon etc..
You mean, From Beyond, right? The Beyond is the Fulci flick. Both are great, though (poor man's nothing!)
Gordon wrote for Robot Jox and Space Truckers are both mindgarden classics, and anyone interested in giant robots and killer cyborgs and all that awesomeness should check them out.
BTW, sorry for the prolific posting in here everyone.
You mean, From Beyond, right? The Beyond is the Fulci flick. Both are great, though (poor man's nothing!)
Gordon wrote for Robot Jox and Space Truckers are both mindgarden classics, and anyone interested in giant robots and killer cyborgs and all that awesomeness should check them out.
BTW, sorry for the prolific posting in here everyone.
dwyhajlo said:
BTW, sorry for the prolific posting in here everyone.
nah its great, i'm learning stuff!
BTW, sorry for the prolific posting in here everyone.
nah its great, i'm learning stuff!
DustedDon said:Stuart Gordon deserves a mention here. He's like a poor mans J. Carpenter, never had a big budget but made some quality HP Lovecraft like genre entry's with From Beyond, Re-Animator, Dagon etc..
edit~
Yeah I wouldn't class Gordon as a poor man's anything. Carpenter, despite his placement in the horror director stable, always seemed to me to be harking back to movie making gone by with his insistence on proper use of widescreen and nature of the man character driven pieces (it's no coincidence that Assualt is basically a mixed up version of Rio Bravo and that he chose to remake a Hawks movie).
Gordon and Yuzna on the other hand were always more interested in the physical, particularly mutations of the norm. Between them they took body horror to new extremes while creating some truly imaginative monster movies. Gordon went quiet for a few years after the jaw dropping Castle Freak but his recent Stuck is pretty incredible - well worth tracking down.
edit~
Yeah I wouldn't class Gordon as a poor man's anything. Carpenter, despite his placement in the horror director stable, always seemed to me to be harking back to movie making gone by with his insistence on proper use of widescreen and nature of the man character driven pieces (it's no coincidence that Assualt is basically a mixed up version of Rio Bravo and that he chose to remake a Hawks movie).
Gordon and Yuzna on the other hand were always more interested in the physical, particularly mutations of the norm. Between them they took body horror to new extremes while creating some truly imaginative monster movies. Gordon went quiet for a few years after the jaw dropping Castle Freak but his recent Stuck is pretty incredible - well worth tracking down.
Speaking of Brian Yuzna, I haven't seen Society for a good few years now, but there's a "body-horror" classic if ever there was one. It completely blew my mind when I happened to catch it on TV one Sunday night during the mid-90s, having no knowledge of it, nor any idea of what it was about. It draws you in in the kind of way that seems like too much effort for many filmmakers these days.
DocMcCoy said:Speaking of Brian Yuzna, I haven't seen Society for a good few years now, but there's a "body-horror" classic if ever there was one. It completely blew my mind when I happened to catch it on TV one Sunday night during the mid-90s, having no knowledge of it, nor any idea of what it was about. It draws you in in the kind of way that seems like too much effort for many filmmakers these days.
Yeah, Society is another good one. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with that last sentence though - care to explicate? I mean I find that there's still a lot of good stuff being made all over that's really engrossing. Kiyoshi Kurosawa (whose Cure and Kairo are probably good points of comparison with Cronenberg, heh) is a good example of someone who's pushing boundaries in really subtle ways, while still creating well-crafted films.
I still maintain - perhaps out of naive optimism - that there's a lot of great moviemaking going on, that most people probably don't hear about until after they've become certifiably "cult". The Internet has made it easier to get access to a lot of this stuff, but there's still a lot of digging that needs to be done. 2010 does seem like it's been a particularly dry year.
Yeah, Society is another good one. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with that last sentence though - care to explicate? I mean I find that there's still a lot of good stuff being made all over that's really engrossing. Kiyoshi Kurosawa (whose Cure and Kairo are probably good points of comparison with Cronenberg, heh) is a good example of someone who's pushing boundaries in really subtle ways, while still creating well-crafted films.
I still maintain - perhaps out of naive optimism - that there's a lot of great moviemaking going on, that most people probably don't hear about until after they've become certifiably "cult". The Internet has made it easier to get access to a lot of this stuff, but there's still a lot of digging that needs to be done. 2010 does seem like it's been a particularly dry year.
rootlesscosmo saidocMcCoy said:batmon said:Go
Carpenter, no contest. .
Agreed.
Although 'Videodrome' is better than any one film Carpenter has made, Carpenter has more solid classics IMO. And his run with Kurt Russell (Elvis/The Thing/Escape From NY/Big Trouble In Little China) is one of those lucky pairings that brought out the best in both guys. I even like Escape from LA.
Finally saw Cronenberg's 'Fast Company' this weekend, recommend it to anyone into good car movies.
ocMcCoy said:batmon said:GoCarpenter, no contest. .
Agreed.
Although 'Videodrome' is better than any one film Carpenter has made, Carpenter has more solid classics IMO. And his run with Kurt Russell (Elvis/The Thing/Escape From NY/Big Trouble In Little China) is one of those lucky pairings that brought out the best in both guys. I even like Escape from LA.
Finally saw Cronenberg's 'Fast Company' this weekend, recommend it to anyone into good car movies.
dwyhajlo said: The Internet has made it easier to get access to a lot of this stuff, but there's still a lot of digging that needs to be done. 2010 does seem like it's been a particularly dry year.
go on then, allow me to call your bluff since you clearly know your onions. what has been good. what has been overlooked. what can you recommend
go on then, allow me to call your bluff since you clearly know your onions. what has been good. what has been overlooked. what can you recommend
Similar threads
