Crimes of the Future (David Cronenberg, 2022)

[therewillbeblus]

There is a feeling for the first hour or so of watching loosely connected vignettes that share a world and characters but I'd say the final act tightens the weave in a really compelling way. I know some people feel the movie ends too soon or isn't fleshed out enough, but aside from the economical considerations of how much time they actually had to get what they got (and with no reshoots), I really do think Cronenberg covered the ground he needed to cover with these characters and this story and with his ending he found a landing point as resonant and weirdly poetic as any in his ouevre.

I definitely agree with you, and there’s something to be said for taking what appear to be incongruous ideas forced into play with one another, and making them blend with an unforced fluidity in the final stretch. As for Stewart, you’re probably right and I’m just irritated since none of the other actors compelled me like hers did, but as my friend I saw this with wisely pointed out, perhaps this is a case where her character glows because we were allotted only as much screen time as she got and if we were given too much more we wouldn’t be left wanting any more. I suppose my biggest issue with the film was a disengagement to the other principals- though again, my friend made a strange comparison to Carraway's narrator in Gatsby- even if obviously Viggo serves a more crucial role here, he’s more of an empty vehicle by which we can observe these systems, this world, and muse on the themes through. When I think about returning to this movie, I hesitate over the laborious task of spending another two hours with the alienating central pair, get excited over sampling the colorful supporting players' work again, and look forward to unpacking the rich themes to deeper levels. This might be the first time I've felt this way about Viggo and Seydoux, and neither of them are 'bad'! Their characters just felt frustratingly flat

[Persona]

I think many would probably echo your sentiments on the characters.

Cronenberg is one of my absolute favorite directors, probably Top 5 all time for me, so there is a certain level of personal deference and acclimation on my part when it comes to this movie's aspects that might be neutralizing or off-putting -- because it's very much characteristics of his work in general. Idea juxtapositions that initially seem unwieldy, disregard for pacing conventions, unkempt dramatic structure, more colorful characters on the peripheries... all Cronenberg hallmarks, basically.

With Saul Tenser, Cronenberg and Mortensen lean in so hard on the bodily realities of the character that he almost becomes a chore to watch. His physical condition takes up so much of his screen presence, there is barely any room for us to see the emotional or psychological in him outside of the fact that Tenser is fully immersed in what his body is doing and trying to figure out who or what he is through art. This is all very intentional, but obviously doesn't make Tenser any more appealing of a character in and of himself. That said, there is a wit and intelligence to the character that still comes through, and on a meta-level as Cronenberg's avatar in the story Tenser is fascinating. But, most of all,

SpoilerShow

the film's conclusion pays off the long game of Tenser's tortured state in such a beatific way, it really makes it all worthwhile to me. I was reminded of how Lynch used extreme delayed gratification to powerful effect with the incremental arc of Dougie Jones.

I didn't find Seydoux's character flat whatsoever, I thought she was absolutely fascinating as an artist with distinct emotional stakes in play but someone also very ambitious and willing to probe every possible avenue to keep in touch with her own humanity/feelings. That said, Tenser is really the only character afforded a decent chunk of screen time in the film; I could certainly jive with an argument that Seydoux maybe needed one more key scene for her character. She gets a couple scenes separate from Tenser, one fun (the Berst & Router routine) and the other quite lovely ("you fill me with the desire to cut my face open") and she probably could have used one more substantial one.

I agree with your friend that there is some Boba Fett effect with the side characters. As with many Cronenberg wallflowers, they are great in small doses. How much more screentime could Timlin's tics, Wippet's motivational flux, Cope's dry authoritarianism, or Lang's frayed idealism support? Pretty questionable. I wouldn't have complained about a couple more minutes for any of them, particularly Timlin as it relates to where we end with that character, but all-in-all I think they got about what they needed to.

[therewillbeblus]

For the record, I thought Seydoux gave a lovely perf with what she's given, per usual, and just didn't feel connected to her character, or really even aware of her motivations or values, outside of a passion for her art. Great points all around though, especially in relation to the deliberate alienation of Mortensen's lead (to himself and us), who in some way is remaining distracting and distracted, avoiding key questions of his nature and role, as well as where his allegiances lie in philosophical and emotional stakes, until the very end. I tend to give a lot of rope to films that self-reflexively use a messy or deceptively-vapid form to mirror the psychological chaos or bending subjectivity of the central character, reflecting their worldviews externally for us to engage with by design. I think Cronenberg is operating on a similar wavelength only without the concerns being so firmly rooted in skewed psychology and instead operating on a more eclectic palette of existential, historical, biological, physical, and political stances, amongst others. That makes the film more unique and interesting but harder for me, subjectively, to access and defend in the manner I'm used to in these occasions. As I said in my initial thoughts, I think that will ultimately be seen as a more unified strength, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again. Cronenberg tested me in very productive ways, just slightly parallel to the mode I love to analyze cinema but within the same wheelhouse

[Persona]

For the record, I thought Seydoux gave a lovely perf with what she's given, per usual, and just didn't feel connected to her character, or really even aware of her motivations or values, outside of a passion for her art. Great points all around though, especially in relation to the deliberate alienation of Mortensen's lead (to himself and us), who in some way is remaining distracting and distracted, avoiding key questions of his nature and role, as well as where his allegiances lie in philosophical and emotional stakes, until the very end. I tend to give a lot of rope to films that self-reflexively use a messy or deceptively-vapid form to mirror the psychological chaos or bending subjectivity of the central character, reflecting their worldviews externally for us to engage with by design. I think Cronenberg is operating on a similar wavelength only without the concerns being so firmly rooted in skewed psychology and instead operating on a more eclectic palette of existential, historical, biological, physical, and political stances, amongst others. That makes the film more unique and interesting but harder for me, subjectively, to access and defend in the manner I'm used to in these occasions. As I said in my initial thoughts, I think that will ultimately be seen as a more unified strength, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again. Cronenberg tested me in very productive ways, just slightly parallel to the mode I love to analyze cinema but within the same wheelhouse

I think you are very on-point with all of this and appreciate your self-analysis in respect to how you took in the film and why you might have felt disengaged in some regards.

I was so enthralled by the conceptual density, thematic complexity, and overall originality here (and even as connected this is to Cronenberg's other works, it's still an intensely original rumination he delivers here) I was completely sold for most of the movie--and yet it almost surprised me when the film managed to land a couple key dramatic beats towards the end. The one being the ultimate one which we've discussed, but I was also struck quite hard by the moment where

SpoilerShow

Tenser admits to Cope (and himself) that he always had to be a bit of a believer. The undercover angle of the story has caught some flack in some circles but it made logical sense to me throughout the film and then in the end made startling emotional sense.

[therewillbeblus]

Definitely, there’s an indirect and occasionally, surprisingly subtle meditation on the exacerbated desert of thwarted belongingness and disconnect that’s stretched to basic reptilian drives (our intrinsic relationship to protect our children) as well as bare predictability and association with our own bodies and species, so that idea of faith or spirituality or an undercover angle that indicates a man without a stake in anything because nothing has a stake in him makes sense to me. It’s a cheeky angle to have the only constant source of meaning remain Art, even if that changes itself- our drive to continue to make meaning out of things (subjectively so, as Viggo snidely yet half-respectfully comments regarding Stewart’s “epiphany”) persists, even when the more palpably physical ones fade.

The idea of abstract, subjective, individualized meaning becoming more tangible than literal tangible constructs is fascinating and ominously predictive in a society being exponentially thrust into isolating individualism and distrust of the value in inherent physical form. I’m waiting for someone to write a thesis on how this film can be read as an allegory for recent conversations on, and social movements recontextualizing gender identity as holding merit in the subjective experience rather than some “objective” genetic one, and even though the film is saying something far more comprehensive, that wouldn’t exactly be a hard argument to pose or an uninteresting treatment to read! I certainly find it more compelling than analyses of Titane’s subject matter being rooted there, though I think that movie is saying a lot more broadly about relationships and alienation as well, and more successful under such a reading.

[Black Hat]

Watched this after one too many cups of coffee, but I loved everything I managed to pay attention to. What a fucking hilarious movie! Like Persona, I love Cronenberg and I need to watch it again while focused for proper elaboration but it seems to me this is one of those things where you either get it or you don't. "Saul Tenser", what a name! This is the Kristen Stewart Assayas thinks he's casting, it's the best thing she's ever done by a mile. What's most unusual about this movie is Seydoux. Her sexual energy dominates the entire film in a way I can't remember being done before. She's a wonderful actress, perhaps the world's best. What she did with the embarrassingly awful Dumont film, France, was heroic.

[Persona]

Yes, for a certain sense of humor (such as my own), one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time, no doubt.

[brundlefly]

This has survived at a couple of local multiplexes despite the induction of Dinosaurs Chasing People 6 and I’m looking forward to getting a second crack at it this week. It is dense, and like black hat I was hyper-caffeinated, and for a lot of the time giddy simply to hear all these serious, sensual, and sometimes catty conversations artists and admirers were having about their art. Whatever last-gasp world these people are either rejecting or adapting toward, there is a biological imperative to create and appreciate art, and I think the glow of the committed performances could be seen to emanate from that. Even the technicians are excited, even the bureaucrats. (At one point, my mental plot summary was, “(whispered) Check out my (orgasm face) furniture.”

Like everyone I loved Stewart, and feel like there could have been a more involved place for her in Cronenberg’s typically garbled intrigue – the inner beauty pageant idea was better as a quick idea in Dead Ringers than a plot detour – but her twitchy energy reminded me of the intensely eccentric presence the director has gotten from Robert Silverman. Very welcome, too weird to be sustainable.

(Also found myself surprised by Speedman, whose bland hunkiness is a sore thumb in a Cronenberg movie. As much as I love the stilted, isolated, cool performances that conform to the director’s world, it’s pretty great when someone sneaks in some honest emotional warmth. It’s one of the reasons The Fly will always be Cronenberg’s best film to me. Here of course it’s relegated to a tiny but important corner, and his final display of grief is a dud, but I felt his father-follower figure.)

The attention allotted Mortensen and Seydoux is more interesting and echoes weird throughout the director’s work. Found myself unexpectedly taken with Mortensen’s performance, but then I’m old; as people left The Fly thinking about AIDS and cancer and fatal disease in general, I don’t think there’s a way to approach Mortensen’s character and physical performance without thinking about aging. The collapsing biology. Nonsensical lumps that appear, the things that hurt for no reason, the increasing discomfort. This film is better for not having been made when written; the performer and the director and the dying world around them needed to age into it.

Which may be why there’s not as much Seydoux as we’d all like, especially as that character is called on to play a lot of roles. (The character name may be an excuse.) Her body is so physically vital in contrast with Mortensen’s Tenser, bares the joke that his physiology’s more desirable. They’re partners, and in terms of Cronenberg characters they echo James and Catherine Ballard (and therefore echo Bev and Elly Mantle), going apart and coming together to share/collaborate. I thought their roles would be more evenly divided because of this. But Caprice also has a fierce Nicki Brand streak in her, chasing extremes and perhaps inclined toward destruction. Of the two, she’s also portrayed more as a technician-artist, and while you can make arguments here and there (Brundle, obviously, but with asterisks; eXistenZ before its reveal), technicians don’t occupy the center spot in classic-era Cronenberg films. His heroes tend to be victims, often of technology. And – at least to the main character – victims of women. [Ed. Or, I should say, subjects of technology and women are agents of change.]

SpoilerShow

Which brings me to the end, and my surprise at Cronenberg’s take on it in that Artforum interview. It’s not as perfect an ambiguity as Max Renn’s suicide/evolution at the end of Videodrome, but I left assuming Tenser’s ecstatic face is a death mask.

Plastic is purity, and for me the only pure artist in the film is smothered three minutes in. The Mozart to everyone else’s Salieri. Even as we’re meant to be appalled at the sacrilege of Brecken’s tampered autopsy, we’re supposed buy that Tenser’s on the path toward the internal physical purity he’s been denying; he stops excising the evolutionary organs for art’s sake, decides to just be… and is? I get that his disgust with the state’s tampering with both Brecken and his own art cause him to abandon his double-agentry (which never fits organically with the rest of the Crimes the way Bill Lee’s droll noir parody did in Lunch), rejoins his partner (cannot remember where in the film falls the shot of Saul and Caprice lying together in the autopsy pod, but for me it recalled both the end scene with the Ballards on the grassy median and, perhaps, a portrait of Saint Sebastian), and becomes whole. But it’s too much of a jump for me to get from the messiness of Tenser’s journey to sainthood; and veers too close to pat snowflake-dusted Be Who You Are! messaging when Cronenberg’s an nonmoral filmmaker.

May have completely different thoughts on subsequent viewings. A lot of shoptalk did strike me more as delicious rants than arguments, probably parses better once you know the endpoint.

[therewillbeblus]

Interesting thoughts, though for me the ending was

SpoilerShow

less of a motivated charge than a surrender, the kind that can be liberating- a soft catharsis, if you can even call it that. Your descriptions of Saul's decisions to disengage from these outlets are active, but his active choices through most of the film have been to force his body to go against the grain of what it needs, to force himself into isolation as an informant, in friction with his ideals. So he makes an active choice to allow himself to be passive for a change. This recalls the scene meditating on spirituality when Saul talks about "believing"- the concept of faith being an active choice to be passive, or an acceptance of powerlessness, and allowing the world to engage on its own terms with peripheral hope. The allegory to aging is clear, but it's this idea of 'surrender' that can be so relieving, lifting all the pressure we endure with our relentless activity to resist the gravity rendering us powerless with our compulsions to push against the current with our limited power. I suppose as someone knee-deep in a 12-step spiritual program, this channels something for me that I can't really put into writing, but I don't think this is an active "snowflake 'be who you are'" catharsis. It's a serenity from acting on the willingness to let go. There's a huge difference there.

[brundlefly]

Interesting thoughts, though for me the ending was

SpoilerShow

less of a motivated charge than a surrender, the kind that can be liberating- a soft catharsis, if you can even call it that. Your descriptions of Saul's decisions to disengage from these outlets are active, but his active choices through most of the film have been to force his body to go against the grain of what it needs, to force himself into isolation as an informant, in friction with his ideals. So he makes an active choice to allow himself to be passive for a change. This recalls the scene meditating on spirituality when Saul talks about "believing"- the concept of faith being an active choice to be passive, or an acceptance of powerlessness, and allowing the world to engage on its own terms with peripheral hope. The allegory to aging is clear, but it's this idea of 'surrender' that can be so relieving, lifting all the pressure we endure with our relentless activity to resist the gravity rendering us powerless with our compulsions to push against the current with our limited power. I suppose as someone knee-deep in a 12-step spiritual program, this channels something for me that I can't really put into writing, but I don't think this is an active "snowflake 'be who you are'" catharsis. It's a serenity from acting on the willingness to let go. There's a huge difference there.

I'm definitely closer to you than perhaps to Cronenberg's own take, here, and hope I too can recognize a more thorough character arc from this next time.

SpoilerShow

It's definitely an image of ecstatic release, successful in recalling the Dreyer. And I'm of the type who's more inclined to say it's the sweet, warm embrace of death than a let go and let God moment, even as Tenser staggers around in monk robes most of the time and even if they can be one and the same.

I'm hung up both on Cronenberg's direct statement that Tenser "will be able to eat the plastic candy bar" and Bracken's presence/purpose as messiah/pure evolutionary jump. Maybe I'll come around, and maybe I simply find delusion more interesting, but I'm less drawn to the idea that Tenser has had this next evolutionary step within him all along than has a fits-and-starts body that has been and always will be struggling with transition; that his body is more a living R&D farm producing organs of questionable purpose and efficacy than a decisive system working at being revealed. And that "he will be able to eat the plastic candy bar" is an artistic goal Tenser's going to choke on, a portrait of an aging artist's craving for relevance. But then Cronenberg's not inherently optimistic or pessimistic and I am definitely one of those things.

[Persona]

Interesting thoughts, though for me the ending was

SpoilerShow

less of a motivated charge than a surrender, the kind that can be liberating- a soft catharsis, if you can even call it that. Your descriptions of Saul's decisions to disengage from these outlets are active, but his active choices through most of the film have been to force his body to go against the grain of what it needs, to force himself into isolation as an informant, in friction with his ideals. So he makes an active choice to allow himself to be passive for a change. This recalls the scene meditating on spirituality when Saul talks about "believing"- the concept of faith being an active choice to be passive, or an acceptance of powerlessness, and allowing the world to engage on its own terms with peripheral hope. The allegory to aging is clear, but it's this idea of 'surrender' that can be so relieving, lifting all the pressure we endure with our relentless activity to resist the gravity rendering us powerless with our compulsions to push against the current with our limited power. I suppose as someone knee-deep in a 12-step spiritual program, this channels something for me that I can't really put into writing, but I don't think this is an active "snowflake 'be who you are'" catharsis. It's a serenity from acting on the willingness to let go. There's a huge difference there.

Very much how I also read the ending and I'm pretty sure that's at least close to some of what Cronenberg intended.

Btw, Howard Shore's score is finally available online. Pretty impressive how texturally and tonally varied it is while remaining cohesive. It worked like gangbusters in the film's context and I'm glad to be able to listen to it again. Wonderful stuff and on first blush I think it's some of Shore's best work.

[criterionsnob]

August 9 Decal Releasing/Neon Blu-ray release detailed.

[Matt]

I’m just catching up with this, but wow. This is easily his best film for me since eXistenZ, the most “Cronenbergian” not only in obsessions and style, but also in its clinical remove from deeply intimate subjects. In some way this feels like a Greatest Hits package, but in the best possible way, like how Stop Making Sense is a Greatest Hits package. This contains recognizable elements of Dead Ringers, Crash, The Brood, eXistenZ, Naked Lunch, Videodrome, Eastern Promises, and probably a bunch of other films that I missed on this first watch, but it’s much less self-plagiarism than it is making a stand-alone work that makes all of those films feel retrospectively like part of the same (god forgive me) cinematic universe.

I also love the filmmaking: giving every actor a moment to do their freaky little monologue, a little two-hander scene for each interesting pair-up of actors, and of course that cool sheen and unhurried pace.

[knives]

Just because he hasn’t been mentioned I want to throw McKellar as secret MVP. He’s operating in a radically different way from everyone else.

As for the movie, despite a slow start I was quickly sold on this being a superior ‘artist summarizes his art’ type of movie.

[Persona]

In an interview with Movie Maker, Luca Guadagnino calls CRIMES OF THE FUTURE the best movie of the year:

“Greatest movie this year. Fantastic … Another tender movie! It’s beautiful to see Cronenberg, who has been constantly seen as a very in control filmmaker with a very clinical coldness to his art, which is true, being so warm and so tender. It’s a beautiful love story and it’s also a very devastating vision of the future. It’s amazing."

I agree, Luca!

[Randall Maysin Again]

Quick question, how stomach-turning/hard to take is this film? I'm intrigued but I'm also pretty squeamish. Thank you in advance for your responses.

[Matt]

In terms of blood and gore, it’s fairly tame. If you’re grossed out by things like internal organs or (clean) surgical incisions, it’s not for you. It’s more “weird” gross like Naked Lunch or Dead Ringers than “gory” gross like Scanners, a Saw movie, or your standard slasher film. Much less “weird” gross than some other Cronenbergs like The Fly or Existenz, though.

Oh, wait, no, there is one brief part that’s “gory” gross, but it’s also very obviously a practical special effect.

If you want a complete run-down, including ample spoilers, it’s available.

[therewillbeblus]

Well, have you seen Cronenberg's work before? I'd say this is one of his more squirm-inducing films, or at least at that end of the spectrum, but I think it really depends on what particularly makes you squeamish, since that's very subjective. For instance, gore itself doesn't bother me, but a scene where they make small incisions on each other as foreplay was writhing. I can't say why, but I also get chills when I see body piercings in certain places on people but not in response to open wounds :shrug emoji:. Triggers are pretty idiosyncratic, but I'll put it this way: If you're blanket-"squeamish", I'd say there's a decent chance you'll be disturbed by some element of this film at some point during your viewing. But I also don't think Cronenberg stalls on any disturbing bit for very long, and the bulk of the film isn't body horror set pieces. They serve the larger themes and narrative, and even if I felt a bit grossed out at times, each instant was over and done with swiftly, often in a pivot to generous doses of plot, character, and thematic development in between the fleshy bits.

[swo17]

a scene where they make small incisions on each other as foreplay was writhing

This was clearly CGI-fake though (disappointingly!) Given what this is it could have been so much worse. For instance, it didn't make me feel anywhere near as gross as Titane

[therewillbeblus]

I agree, and that's basically what I'm trying to say after that: The idea might trigger me, but Cronenberg doesn't ruminate in any of his fleshy stuff too long, so even if there's a personal trigger for you in there it's not going to be relentlessly suffocating or anything

[Randall Maysin Again]

Thanks. I'd say I'm, not inherently, potentially made very uncomfortable by surgery, playing around with guts and other internal organs, etc. It's all about presentation and context and what specifically is done. I didn't mind eXistenZ hardly at all, same with Naked Lunch, but I had a bit of trouble with The Fly, although not so much that I'd never watch it again or try my best not to even think too much about it. But I don't think thats really comparable to what i fear Crimes of the Future may be like--I'd rather watch a giant barfing man-bug than the worst of what can be done with my squeamishness about internal organs. Piercing and other similar shite like that are on the worse end of my tolerance levels, like people with spacers barf LOL (good god, it's even worse when they take them out). although I got through the piercing-foreplay or whatever the hell it was with James Woods and Deborah Harry in Videodrome alright and didn't mind it too terribly. But that was pretty mild (I guess haha). I think I might as well give this a try and just turn it off if i can't take it! I trust Cronenberg pretty well though. The problem with horror filmmaking for me is not that there are is a dearth of talented filmmakers who choose to play with fear, its more of a morality-famine, and also my peculiar personal tolerance levels for various things. It's a genre I definitely could love, but don't. Like there aren't very many horror films that are pitched where I want them to be--somewhere a bit past Dressed to Kill is my cutoff point. But like I said, I'm a bit fickle when it comes to these things--I love the dream sequence ending of Dressed to Kill, but I've never even been able to watch the elevator murder, man is that offensive, even though theyre not really so different and have a lot of parallel elements.

[therewillbeblus]

To be honest, I don’t think this film is a horror movie, like, at all. Cronenberg is using similar ideas as he did with his horror stuff (which are typically less genre-fixed than your average horror films, though this one strays considerably from that signifier), but it’s more of a sci fi noir with some disturbing imagery. With your added context, it sounds like some of the scenes will definitely provoke you, and yet I can’t think of anything that shoves itself in your face for longer than a few seconds. But I would be prepared to squirm if you do decide to watch it, and the execution of themes is strong enough to consider it

[brundlefly]

I'm glad I saw this (twice) before I had surgery (twice). I've yet to revisit it since, because everything hasn't healed quite right quite yet and I think I'd spend a lot of the time laughing at my own anguish. And I don't need to add that to actual physical discomfort. It's already a very funny movie.

When Crash came out I remember some critic taking hilarious offense along the lines of, "I was recently injured in a car accident and did not get aroused!" Hate to echo that, but surgery is not the new sex. But it's not like I found its depictions of surgery traumatizing. I still went ahead and had the deed done.

[colinr0380]

I assume that is it is a response to all of the controversy about Crash, with an actual scene of wounds being used sexually and what would happen if all the worst fears of the tabloids about performance artist(e)s became true.

I keep being amused that, as usual, Chris Morris' Brasseye series remains relevant with that investigative report into a Top Whack Quack Shack, which touches you in the way that vogueish fiction couldn't begin to understand.

"It's not cool to be weird!"