Videodrome (David Cronenberg, CA, 1983)
Surrealistic flesh lives for long
Long live the new flesh!
If you’ve ever seen David Cronenberg’s Videodrome, you’re familiar with the battle cry.
To be honest I’m not sure of what it means. But it sounds good, doesn't it? It sticks.
I bet there are those who think this film is easy enough to interpret.
There is this guy Max who runs a TV channel and always is looking for new sex videos, preferably spiced up with some kinky stuff, to attract more viewers. When he comes across a mysterious underground production named "Videodrome", more hardcore than he's ever seen before, he starts to see and experience strange and frightening things happening to himself and the people around him. He's losing control, of his body, soul, mind and life.
So what is this, if not a precautionary story and a warning to upcoming generations about the dangers of excessive media consumption, putting it in the same category as Haneke’s Benny’s Video?
But I think it would be to make it a disservice and diminish it to a much simpler film than it is.
I’d rather put Videodrome in the same category as David Lynch’s Twin Peaks in the way it’s dancing on the borderline between reality, nightmares and surrealistic hallucinations.
What is real, what isn’t? There is some kind of conspiracy going on, but what is it about and who is in charge? What are those twisted minds getting at? Can you trust anyone? What is it all about?
We don't know and we don't need to know anymore than we demand Salvador Dalí to explain the exact meaning of his paintings. You can equally enjoy them and feel sickened by them anyway.
You could expect that a movie relying quite a bit on special effects from 1983 would have aged badly. I can't tell, since I didn't see it when it came out originally.
What makes the movie feel a bit old to me is the muffled sound. I've noticed that this often is the case with movies from the early 80s, for a reason I'm not certain about. Are the film originals deteriorating, the same way that old buildings turn into ruins and old books fall apart? Or have my expectations on the sound quality in movies increased over the years, at the same pace as the standard has developed?
Regardless of which, it does feel a bit aged in the sound quality and cinematography.
But it's easy to forgive, since the special effects, involving various body parts, which I don't want to go into detail about in order not to spoil anything, hold up so well. They are surprisingly realistic and creepy almost 30 years after the premier.
If someone got the idea to remake this movie I assume they would replace the videotapes with blue-ray records. But there is no need to do it. No need at all.
The flesh is still new. It's the kind that lives for long.
My rating: 4/5