Sad How Far Cronenberg Has Fallen

I think that's missing the point. If you are dismissing art because it doesn't have characters you can relate to, you probably do have very limited tastes. If you intake so much how often do you really relate to a character? In thousands of books, movies, etc for me, i probably got about ten I can name off the top of my head.

This is the same limited expectation that has bedeviled serious writers for ages, people wanting the characters to be personalities they can identify with (it's like voting for a president you would enjoy sharing a beer with, over someone with skills and substance). Forget about great literary characters like Richard the Third, or Humpert Humpert, or so many of the most creative books and plays that have been written. This is the kind of thing that gets pushed by market-testing, agents and even critics, who often don't want to offend their readers by sending them to something that might make them uncomfortable - often you hear this riff from them, too (so sad). This is always the type of thing that has defined popular taste - it's a real limitation. Artists have to stretch the boundaries, and not just make everything totally acceptable to the greatest number of people - they need to be able to write characters who are flawed, or even despicable.

With everything being market-tested and reduced to numbers, this whole thing about the characters having to be likable, or someone the viewer can identify with, has gotten repeated, turned into a cliche, and taken as gospel by way too many people - it's also a big reason why so much of what we see is formula.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Like I said, yes, it is making art. What I'm unhappy about is the snobbishness you're displaying. Cronenberg is "art" because you like him

Put simply, just saying "it's art" is a complete critical cop out. It isn't a qualification one way or another, everything's art. I want to actually hear why it's extraordinarily good, which is something I haven't been convinced of for any of these films. Coming from a big fan of Cronenberg's late 70s and 80s work. What I mean by his "caché" is that he's gotten to a point where he can release pretty benign movies and still lap up the praise on the merits of his earlier work. See also: Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese. Every director should be judged on a blank slate

You accuse him of being snobby, but what makes you assume that the praise the works of these film-makers get are based on their body of work?

It's the same. You don't want to tag "it's art", because you didn't like it (due to his change of style maybe? He still retains his core ideas.)? As much as he did, because he liked it.

Individual things about it are good (Julianne Moore is predictably good, and no one really gives a bad performance) but it's terribly-paced, has a really lackluster script and ultimately conveys very little. If Cronenberg's name wasn't attached, I guarantee you nobody would be defending it in the way I've seen here.

You guarantee an assumption because there is no way to prove otherwise? That's the real cop-out. There is no way to prove what you say as well. Is it too hard to get it in your mind that there are people who like the movie because they liked it, not because of some conspiracy or implication (such as it being a Cronenberg movie).

The pacing's similar to any of Cronenberg's older works (say Videodrome). Lackluster script? In what way? It's an insight on a dysfunctional family in the celebrity industry. It's about the coldness and indifference to others' success and sufferings, the way they are desperate to achieve popularity and success and the trauma and emptiness in their lives. The characterizations are deep and effective. A lot is conveyed by the tone, visuals and dialogues as in any Cronenberg movie. Technically, he sets out what he wanted to achieve. The music, the settings and cinematography bring about the dark tone required. It differs from Cronenberg's works in general that it is as much a character study as it is about a philosophy. It is art. Period. And it's brilliant.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

have to disagree ya Lizard Noodle....

Michael Bay (just to take one example) is not making a product whose primary reason for existence is art...it's commerce and entertainment.
That's why his movies for the most part have the budgets they have....the financiers are betting they can make their 200 million back and then some. that speaks to the construction of the story, the genre, every element of the project is constructed for maximum profit. the movie must be fun and not overly dark, have "fun" or "relate-able" characters, flashy action scenes, a best selling novel as the source, etc...all the usual entertainment marketing elements. there's nothing wrong with any of that....but if you think Transformers, The Avengers, Batman part 8, even Gone Girl (which looks good) or whatever exists purely for art's sake...uh you might want to rethink that.

compare that to pretty much any Cronenberg film....extremely dark overall, maybe no relate-able character, completely nihilistic ending, strange intellectual surreal dialog, slow pacing, low budget, etc. it seems blatantly obvious to me that films like Crash, Spider, Naked Lunch, and yes Maps to the Stars only exist because the creator of them finds them interesting and of artistic merit....not primarily for the paycheck. He did not even get paid at all for Spider because financing was impossible....just did it for the art.

So you can like or hate any movie...but the distinction between commerce/entertainment and art films is one you can make pretty clearly.

I would also argue that i've seen numerous Hollywood themed movies (recently sunset blvd, also a fine movie except for the dead narrator trope which i didn't really like) and not ONE resembles this one on anything but the most superficial level (even mulholland drive, while related is quite distinct from this). The combination of characters, tone, strange mythological script, hallucinatory elements, use of music, etc....it's a unique film imo. again...you can totally hate it and prefer his his more crude earlier sci fi like scanners, rabid, etc or another movie about hollywood like The Player....i like that stuff as well. but to say that the film has already been done before and is not art is inaccurate imo. This movie could only exist after 10 years of attempting financing and even then with a terrible distribution deal and low budget with everyone getting paid scale....meaning that financiers did not see a large audience for it and the people involved could have been getting paid much more elsewhere but this is what they wanted to do. meaning they did it for the art.

dozens of actresses refused the starring role due to the "toilet scene" (among others)....meaning this has not been done before because it's unflattering, career dangerous, etc....like it or hate it...it's an art film. art does NOT equal GOOD...it just means it exists for a certain reason besides profit. go to any museum of modern art and you will surely see much that you like...and much that you don't (or think is "bad").

many critics think it's good art....many think it's bad...but it's clearly not the usual profit driven entertainment product. do you really consider Maps to the Stars "benign"? it may be many things including "bad art" but it surely is not bland or safe (i won't get into any spoilers here...but really?).

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]