Vidéodrome

Videodrome ticks many of the Cronenberg boxes that fans of his films will have come to expect and love. Themes including technology's role in shaping humanity, government conspiracy against its own people, and the cultural value of sex and violence are each delivered up in the film's gray-and-beige, metropolitan '80s setting. Casting was excellent and the plot is moved forward by a spritely James Woods and the provocative Debbie Harry (Blondie), set to a sparing but precise score by Howard Shore. But the most intriguing question posed by the film is the extent to which reality is shaped by personal perception alone. This concept, explored through dream sequences, body horror, and philosophical dialogue between characters, is central to the plot about a television broadcaster bent on finding the most "real" adult content for his niche viewers. Cronenberg appears to ask not only whether our insatiable media consumption has gone too far, but whether humanity ever had a choice in the first place.

Videodrome is a prescient moment in cinema history as our desensitized society moves ever deeper into a world of screens and virtual personalities. It's not a film for everyone, but it's a film anyone could get something out of. I highly recommend it for those approaching it with academic interest and for fans of the genre.

It takes the slightest peeks at his career to figure out David Cronenberg ("The Fly," "Dead Ringers," "Naked Lunch," "The Dead Zone," the upcoming "A History of Violence") is a director who is not to be toyed with. I forgot to add in his 1983 horror movie "Videodrome," and there is a reason for that, which I'll talk about later. His works provoke intelligent thought, and terrify those who can't comprehend it. His films stimulate, offend, and move those who care to watch them with an open mind.

Allow me to (try) explain. I won't bother to go into detail about the plot. A sleazy, lowlife TV producer named Max Renn (James Woods) rapidly becomes obsessed with an unusual television signal, which in turn begins to warp his perceptions of reality. Get it? Nah, of course you don't. You're not going to let a one-sentence plot description and, if you own the Criterion Collection DVD, the three essays included deter you from watching it, are you?

You're also not going to let scenes of grisly torture, unspeakable violence, murder, "flesh guns," human VCRs, exploding cancer-deaths (poor Leslie Carlson as Barry Convex), pulsating video cassettes, Deborah Harry in S&M and morphing televisions turn you away, are you? What's more, you're not going to let Woods's effectively "wooden" performance here (his sticking his face into a "living" television) turn you away either?

I won't even try to pretend I understood what was going through Cronenberg's mind when he wrote and directed this picture. I also won't pretend I understood the essays included with the DVD (and I don't think the writers did either). It's warped, it's perverted, it's depraved, and it's insanely intriguing and fascinating. The masses are frightened by "Videodrome" and with good reason. "Videodrome" is Cronenberg's dastardly take on mass-media consumption during a time when television was afraid... afraid to be real. Media violence had not yet become a major issue in America and hypocritical politicians weren't condemning it. But keep in mind this film was made in '83, years before the mind-blowing reality-morphing of "The Matrix" (1999).

There's a little more that I think I can get away with in describing the plot, and Renn eventually traces the signal to Pittsburgh, and is introduced to the station's enigmatic programmer Brian O'Blivion (Jack Creley) and his daughter Bianca (Sonja Smits). He learns of the bizarre nature surrounding Videodrome, and the fate of those of who watch it. As he becomes more and more obsessed, he finds it nearly impossible to turn it off, or turn away. Then those mutations and hallucinations Cronenberg is famous for start happening and when that does, things become nasty and the queasy may want to keep a finger on the fast-forward button. It's no secret Cronenberg loves torturing his protagonists and here, the "new flesh" wants to live long and Woods has the nice warm body perfect for it - he becomes a literal media assassin with a vaginal slit in his stomach that doubles as a programmable VCR and also has a handgun fused to his wrist - he's a virtual slave to Videodrome.

Lastly, the eerie, driving score by Howard Shore swells up during the film's most intense and surreal moments, the most lovely being Woods's lovemaking with his television. I always watch Cronenberg films at least partially for Shore's music. Now I know why Cronenberg selects him for his soundtracks.

"Videodrome," I think, has a lot more relevance today than it did 22 years ago. It's more visceral than gross, is quite brilliant, and doesn't spare us graphic violence and gore. It's alive, it's "Videodrome."

8/10

Videodrome is truly a surreal experience. I do not want to include too much information as that would spoil the film for "virgin" viewers. If you are familiar with Cronenberg's work, you may have an inkling of what you're in for. Videodrome can drive one to the brink of madness, and then tell you you've been there for an hour and a half. From scene to scene you can't tell what's real and what is in James Wood's imagination. It's utter insanity, but it's great at the same time. This film is a good companion piece with Cronenberg's Existenze. When you can wrap the audience up in your movie, you have accomplished something few have. And David Cronenberg seems to do that time and again. Cronenberg is not for the faint of heart, definitely.

This movie was a TRIP. Really had no idea what to expect when I popped it on until I saw that it was a Conenberg film. Of course, by then I knew I'd be in for something strange but I still wasn't prepared for this interesting and disturbingly still relevant tale of how the media we consume effects us as people. How we become exposed to something, an idea, a frequency of thought, a movement and it can grow in us like a cancer until nothing makes sense anymore. In a post-2020 world I think that's more relevant than ever, this notion that what we see can change us and our perceptions. Cronenberg was doing this in '83 though.

Really, only downside is that it does feel pretty sloppy at times. The body horror is sometimes a useful tool and at others feels very unnecessary. It's rough around the edges and while I enjoy the central concept and idea of the film, it could have definitely done with a little more polish.

Would oddly love to see this one revisited and modernized a touch.

Max Renn runs a small cable station that specialises in providing what other, bigger stations don't – softcore pornography and hard violence. Tapping into illegal pirate broadcasts via satellite, Max sees a show that seems to be a hypnotic mix of S&M, torture, murder and other unsavoury acts that look very real. Intrigued and convinced he has seen the future for his network, Max tracks down the signal to be coming from Pittsburgh and does some digging to find out who is responsible for it. However as his fascination becomes an obsession his hallucinations start to get more real and more extreme.

Although it is pretty hard to get inside and to understand (much of it does not make a lot of sense), Videodrome is probably more relevant today than it was in the early eighties if only because the issue of the effects of sexual and/or violent "entertainment" continues to be debated and explored. This theme is explored with a certain amount of graphic disgust from Cronenberg as he takes Max, exposes him to graphic television violence and sees the affect it has on his mind and his body. As a commentary on the social impact of mass media it is hardly the clearest or most accessible of things but it is interesting and engaging nonetheless. As writer he could have made his message clearer and a lot less convoluted but I suppose he should be commended for delivering this in his own unique style but the downside is that the mass audience will feel excluded from the story.

As director though he makes it quite engrossing even if it isn't clear what the message is. The imaginative body horror stuff is very well done and the effects as impressive as the twisted creative forces behind it. The cast also buy into it well, even if the show does mainly belong to Woods. He is totally convincing which is a feat you need to believe is very hard to pull off in this sort of film! The rest of the cast are more in the world of the film (as opposed to drawn into it) and the result is that their performances tend to be more out and out weird – point in case Harry who is disturbingly vapid as the hollow S&M thrill seeker of the piece. Likewise Smits, Carlson, Creley and others are more about the world than giving performances so-called.

Overall though, this is an interesting and imaginative film. It doesn't make a lot of sense but it is enjoyable to try and apply what is happening to work out a meaning within it while watching it. The effects are good, although the horror might have meant more to me if I understand all of it better but regardless it is certainly an experience that is worth having at some point.