Revisiting David Cronenberg's Original CRIMES OF THE FUTURE (1970)
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Ahead of David Cronenberg’s much anticipated return to the genre with 2022’s CRIMES OF THE FUTURE, let’s take a look back at Cronenberg’s original CRIMES OF THE FUTURE from 1970, a weird, unconventional experimental film with not much plot.
Is it worth a watch ahead of the new film, or is it an oddity that’s best forgotten?
Support us on Patreon: / morbidmoonlight
Tip us on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/morbidmoonlight - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Thank you for this. Loved your interpretation of the purpose of the original crimes of the future
Visually in terms of camera work and set design and overall atmosphere it's very worthy of watching. Also the sparse yet effective sound design. It's a bit of a lead on from the 1960s experimental short film scene. And I am not even specifically a Cronenberg fan.
Yes, it's to be appreciated as a piece of Art, rather than to be enjoyed as a film.
@@MorbidMoonlight i enjoy it as a film.
This film is worth seeing, if not for more than just to have a glimpse into some ideas and concepts of the Grand Master, that feature more prominently in the recent film, but have their origins in the original. The new sex is coming, a man growing strange organs that are surgically removed, the white saliva-substance, to name a few. We are provided a glimpse into a mastermind. How good would it be to see more?
You can't fault its imaginative and fascinating ideas. It's just a shame that, because of what it is, a totally experimental film, its difficult to be satisfied with the presentation of those ideas in such a sparse way, especially when compared to Cronenbergs later films.
But as a sketchbook of ideas and odd, dreamlike thoughts, yeah, it is very interesting.
Hard to discuss this without mentioning his true first feature from the year before, Stereo, which is quite similar in style and approach but in B&W.
I definitely think it is worth watching, though obviously not for everyone. Then again, the same could be said for his new film. I'm not interested if someone is bored by a film, or finds it necessary to predict I would therefore be bored with it too.
Though it lacks a straightforward narrative, it seems to me it has definite concepts and themes about "the new flesh" and physical transformations that occupy most of his work, so if you don't see that in this film, then you aren't paying much attention. No, there are no exploding heads, but so what?
I watched this tonight and I sent my friend a couple messages. One in the middle and one towards the end.
"I'm going to find David Cronenberg and slap him in the face for this."
And
"I think I might hate every David Cronenberg movie now; even the ones I love."
I think that the idea of making different version of this movie was to adjust it to the problems we face in our times.
1970 was the time when 2nd vawe feminis was very active and was treated like supposed problem so the idea of plague that will eradicate all women and how men would have to adjust to womanless future. Feminis at that time weas really touchy subject for lot of men, because it was a fresh idea- the concept of women having no rights basically since the beginning and then suddenly everything might change might sound like end of the world for many with that old mindset- which we of course know it didn't, but we know this because it's in the past. So the title might be an alegory to the plague the humanity had suffered and the ending and how immoral people can get for greater purpose.
2022 version might be the comentary on our psychotic chase after perfect bodies and how changing and adjusting our looks to society by literaly cutting ourselves and rearranging our body. And I think that this version might be for us what 1970 was for people then- we absolutely do not know how far we will go in the body modification to achieve our perfect looks.
I'm not a Cronenberg fan, and I watched this one blind. I thought the 2022 film was just a remake so I preferred to watch the 70s film. At first it was not at all what I was expecting, a mute world from the perspective of Tripod's arguably immoral, but controlled and focused, mind. It is indeed a film for a very specific audience, and I didn't feel like falling asleep, on the contrary, I yearned to see more of this world and what would unfold in Tripod's doomed search for his dead master(and perhaps lover) in every aspect of the depraved society he was part of. I actually thought the world made sense, as pedophilia was even more taboo due to young girls becoming a commodity of science of the highest importance, and how that made subversives even more bold. I liked how you can't help but relate to tripod as he is the only voice in the entire film, but you also question most if not all of his actions. Was it all worth it just to live his master's truth once more, even if distorted and misshapen beyond his original thoughts? Even Tripod recognizes that throughout the film, but still keeps going. Overall I found it to be a very unrewarding but fascinating experience, I couldn't stop thinking about it for days.
cool vid
I feel like there's actually pretty strong themes, ideas, and story in this movie, but what's interesting is how this is all communicated in such abstract, dreamy, and fragmented way. It's like you're watching the action from inside the schizophrenic main character's brain.
I like Stereo a lot better than this, but figure this is definitely worth watching. On the other hand, surgery performance art doesn't interest me, so I doubt I'll see the new film.
I feel like you make a lot of generalizations based on at best your interpretation and at worst just not really sticking with the film or getting it. "I found this movie meaningless, so Cronenberg must have meant it be meaningless." "I feel like it wasted my time, so so will everyone else."
HA.ha.haha.HA.ha. ha.
you got put in your damn place, Kevin.
pretty par for the course though given you don't even have a proper name.
why don't you do us all a favor and just get it legally changed to Kevin Connelly already ?
everyone knows you've been dying to do so for decades now
Thank you for admitting there is no entertainment value in this thing.
This movie chuuuuuuuugs. The sound design is awful. The pacing could GENEROUSLY be described as pretentious.
Story? Unnecessary that.
5 minutes and 49 seconds.
That's how long it took you to get to the point.
There is nothing about this film...NOTHING...worth watching.
I clicked off at 5:51.
You're up on me, then. Crimes of the Future is 65 minutes long, and I'm still waiting for David Cronenberg to get to the point.
@@MorbidMoonlight I'm waiting for an apology.