The Brood (David Cronenberg, 1979)

"We plant pumpkin seeds"

Introduction

Jonathan Romney wrote in 2007 how David Cronenberg's "stories evoke worlds that are manifestly unlike ours". From the crazed-creation of The Fly through to the close-up gore within A History of Violence, these are worlds that very few are privy to. The Brood is set within an alien-world in many respects, as snow-suited creatures plucked from the Venetian streets of Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now are now multiplied and in Toronto, Canada. Within this surreal context, The Brood highlight's truths that we shy away from and forces us to see our fears through the hyper-real lens of a horror filmmaker. The Brood is much more than a horror film though as the danger is not just within the house - but is within us.

Child of Abuse

Child-abuse is the spine of the story. Candice (Cindy Hinds), a child of a broken family as her Mother undergoes psychiatrict treatment, has been abused. Does this happen when she visits her Mother Nola (Samantha Eggar) at the Somafree Institute? An Institute that hides dark demons within the halls, operated and led by Dr Hal Raglan (Oliver Reed) and his little-known "psychoplasmics" form of Psychiatry. Or is the abuse from Candice's Grandmother (Nuala Fitzgerald)? Grandma abused Nola; this is clear. But she appears detached - not the attacker we are led to believe left burises and cuts on Canidice's back. Her Father, Frank Carveth (Art Hindle), is concerned. He doesn't trust Dr Raglan and he is well-aware of the mental-difficulties his wife has as he tries to gain custody of his daughter.

These foundations are laid and, in a moment of terror, a small child-shaped creature attacks Grandma - using kitchen utensils to ceaselessly hit and murder her. Candice waits in the other room and finds the body laid across the floor and covered in blood. As we see the horror outside the Institute, we also see within as Dr Raglan acts conversations with Nola - as she explains the abuse she suffered. She is angry at her Mum and abuse that was inflicted upon her; she is angry at her Dad for failing to intervene. The first murder is her Mother and the second is her Father. It is clear a connection between her anger and the homicidal creatures that kill is the centre of the story - we know that this connection is the key to her condition.

Trust the Doctor

Cronenberg is critical of psychiatry throughout the film. The opening moments, almost a piece of theatre as it is, show Dr Raglan with a patient. Does he see the entire act of psycho-analysis as an act? A dangerous method to unleash hidden fears without taking responsibility - highlighting how we may be angry at our parents for our upbringing may be enlightening but it doesn't change our own responsibilities.

Frank Carveth is equally suspicious when psychologists interview Candice following the trauma of her Grandmother's death - and the similarity between 'The Brood' and Candice is purposeful, establishing a clear connection between the anger and rage the Mother feels and how this seeps into her children. During the first murder, Cronenberg holds back from showing us the faces of 'The Brood' alerting us to suspect Candice's involvement. As a child of Nola, she is a part of 'The Brood' - albeit a human and child of Frank's unlike the midget-killers.

Mother Knows Best

The low-budget exploitation genre that The Brood firmly resides within (alongside Rabid, Shivers and Scanners) is also a style of filmmaking that separated Cronenberg from the masses. The body-horror shown as we see a growth on the neck of a ex-patient of Somafree and the external-womb birthing 'the brood' are grotesque, Bosch creations that, in the case of the latter, may have influenced the development of the Alien series as James Cameron chose to introduce a "Queen Bee" xenomorph in the first sequel Aliens.

But Cronenberg managed to also weave fascinating conflicts between nature and nuture. The Brood tackles the idea of self-control and self-preservation. As Nola reveals in Gollum-like intonation her sordid, abusive history we see the ramifications in literal form - her fantasies of revenge enacted by those bred by her. The piercing strings of Howard Shores debut-score add tremendously to the atmosphere Cronenberg has created and the ambiguous motives behind the Somafree institute equally provide uneasy foundations within the world created. This is a world unlike our own - but it is a world that seems all too familiar. In the final moments, the future is set in stone for young Candice. It's not her fault but she has seen too much of this world to leave unscarred. "We plant pumpkin seeds..." indeed.

A-Z #90: A History of Violence

You can pick up hundreds of DVDs for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. It's never about quantity, it's about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#97 - A History of Violence 

Why did I buy it?

This is one of those films that people told me I needed to get. The sleeve always looked very cool and, at the time, I had no real connection with Cronenberg except via Crash. So many people praised this film and, following Lord of the Rings, I was keen to see Viggo in another role. If I'm right, it was a bargain too. Badd-a-bing. 

Why do I still own it?

Well, its quite short. An hour an' 20 minutes - so it has always been an easy pick when choosing 'what to watch'. Secondly, its a brilliant film! Starting off with this loving couple and descending into horrific chaos when two fellas come into town - the whole small-town-disrupted-by-extreme-evil is always a brilliant starting point  - Shadow of a Doubt, Blue Velvet - and A History of Violence does not disappoint.

THE FILM LOCKER #3: David Cronenberg and 'The Fly'

So, much love to our new listeners who have entered the competition and the writer-inners (email us!) and with two in the bag - a Woody Allen and a Martin Scorsese episode, we now move onto more obscene and obscure directors with David Cronenberg.

Our choice of film is The Fly. Hatter mentioned how, prior to our Woody Allen show, he had not seen Hannah and her Sisters, and the same is true of The Fly for me. In fact, in preparation I watched three Cronenberg films: The Fly, eXistenZ and Dead Ringers for the first time!

But we have a bunch of posts on a separate blog - http://www.filmlocker.blogspot.com/ - that highlight much deeper insights into the films of the directors we have mentioned and more details about upcoming episodes and the ongoing scoreboard for the listeners!

And, as usual, it is already up on itunes and can be found easily on podomatic - so, please do try and write reviews and support us if you can! We have the ol' RSS feed and 2.0 RSS and, if you link in different ways, we also have it on Google and Yahoo

A-Z #53 Crash

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#53 - Crash 

Why did I buy it?

We all know about Crash, the original Crash. Opposed to the remake by Haggis (joking!). After a while, once you have heard all the twisted stories - cars, metal and sex... - you eventually think, sure, why not. I also read the BFI Modern Classic on the film and it was incredibly dense. Potentially, too much. At any rate, it was bought with the view that it is a 'classic' or 'essential'  film I should own!

Why do I still own it?

I have only watched it once, first off. It is twisted and truly messed-up - but not without an air of consistency. The themes that run through the film are consistent and relate sex and vehicles in a way that I dubt has existed before or since. The emotional attachment following an accident, the sexualised and erotic pleasures that cn be found through these attachments, the friends and people you meet when you explore this obsession and attraction. I don't deny how strange it is, but I feel that after a few watches, I will understand the attraction people have to the film. Some people rate Cronenberg on the strength of these films - Crash and Naked Lunch - opposed to the much-more commercially viable A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, which, in fairness, I do prefer.

Should I sell it though?

Mayb I am fooling myself - trying to be the cool-kid-who-loves-the-weird-shit - and I should give up the ghost and sell the film without any thought for the potentially all-important, second watch.

Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007)

"My name is Tatiana. My father died in the mines in my village, so he was already buried when he died. We were all buried there. Buried under the soil of Russia. That is why I left, to find a better life"

Introduction

Don't get me wrong, Cronenberg is great. I watched A History of Violence and realised that I have clearly missed out o a huge back-catalogue of a great director. Then I watched Crash and thought, huh, thats weird. The whole connection between technological metal and human flesh ... interesting. Something Leonardo-Da-Vinci about the whole thing. Nevertheless, by the time Eastern Promises was released I was well-prepared and found it important enough to warrant a full-price cinema ticket at the Camden Odeon. For two people, it cost something like £20. Thats the same price as a new-release DVD! It all even-ed out though, thank god, when I found the film on blu-ray for £5. So, in total, £25 for an opening-week release viewing plus a blu-ray copy of the film. Thats good value I think. Not to mention, how recently, the Mad Hatter from The Dark of the Matinee blog mentioned this on our Brit-Canada crossover of the Matineecast, whereby he placed this in his Top 5 Canadian films ... set in London, but completely a Canadian film.

Culture and Identity

Already this has begun to sound like a dissertation. "Culture and Identity in David Cronenberg's Post 9/11 Cinema". There you go folks, if you are studying, I have literally given you an amazing topic to rip apart - whereby Eastern Promises would inevitably be the centre piece. The assumption is that you have seen the film already but, to summarise the plot: Anna (Naomi Watts) is a nurse who assists in the delivery of a child whose Mother dies during birth - the Mother was under 16 and from Russia and Ana seeks out who is responsible for the child. This forces her to fall into the Russian underworld scene in London - and amongst many people she meets, she builds a realtionship with Nikolai (Viggo Mortenssen). Nikolai works for the family of Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) and primarily looks out for Kirill (Vincent Cassell) a confused young man in a world of crime.

Anna, as she explores the childs past - she explores her own challenges she has with her culture and identity. Though she has Russian heritage - she doesn't understand the language and has clearly adapted to Western life, becoming an accomplished Nurse. The whole story is sympathetic to Anna, namely as we can relate to her. Her Uncle, who translates the young Mothers diary is more in touch with his Russian past - but still has problems to adapt. For eample, he sticks to his racist attitude - grossly insulting both Anna and her previous partner by blaming Anna's mixed-race relationship for the loss of her child. This is the only indication of Anna's past - but this small point makes a clear Ana's motives and the lack of connection Anna has to her Uncle. You can tell this is not the first time the Uncle has said something completely inappropriate. Though we see the same narrow-view in Semyon - the lead 'Don' in this Russian mafia group. Semyon blames 'London' for Kirill's obvious attraction to men - though clearly he is aware of the contradiction in when stating how he wouldn't want to go back to Russia because of his health. The whole idea of losing your culture - even sacrifing it - to be in a more progressive country is an idea that is incredibly unnerving. Anna does not even know the language - but clearly holds on to her heritage. The young-Mother explains through her diary how she left Russia to be happier elsewhere - even Nikolai knows the small villages that have little to offer the young. Only recently, having read Mark Kermode's Its Only a Movie he mentions - very briefly - a venture he had to Russia. Put it this way - its all grey. Lots and lots of space. Though, clearly nobody from Russia would want to lose their heritage, they inevitably lose parts of their identity. The traditions. The family unit. The language.

Homosexuality and the Rennaissance


On my second watch I realised how tender the relationship is betweeen Nikolai and Kirill. Nikolai can see the struggles Kirill faces - he knows he is caught in the criminal life he does not want to lead (not that he is very good at it) but he is also trapped in the closet as it is very clear Kirill is homosexual. Nikolai doesn't mock him or shame him for his frustrations and obvious attraction to him - if anything, he assists in confirming the thoughts Kirill has by participating in the sex he is 'ordered' to conduct. My thought is that if he was so uncomfortable, I am sure Nikolai could have stood up to Kirill and either argued him down (even using physical restraint) explaining the situation to make Kirill understand - but Nikolai does neither and even chooses a position with the girl that must play into Kirills fantasies involving Nikolai.

Nikolai in that one situation helps the girl to escape - as we later find out - but also helps Kirill gain closer attraction to him. Nikolai's careful to not condone homosexuality nor attempt to change Kirills urges and natural feelings - helping Kirill find out who he is. Nikolai - in all the violence that surrounds his job - is tolerant as he understands the bigger picture, as he tolerates Kirills ongoing conflicts. But he uses this to his advantage as Nikolai tells Kirill that "either you're with him or you're with me" - hinting at living the life with his Father Semyon whereby he needs to hide his homosexuality or the possibility that he uses his options in the Western world to be openly homosexual with Nikolai. Obviously, Nikolai knows - and Kirill desperately wants - the latter.
Another homosexual (a very vague link...) is none other than Michelangelo - the Italian Rennaissance artist. The stronger link is the sequence in the sauna as Nikolai is mistaken for Kirill and is nearly murdered - he is forced to fight for himself. Mannerism was a period in art history that followed the Rennaissance and preceded the Baroque period. Michelangelo was one of - if not, the first of the - Mannerist artists. What separates Mannerism from the movements before and after is the use of the contorted bodies - distorted and contorted bodies. In some cases so extreme, it just looked strange - long necks, twisted torso's etc. If you really like this type of thing - and it really is interesting - do check out this website as it explains the movement. Michelangelo began the movement by showing many bodies, mainly masculine bodies (as I said, like Kirill, he had a tad of an attraction to young boys...), twisted and as you can see in Battle of the Centaurs (on the left) from 1492, the whole sequence in the sauna reeks of this type of distorted torsos and wrestling that littered so many works of art by Michelangelo. The fact that Nikolai was being mistaken for Kirill, and Nikolai effectively re-enacts a sequence indirectly 'created' with homosexuality in mind, adds another layer to an already complex tale of identity.

Bookends of Death and Rebirth

The film opens with two sequences. One whereby there is an explicit death at a barbers - a teenager with learning difficulties slitting the throat of a respected criminal (something on a par with 'made men' in the Mafia. Cut to the death of the 14-year old girl - one-minute later is the time of her daughters birth. This is the final theme to discuss - the idea that when one thing stops, another begins: when you start a new life, the old life is deceased. But this birth of something new must always be respected and supported. So, akin to the idea of a rapists child being aborted - this film is raising the point that a baby and a new start is to be given a chance. Your past - your heritage - does not make you who you are. By the end, it concludes to show that Nikolai has clearly given no weight to his past in Russia - selling it off to the British police - but he knows that he is building a better life in the process. Anna on the other hand has understood that she wants her past to be with her albeit as a cultural awareness rather than a desire to become a fully-fledged Russian mafia member - but she is still looking to the future with the child. And it is this future that is the bottom line - as a viewer, we can take away from this that it is only how we start afresh that counts - not what problems of the past can stop us. Maybe, we can all be 'reborn' if we want to ...