Videodrome (1982)

[Capo]

Videodrome
David Cronenberg 1982 USA / Canada

---

An operator of a cable TV programme responsible for graphic violence and softcore porn happens upon a mysterious show which takes over the mind; then the body…

---

Fast-moving thriller with complex visuals: what we are watching is often somebody watching somebody or something else, and the introduction to Deborah Harry's character is brilliant, with the most simple of pans to a live TV set-up, behind which she sits, and on which she is shown. Deeply rich with intertextuality throughout, Brian O'Blivion, who never appears on TV ("except on TV"), warns our protagonist that hallucinations could possibly take over his whole concept of reality; and so the second half of the film degenerates into an extended fantasy of dreams within dreams and frames within frames, before it explodes upon itself.

[Michael]

I just watched this again and was completely floored by it. Conceptual, visceral and cerebral masterpiece.

[svsg]

switching to this thread from the random posting......

haha guys, anyone understood the movie? It was way too lynchian for my brain ;D

[svsg]

Addendum: It better be some Lynchian stuff that I didn't understand. If it was just a video show inducing hallucinations and taking control of the body, it is no better than any 80's alien invasion b-movie, Cronerberg notwithstanding.

[Blib]

First off, I loved this movie! Thanks to you guys for highly recommending it!

My initial reaction was similar to svsg's above. He compared it to Lynch, and since nobody responded to his post, "anyone understand...?", it makes me wonder if we really need to understand what is going on to enjoy a film? After recently watching Eraserhead and now Videodrome, both of which I loved, I don't think it's necessary to understand the plot.

I would love to hear what you guys think. I hope to be proven wrong, for some reason.

[Valenti]

There's been a lot of arguments about that. Most everyone here, I think, is of the opinion that you don't need to have an interpretation of the plot of a movie to like it.

I share that opinion, but I also don't think you should actively try not to understand a movie. Know what I mean?

[ronnierocketago]

Jun 3, 2009 8:45:39 GMT Valenti said:

There's been a lot of arguments about that. Most everyone here, I think, is of the opinion that you don't need to have an interpretation of the plot of a movie to like it.

I share that opinion, but I also don't think you should actively try not to understand a movie. Know what I mean?

I don't bother with a logical interpretation of either VIDEODROME or ERASERHEAD because...what's the point?

Blibble - You ever heard that "Destruction of Evidence" ending theory for VIDEODROME?

[Blib]

No I haven't Ronnie. I don't know anything about the movie other than the movie itself. The ending seems to leave itself open to all sorts of theories.

[ronnierocketago]

Jun 4, 2009 3:45:20 GMT Blib said:

No I haven't Ronnie. I don't know anything about the movie other than the movie itself. The ending seems to leave itself open to all sorts of theories.

SPOILER....I GUESS

Well back in high school, my buddies had this idea that somehow the cabal of which recruited Woods to become their assassin, and once he did his job, they had him brainwashed to kill himself effectively, to eliminate evidence/eyewitness.

[Capo]

Just a few thoughts...

Fixation with plot alone can become tedious and limiting; I remember a weekly film class I attended - I was the youngest student by far - and a gaggle of women debating some of the plot of Godard's Breathless; it all seemed very superficial to me.

Saying that, back then I was deeply into formalism, and almost, in a way, actively neglected questions of narrative and concentrated much more on the camera technique, the editing, etc. That too has become limiting for me. The point is, who is right? Or: who gets the most out of the film? Some of the moral issues in Breathless stem directly from its story; all questions of whether Patricia is a witting femme fatale are questions of story. But the cinematic form can often inform and influence our reading of that (Godard's casual camera, the seeming flightiness given by the jump-cuts, etc.).

A balance is needed. Valenti rightly says you don't have to have an interpretation of story in order to like a film. It's true: watching a moving image unfold before us is quite the traumatic phenomenon, and we appreciate it more and more when it's accompanied by sophisticated sound, and what we take to be "good acting" and dialogue, etc. The key word is "like". We can enjoy the experience of watching a film, but without further interrogation, without deeper thought and analysis of the issues at stake in the film - moral, political, cultural - I doubt much understanding has taken place.

Some films encourage the "wash over" effect more than others - good luck to those who try to read Inland Empire literally, for instance. I know several critics at the time of that film's release were actively encouraging that formalistic approach, because the film seems to require it in order to be liked or enjoyed; they were calling it "pure cinema". It's a confusing (and confused) film, if one approaches it for any coherent worldview. I think the question of "pure cinema" - one that has been asked around here in the past - is a glib one. The notion that a film that is so deeply concerned with itself to the point that any reading beyond or outside its own form is more "purely cinematic" than one with a more steady and locatible social view is outrageous and offensive. The "message" film gets looked down upon with that argument, and I don't agree that it should (though "message" films don't do themselves any favour; a lot of them are shit). The assumption seems to be that anything with a story to impart, with a social message or attempt at "reality", is somehow tellable through other mediums, and is thus cast aside as something which is not "pure cinema" like Inland Empire. That's horse shit. I remember the last time the "pure cinema" question came up on here, and Kino offered the wisest reply: all cinema is pure cinema, in that every film made has the common pre-requisites: the camera, the microphone, the conscious staging of scenes and angling of shots. A lot of films might be read "filmed theatre", but they're still undeniably, unavoidably filmic, in that they're filmed. The phrase is often meant pejoratively; it's politically loaded when it shouldn't be. "Filmed theatre" should be a description, not a dismissal; if it is to be anything at all, that is (I'd probably avoid it these days).

As it is, "pure cinema" seems to denote some abstract tapestry of images that have little connection to reality, to the real objective world. If that's the case, "pure cinema" is an exercise in formalism and nothing else; I'm becoming increasingly disinterested in it. (That is not to say, however, that I'm becoming disinterested in the formal features of cinema, in what makes a film a film and not a novel or a stageplay. That kind of appreciation is a must for anyone serious about the medium.

Am I rambling?)

I think Videodrome has a clear enough story in terms of its internal events; its allegorical meaning (our understanding of it) may be tougher to decode. What sort of cultural issues is it engaging with? What political reading might it invite us to take? What is morally at stake in the film? What did Cronenberg say about the film when he was working on it? In a word, what is it about, besides a guy's body being taken over (why is Cronenberg telling us this story and not another? what are the moral and intellectual implications?)? What does Videodrome have to offer our worldview? And how might our own worldview affect our reading of it?

I haven't seen it in ages. Wetdog's the man to approach.

[ronnierocketago]

I do agree with you Capo that its pretty futile to attempt a literal interpretation of INLAND EMPIRE.

Though its amusing to read people here and at YouTube who tried to decipher Lynch's RABBITS series.