Cronenberg's first feature is a bizarre, distended thing, whose real star is the location. I'm guessing we're looking at York University campus; regardless, every obscure tableau he stages is self-consciously dwarfed by the forbidding institutional architecture that houses it. The sporadic voice-over that occasionally rises from the silence suggests that we're watching a narrative about a sexual telepathy clinic whose mandate goes seriously awry. If you concentrate, you can see how this relates to the on screen shenanigans in a linear and probably even preplanned way - it's not just precious mannerisms, although it is that as well. The film makes the most of its visual material with a special thing for fisheye pans, and it runs free love through a dystopian sci-fi wringer in a way that will be familiar to fans of his later work, even including a giveaway throw to "Scanners". But after a while it does get tedious, and while Cronenberg's iconoclasm remains enjoyable and felt, minimalist sci-fi on no budget was always easier to pull off in print than on screen.
25 Reviews
Unique approach to pseudo science
re-eino4 December 2005
I can't say that I'm a Cronenberg fan since I haven't seen many of his movies and those that I have seen consists largely of his later works. I also can't say that stereo was the kind of movie I was expecting, since the topic hasn't been the most popular subject in those movies that can be considered to contain any individuality. I wasn't badly disappointed or gladly surprised because this movie was indeed a bit rough. Still the subject and Cronenbergs approach to it feels quite fresh. Filming takes place in an architecturally interesting building complex. The building is filmed from inside and outside, but in any shots no other buildings can be seen. This gives a nice enigmatic touch on the setting.
I found it surprising how this movie tried to combine sexual behavior and pseudo scientific telepathy by using scientific biological and psychological approaches. The film doesn't try in any point to explain how telepathy is actually achieved, but instead feeds the viewer with supposedly scientific data that is related to telepathy (for example. functions on how strength of telepathic linkage is correlated on the distance of two telepathic persons, how emotions affect telepathy etc.). Things told by the narrator are related to the images on the screen. He explains how emotions, such as love, are manipulated in an scientific experiment, as a method on gathering information about telepathy. There is no soundtrack, dialog or SFX, only the narrators voice. The fact that all that is happening on the screen is explained in scientific terms/reasoning, without any scientific justification, might make the "story" a little tough piece to swallow.
Time to time the movie doesn't seem to progress very rapidly: There are some long scenes where expressions are extensively filmed and some of them are almost funny (for example when one subject very slowly raises his hand to his mouth while looking straight forward and one scene where man is eating a chocolate bar, seem to last for an eternity). As the movie is carried forward by the narrator, the scenes where he is silent are completely quiet. I don't consider this helpful while trying to keep audience interested on the subject. Since visual part of this movie can't by itself tell much to audience and is better left on the background to be explained by the narrator. This sure isn't a mainstream movie and it is also a rare piece in it's subject and style. I certainly don't regret watching this, but as a word of warning, it might not be too easy to watch. However this movie wasn't made just to entertain audience, as later works by Cronenberg and despite low entertainment value, it is one of the most interesting movies I have seen from him. If this one feels too heavy to watch, check out 'The Fly' (as you probably already have), though I liked 'Naked Lunch' the best.
I found it surprising how this movie tried to combine sexual behavior and pseudo scientific telepathy by using scientific biological and psychological approaches. The film doesn't try in any point to explain how telepathy is actually achieved, but instead feeds the viewer with supposedly scientific data that is related to telepathy (for example. functions on how strength of telepathic linkage is correlated on the distance of two telepathic persons, how emotions affect telepathy etc.). Things told by the narrator are related to the images on the screen. He explains how emotions, such as love, are manipulated in an scientific experiment, as a method on gathering information about telepathy. There is no soundtrack, dialog or SFX, only the narrators voice. The fact that all that is happening on the screen is explained in scientific terms/reasoning, without any scientific justification, might make the "story" a little tough piece to swallow.
Time to time the movie doesn't seem to progress very rapidly: There are some long scenes where expressions are extensively filmed and some of them are almost funny (for example when one subject very slowly raises his hand to his mouth while looking straight forward and one scene where man is eating a chocolate bar, seem to last for an eternity). As the movie is carried forward by the narrator, the scenes where he is silent are completely quiet. I don't consider this helpful while trying to keep audience interested on the subject. Since visual part of this movie can't by itself tell much to audience and is better left on the background to be explained by the narrator. This sure isn't a mainstream movie and it is also a rare piece in it's subject and style. I certainly don't regret watching this, but as a word of warning, it might not be too easy to watch. However this movie wasn't made just to entertain audience, as later works by Cronenberg and despite low entertainment value, it is one of the most interesting movies I have seen from him. If this one feels too heavy to watch, check out 'The Fly' (as you probably already have), though I liked 'Naked Lunch' the best.
Early Cronenberg film makes for an interesting, but overall frustrating watch
Woodyanders29 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Done in a very cold and clinical style, with no direct sound, droning narration that's overloaded with pretentious pseudo-scientific jargon, and great use of a fantastic sprawling location, David Cronenberg's 65-minute debut feature about an experiment on increasing telepathic psychic abilities amongst several volunteer test subjects with unexpected dangerous side effects makes for decidedly rough going, but still manages to impress due to its striking black and white cinematography and a wealth of fascinating ideas that could have benefited from a stronger presentation. The lack of sound proves to be a huge problem, as whole sequences that transpire in total silence are alas positively agonizing to sit through because they seem to go on for an excruciating eternity. Moreover, the glacial pacing certainly doesn't help matters at all while the lack of characterization ensures that the volunteers for the experiment come across more like distant objects than sympathetic human beings. Fortunately, the cast still manage to contribute remarkably expressive pantomime performances as Cronenberg explores his trademark themes of identity, sexuality, and science gone amok. So, it's definitely not top Cronenberg, but nonetheless serves as an intriguing precursor to such latter works as "Shivers" and especially "Scanners."
Interesting early film from David Cronenberg.
Captain_Couth24 September 2004
Stereo (1969) is a bizarre film about human behavior. Cronenberg shot this movie as if was a documentary. A lot of his trademark direction and style is beginning to take shape. He would perfect this technique in his latter films. But whilst watching this movie you can see that he was going to be an excellent filmmaker. It also showcases his style as an documentist.
Not for everyone but it's always interesting to see a well known and accomplished director's earlier work. Stereo has all of
his trademarks, it's cold, clinical and very dark. Only Cronenberg can take something like sex and make it seem like a scientific experiment.
Recommended for Cronenberg fans, others need not apply.
B+
x
Not for everyone but it's always interesting to see a well known and accomplished director's earlier work. Stereo has all of
his trademarks, it's cold, clinical and very dark. Only Cronenberg can take something like sex and make it seem like a scientific experiment.
Recommended for Cronenberg fans, others need not apply.
B+
x
Although intriguing, ultimately feels like struggling to stay awake in a University lecture
tomgillespie200219 January 2013
Although he is better known for his 'body horror' work and scenes of squirm-inducing gore, the most prominent theme that runs throughout the career of David Cronenberg is the idea of finding an extra stream of consciousness through sexual release. From his serial-raping zombies in Shivers (1975), to his portrayal of Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Sabrina Spielrein in A Dangerous Method (2011), he has adopted a psychoanalytical aesthetic between scenes of exploding heads and killer tots. His début, Stereo, is his student film that is an early reflection of his fascination with psychology, made on an obviously shoe-stringed budget, shot in one location.
The film begins with the arrival at what looks like a research facility of a man wearing a black coat. As the narration begins to explain, the man is a telepath, a product of a social experiment to observe behavioural patterns between three telepaths in a closed environment. Having had their ability to speak removed, they must communicate only via telepathy, and through this telepathic bonding, begin sexual experimentation. The experiment is being carried out by the unseen Dr. Luther Stringfellow, who hopes that the powerful relationships which are forged through the telepaths - that evolve to deem such things as sex or physical attraction irrelevant - will come to replace and stabilise the traditional family unit.
If you could label Stereo as anything, it would have to be ambitious. Although the subject is purely psychoanalytical, the approach is very sci-fi. The film is black-and-white, featuring no sound at all apart from the near-constant narration, which is spoken in the same dreary tone as you would expect from a student vocalising an essay. It's quite clear than Cronenberg was held back by budget constraints and equipment, and although you could forgive the film's narrative flaws, the lack of visual appeal combined with the monotonous, jargon-heavy, quasi- intellectual narration, make the film a struggle to get through, even at only 62 minutes. It would be harsh to say Stereo is for Cronenberg die- hard's only as it is often intriguing, but the film ultimately feels like struggling to stay awake during a University lecture.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
The film begins with the arrival at what looks like a research facility of a man wearing a black coat. As the narration begins to explain, the man is a telepath, a product of a social experiment to observe behavioural patterns between three telepaths in a closed environment. Having had their ability to speak removed, they must communicate only via telepathy, and through this telepathic bonding, begin sexual experimentation. The experiment is being carried out by the unseen Dr. Luther Stringfellow, who hopes that the powerful relationships which are forged through the telepaths - that evolve to deem such things as sex or physical attraction irrelevant - will come to replace and stabilise the traditional family unit.
If you could label Stereo as anything, it would have to be ambitious. Although the subject is purely psychoanalytical, the approach is very sci-fi. The film is black-and-white, featuring no sound at all apart from the near-constant narration, which is spoken in the same dreary tone as you would expect from a student vocalising an essay. It's quite clear than Cronenberg was held back by budget constraints and equipment, and although you could forgive the film's narrative flaws, the lack of visual appeal combined with the monotonous, jargon-heavy, quasi- intellectual narration, make the film a struggle to get through, even at only 62 minutes. It would be harsh to say Stereo is for Cronenberg die- hard's only as it is often intriguing, but the film ultimately feels like struggling to stay awake during a University lecture.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
You're getting sleepy.
lost-in-limbo22 April 2006
At an Canadian Academy a group of people volunteer to be used as test subjects in an experiment to gain telepathic powers to communicate with after their ability to communicate through speech was removed. Then we slowly watch how the results turn out with sudden changes and obstacles put into motion to see how they adapt to it. While, throughout the observers constantly update us with their progress.
Was it a big mistake that I decided to watch this early Cronenberg art-flick before I went to bed. Maybe so, maybe not? I was fighting to keep my eyes open towards the end, but I can see why people were derailed by this experience. This oddity is real hard to get into and it only goes for about hour, but it does seem longer. Way longer! I wasn't entirely bored from this outing, but I did become rather restless in the final twenty minutes. The film is shot in black & white and there's real no sound, other than a voice-over that crops up every now again. This exhausting narration is bluntly monotonous with it's thick technical jargon that sometimes doesn't always tie in to what's happening on screen and you really have to concentrate to have a clue about what's going. At times I fell in and out of the context, but I still had some sort of an idea to what was happening. It goes on to relate telepathic power with sexual awaking, while looking into the behavioural patterns of these erotic and ESP activities and signals. Most of the time it feels like the film is meandering about aimlessly with a bunch of method actors who are just performing for a live crowd. Like a fellow has user has already mention it does feel like a documentary. While, the intellectual study might be a clever idea, but you can't help but feel disconnected from this lifeless exploration. The look of the film showcases the professional eye that Cronenberg would go on to incorporate into his latter flicks and this was his first 35mm shot project. The atmosphere has a lonely, out-of-this world feel with it's abstract backdrop that lingers on screen. The finesse and execution of such transfixed images is what kept me watching, really. This was the cold and distant style Cronenberg would go one to make his own and the sub-text of the plot shows up again in some way in the film "Scanners".
If you want to be entertained, look elsewhere because you'll mostly be frustrated. But if you want to see where it all began for Cronenberg look no further than here.
Was it a big mistake that I decided to watch this early Cronenberg art-flick before I went to bed. Maybe so, maybe not? I was fighting to keep my eyes open towards the end, but I can see why people were derailed by this experience. This oddity is real hard to get into and it only goes for about hour, but it does seem longer. Way longer! I wasn't entirely bored from this outing, but I did become rather restless in the final twenty minutes. The film is shot in black & white and there's real no sound, other than a voice-over that crops up every now again. This exhausting narration is bluntly monotonous with it's thick technical jargon that sometimes doesn't always tie in to what's happening on screen and you really have to concentrate to have a clue about what's going. At times I fell in and out of the context, but I still had some sort of an idea to what was happening. It goes on to relate telepathic power with sexual awaking, while looking into the behavioural patterns of these erotic and ESP activities and signals. Most of the time it feels like the film is meandering about aimlessly with a bunch of method actors who are just performing for a live crowd. Like a fellow has user has already mention it does feel like a documentary. While, the intellectual study might be a clever idea, but you can't help but feel disconnected from this lifeless exploration. The look of the film showcases the professional eye that Cronenberg would go on to incorporate into his latter flicks and this was his first 35mm shot project. The atmosphere has a lonely, out-of-this world feel with it's abstract backdrop that lingers on screen. The finesse and execution of such transfixed images is what kept me watching, really. This was the cold and distant style Cronenberg would go one to make his own and the sub-text of the plot shows up again in some way in the film "Scanners".
If you want to be entertained, look elsewhere because you'll mostly be frustrated. But if you want to see where it all began for Cronenberg look no further than here.
A curiosity; perhaps only for utmost cinephiles and Cronenberg devotees
I_Ailurophile1 June 2022
It's rather fascinating to go back and watch David Cronenberg's earliest films. One readily recognizes what would come to be hallmarks of his works, including especially artful shot composition and content revolving around an intersection of body, mind, sex, and alteration. 'Stereo' (and 1970's 'Crimes of the future') is also, however, unmistakably a reflection of a filmmaker just cutting his teeth. The rudimentary, almost spartan presentation says "student film" as much as it does "art film," and the production was pointedly low budget. Quietly bewitching as the university filming location is, there are no further adornments of set design or decoration; in addition to the enticing atmospheric music, the soundtrack is comprised entirely of narration added in post-production, with no innate audio. And the fundamental conveyance of plot, such as it is, is so loose and almost free-form that it's particularly helpful to have the context of an outside synopsis on hand to understand the course of events.
While modern cinema as a medium is audiovisual in nature, that essence is made most apparent where the components are divorced. One can experience any conventional film from either audio or visuals alone and nonetheless obtain a significant if incomplete understanding of the narrative content. In a feature like this, the sequencing of the visuals relate certain events, but each successive image by itself communicates little if anything; the narration provides context and a measure of substance, but is also characterized by such a verbosely blustery quasi-scientific lexicon that the narration is equal parts meaningful and nonsensical. Noting the distinct lack of resources Cronenberg had to work with, 'Stereo' is suitably well made, with actors who adequately play their parts and writing that is serviceable in relating an intriguing concept.
What is abundantly clear to me, though, is that whatever else is true of this picture, it's one for a limited audience. Movie-goers with a wide appreciate of everything the world of cinema has to offer may find this worth a look, and die-hard fans of Cronenberg. In the very least, it's interesting as a look into the early development of an acclaimed filmmaker. For my part, I did enjoy 'Stereo,' though it is less a title to entertain, as a viewing experience, than it is a curio to admire for its place in film history. So long as you keep that perspective in mind, this is a fine way to spend 60 minutes on a lazy day.
While modern cinema as a medium is audiovisual in nature, that essence is made most apparent where the components are divorced. One can experience any conventional film from either audio or visuals alone and nonetheless obtain a significant if incomplete understanding of the narrative content. In a feature like this, the sequencing of the visuals relate certain events, but each successive image by itself communicates little if anything; the narration provides context and a measure of substance, but is also characterized by such a verbosely blustery quasi-scientific lexicon that the narration is equal parts meaningful and nonsensical. Noting the distinct lack of resources Cronenberg had to work with, 'Stereo' is suitably well made, with actors who adequately play their parts and writing that is serviceable in relating an intriguing concept.
What is abundantly clear to me, though, is that whatever else is true of this picture, it's one for a limited audience. Movie-goers with a wide appreciate of everything the world of cinema has to offer may find this worth a look, and die-hard fans of Cronenberg. In the very least, it's interesting as a look into the early development of an acclaimed filmmaker. For my part, I did enjoy 'Stereo,' though it is less a title to entertain, as a viewing experience, than it is a curio to admire for its place in film history. So long as you keep that perspective in mind, this is a fine way to spend 60 minutes on a lazy day.
Only for fans that must have every bit of Cronenberg minutae
HyperPup29 March 2009
This strange gem fits suitably in the creche of Cronenberg bit it's not for everyone that loves Cronenberg....Just the ones that are insanely in need of everything he has ever created. Its not because it's a bad film, on the contrary it is very intriguing. Its just incredibly slow and the sparse environment lack of color and mostly silent audio makes for a surreal but not very compelling film. There is no soundtrack...At all. There is no real dialog just moments of narration, which of course paints the picture moreso than the acting and mise en scene. Set in the Future, we are treated to a pseudo-documentary based on the scientific workings of a parapsychologist named Luther Stringfellow a famed member of the fictitious Canadian Academy for Erotic Inquiry. His thesis; It is hoped that telepathic groups, bonded in polymorphous sexual relationships, will form a socially stabilizing replacement for the "obsolescent family unit". The subjects will be seven young volunteers who will submit to experimental brain surgery to endow them with telepathic abilities and quench their ability to speak and be recorded daily. The film serves as a record of said experiment. This is where the film kinda falls down. The film gives us some interesting characters to watch, but their silence doesn't allow us to really know sympathize with them. Its like watching an acting class exercise in "emoting" or "mugging". A pantomime this complex needs some form of interpretive audio. While it is interesting to watch the actors go about their "telepathic" play, the drama comes off as stilted due to the highly scientific nature of the narration. Some long sequences that involve little or no narration do not pass quickly and create a kind of dream logic between film and audience. Are we getting what he is showing us? I dunno, as some of the action is so interpretive that we could be on a completely different plane of reasoning than what Cronenberg could be trying to describe. Heady, perhaps, but I think that Cronenberg was not trying to be pretentious, I think he was doing what a lot of first time film students do. Get in over their heads with grand ideas. I can forgive as I have done that myself, which is why I gave it 7 stars. Its not bad its just not for everybody.
An interesting, yet unutterably boring watch
saydstrings9 April 2007
I won't lie and tell you that this is a gripping short film. Being a devoted Cronenberg fan, it's hard for me to comment objectively on anything he's made. But on this film I believe I can.
It's very obviously a student film, and while there is an interesting visual style being cultivated here, nothing is developed or matured enough to constitute much praise--from the script to the "acting" to the cinematography. While none of these aspects are bad, they aren't particularly noteworthy either.
What it boils down to is that this short is an indulgent piece for Cronenberg. There is no dialogue and very little action (and by action I don't mean gunfights or car chases or even horrific venereal sequences). It's a cold, calculating, scientific investigation of god-knows-what. Something Cronenberg had on his mind, I suppose. Granted, the script is an extended metaphor and has some nuances that I'm sure are very clever, and in that regard it's interesting to consider what is being said in the voice-over that drives the film, but it is not near as effective as, for example, his wrath-children in The Brood or the reality-blurring Videodrome, etc. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Still, for my money I don't regret the purchase. If you're a Cronenberg fan, you'll want to check this out and have it in your collection. At this point in his career he simply didn't have the writing ability to expand upon his ideas to create interesting situations or plots; but it's still the Cronenberg we know and love. His visual style is definitely present here, and there are some breathtaking shots and beautiful cinematography at points.
It's very obviously a student film, and while there is an interesting visual style being cultivated here, nothing is developed or matured enough to constitute much praise--from the script to the "acting" to the cinematography. While none of these aspects are bad, they aren't particularly noteworthy either.
What it boils down to is that this short is an indulgent piece for Cronenberg. There is no dialogue and very little action (and by action I don't mean gunfights or car chases or even horrific venereal sequences). It's a cold, calculating, scientific investigation of god-knows-what. Something Cronenberg had on his mind, I suppose. Granted, the script is an extended metaphor and has some nuances that I'm sure are very clever, and in that regard it's interesting to consider what is being said in the voice-over that drives the film, but it is not near as effective as, for example, his wrath-children in The Brood or the reality-blurring Videodrome, etc. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Still, for my money I don't regret the purchase. If you're a Cronenberg fan, you'll want to check this out and have it in your collection. At this point in his career he simply didn't have the writing ability to expand upon his ideas to create interesting situations or plots; but it's still the Cronenberg we know and love. His visual style is definitely present here, and there are some breathtaking shots and beautiful cinematography at points.
A Great Study of Cinema
gavin694222 April 2006
Sometime in the future, the Canadian Academy for Erotic Inquiry is investigating the theories of parapsychologist Luther Stringfellow. Seven young adults volunteer to submit to a form of brain surgery that removes their power of speech but increases their power for telepathic communication.
If you are looking for a film to show at a party, this is not that film. It is black and white, slow-paced and almost entirely silent. Your party people will fall asleep and call you a loser.
If you are someone who loves David Cronenberg or enjoys the study of film and camera techniques, I think you might find an interesting film here. While set up as a faux documentary about the study of "telepathists" at the "Center for Erotic Inquiry", there is very little plot and mostly just interesting scenes and visuals.
Watch the lighting, angles. Pretend you are a guest in the room, a voyeur but not a participant. Notice the dark and creepy feel, despite the fact the story itself is not creepy and no music is added. The angles and lighting alone can give the feeling of darkness and depression.
A beautiful film, and one that really laid the foundation for the next thirty years of Cronenberg greatness. His themes of medical oddities, unusual science and body horror are evident here. The exploration (voluntary or otherwise) of new states of consciousness via sexual experimentation is a major theme in "Shivers", "Videodrome", "Dead Ringers", "Naked Lunch", "M. Butterfly" and "Crash". To understand Cronenberg, one must understand this film.
If you are looking for a film to show at a party, this is not that film. It is black and white, slow-paced and almost entirely silent. Your party people will fall asleep and call you a loser.
If you are someone who loves David Cronenberg or enjoys the study of film and camera techniques, I think you might find an interesting film here. While set up as a faux documentary about the study of "telepathists" at the "Center for Erotic Inquiry", there is very little plot and mostly just interesting scenes and visuals.
Watch the lighting, angles. Pretend you are a guest in the room, a voyeur but not a participant. Notice the dark and creepy feel, despite the fact the story itself is not creepy and no music is added. The angles and lighting alone can give the feeling of darkness and depression.
A beautiful film, and one that really laid the foundation for the next thirty years of Cronenberg greatness. His themes of medical oddities, unusual science and body horror are evident here. The exploration (voluntary or otherwise) of new states of consciousness via sexual experimentation is a major theme in "Shivers", "Videodrome", "Dead Ringers", "Naked Lunch", "M. Butterfly" and "Crash". To understand Cronenberg, one must understand this film.
For the die-hard Cronenberg crowd
p-stepien30 October 2012
David Cronenberg never changed. His predominant themes, although increasingly mature in exposure and direction, ring unchanged through time. "Stereo" is no exception. Shot without sound and just scientific mumbo-jumbo serving as a narrative Cronenberg explores the very essence of his obsessions: sexuality and degrees of human interaction with a typical cold and calculating manner. The story based around a scientific experiment by the Academy for Erotic Inquiry into inducing psychic communication through sexual relation, delves into issues so essential to Cronenberg's body of work. Certain ideas brought about are abundantly distributed around future movies, such as one man drilling his own forehead to release the voices ("Scanners") or an approach to detachment oddly reminiscent of "Dead Ringers".
In all essence "Stereo" is a pseudo-scientific elaborate. Psychic communication is brought about be proximity - without any social setting and relationship between two human beings psychic connection is just noise, only through closeness does this evolve to something more conscious, subliminal. However overly increased proximity causes loss of self or a growing sense of detachment from your own I. Such messages, rife with psychological context rummage throughout the movie, making it a somewhat fascinating and necessary experience for any Cronenberg aficionado, helping understand his future work. Nonetheless this aseptic experimental movie with long austere shots and little in terms of plot burdens the viewer to a degree that a loss of focus is almost a given, whilst a fast forward button seems a welcome option, despite its roughly 65 minutes runtime. Tiresome, but intricate, Cronenberg opened his career with an intriguing insight, but lacking any interest in viewer satisfaction, basically a self-indulgent crash course into issues evolved in his illustrious career.
For me personally "Stereo" was pure torture, but the intellectual content is pretty evident (whilst being a definite overreach typical for overzealous film students) and anyone aiming at writing a thesis on Cronenberg should definitely start off with this intricate quasi-documentary.
In all essence "Stereo" is a pseudo-scientific elaborate. Psychic communication is brought about be proximity - without any social setting and relationship between two human beings psychic connection is just noise, only through closeness does this evolve to something more conscious, subliminal. However overly increased proximity causes loss of self or a growing sense of detachment from your own I. Such messages, rife with psychological context rummage throughout the movie, making it a somewhat fascinating and necessary experience for any Cronenberg aficionado, helping understand his future work. Nonetheless this aseptic experimental movie with long austere shots and little in terms of plot burdens the viewer to a degree that a loss of focus is almost a given, whilst a fast forward button seems a welcome option, despite its roughly 65 minutes runtime. Tiresome, but intricate, Cronenberg opened his career with an intriguing insight, but lacking any interest in viewer satisfaction, basically a self-indulgent crash course into issues evolved in his illustrious career.
For me personally "Stereo" was pure torture, but the intellectual content is pretty evident (whilst being a definite overreach typical for overzealous film students) and anyone aiming at writing a thesis on Cronenberg should definitely start off with this intricate quasi-documentary.
Psychochemistry 101- No talking aloud: Cronenberg's first experimental steps...
poe4266 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
STEREO is the first of David Cronenberg's two "psychosexual studies" (the other being the follow-up, CRIMES OF THE FUTURE) and also features the malleable Ron Mlodzik in the lead (here playing the cloaked and mysterious aphrodesiast, "Dr. Stringfellow"). He arrives at the Canadian Academy For Erotic Inquiry, where "human social cybernetics" is practiced. Their motto is: "Love conquers all." Eight "category A" subjects have undergone experimental brain surgery that has rendered them "Telepathists." Like CRIMES OF THE FUTURE, STEREO was shot sans sound, with narration (the "parapsychological experimental gestalt" observations of Dr. Stringfellow) added later: "Electromorphological dependency results in reinforcement withdrawal" when the object of focus is gone- whereupon, brain tissue DESTRUCTS. He interacts with one subject (who has voluntarily had his larynx speech centers removed) by sharing his pacifier (the next best thing to "symbiotic telepathic cohesion," one assumes). "Is abstract, logical thought even possible without language...?" It turns out that Negative Thinking is the Positive way to protect oneself between "attuned" people; unlike SCANNERS, the STEREO redux, where every thought of every passerby is "picked up," here the telepathy must be a "mutual" interaction. "Phenomenological refinement" is the ultimate goal (telepathic communes are suggested). "Omnisexuality" is one possible outgrowth: "a fully three-dimensional sexuality" (as opposed to "monosexuality" or "bisexuality"); group groping is explored. A telepath, he concludes, is the prototype of three-dimensional man... although sometimes a candy bar is just a candy bar... We'll just have to wait, though, until the "electroencephalographic data gets to be evaluated." "Art is the tree of Life," Cronenberg once said in regards to his biohorror approach to film-making: "Science is the tree of Death." STEREO is a fascinating piece of work.
Cronenberg enters the stage
mattiasflgrtll618 December 2021
A couple of people at an experimental clinic are daily practicing their mindreading techniques on each other with a bizarre narrator describing all events.
Yep. That's pretty much the best way to sum up David Cronenberg's feature debut. One thing you'll notice at first it's that it's shot in black-and-white, the only one of his films where that's the case (probably so he could afford to make it). The second thing is that there's virtually no sound. You can actually hear a *little* bit of sound if you really turn the volume up, but it's not recommended lest you get the narrator's booming voice blasting at you.
As with most of Cronenberg's work, it's beautifully shot. The superb use of frog perspective, the pans showing the isolated, lonely hall filled with lonely people. The theme of warped psychology would occur in many of his later movies, and is present here as well. The test subjects turn into manic creatures in the name of science, even getting pills so they'll be able to have sex with anyone regardless of their original sexual preference. The story as you can see is erratic, but it nevertheless is intriguing.
The highlights are quite absolutely the people in the experiment going insane, demonstrating man's tendency of deprivating behavior, another Cronenbergian element. And at first, the odd-sounding narrator might be a source of minor amusement.
Despite having a few things going for it however, this is not a flawless movie. The biggest hurdle for many will be the narration, which is so bundled up in technical jargon that it becomes nearly completely impossible to understand at times. If that's supposed to be the joke, it's a little too inside and not quite funny enough. The problem with it as well is that you don't understand the greater purpose of the experiments the scientist (never onscreen) performs on these subjects. Since this is not your usual silent film, which often has music and an easy narrative flow (which this doesn't), you never really get to know the characters, even though you're always following them. You see them laughing and eating, but you have no idea who they really are besides one woman always acting jumpy and another always looking monotone (who gets to narrate a little as well). The change to different narrators is a nice touch, but they all are equally confusing.
I recommend it if you're curious how the master started and want to see the early stages of the themes he would later explore in more eleborate detail. It's interesting enough to stick out with throughout. If you are about to start checking in Cronenberg however, it might be best saved after you've watched some of his more famous work.
Yep. That's pretty much the best way to sum up David Cronenberg's feature debut. One thing you'll notice at first it's that it's shot in black-and-white, the only one of his films where that's the case (probably so he could afford to make it). The second thing is that there's virtually no sound. You can actually hear a *little* bit of sound if you really turn the volume up, but it's not recommended lest you get the narrator's booming voice blasting at you.
As with most of Cronenberg's work, it's beautifully shot. The superb use of frog perspective, the pans showing the isolated, lonely hall filled with lonely people. The theme of warped psychology would occur in many of his later movies, and is present here as well. The test subjects turn into manic creatures in the name of science, even getting pills so they'll be able to have sex with anyone regardless of their original sexual preference. The story as you can see is erratic, but it nevertheless is intriguing.
The highlights are quite absolutely the people in the experiment going insane, demonstrating man's tendency of deprivating behavior, another Cronenbergian element. And at first, the odd-sounding narrator might be a source of minor amusement.
Despite having a few things going for it however, this is not a flawless movie. The biggest hurdle for many will be the narration, which is so bundled up in technical jargon that it becomes nearly completely impossible to understand at times. If that's supposed to be the joke, it's a little too inside and not quite funny enough. The problem with it as well is that you don't understand the greater purpose of the experiments the scientist (never onscreen) performs on these subjects. Since this is not your usual silent film, which often has music and an easy narrative flow (which this doesn't), you never really get to know the characters, even though you're always following them. You see them laughing and eating, but you have no idea who they really are besides one woman always acting jumpy and another always looking monotone (who gets to narrate a little as well). The change to different narrators is a nice touch, but they all are equally confusing.
I recommend it if you're curious how the master started and want to see the early stages of the themes he would later explore in more eleborate detail. It's interesting enough to stick out with throughout. If you are about to start checking in Cronenberg however, it might be best saved after you've watched some of his more famous work.
It's not a great Cronenberg
sire_galopin1 July 2006
Unfortunately, this film is not a great Cronenberg. One can understand that he was only at his beginning and that he had a budget limited to make this film, but they are not the means only I criticize but rather the weakness of the scenario. One has the impression that it occurs nothing in this film. A long walk in corridors, a narration which leaves us on our appetite and not really of dialogs. Me, in what relates to me, I fought of all my forces not to fall asleep during the projection, which however, lasts only one hour. It will be understood that Cronenberg will have had all the time to make better films during following years.
Underrated
fmaudio19 November 2002
"Stereo" is an underrated early Cronenberg movie. People tend to find it inaccessible on the grounds that it is 'boring', or due to its quasi-intellectual voice-over soundtrack (which was applied since Cronenberg did not have enough money to spend on soundtrack film) or 'incomprehensible' plot. The voice-over naturally enhances the feeling of "verfremdung", which can be argued as being for the good of the final result.
The topic of a Canadian Academy for Erotic Inquiry is an extremely difficult one to pull off. The way it's made, however, with its austere milieu, its quasi-academic speaker voice and the contrasts between the harsh milieu and the characters' pursuit of the topic of the 'plot' makes it a rather good film its sparse conditions for creation considered, all the more if one is into austere films rather than bombastic ones. Hopefully some 'madwoman' or 'madman' will release a few copies of this movie on dvd, someday.
The topic of a Canadian Academy for Erotic Inquiry is an extremely difficult one to pull off. The way it's made, however, with its austere milieu, its quasi-academic speaker voice and the contrasts between the harsh milieu and the characters' pursuit of the topic of the 'plot' makes it a rather good film its sparse conditions for creation considered, all the more if one is into austere films rather than bombastic ones. Hopefully some 'madwoman' or 'madman' will release a few copies of this movie on dvd, someday.
zzzzzzzz...
Jonny_Numb1 October 2003
I give my brain an intellectual slap and attempt to keep my head from slumping into sleep as I watch "Stereo," one of David Cronenberg's (very early) student films, but it's a difficult task. While some of the black-and-white images are striking, and the contained, isolated settings create a moody atmosphere, the voice-over narration is largely incomprehensible and any action is very limited. Cronenberg is definitely one of my favorite directors, and there are moments in "Stereo" that obviously influenced his later, better works, but this rarity is for completists only.
4/10
4/10
Cold, confused stereo
TheLittleSongbird3 June 2019
David Cronenberg and his films intrigue me, with their challenging themes and the unique way of leaving the viewer unsettled. Most of them are good to brilliant ('The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers' being my favourites), while not considering any of his films terrible or irredeemable. Yes, have found good things in his lesser work like 'Cosmopolis', and there are films of his like 'Crash' and 'Naked Lunch' (the film that saw him start to move away from body horror) that fit in the appreciate and admire category than the properly enjoy one.
'Stereo' really isn't one of his best, if anything for me, having literally just seen it, it replaces 'Cosmopolis' as his worst. It is interesting for it being so early on in his career, the first of two short-length feature films ('Crimes of the Future' being the other). Before he introduced and pioneered body horror, starting with 'Shivers', that featured in pretty much all his 1970s films and most of his 1980s ones. It is also interesting for introducing one major theme in six of his twenty one films (different kinds of consciousness of minds through sexual exploration), except all six of those films explored that theme much better, even the weakest two of the six 'Crash' and 'M Butterfly'.
Other than the interest value, the best things about 'Stereo' are the eerie location and the black and white photography, which is not amazing and shows inexperience it did look less amateurish than expected and had atmosphere. Despite being made before 'Shivers' and 'Rabid' (his two worst-looking films from personal view), being on just as low a budget and the rest of his films being much more technically refined for me it looks better than those two.
Not much to recommend about 'Stereo' otherwise, and do regret saying that. Found it to be very dull, going at too slow a pace for a story so slight, making a very short length feel longer. Do think that the comparison to it being like trying to stay awake during a university lecture very apt, because to me it did feel like that having fairly recently finished being a student so the feeling is still fresh. Am really trying not to be mean, if it is coming across that way and apologies if it does. It is an interesting subject and the main theme likewise, but they are badly under-explored.
Also felt that it was too clinical and emotionally distant, usually do feel something watching Cronenberg whether it's being disturbed, being amused at some dark wit or being moved. This is a not so common case of feeling nothing in a Cronenberg film. Cronenberg's inexperience does show, he directs it too coldly and it just feels bland. Sadly, that is not it with the faults. 'Stereo' felt confused and muddled, with it being difficult to follow what was going on. And the over-used and over-complicated, not to mention monotonous, narration doesn't help.
In conclusion, an interesting failure mainly to be watched for Cronenberg completests. 4/10
'Stereo' really isn't one of his best, if anything for me, having literally just seen it, it replaces 'Cosmopolis' as his worst. It is interesting for it being so early on in his career, the first of two short-length feature films ('Crimes of the Future' being the other). Before he introduced and pioneered body horror, starting with 'Shivers', that featured in pretty much all his 1970s films and most of his 1980s ones. It is also interesting for introducing one major theme in six of his twenty one films (different kinds of consciousness of minds through sexual exploration), except all six of those films explored that theme much better, even the weakest two of the six 'Crash' and 'M Butterfly'.
Other than the interest value, the best things about 'Stereo' are the eerie location and the black and white photography, which is not amazing and shows inexperience it did look less amateurish than expected and had atmosphere. Despite being made before 'Shivers' and 'Rabid' (his two worst-looking films from personal view), being on just as low a budget and the rest of his films being much more technically refined for me it looks better than those two.
Not much to recommend about 'Stereo' otherwise, and do regret saying that. Found it to be very dull, going at too slow a pace for a story so slight, making a very short length feel longer. Do think that the comparison to it being like trying to stay awake during a university lecture very apt, because to me it did feel like that having fairly recently finished being a student so the feeling is still fresh. Am really trying not to be mean, if it is coming across that way and apologies if it does. It is an interesting subject and the main theme likewise, but they are badly under-explored.
Also felt that it was too clinical and emotionally distant, usually do feel something watching Cronenberg whether it's being disturbed, being amused at some dark wit or being moved. This is a not so common case of feeling nothing in a Cronenberg film. Cronenberg's inexperience does show, he directs it too coldly and it just feels bland. Sadly, that is not it with the faults. 'Stereo' felt confused and muddled, with it being difficult to follow what was going on. And the over-used and over-complicated, not to mention monotonous, narration doesn't help.
In conclusion, an interesting failure mainly to be watched for Cronenberg completests. 4/10
What c**p!
sabata28 May 2000
I just finished watching an exercise in tedium, STEREO. I'm a fan of David Cronenberg and while I certainly appreciate the fact that this is an early film of his, made for almost no money, that doesn't change the fact that it is totally boring! People do almost nothing while a voiceover tells us about some experiments that are being done in a research center. For 60 minutes. I'm 5 minutes into CRIMES OF THE FUTURE right now and it looks like it could be better.
Cronenberg's psychology
Elvis-Del-Valle2 February 2024
After having made two short films, David Cronenberg made his directorial debut with this experimental film very little known to the public. This is a film that instead of being something simple, here Cronenberg decided to do something that anyone would not be able to process. The film is completely silent, without a soundtrack and without sound. The only thing that is heard is the narrator recounting the experimental process to which the subjects are exposed. It is a film that relies on narration and also on the gestures and mimicry of the characters while the narrator gives context to the scenes. As this is Cronenberg's first feature film and was made experimentally, it is obviously not a gem or a film that anyone can watch because it can be so boring. This film is like a painting in a museum that is only seen for its visual aspect. That the photography is in black and white makes the film look quite abstract, adding to the lack of sound and the way the footage was edited. Although it may be quite tedious, there is one point in its favor and that is that the film uses elements that are oriented towards psychology and psychoanalysis. The film's title refers to the solidity and three-dimensionality of the test subjects during their development. The concept of telekinesis and parapsychology is used in the experiment as a kind of treatment. At the beginning, Gesalt psychology is mentioned, which is known for breaking one of the paradigms of psychology composed of behaviorism. The experiment seen in this film proposes a similar method, which is to break a kind of barrier through telepathy and parapsychology, but it goes further when it touches on the topic of sexuality, emphasizing that society has been conditioning the human being in a way almost similar to behaviorism. With the topic of sexuality in the film, something is raised that is totally correct, but that society refuses to accept. What is proposed is that sexual attraction plays a very important role in the interaction between human beings, and that, furthermore, this attraction has no gender. Near the last minute it is implied that male-female attraction is only valid for reproduction, but since human beings are designed to feel pleasure by any means possible, then attraction towards the opposite sex or the same sex is something natural and essential for human interaction. The film itself confirms this and at the same time suggests that this desire for pleasure can be satisfied by any means other than just physical or biological contact. On that side, the film is oriented towards Freud's psychoanalysis, which states that we all have to satisfy our libido depending on the person or object to which we have deposited our amount of affection. In conclusion, Stereo is an experimental film that, more than being a film, is rather an exercise in psychology and psychoanalysis linked to the social ties of human beings. My final rating for this movie is a 5/10.
For Cronenberg completists only
jamesrupert201414 April 2021
A group of young experimental subjects are isolated in a monolithic sanitarium by the 'Canadian Academy of Erotic Enquiry' in the hope that they will link together in a telepathic state of group consciousness. Likely best known for being David Cronenberg's first film, this talky, low-budget obscurity has little to offer beyond good B/W cinematography and an interesting venue (the newly built Andrews Building on The University of Toronto's Scarborough campus). Presumably the story takes place in a future society (otherwise the costumes are ridiculous) but the budget doesn't extend to any futuristic gadgetry other than the University's state-of-the-art (in 1969) close-circuit television system. Supposedly the whir of the camera precluded use of the sound recording so the film is completely silent other than an emotionless voiceover that is so pretentious and full of pseudo psycho-babble jargon that it borders on parody. Not much happens as the film's brief 65 minutes crawls by, with only a bit of nudity and some nice footage of classic cast-concrete brutalist architecture (a style all the rage for Canadian institutions in the 1960s) to punctuate lengthy periods of silence or tedious exposition. What puzzles me most is how much of the meagre budget was spent on helicopter time and landing permits for the opening shot of a chopper dropping off one of the research subjects (who is dressed like Sir Christopher Lee in one of Hammer's lesser vampire outings). I doubt that anyone but fans and students of the famous Canadian auteur will value the time spent sitting through this minor opus.
brilliant low-budget SF experiment heralds great things to come for director
OldAle113 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2nd viewing. Alongside "Fast Company" on this fine Anchor Bay presentation are Cronenberg's first two experimental low-budget science fiction features, both filmed on a University of Toronto site in Scarborough, Ontario. I'd seen the first, Stereo on a poor-quality bootleg years ago and am pleased to report that not only does the film hold up to a 2nd viewing, the transfer is quite fine. The voice-over narration to the silent-shot black-and-white footage certainly lends some verisimilitude to the pseudo-documentary conceit of an experimental psych lab devoted to telepathy. Various colleagues of the para-psychologist Luther Stringfellow discuss his experiments and theories and how they bear out in a test group of young subjects apparently capable of various ESP abilities; we watch characters wander around alone or interact with each other individually or in small groups, and their strangeness (in particular one young vampirically-dressed man of rather odd visage) alternates between a sort of normal weirdness and something....else. Are they in fact gifted? Is the narration actually in sync with what we are seeing? Watch it and find out; uncommonly fascinating, if somewhat obtuse. Worthy of comparison with Greenaway's early pseudo-documentary shorts.
Cold and clinical experimental film from David Cronenberg
Red-Barracuda24 January 2022
This is David Cronenberg's first feature length film. But even though this one is more fleshed out than his first two short films, don't worry its not accessible at all! This obtuse and clinical effort will try the patience of all but the most fearless film fans. Shot in black and white, this one has no synchronised sound, meaning the imagery is accompanied by either silence or a disembodied voice-over of one of the scientists who explains the - very odd - goings on at an institute where a group of volunteers have had experiments done to their brains to allow telepathy. The lack of sync sound here is probably the biggest issue, as it disengages the viewer from what is happening on screen. The ideas here are definitely kind of interesting though and would rear their heads in a much better fashion in Cronenberg's later head-exploder, Scanners. Its also good visually, with some fine b&w photography but the cold, clinical style ensures you have your work cut out with this one.
Well Made But Not All That Entertaining
Michael_Elliott20 November 2016
Stereo (1969)
** (out of 4)
Ultra bizarre film from David Cronenberg has a group of young people agreeing to have a brain surgery, which will take away their ability to think or feel but they will gain the ability to communicate mentally.
STEREO was the first feature to be directed by the young Cronenber and many people see a connection between this film and his later hit SCANNERS. This film here is certainly a well-made piece but it's one of those movies that you can respect much more than actually enjoy while watching. I say that because the film is certainly very well-made and it has a terrific atmosphere and visual look. I loved the B&W cinematography and I thought the director did a very good job with the look and style.
I'd also argue that the actors do a fine job with their roles but, with all of that said, there's very little else going on with STEREO. The film was shot without any dialogue or even sound effects but every few minutes a narrator will fill us in on the "plot." All of this just really doesn't add anything compelling and in the end the film is rather boring and hard to get through even at just 65-minutes.
** (out of 4)
Ultra bizarre film from David Cronenberg has a group of young people agreeing to have a brain surgery, which will take away their ability to think or feel but they will gain the ability to communicate mentally.
STEREO was the first feature to be directed by the young Cronenber and many people see a connection between this film and his later hit SCANNERS. This film here is certainly a well-made piece but it's one of those movies that you can respect much more than actually enjoy while watching. I say that because the film is certainly very well-made and it has a terrific atmosphere and visual look. I loved the B&W cinematography and I thought the director did a very good job with the look and style.
I'd also argue that the actors do a fine job with their roles but, with all of that said, there's very little else going on with STEREO. The film was shot without any dialogue or even sound effects but every few minutes a narrator will fill us in on the "plot." All of this just really doesn't add anything compelling and in the end the film is rather boring and hard to get through even at just 65-minutes.
regretfully dull and unrewarding...
phasmatrope20 March 2001
While this rare student film of Cronenberg's was certainly a pleasure to come across, it sure as shoot didn't offer much for pleasure or entertainment period once actually viewed. Designed as a "faked" B & W, voiceover-only documentary on the extra-sensory/psychic abilities of a group of young subjects in an enclosed secluded laboratory, with the big problem being that "faked" documentaries on any subject generally manage to make themselves entertaining by being either funny (as was the case with "Spinal Tap," "Waiting For Guffman," "Fear Of A Black Hat," etc.), or disturbing/disgusting/scary/whatever (i.e. "Blair Witch," "The Last Broadcast," "Snuff," etc.) Unfortunately this film didn't seem to try to take any sort of emotional approach to the material--it didn't even have any of the nauseating gore & makeup effects characteristic of his later films like "The Brood" and "The Fly"--and thus simply managed to be tedious and unrewarding.
While it is enjoyable to see some of Cronenberg's early stock actors at work here (some of whom would later have smaller roles in his later films), and the subject matter for the film is an obvious precursor to his later "Scanners," ultimately the darn thing will probably do little more than offer the completists out there some rather unenthusiastic bragging rights. Whatta snooze!
While it is enjoyable to see some of Cronenberg's early stock actors at work here (some of whom would later have smaller roles in his later films), and the subject matter for the film is an obvious precursor to his later "Scanners," ultimately the darn thing will probably do little more than offer the completists out there some rather unenthusiastic bragging rights. Whatta snooze!
Blip Time: Part 2
tieman6424 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
(Due to IMDb word limits, Part 1 of this essay can be found in my review of "Eastern Promises")
Even when Viggo enters the low tech world of the East, he is astoundingly high tech. In a world of knives, Viggo is a cyborg, our post "Existenz" society already producing biotechnological entities. Think the film's cunning ending: Naomi Watts - already identified as a butch lesbian by David Lynch - becomes not the simulation of heterosexual domesticity seen at the end of "A History of Violence", but a husband-less, (she lives with uncle, mother and child) poster-girl for the androgynous, fragmented future of digital capitalism.
By inter-cutting Naomi's goofy simulacrum with a scene of Viggo sitting mournfully at a table, the following question arises: at what price does Viggo establish his neutral status? Does he lose humanity in the process? Is this loss negative? The film's ending, in which Viggo is revealed to be both criminal and cop, good and evil, but neither gangster nor cop, neither good nor evil, suggests a profound loss of humanity. Motionless and seemingly on the verge of tears, Viggo now resembles Verhoeven's "Robocop", reminiscing about what it once was like to be human. In other words, in accepting his neutral status, Viggo removes himself from Naomi, resulting in a kind of further androgynous disassociation. By living in the network society of the West, you're already atomised and mechanised. When you buy cola from the dispenser, you're servicing the Machine, you are its corporeal extension, just as Viggo is now the limb of two warring, nationalist machines. Between one socio-technological agency dominating the other, between DNA programming and competing sociocultural and economic structures that build on this biological instinctive substrate, the film says, there's no place for human subjective agency. As Viggo mourns, "I am neither alive nor dead. I've been living in the zone since I was fifteen."
In a scene in which rival football hooligans macho-stomp through a cemetery, we sense the film's repressed xenophobia and nationalist passions. What "Eastern Promises" promises is a new Cold War: America and the Eastern World in civilisational clinch, in which the West will righteously and bravely undergo a little barbarism, a little queerness, in order to protect its children. And propping up this noble fantasy will be a legion of little Viggo's, socially and psychologically fragmented but better off than the dirty few who are seduced by the false promises of the West only to end up as property at best, dead or sex workers at worst.
What Cronenberg unintentionally captures is the shift away from Michel Foucault's "disciplinary society" (the film's East) and towards a new sort of social formation, which Gilles Deleuze calls the "control society" (the film's West). Whilst the "disciplinary society" operates by organising major sites of confinement (family, school, hospital, factory, prison etc) in which individuals are always going from one closed site to another, each with its own laws etc, the "control society" breaks down all sites of confinement such that ultra rapid forms of apparently free-floating control take over.
The differences between these two forms of social organisation, between Viggo and the film's Mafia Chief, are numerous. Where the disciplinary society was analogical, the control society is digital. Where the disciplinary society was traditional and focused on stability, the control society stresses movement, fragmentation and capital. Where the disciplinary society is closed, traditional and hierarchical, the control society is open, fluid, schizophrenic and rhizomatic. Where the disciplinary society applied rigid molds as forms of confinement, the control society is always in a state of flux, always destroying and rebuilding. Likewise, while the disciplinary society molds the individuality of each person, the control society addresses us instead as what Deleuze calls "dividuals", identities constantly multiplied, decomposed and recomposed on various levels (medical records, credit cards, internet, email, passwords replacing signatures, each identity used for different purposes etc).
This is best seen in the way the film's Mafia Chief mourns the way London "infects his macho son", "breaks him down" and "rebuilds him queer" and the way the Mafia relies on codes, tattoos and rituals to "rigidly build" its own people. In contrast, Viggo not only belongs to the control society, but has mastered it absolutely. He is able to ride the flux, precisely because he's supremely disassociated; alienated from mind and body.
Everyone is subject to the master signifier. To stay alive in the game one has to renounce a measure of pleasure and power; to be castrated, whether male or female. So though "Promises" start out with the feminization motif - the knife slice, the bleeding vagina, the whorification of Viggo, the queering of the son – it, along with Cronenberg's entire filmography, gradually moves to outright impotence. The son is a voyeur, can only watch, can't do anything for himself, can't even kill a baby, while the mother (Naomi Watts) is barren and Viggo has been neutered by the Big Other, his body inscribed with tattoos which attest to a false history, false "tags" of ownership etc. Supremely divided, Watts and Viggo are the new "sucessful" mother and father, "parenting" a child that doesn't belong to them, without being married, living worlds apart, without even knowing one another. In this way castration is redefined in terms of territorialization. Territory is incessantly "deterritorialized" by the unspoken logic of global capitalism, everything is broken down and fragmented, but always allowing for the free flow of desires toward creation/procreation and production/reproduction, which we see in the last scene. The family is nobly destroyed, and what remains is only enough to keep it productive.
9/10 – Though one of Cronenberg's best, "Promises" is too tightly packed, lacking any critical distance or space for a Western audience (whom the film primarily critiques) to reflect properly on its fantasies.
(For Part 3 of my Cronenberg quest, see my review of Cronenberg's "Crash")
Even when Viggo enters the low tech world of the East, he is astoundingly high tech. In a world of knives, Viggo is a cyborg, our post "Existenz" society already producing biotechnological entities. Think the film's cunning ending: Naomi Watts - already identified as a butch lesbian by David Lynch - becomes not the simulation of heterosexual domesticity seen at the end of "A History of Violence", but a husband-less, (she lives with uncle, mother and child) poster-girl for the androgynous, fragmented future of digital capitalism.
By inter-cutting Naomi's goofy simulacrum with a scene of Viggo sitting mournfully at a table, the following question arises: at what price does Viggo establish his neutral status? Does he lose humanity in the process? Is this loss negative? The film's ending, in which Viggo is revealed to be both criminal and cop, good and evil, but neither gangster nor cop, neither good nor evil, suggests a profound loss of humanity. Motionless and seemingly on the verge of tears, Viggo now resembles Verhoeven's "Robocop", reminiscing about what it once was like to be human. In other words, in accepting his neutral status, Viggo removes himself from Naomi, resulting in a kind of further androgynous disassociation. By living in the network society of the West, you're already atomised and mechanised. When you buy cola from the dispenser, you're servicing the Machine, you are its corporeal extension, just as Viggo is now the limb of two warring, nationalist machines. Between one socio-technological agency dominating the other, between DNA programming and competing sociocultural and economic structures that build on this biological instinctive substrate, the film says, there's no place for human subjective agency. As Viggo mourns, "I am neither alive nor dead. I've been living in the zone since I was fifteen."
In a scene in which rival football hooligans macho-stomp through a cemetery, we sense the film's repressed xenophobia and nationalist passions. What "Eastern Promises" promises is a new Cold War: America and the Eastern World in civilisational clinch, in which the West will righteously and bravely undergo a little barbarism, a little queerness, in order to protect its children. And propping up this noble fantasy will be a legion of little Viggo's, socially and psychologically fragmented but better off than the dirty few who are seduced by the false promises of the West only to end up as property at best, dead or sex workers at worst.
What Cronenberg unintentionally captures is the shift away from Michel Foucault's "disciplinary society" (the film's East) and towards a new sort of social formation, which Gilles Deleuze calls the "control society" (the film's West). Whilst the "disciplinary society" operates by organising major sites of confinement (family, school, hospital, factory, prison etc) in which individuals are always going from one closed site to another, each with its own laws etc, the "control society" breaks down all sites of confinement such that ultra rapid forms of apparently free-floating control take over.
The differences between these two forms of social organisation, between Viggo and the film's Mafia Chief, are numerous. Where the disciplinary society was analogical, the control society is digital. Where the disciplinary society was traditional and focused on stability, the control society stresses movement, fragmentation and capital. Where the disciplinary society is closed, traditional and hierarchical, the control society is open, fluid, schizophrenic and rhizomatic. Where the disciplinary society applied rigid molds as forms of confinement, the control society is always in a state of flux, always destroying and rebuilding. Likewise, while the disciplinary society molds the individuality of each person, the control society addresses us instead as what Deleuze calls "dividuals", identities constantly multiplied, decomposed and recomposed on various levels (medical records, credit cards, internet, email, passwords replacing signatures, each identity used for different purposes etc).
This is best seen in the way the film's Mafia Chief mourns the way London "infects his macho son", "breaks him down" and "rebuilds him queer" and the way the Mafia relies on codes, tattoos and rituals to "rigidly build" its own people. In contrast, Viggo not only belongs to the control society, but has mastered it absolutely. He is able to ride the flux, precisely because he's supremely disassociated; alienated from mind and body.
Everyone is subject to the master signifier. To stay alive in the game one has to renounce a measure of pleasure and power; to be castrated, whether male or female. So though "Promises" start out with the feminization motif - the knife slice, the bleeding vagina, the whorification of Viggo, the queering of the son – it, along with Cronenberg's entire filmography, gradually moves to outright impotence. The son is a voyeur, can only watch, can't do anything for himself, can't even kill a baby, while the mother (Naomi Watts) is barren and Viggo has been neutered by the Big Other, his body inscribed with tattoos which attest to a false history, false "tags" of ownership etc. Supremely divided, Watts and Viggo are the new "sucessful" mother and father, "parenting" a child that doesn't belong to them, without being married, living worlds apart, without even knowing one another. In this way castration is redefined in terms of territorialization. Territory is incessantly "deterritorialized" by the unspoken logic of global capitalism, everything is broken down and fragmented, but always allowing for the free flow of desires toward creation/procreation and production/reproduction, which we see in the last scene. The family is nobly destroyed, and what remains is only enough to keep it productive.
9/10 – Though one of Cronenberg's best, "Promises" is too tightly packed, lacking any critical distance or space for a Western audience (whom the film primarily critiques) to reflect properly on its fantasies.
(For Part 3 of my Cronenberg quest, see my review of Cronenberg's "Crash")
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
