Whereas Cronenberg's primary interest is how our perception of reality becomes our reality. In the early movies, this would literally manifest itself in physical form, but he seems to have become far more interested in how our personal mental perception becomes a reality, either through hallucination or a shared belief system (almost always non-religious, though), or both.
I'd put Crash in the shared belief system category.
I was a little disappointed by
Crash.
IIRC, the reason for my disappointment was it wasn't as weird as the book. I think maybe I'll see it again.
ION, anyone seen
Your Highness?
From what I've heard, it's basically a bunch of dick-jokes. And it's very funny, apparently.
From what I've heard, it's basically a bunch of dick-jokes. And it's very funny, apparently.
That's basically how DH felt - [link]
That's basically how DH felt - [link]
Cool. I just saw
The Dark Crystal
last night. Maybe I'll watch
Labyrinth
and then catch
Your Highness
after that.
I'm so glad I asked about Crash. Maybe I'll check out the novel. I wonder why filmmakers feel the need to tackle 'unfilmable' books.
I wonder why filmmakers feel the need to tackle 'unfilmable' books.
Because there's no committee that decides unfilmable?
Plus, who doesn't like a challenge!
I wonder why filmmakers feel the need to tackle unfilmable books.
That reminds me of one of my first film classes at NYU, which was "Film and Literature" taught by Alain Robbe-Grillet. The first day he opened Proust and read the first line aloud ("Longtemps je me suis couché de bonne heure...") and basically asked, "How do you film that? You can't. I don't believe in adaptation." Um, okay? It went downhill from there.