Crimes of the Future is set in a future where sexually mature women appear to have been obliterated by a plague produced by the use of cosmetics. The film details the wanderings of Adrian Tripod, director of the dermatological clinic the House of Skin. Tripod seems at a loss following the disappearance of his mentor Antoine Rouge.
Similar titles
Reviews
This line is normally where I put the plot, but the plot is unclear to me... a group of people who live in an institution for bizarre venereal diseases, perhaps? This film is David Cronenberg's follow-up to "Stereo", and aside from a slightly bigger budget and moving from monochrome to color, it is clear that his themes have not shifted much (if at all). He loves the medical institutions, the sterile surroundings of the hospital, and the imposing architecture (camera shots repeatedly make the building look bigger and the hallways longer than the reality most likely is).He again talks of medical abnormality, something he would visit again in "Rabid" and "The Brood" and "Scanners". The special effects are played down here, with a discussion of new organs having few visuals to back up the idea (some indecipherable mass in a jar). The film as a whole is really an artistic exploration of minimalism. Most scenes involve characters sitting still for minutes at a time, hardly any words are spoken (though numerous discomforting sounds are heard). The whole film's plot is drawn out by a voice-over (perhaps calling to mind Chris Marker's "La Jetee").What differentiates great directors from poor ones is, in my opinion, the ability to know your limits and to stretch the limits while keeping the budget in mind. Cronenberg fits into this category of greatness. Like early Kubrick ("The Killing"), he knows he has no budget but makes up for it with stark contrast and searing images. While this is by no means Cronenberg's best work, it is clear to see that given another script and a bigger budget, he has the vision. He frames each scene very carefully, the camera actually taking in more than is actually there in the process.Your average viewer would watch this and, even at the very short 62 minute running time, declare it a waste of film. Who wants to watch a bunch of ugly men in a courtyard while a voice talks about venereal disease and the need to impregnate a child? But a film student or scholar may see the film differently. Clearly, knowing what we know now about Cronenberg's success makes me biased. But still, the germ of directing genius is present here.
Cronenberg's second feature length shot is no radical departure from the first - still obscure, still static, still dwarfed by that hypermodern architectural location. But it is an advance. The color cinematography is more precise than that of "Stereo", and the silences are broken by bizarre, muffled sound loops that sound like nature LPs put through a Seth Brundle telepod. The narrative has taken on more forward motion this time, and is better integrated with the voice-over. And the absurdist humour is more precise, more pervasive, and less improvisational: you feel he's got control over the actors as well as the camera. And in the final sequence he pulls a real gotcha, as the rebel doctors set out to impregnate the little girl they have kidnapped; this palpably tasteless, horrifying scenario could have been played for easy irony, but the scene carefully choreographs a series of complex and challenging emotional reactions to this 'strange, unfathomable captive', sending us out the door on a mind-bending curve that both foreshadows and illuminates his later bravura nose-thumbing atrocities.
OK this flick is all artsyfartsy... but it does have some goodness in it. the characters are interesting, and acting is not at all bad. the script is something totally different...cinematography is not that bad, although some little mistakes are to be found in smoothness.i think that for example eraser head is much more interesting as this one lags quite abit thus becoming somewhat boring.but it does have the same sense as does spider later... (although cronenburgeonerd has sort of made 2 really piece of sh*t movies now... history of violence, and eastern promises, compared to the older stuff) this is a good movie for those who want to start making movies, and critics, and hardcore crounenburgrelers movies =D... but for others not really of any value.
Spoilers herein.You might find this interesting if you are in search of something deeper in Cronenberg's mind than what is apparent in his later projects. I think that rather than they being watered down, they are a blooming of early intuitions.Or, you might find this engaging on its own, as an economical dive into obsession. I myself am in this camp, and though all but the last 5 minutes is tedious, it has one of the best conceived endings I've seen recently.Its a cheap shot in a way, using a child. But so effective that at the time we should have known that we had a man who is both original and has the competence to express his vision. This indeed presages crimes of his future.But if you want a more competent and bizarre treatment of the same, check out 'Institute Benjementa.'Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.