MovieChat Forums > Shivers Discussion > What was the deal with the two kids on t...

What was the deal with the two kids on the stairs

posted 17 years ago by kohntarkosz
23 replies | jump to latest

I saw the movie for the first time last night. Very disturbing, but I guess that's what Cronenberg was going for. Very good.

Anyway, there's the bit towards the end where St. Luc is trying to escape from the apartment building, and he's going down the stairs, and you see a very quick glimpse of two kids on all fours, with leashes and collars on, apparently naked. What was that about? Presumably, this is the result of the virus getting to the kids, but their behaviour came off as more "mad" or "demented" than "sexually out of control". Any thoughts?

[–] shane-305 17 years ago

I don't remember them being naked and if they were I'm glad I missed that. The scene you are talking about is VERY brief, thankfully. Like you said, they were leashed and being "walked" by (judging from a brief view of a leg), an adult. I'm sure you are aware that treating women in such a fashion is a turn on in some fetish circles, sort of a BSDM thing I think. A means of degrading someone before using them. I'm no expert in that field. The fact it was two kids suggests an extremely twisted pedophillic fantasy being played out. Frankly that scene disturbed me as the two kids were obviously into their roles (panting). Ew.

[–] LeonardPine 17 years ago

They weren't naked, they were wearing bikinis. There is a paedophilic element to the brief scene but then in a building ravaged by a disease that turns people into sexual maniacs, this kind of perversion was bound to rear its head.
Remember the scene where the little girl infects the security guard by kissing him on the mouth? Cronenberg never pulls his punches.

"I felt my pecker flutter once, like a pigeon havin' a heart attack"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LeonardPine 17 years ago

The difference is that the Saw and Hostel movies are simply there to shock, with little or no redeeming qualities other than that. Cronenberg whatever you think of him has interesting ideas and always has something to say in his movies.

"I felt my pecker flutter once, like a pigeon havin' a heart attack"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] basileos 17 years ago

You know, even though it was brief, a scene like that would never ever be allowed to see the light of day today. No one would dare film it. But it was important to the movie, especially since we earlier saw the young girl in the elevator get infected. The viewer needs to know how the parasite reacts with children. We saw how it reacted with seniors after all.

The funny thing is, I have seen several different "cuts" of the movie. The dog leash scene is always there, the lesbian sex is always there, the pseudo-rape at the beginning is always there. The one scene that seems to get cut out is the one with the two gay guys going after the doctor.

[–] kohntarkosz 17 years ago

<<The viewer needs to know how the parasite reacts with children. We saw how it reacted with seniors after all. >>

Interesting point. And I never thought about the pedophilliac or BDSM aspects of what was happening there. It just seemed weird. BTW, aren't those the same two kids who are seen playing in the hallways earlier in the movie, who see the slug crawling out of the mail slot?

And I didn't mean to suggest they were literally naked. The camera cuts away so quickly, I wasn't sure if it was meant to conceal the fact that the children would obviously have SOMETHING on, but we're supposed to THINK they're naked. Kind of makes me think about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, where people THOUGHT they were seeing stuff that wasn't actually happening on screen.

[–] DisturbedPixie 16 years ago

My first fantasy when I was young girl was to be tied up or on a leash, so i can relate to these boys where that is the first thing they end up doing infected. I don't do that kind of stuff, it was just a childhood fantasy.

I agree on us not knowing for sure whether they were naked.

The part after the gay guys try to seduce the doctor, and the young woman and her father were asking for a three some... ewww. Jeez, this movie just knew how to push the boundaries.

If you are Anti-American: Admit you are doing it just to be cool. Does it feel good to hate?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skinypupp 16 years ago

And you don't think that some women enjoy treating men or each other that way?

I actually viewed this scene as that the Director was pretending the children were bloodhounds searching for the Doctor...

[–] blahdyblahdyblah 17 years ago

Where is this part? I definitely didn't see it.

[–] iainhammer 17 years ago

I just watched this again (full 88 minute version) on Showtime tonight. I hadn't seen it in 33 years - the first time was on a double bill with Cannibal Girls (and whatever happened to that comedy-horror gem?!) at the London Pavilion, when it was still a movie house and not a ghastly Museum of Rock or whatever its latest incarnation is (oh god there I go again). ANYWAY it was fascinating seeing Shivers again - it's much more subversive than I recall, and yes, I agree with others on this board that the frisky gay couple in the corridor were, I'm 99% sure, cut out of the print that was released back in the UK in the 1970s. As for the paedophilia, I think it would be difficult to miss it; what about the creepy older guy offering his young daughter to Roger?
And the 'kids on the leash' moment is rendered particularly disturbing in that we don't see who is holding the leash... Cronenberg's remarkable prescience (Shivers was released about five years before HIV/AIDS became a tangible presence on the socio/psycho-sexual landscape) confirms yet again that the man is, no argument, a genius with a rare, dark, yet strangely invigorating vision.

UPDATE: I just checked on the British Board of Film Classification site (bbfc.co.uk) and Shivers was, in fact, passed without any cuts on its initial UK release. So I was 99% wrong about the jolly gay couple. Mea culpa, and doesn't memory play tricks? I stand by the rest of my comments however, especially what I said about the brilliant Mr Cronenberg.

[–] hanikingkong 16 years ago

ok i saw this movie 15 years ago and i saw it an hour ago ,
after i read some replies here ,sure its fantastic film
but i still cant figure out :
how she got infected ?
,i was thinking maybe she got infected after the man attached her in her apartment ? but im really not sure here
====spoilers =======
another thing : does her dream explaination was just a dream or
that what actually happened with an old man having
sex with her from one of those wierd neibours ?
anyways...
i did laughed hard when these 2 gay people were peeking through
the door lenses ,my boss at work just looked like EXActly
like the guy with the mostache LOL

[–] peteepabl0 16 years ago

I think the nurse got infected from when the security guard attacks her in the garage and the doctor ends up shooting him in the back but it's too late. After that scene you can see blood coming from the corner of her mouth which would indicate one of those stupid slug things had been transferred.

Also, I LOVED the scene with the kids on the leashes simply for the doctor's reaction after seeing them. He's going down the stairs, sees them come out..and then just kind of nonchalantly turns right around and goes back up the stairs with virtually no reaction. If you hadn't seen the shot of the kids, you could have assumed just as easily that he'd forgotten his car keys upstairs or something. Too funny!

[–] Woodyanders 16 years ago

That brief shot was genuinely shocking. I applaud Croenberg for having the guts to include such a startling taboo moment in this film.

"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] political-terror 16 years ago

Did anyone realise that the creepy older guy offering his young daughter to Roger is David Cronenberg doing his Hitchcokian cameo ? He also appears in his remake of The Fly as a gynacologist, don't want to say more for people who havn't seen the movie. I think he's also in Rabid and Dead Ringers, but not sure off the top of my head.

"The Ripe project is cold and Cruel"

[–] hollywoodpsychic 15 years ago

I (and the person I watched this with) immediately thought he was referencing Salo.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073650/

In Salo (which I can't imagine Cronenberg being unaware of at the time), The tormentors degrade the captive children at one point by leading them around on dog collars while tossing food at them. It's one of the most iconic images of the film. It even made the covers of some releases and at least one of the film's posters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Saloposter.jpg
http://www.lovefilm.com/lovefilm/images/products/9/4029-large.jpg

But even if he didn't intentionally set out to reference Salo, the sight of those children was definitely startling. That one image punched up the level of chaos and sexual insanity quite a bit, and adds to the overall feeling of perversion and madness coursing through that building.

A lot of strange things happen in this world. Things you don't know about in Grand Rapids.

[–] RashaTheGreat 15 years ago

didnt shivers and salo come out in the same year, ergo they were being made simultaneously, ergo it would have been impossible for cronenberg to know the contents of sale while he was making shivers? just a thought

[–] political-terror 15 years ago

Good point indeed. Shivers is a pioneering work and owes more to JG Ballard's High Rise for inspiration. I'm certain the Roman's engaged in such sexualised antics as children on leashes making them fight to the death before ordering the victors to copulate.

The modern world is a morass of moral panic, Long live the new flesh

[–] marc_hendriks_2000 15 years ago

The old man is not played by Cronenberg. The director appears as one of the crazies who snatch the girl away from Dr. St. Luc.

www.wix.com/monstruos/marchendriks

[–] Kurt-150 14 years ago

There is good BDSM and bad (degrading) BDSM. Collars & pet play are not necessarily a means of insulting the submissive. Do you necessarily insult your dog when you take it for a walk? Often, there's an adult-child relationship implied through sexual/bdsm rituals, so I take this scene as a parent/child relationship being shown through a dark sexual lens. In other words the people are now sex zombies but haven't completely lost their former personalities -- they simply sexualize everything about themselves.

Of course you can say "it's just a movie" or "it's just there for shock" but any controversial scene in any film can be written off that way. Auteurs tend to choose shots & edits for a reason. Hacks are more random.

[–] byteM3 13 years ago

...Do I want to see this? Yes. Yes I do...

Killing people is easy...if you can forget the taste of sugar.