MovieChat Forums > Shivers Discussion > Attack on the bourgeoisie???

Attack on the bourgeoisie???

posted 20 years ago by rumpelstiltskin-1
9 replies | jump to latest

According to some film critics, this film was supposed to be an attack on the bourgeois lifestyle. I ask: why do some people look for such subliminal messages when they CLEARLY DON'T EXIST? To me, those critics are just talking nonsense. I'm not connected in any way to the bourgeois culture but I just find such comments ridiculous. It's simply a film which wanted to take cinema that bit further and at the time, sex was certainly a pretty taboo subject. No doubt this film shocked many people.

I don't know if many people noticed but at the end when the doctor was standing outside the swimming pool and the two young ladies were coming towards him and he finally gets pushed into the pool by a mob of people coming in from outside, he seemed to accept his fate and stopped struggling. Although I'm not sure as to why exactly those two girls on a leash were on all fours at the bottom of the stairs. Some kind of S/M connotation? Degrading pornographic imagery? As in, they are acting like sluts??

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rumpelstiltskin-1 20 years ago

No, you're wrong there, since I have Naked Lunch and Videodrome and interpreted them without any major problems. But anyway, care to enlighten me, since your response wasn't exactly mind-boggling?

[–] JEL66 20 years ago

How are you defing bourgeois? Not being of a political bent, I found this contradiction:

Concepts such as personal liberties, religious and civil rights, and the freedom to live and trade all derive from bourgeois philosophies.

Narrowmindedness, materialism, hypocrisy, opposition to change, and lack of culture were a few of the negatives characteristics attributed to them by Moliere and others.

The only comment that I've ever heard from Cronenberg on his intentions is that he was rooting for the parasites! Our "hero" isn't much of one. Watch him carefully, he shows little if any warmth towards his girlfriend and zero sexual interest. At the end of the film comes the real payoff, a shot I always find hilarious: as the tenants all leave in their cars in the morning, the hero and his girlfriend pause for a moment to light up cigarettes. The famous poist-coital smoke, symbol of satisfaction!

The movie obviously plays with society's horror at all thoughts of the body and fears of all things sexual...but I tend to think that it being a wholesale "attack on the bourgeoisie" is a bit of a stretch. But then like I said, that's not really my field of thought.

[–] rumpelstiltskin-1 20 years ago

When I say 'bourgeoisie' I'm really referring to the way Marx defined the term. Marx took it to mean the social classes that were oppressing the proletariat i.e working-class, so middle class, upper class and ruling class.
But I would agree with you that the film is about how society views (or viewed at the time) anything sexual with fear and suspicion, as a kind of a taboo subject. Most of Cronenberg's films have sex as a vital component.

I mean, Shivers, Rabid, Dead Ringers, The Fly, Videodrome, Naked Lunch.....
Cronenberg also seems to be very skeptical and cynical of anything related to the capitalist system. For example, the mass media in Videodrome, politicians in Dead Zone, society's (and the media's to a large extent) fear and disgust of homosexuality in Naked Lunch, etc.

[–] JEL66 20 years ago

I've never heard or read any statement from Cronenberg on his personal leanings regarding philospophies of governement - capitalism, socialism, or any other. Criticism is a natural and healthy response to any system of government, whether one is pro- or anti-. One should be aware of potential cause for harm. You should see Scanners, you'll get more to back up your take on him there! Big government working with big business against the people. The opposition don't seem to reflect any particular philosophy that I could tell, but they're not portrayed as a healthy alternative.

The Dead Zone is one, I believe, where he was hired on rather than the material being his own choice. In Rabid, he's critical of the government for instituting Martial Law, but not overtly - the criticism is implied by the tone of the repression. Moreover, he's recreating a real-life incident that he recalls with some disgust (this learned from the commentary track). In his second least-loved movie M. Butterfly, he's none too gentle on communist China, but he's again proceeding from another writer's play and script without hinting at his own personal views on capitalism, socialism, or any other ism - not to say they weren't there, but that I couldn't see them.

What is the argument that claims homophobia and fear/repression of sexuality is fostered or perpetuated by capitalism? I don't see the basis for that. Sexuality deemed "perverted" or "abnormal" has seldom fared well under any system of social governement when prejudice is invoked.

Anyway, what's next for you? If you're really getting into Cronenberg, you might want to check out Crash (his most controversial) and The Brood (best of his earliest movies - evolving away from the exploitation style and doing deeper, more personal work).

[–] rumpelstiltskin-1 20 years ago

Actually, I recently purchased The Fly

I want to see what eXistenZ and Spider are like because they look quite intriguing, particularly Spider

[–] whateveridontgiveadamn2002 19 years ago

EXistenZ is really random but cool

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]