I just watched this film after hearing of it for many years. I'm a huge fan of Rick Baker's work and enjoyed the FX greatly.
I guess I kept expecting some sort of explanation, plot twist or maybe it was all a dream, but that didn't happen.
I'm not some troll who's gonna yell "WORST MOVIE EVER!", but it just went over my head. (IMO)
Yeah nah i got no clue either
sharethere are threads explaining the basics of the film as well as thoughts about it. Search and you´ll find!
shareYeah, it's one of those movies where it's really beneficial to read threads analyzing the film after you watch it. We're lucky living in the internet age-I can imagine this movie going over viewer's heads even more so in 1983, than it does nowadays. I was pleased that the posts in this thread haven't been the typical angry, kneejerk responses, like "worst movie ever" "total garbage", "didn't make any sense so it sucked", etc. They're more akin to "I'd be lying to say this movie didn't go over my head at least a little bit, but I still recognize the intrigue and value of the film". That's commendable.
shareAdding some of my thoughts, though, I see Videodrome as both a possible critic on TV and video watching that without a doubt has changed our way of thinking AND actually, feeling, possibly more than any other invention of the 20th century, par computers. BUT also the talk about the "New Flesh" is Our Future. Where will we go? Ask the young who grow up with computers and internet from the cradle. Why bother about the physical reality when the videoworld/internet/computer world offer anything between information, interaction, communication and entertainment? When we are dead, what will future generations do in and about the physical world? Some kids just dont go out anymore! We are mutating already. Thats what I think Cronenberg wanted to explore. And the very real aspects of these thoughts we can see signs of already, although the film was made in 1983 and is a science fiction idea.
shareThere are so many aspects of this film that are possibly more relevant today, in an internet culture, than they were in 1983 in a (growing) video culture. I hope David Cronenberg is proud of that -- but yeah, there are still parts of this movie that I'm trying to wrap my head around after first seeing it this weekend.
I wonder if James Woods' "Videodrome" joke on "Family Guy" has gotten this movie any more attention.
Thanks for your post and your observation. Its always fun and thought challenging to discuss Cronenberg...
shareYes it made me do a flash back because I HATE James Woods but loved "Videodrome"
Delinquent Nancy*
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
I think you hit the general theme: we merge with our technology. One can argue that this has been true since the first humans. But perhaps it hasn't been as clear until now where we carry our cellphones around like an appendage. Cronenberg probably caught the first whiff of this in the early eighties. Access to video reduced the cost of production. It's relative affordability made access to the technology easier. People could now record their dreams onto a video cassette and beam the images around the world. Any person can unleash his or her darkest impulses, thoughts, and desires onto the world, even the nightmares; especially the nightmares.
Fast forward 30 years. It's the 21st Century. We have the internet. We have phones which connect us to these pathways of information and communication. We even have the technology for neurological implants. If Ray Kurzweil is correct, humans will be able to download themselves into some electronic medium before the end of the century. We are, as you noted, mutating. So Cronenberg presents us with a literal interpretation of the merger between human (flesh) and machine (technology). Together, they are the New Flesh.
Whether or not the experiences in the movie are hallucinations or not is therefore beside the point, or at least moot. The mutation has already begun although within the movie, it's happening at an accelerated pace.
As an aside, if you think it's bad here in the US, consider the hikikomori phenomenon in Japan. There are young adults who have no jobs, live with their parents, never leave their childhood rooms, and stay connected to the internet all the time. I'm sure we have them here in the states, but it seems more widespread in Japan. I could be wrong.
Anyway, wrapping this up—In Videodrome there is no difference between physical reality and the "videoworld/internet/computer world." There's no boundary. It's the new flesh in the new world. Although that's the way it has always been (my thesis). We have always been our technology.
Addenda
I. It just occurred to me that Brian Oblivion could be a simple anagram for Brain Oblivion. There's a blog that made the same observation: http://subliminalsynchrosphere.blogspot.com/2013/11/videodrome-long-li ve-nu-flesh.html
[deleted]
*critique
shareActually I am sort of surprised to see this thread, and I am even more surprised that other's didn't get this movie. I saw it in 1984 on hotel closed movie feed... I thought it was great but maybe it was just Debbie Harry - LOL! I some how made it till 1995 computer/internet free, used the phone (no texting), and mailed band promo packages... Crazy
Delinquent Nancy*
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
I agree. I remember this movie from what seems like a million years ago so I revisited it.
Even after growing up and being "educated" I watched this again and the only thing I could muster to say was "Alllllllrighty then".
**Peace**
I don't profess to understand this movie, but I'd like to propose a theory. I believe this film is about how Television and video shape our reality. At the time the film was made everyone had at least one tv in their home, video's were exploding in the marketplace. cable was really taking off. It was the first time in history everyone was plugged in so to speak. TV and video's influence had grown very strong. I think the film is a metaphor for the level of control TV had on people. Sex and violence had become very popular with viewers, which is why the film emphasizes them so much. It's what people craved at the time, and crave even more now. James Wood's reality was increasingly being shaped by tv until he gave himself completely to it. I think ther new flesh was total emergence. It's interesting that what this film spoke about has now become true. Our culture is almost completely absorbed by the media. This movie stands up so well because it was way ahaead of it's time.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I think their is alot more their and that one could watch this film over and over and not pick up everything. It really is brilliant.
Maybe it's me but I didn't find this film too hard to "get it." I watched it back in 1983 and was fascinated with the possibilities. 30 years later, it's still a very provactive film. It makes you horrified. It makes you squirm. It makes you think. Isn't that what a horror film is supposed to do?
shareWild Guess - could it be as simple as Max killed himself just so he could feel something, to make sure he's still alive in the real world, and not dreaming/hallucinating? In fact when watching the scene where he kills himself, what popped into my head was that line from the Goo Goo Dolls's "Iris" -
" When everything feels like the movies
Yeah, you bleed just to know you're alive".
Ditto MrHooba and I agree on all the positive input folks have contributed to these great theories
Delinquent Nancy*
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
"Even after growing up and being "educated" I watched this again and the only thing I could muster to say was "Alllllllrighty then".
"
Just viewed it and thought that too. LOL
http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com
There aren't many threads on this board... maybe IMDb deleted them... but after I read a couple where people try to explain it.... I feel like they are reaching for some things that aren't there to get.
Spoilers below
I still don't get what was a hallucination and what was reality and what was happening in the last 20-30 minutes. I don't get the new flesh... how is new flesh born from shooting your brains out? I get freeing yourself from the physical world full of manipulation, but there is no flesh in the after life-- so what's up with that? How would killing yourself take down Videodrome? That seems nonsensical and maybe Videodrome is tricking him into stopping the new flesh mission.
How can anyone possibly take in a gun and a couple video tapes and bullets into their stomach and come out viable? Even his pirate friend-enemy seems to see this video being inserted, so it's not a hallucination unless it all is including his interactions in the last 20 minutes or so.
Overall, I didn't find the film very enjoyable, and I love horror movies, and choose them above other genres, but this entire thing was odd and unpleasant without gain. I guess that's a subgenre in itself, but I am entitled to my opinion, and I don't get it and don't like it, and I don't think anyone can really say they get it. I think fans can project what they want it to be, and that's pretty much as far as it goes. Also I know combing sex and violence is my least enjoyable moments in some horror films, and this seems to thrive on just doing that. Maybe it has to do with me not being prone to rape fantasies, as there was a crap load of rapey moments, and I don't see value in a rape metaphor piled on top of another and another and another.
I get how one can say it's about media projecting sex and violence and how it changes us... but that's not enough for an entire film with all that weird exploding pirate, bubbling mutilated flesh, hand eating vagina stomach/VCP. flesh guns, and whipping tvs and such. It seemed to be there with less of a message and more for a "WTF" factor. I wouldn't say that's quality story telling. It's non coherent.
5/10 for the special effects and attempt at a valuable message. It's not utter crap, and I don't go around looking at art in museums and saying it's garbage, but I still don't go, ya know what I mean? I don't watch movies for the experience of making up my own plot based on what I see. I watch to explore what's really there, and I'm done trying to explore this as any more than shock value on top of weird for the sake of weird without a solid point. Even the bad guys didn't seem to have a point as they want people to watch it but thy are disgusted by the people who watch it, and somehow that's gonna help the good old USA or something? Pfh.
I'm done with my choice form of communication... the monologue. Good day.
What a weird premise. I couldn't make I past 20 minutes or so. I read the wiki review after & I feel I made the right call.
-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®
I read the wiki review after & I feel I made the right call.I've never been to the Sistine Chapel, but a friend of mine has, and she did a lovely interpretive dance to show me what I missed.
I've always thought of this film as being not so much about technology, but what you can do with it/have done to you by it. Cronenberg studied under media theorist Marshall McLuhan in college, the man famous for saying about television, "The medium is the message." Television was a new force that was shaping people's consciousness in ways that had never before been possible.
"Videodrome" depicts a battle between competing ideologies that are using the medium of television to get their message across to the masses; on one side is Barry Convex and his conservative, corporatist/fascist desire to enforce conformity by ridding the world of people who would want to watch "a scum show like Videodrome." On the other, Brian Oblivion, who wanted to use this new tool to open up new possibilities for human growth and progress. Max is first "programmed" by Convex to become an assassin, then counter-programmed by Bianca to destroy the Videodrome conspiracy from within. None of his hallucinations were real. They were only a symptom of the Videdrome signal's effects on his brain and his perception of reality.
It's no accident that this film was made during the Reagan revolution in the United States, with its attendant rhetoric about moral superiority and strength in the face of a dangerous world. Cronenberg supposedly got the idea for the story after hearing paranoid rumors in Canada about the U.S. government using TV signals to somehow control people's minds. All in all, it's rather intellectual for a horror film.
"Beethoven had his critics too, Keith. See if you can name three of 'em."
totally agree with you
shareI always felt that the film was about the dangers of extreme violent television as entertainment. The early years of video there weer all sorts of rumours about snuff videos and you just have to see YouTube to see actual killings.
Of course Cronenberg adds a political subtext.
Its that man again!!
videodrome was really far ahead of its time. i really don't find it that hard to understand either. if you watch the film 2 or 3 times its really pretty simple.
share[deleted]
well first off, what is it that you did not understand? ill try my best to explain what i think the film is about. but first, what is it that you did not get??
share[deleted]
The contraption is a mislead.
You need to pay attention from the first scene. Max was asleep. We see his secretary on TV. In fact a lot of major characters are introduced to us by television screen. So do they even exist? Did Max ever wake up?
He was hallucinating/dreaming long before we ever got a gander at the Videodrome clips or he put on his VR headset.
In essence, Videodrome was already reality both in the film and in reality, the television. Videodrome is the program, the medium is the message (Cronenberg studied under McLuhan).
What the film is saying that TV can shape our world and perceptions. Anyone with a philosophy (propaganda) can shape the message to fit their agenda and change our brains. TV is the perfect medium to do this because our brains literally cannot tell the difference between virtual reality (TV, Games, Films) and reality.
Do you react to scenes in your favorite tv show, film or game with real anger, laughter, sadness etc? Congrats...that is Videodrome.
What Cronenberg is saying is don't just watch the media...look for the message...look for the philosophy.
Some conservative and bigot people discover a way to kill lustful and degenerate part of the Nation, persons who love watching porn, using a TV program, Videodrome, broadcasted through a frequence which makes "bad" people die of brain cancer.
They experiment the program on the protagonist who begins suffering illusions and distorsions of reality. When the disease worsens, the main character is ordered to kill his two parners. Not only he does as they want, but in the end he commits suicide, leaving its channel to the Videodrome project.
That's it.
All the weird scenes are hallucinations of the protagonist.
They may be related to the way somebody can feel when his body is invaded by a disease like cancer.
nice.
Hey could you loan me some of that Adderal until my scrip comes due?
Sounds like your dose is a little high anyway, FYI.
I'm always lost in a Cronenberg film, and he's not even David Lynch.
He must be a genius.
http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/676-medium-cruel-reflections-on -videodrome
[deleted]