Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (111 of them)
What was particularly weak about A History of Violence? The previews put me off, but fortunately it was one of those movies that's nothing like how the previews suggest it'll be. Much more straight-up than your usual Cronenberg (didn't see Spider), but with some seriously blacke humour in parts. Very enjoyable.
Also.... ballard on cronenberg
― wings hauser (davidcarp), Thursday, 4 January 2007 17:13 (seventeen years ago) link
four years pass...
When people say, well, “A Dangerous Method” doesn’t seem very Cronenbergian — I always say I prefer “Cronenburgundian” — it’s irrelevant to me. Creatively it means nothing.
As a director you’re literally making 2,000 decisions a day, and no one else is going to make those same decisions. So it’s definitely going to be your movie, in the sense that everything filters through your nervous system and your sensibility, and you don’t have to worry about it beyond that. Whether it’s obviously what people think of as a Cronenberg movie or not is irrelevant. And when I’m making a movie I forget all my other movies. It’s as if they don’t exist, other than the craft and the experience, which of course is there. As I say ad nauseam, the movie tells you what it wants, and you give it what it needs, in terms of style, in terms of what lens you choose for the close-ups — the classic long lens, or the more interesting wide-angle lens where the camera’s closer to the person and the background is more in focus than it would be otherwise.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/03/david_cronenberg_its_as_if_my_old_movies_dont_exist/singleton/
― Dr Morbius, Sunday, 18 December 2011 17:30 (twelve years ago) link