There’s no doubt that widely renowned and influential filmmaker David Cronenberg has produced a diverse contribution to cinematic displays. Hs prosperity to create imagery that is once disturbing and provocative, Cronenberg has issued breakthroughs in films which were both horrifying and appealing in equal measures, these reveal Cronenberg’s pioneering employment of the concept of “body Horror”, but perhaps more significantly, they raise an abundance of questions for critiques and viewers alike.
“Our own perception of reality is the only one we’ll accept; it’s all we have to go on, and, if you’re going mad, that is still your reality.”
– David Cronenberg [[2] Lucas, 1983]Cronenberg gained popularity with the headexploding, telepathy-based Scanners (1981) after
the release of the much underrated, controversial, and autobiographical The Brood(1979). Cronenberg becomes a sort of a mass media guru with Videodrome (1983), a shocking investigation of the hazards of reality-morphing television and a prophetic critique of contemporary aesthetics. The issues of tech-induced mutation of the human body and topics of the prominent dichotomy between body and mind were back again in The Dead Zone (1983), and The Fly (1986). All of which was/is heavily influenced by Japanese body horror. [[6] IMDb, 2020]
“Reality is what you make of it. It’s almost as though you chose one, and you cling to it. We see that politically… You see these people living out of a different reality, and they’re acting on it. And they’re not compatible realities, but they are ferociously devoted to these realities. It’s kind of interesting, when it's not terrifying. And you realise that they will kill people to maintain the level of realness of those realities. That’s a scary thing, but it’s a very human thing. No other creatures in the universe do that.”
– David Cronenberg [[1] Kaufman, 2003]
In this example, I’ll be focusing on how the creative research of David Cronenberg influenced his version of producing the film “The Fly” [[5] 1986].
Different animal species evoke distinctive, emotional reactions in humans. There are two sides to this: the positive and the negative; the positive emote feelings of affection, admiration, and aesthetic pleasure; the negative emote feelings of fear, revulsion, and aesthetic displeasure. Animals like a cat or dog, birds and butterflies etc., tend to fall under the positive reactions, whereas animals like sharks, worms, rats and mice, snakes, spiders and flies etc., fall under the negative category. With some animals, we smile; with others, we shudder.
Flies have a habit of invading human space – taking up residence in our houses, eating our food, seemingly drawn by our orifices. Their most notorious trait of attraction for human garbage, rotting flesh, and faeces. The things we find most disgusting seem to excite their ravenous little appetites the most. This associates the creatures with the negative outlook and is perceived as contaminating and disgusting.
Flies represent in concentrated from the invasion of filth on the human domain; they exist in close proximity to humans, they thrive on what we produce in the way of filth and waste. This factor Makes a relatable reference in a horror film scarier, latching onto the exaggeration on dirty and gross creatures.
Many animals could have played this role in the film, but somehow the despised fly seemed the most inspiring choice: to become a creature we regard with such revulsion; and strikes us as the most terrible of tragedies, the most horrifying of outcomes. A bee would have been bearable; a butterfly might even have been quite nice. But to turn into a fly – that is utter degradation and cruel comeuppance. [4]
Bibliography
[1] Kaufman, Anthony. (2003). David Cronenberg on Spider. Reality is what you make of it, indieWIRE. Available: http://www.indiwire.com/people/people_030228cronen.html. Last assessed:23rd February 2022
[2] Lucas, Tim. (1983). The image as virus: filming videodrome. Piers Handling(ed.) Te Shape of Rage: The Films of David Conenberg. Toronto. p149-p158
[3] Mathijs, Ernest (2008). The Cinema of David Cronenberg from Baron of Blood to Cultural Hero. Great Britain: Wallflower Press.
[4] McGinn, C. Freeland, C. Ludlow, P. Snowdon, P. (2012). Body Horror and Bodily Transformation. In: Riches, Simon The Philosophy of David Cronenberg. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. P9-p65.
[5] The Fly. (1986), David Cronenberg. Available: amazon prime video. Date viewed: 18th February 2022
[6] Unknown. (2020). David Cronenberg Biography. Available: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000343/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm.Last accessed 21st February 2022.
there was extensive evidence used appropriately and you answered the question completely, nice use of quotations and the introduction set the piece up nicely. insightful observation about how different animals are used. nice!
The way you have explored the work of David Cronenberg is in itself creative and you're choice of vocabulary reflects this. This is very thoroughly researched and ultimately a very interesting piece to read. I was particularly interested in the mention of Japanese body horror and your discussion of the symbolism of different insects. It would have perhaps been interesting to have had the former expanded on slightly more. Nevertheless, you can really see your interest in Cronenberg's work coming through in this piece of writing.