criterionforum.org

because that would have been gay.

Robotron wrote:I saw this tonight, and it's obvious Cronenberg is content with no longer having anything significant to say, and will henceforth probably rely on lesser storytelling techniques like sentimentality and didacticism. Acknowledging that and moving on, though, he is certainly one of the best action directors working today. The bath house fight scene is probably the single most entertaining thing I will see in any new release this year, and was more than worth the price of admission.

I love the thought that Cronenberg was a skilled and revered filmmaker because he had "significant [things] to say," and yet you criticize his didacticism in Eastern Promises. A bit of a contradiction?

Svevan wrote:

Robotron wrote:I saw this tonight, and it's obvious Cronenberg is content with no longer having anything significant to say, and will henceforth probably rely on lesser storytelling techniques like sentimentality and didacticism. Acknowledging that and moving on, though, he is certainly one of the best action directors working today. The bath house fight scene is probably the single most entertaining thing I will see in any new release this year, and was more than worth the price of admission.

I love the thought that Cronenberg was a skilled and revered filmmaker because he had "significant [things] to say," and yet you criticize his didacticism in Eastern Promises. A bit of a contradiction?

A director can have some very worthwhile things to say without being didactic about it; for an easy example, look as the work of Sergio Leone. Reversely, a director can be didactic without having a thing to say; for an easy example look at Michael Moore. Videodrome strikes me as one while A History of Violence strikes me as another.

I'm sorry, I just don't think films "say" anything. That's the Sontag in me; Cronenberg as an artist has shown us plenty, challenged us with a lot, and as a person has said a lot, but I don't think his films (even the ones you've mentioned) "say" anything.

Before you criticize that as nitpicking or semantics, I think the difference is very important, especially in the case of Eastern Promises. Asking a film to come to a revelatory conclusion, an ultimate statement of purpose, or a thesis, is exactly what Michael Moore (or Paul Haggis) does. Cronenberg is so far removed from that, even A History of Violence doesn't sum itself up as an anti-violence film - it's too complex for that.

Hopefully I'm not alone on this thought - Eastern Promises, whether you like the film or not, says nothing, and that's a compliment to it rather than an insult.

Cronenberg is talented enough that no matter what he does he will still be a better director than Moore or Haggis, but even if he leaves out what may be trademark elements of their films, he's still working in the same genre. I really don't see how you can see no social message in a film in which a girl's diary of horrors is repeatedly read to the audience for no discernable effect except sentimentality and concern for all girls in her plight.

Svevan wrote:Hopefully I'm not alone on this thought - Eastern Promises, whether you like the film or not, says nothing, and that's a compliment to it rather than an insult.

Yes, I agree - it's a bit like Godard said, "Not a just image, just an image." That is to say, the images are not 'spoken for' in a way that limits them to the scope of the film or some unifying theme. They work within the film, and after all the film consists of these images, but the problems they present are far more memorable and interesting than any narrow narrative resolution could be.

Robotron wrote:Cronenberg is talented enough that no matter what he does he will still be a better director than Moore or Haggis, but even if he leaves out what may be trademark elements of their films, he's still working in the same genre. I really don't see how you can see no social message in a film in which a girl's diary of horrors is repeatedly read to the audience for no discernable effect except sentimentality and concern for all girls in her plight.

You make a huge step from sentimentality about one girl to "concern for all girls in her plight." All of this is part of the larger question of finding the universal in the particular.

If the film was entirely about this girl and the terrors of sex-trafficking, don't you think the film might look a bit more like this? Why so much interest in the gangsters and the nurse, her need for a child, the relationship between Nikolai and Kirill, or Nikolai and Semyon, the amount of time spent on the ritual tattooing, or the final shot of Nikolai, having sold his body by choice when the young girls have no choice? I don't see this as a simplistic "sex-trafficking is bad" story, as if we can boil down all the plot elements into one discernible message. Not to mention that this discussion has not yet concerned itself with visual elements of the film, which are equal in weight to its plot elements.

Message films do exist, but even the most guilty parties, like Michael Moore, can make good films despite their didacticism. Not being able to know the intention of the screenwriter of Eastern Promises, or Cronenberg's intentions apart from his other work as a director, I wouldn't presuppose knowledge of what "message" they may have had in mind. If they had one, I daresay it's indecipherable, and the film's themes and images do more to enhance my understanding of the world than any thesis the makers may have intended.

Svevan wrote:Message films do exist, but even the most guilty parties, like Michael Moore, can make good films despite their didacticism. Not being able to know the intention of the screenwriter of Eastern Promises, or Cronenberg's intentions apart from his other work as a director, I wouldn't presuppose knowledge of what "message" they may have had in mind. If they had one, I daresay it's indecipherable, and the film's themes and images do more to enhance my understanding of the world than any thesis the makers may have intended.

I agree wholly, Svevan. Excellent thoughts. My previous posts in this thread were not intended so much as a thesis on Cronenberg's intent, but rather an explanation of those elements that I found meaningful or worthwhile.

I recognize that the film may not be all that controversial because people are used to violence and sex, but I do maintain that it is at least challengingly critical of--even opposed to--those mainstream conventions which it ostensibly embraces.

Anyway, I've appreciated your posts.

Cronenberg will be speaking at UC Santa Barbara this Friday.

Just a heads up for anyone else in the area. Anyone? Anyone?

Last night David Cronenberg said that Viggo doesn't have genitals, so they had to add digital ones for the shower fight scene. Priceless. He also said that Viggo had been hanging out with criminals in Los Angeles and went to Russia to find illegal books on killing techniques in hand to hand fighting, etc. all before they were even close to begin shooting, so he thinks of Viggo as his Great Dane puppy that he could release into the woods and come back with all sorts of things in his mouth.

Other than that, he offered almost too much insight into Eastern Promises to write about here, I was overwhelmed and am now a much bigger fan of this film than I was after seeing it the first time. Hear him speak if you ever get the chance!

Nice analysis by David Bordwell.

Interesting piece, but Bordwell seems to think that Viggo's character falls in love with Naomi Watts' character. That's not how I read the film at all. Yes he's helpful to her, even kind. But it's Cronenberg's explicit avoidance of sentimental romantic cliche that makes his film really work. Alas, at the end, it's impossible to know what Viggo's thinking about. Like a Melville thug he's a complete mystery from first to last.

ArchCarrier wrote:Nice analysis by David Bordwell.

This entry on Bordwell's blog is actually by Kristin Thompson -- and (by the way) she warns people not to read it if they haven't yet seen both History of Violence and Eastern Promises. ;~}

I also disagree that Nikolai felt any romantic inkling for Anna. It's a plausible interpretation of course, but not the one I chose. Also, I still feel strongly that the final scene is meant to imply just how firmly embedded Nikolai's character is in the vory v zakone life, the family, the culture, the brotherhood, even the sense of power that comes from killing, not that he is lamenting a life he can never have.

Stagger Lee wrote:Mainstream audiences are what keep us...and Justin Timberlake songs.

no, no, hipsters listen to him now too. maybe irony has gone too far!

The UK trailers push the "romantic" angle between Anna and Nikolai, which really misrepresents the film, but no doubt this is done from a marketing/box office angle. It reminds me of the hideous US trailer to The Third Man. Nikolai is surely at least bisexual.

I thought the film was very good, filmed in locations near where I work too.

There was a funny story in yesterday's Observer:

David Cronenberg's excellent Eastern Promises opened the LFF and, set among the Russian mafia, it's a fine addition to classic London underworld films. One detail bothered me greatly, though. In a murder scene set outside Chelsea football club after a match with Arsenal, one Gunners fan has his throat slit through his football scarf. However, the scarf is clearly not an Arsenal one, wasting an opportunity for what could have been a classic London movie moment. 'I know,' sighed Cronenberg when I broached the issue with him. 'I wish I could have had the scarves more accurate. But my lawyers and producers said the club would never agree to have their merchandise used in this way, so I had to run with it, even though I'm not happy with that scene because of it.' He added: 'I'm an Arsenal fan myself - I don't really like football but over the last few years I've been filming in London and I fell in love with the way they play.'

Makes me wonder, would he ever do a sports movie?

exte wrote:Makes me wonder, would he ever do a sports movie?

Fast Company?

(I haven't seen it myself)

Drag-racing is considered a sport?

thirtyframesasecond wrote:Nikolai is surely at least bisexual.

I don't know if there is any specific evidence within Cronenberg's film that Nikolai is bisexual, though he is certainly cognizant of his sexual power over both genders. There is definitely a homosexual undercurrent to the relationship between Nikolai and Kirill, but I get the sense that Nikolai is more aware of the subtext to the relationship than Kirill is ever willing to admit to himself. I think it's far more interesting to perceive the relationship as Nikolai manipulating Kirill's latent homosexuality. In fact, I'm not even sure Nikolai would even engage in sex at all if there wasn't a power-play involved in it somehow. The most sinister of Nikolai's actions is to constantly exploit Kirill's emotions, knowing that Kirill could never act upon his sexual attraction to Nikolai.

Andre Jurieu wrote:...Nikolai is more aware of the subtext to the relationship than Kirill is ever willing to admit to himself. I think it's far more interesting to perceive the relationship as Nikolai manipulating Kirill's latent homosexuality. In fact, I'm not even sure Nikolai would even engage in sex at all if there wasn't a power-play involved in it somehow. The most sinister of Nikolai's actions is to constantly exploit Kirill's emotions, knowing that Kirill could never act upon his sexual attraction to Nikolai.

Exactly. This is how I felt about the movie also. In the scene in which Kirill watches Nikolai fuck the prostitute, he has obviously chosen to fuck her that way so Kirill can imagine himself in her position, Nikolai knows this. The way Kirill watches them, touching his face, he so longs to be touched by Nikolai. I also think it's interesting that after he tells Kirill to leave he immediately gives the girl a way out (we find out she is later picked up by the police). It seems that the thought that Kirill would put himself in the girl's place sickens Nikolai and he gets her out so she doesn't have to be subjected to it.

Did anyone else notice the striking similarity between the final shot of this film and that of A History of Violence? Both films end with the Viggo Mortensen character sitting at a dining table in contemplation, his thoughts ambiguous. I wonder if Cronenberg was aware of this, or perhaps intended it.

Edit: And now I see that this was pointed out in the analysis linked upthread.

Saw this one last week and quite frankly, if Cronenberg's name wasn't attached to it, I wouldn't even notice. Very generic and with only occasional flashes of brilliance. Loved the accents, though.

On the whole, it felt that Mortensen was playing the same kind of ambiguous character (morally, sexually and socially) he played in Violence (as previously noted, and quite rightly, on this thread) so I guess this must be a theme that Cronenberg must feel close to at this time of his life (why won't he just finally admit that he's bisexual or something instead of playing teasing games with his audience, which he's been doing for more than a decade now?).

Still, Lilya 4 ever is a much better film on the theme of human exploration, which I could not stop thinking about the whole time. Which is not a good thing.

Lino wrote:(why won't he just finally admit that he's bisexual or something instead of playing teasing games with his audience, which he's been doing for more than a decade now?).

Unless Cronenberg literally makes himself the subject of a movie, I don't see how his admitting whether or not he is bi-sexual can be at all relevant, let alone a 'tease.'

Lino wrote:On the whole, it felt that Mortensen was playing the same kind of ambiguous character (morally, sexually and socially) he played in Violence (as previously noted, and quite rightly, on this thread) so I guess this must be a theme that Cronenberg must feel close to at this time of his life

He's been playing these games with sexuality from the very start: from Shivers to Naked Lunch to Crash to Eastern Promises.