CRIMES OF THE FUTURE - MIFF 2022

Coming into 2022, my most anticipated film of the year was David Cronenberg's “Crimes of the Future”. Similar to Dario Argento and his film “Dark Glasses”, “Crimes of the Future” saw Cronenberg return to the director's chair for the first time in eight years. He too also dusted off an old script that he had written decades earlier and returned to the genre where he originally made a name for himself. In Cronenberg's case, this was the “body horror” film.

The MIFF guide describes the plot of the film like so: “In an industrial future, human evolution is accelerating grotesquely. Bodies are sprouting extra organs and losing the sensation of pain. Eating and sleeping require Freudian machines. And performance artist Saul Tenser, whose partner Caprice surgically removes his superfluous organs, has become a figure of notoriety. But the National Organ Registry seems suspicious of Saul – and its skittish, intense investigator has a more-than-professional interest in him. Meanwhile, an anarchic cult is embracing change in a shadowy underworld.”

My screening of “Crimes of the Future” at MIFF was actually my second viewing of the film, but the first on the big screen and with an audience. While there is still a lot I like about the film, this second screening seemed to highlight more the deficiencies of “Crimes of the Future” and the stuff that doesn't work. Right up front though, it is immediately definable as a David Cronenberg film; it is Cronenberg through and through. From the opening frame it looks, feels and sounds like a Cronenberg film, and no-one who is familiar with the man's work would have any problem identifying the author of “Crimes of the Future”. So in that regard, it is pleasing to see that his lengthy hiatus from filmmaking (at least in terms of “his” career) didn't cause him to lose any of his cinematic identity, particularly in terms of his body horror films, as while this is his first film in eight years, it is actually his first body horror film since 1999's “eXistenZ”, which incidentally was around the same time that “Crimes of the Future” was actually written.

Something else that David Cronenberg hasn't lost the ability to do is shock people, as he begins his latest film with the confronting and disturbing murder of an eight year old boy by his distressed mother. Right from this opening scene, we understand that Cronenberg will not be holding back and that the world he has created is a dangerous place to live in.

As usual, Cronenberg comes up with a lot of very interesting ideas within “Crimes of the Future” and I think it is these ideas that are the one of the strongest elements of the film. The idea that the human body has come as far as it possibly can and is thus beginning to evolve naturally to cope better with the world as it now is. The question is whether we decide to fight these mutations or accept it and change into whatever the next step of evolution brings. However there are a large number of factions who are against this line of thought, particularly the government, as they fear it will bring an end to humanity as we know it. Change is scary. Already, with the human body no longer feeling any pain, “desktop” surgeries (performed in the street by anyone) are the latest fad that sees people altering their own bodies via surgery, just for the pleasure of it. As Kristen Stewart's character says later in the film “surgery is the new sex”. I thought all these ideas were so heady and magnificent, and when they are explored in the film in depth, “Crimes of the Future” is at its strongest. However Cronenberg unfortunately spreads his story far too thin by adding in a number of other elements and plot strands, that either do not work at all, or dilute the stronger elements by their inclusion. Personally I think the script needed to be worked on more and the story made tighter because there are elements within the story that are quite confusing and then there are parts that just flat out do not work, like the poorly conceived “inner” beauty pageant that Saul Tenser registers for (although it does set up a great “Videodrome-esque” visual moment later in the film).

I also thought there were a lot of performance issues in the film too, which did not help my confusion at times. Outside of both, Don McKellar and particularly Kristen Stewart (who play bureaucrats at the Organ Registration Centre, and are excellent), I felt the rest of the performances were on the suspect side. The most surprising being Viggo Mortensen's utterly bizarre and flat portrayal of Saul Tenser, the performance artist in the film who is something of a celebrity for removing his newly grown organs onstage. Mortensen is a fantastic actor, and this is his fourth collaboration with David Cronenberg, but it is also his least successful. It is so odd, with his strange gurgles, coughs and moans throughout (I understand that Saul is struggling due to the movement of his current organs and creation of new ones, but it still felt wrong or odd). He also spends the majority of his performance in a crouched position, but there is a real world reason for this as Mortensen suffered quad damage when he was struck by a horse at a derby prior to filming, which meant that he was unable to stand longer than two minutes at any time. It makes me wonder if this injury also then played a part in the design of Saul Tenser's wardrobe, as he is regularly dressed in all black complete with hood and face mask. Whilst I have no proof of this, I do wonder if he is dressed this way so that he is easy to double for anything that Mortensen may have had trouble performing. I know I sound harsh here, but it screams of compromise to me and does the film no favours. Similarly Mortensen's partner in crime, Lea Seydoux (who plays Caprice) also underwhelms in her role. She seems confused at times at what she is doing and what is going on in the story. She just doesn't feel organic in that world. Furthermore, I felt that Seydoux and Mortensen lacked chemistry, both as romantic partners and as performance artists working together. I also need to mention that a number of smaller roles are filled by actors with very thick accents, making their dialogue hard to understand at times.

Where the film does succeed though is in its visual elements and where it is unmistakable as a David Cronenberg film. Aside from a few dodgy CGI effects (no doubt due to the limited budget), Cronenberg's weird, fleshy and organic looking props, objects and gadgets are on full display here. From the weird bone-like chair that Saul sits in while eating, to the cocoon-like bed he sleeps in, to the alternate bed (originally an autopsy table) Saul and Caprice use in their shows; this is all magnificent stuff, and it is in these designs where is feels the most obvious that “eXistenZ” and “Crimes of the Future” are of the same Cronenberg vintage. Hell, Caprice's remote control she uses during the surgeries could be the sister of the game pods Allegra uses in “eXistenZ”, they are so similar (which I love).

Once again, Carol Spier is in charge of the production design of “Crimes of the Future”. She is a long-time collaborator of Cronenberg's and once again her work is just perfect. I feel like I am on repeat here, but her production design is full of wonderful textures, and materials, peeling paint and imperfections. Cronenberg is a master at world building, and in this regard I think Spier is his greatest collaborator in creating these worlds. Her work is never flashy, but feels real, lived in, damaged and dangerous.

Speaking of long-time collaborators, this is actually the first feature film since 1988's “Dead Ringers” that Peter Suschitzky has not served as cinematographer on one of David Cronenberg's films, with the duties falling to Douglas Koch on “Crimes of the Future”, and he does so with aplomb. The film still has that dark, dank Cronenberg feel to it, not relying on bright lighting, or the use of primary colours, whilst focusing more on earthy and organic tones. It is a beautiful looking film (in a weirdly demented and disturbing way), although I must say that during this second viewing, I did notice a lot of odd frame compositions caused by Mortensen's crouching. I also absolutely hated(!) the final shot of the film which looked beyond cheap and very amateurish.

The greatest aspect of “Crimes of the Future” though is Howard Shore's magnificent and totally unusual score. I loved it so much particularly because of how different it was from the norm. It is futuristic sounding, whilst almost giving a downbeat feeling, but it is just fantastic. I wish my musical knowledge was greater so I could go into more detail about what makes it great, but sadly I can basically only tell you what I like when it comes to music (and if I think it works for the film), and I loved the score of “Crimes of the Future” so much!

Overall, whilst I liked “Crimes of the Future” a lot on my first viewing, I sadly found it did not hold up as well on my second viewing at MIFF. There is a lot to like within the film, but ultimately I feel that Cronenberg added too many plot threads causing the story to be spread too thin at times, which causes confusion. I also have some misgivings of most of the performances in the film, particularly the odd turn by Viggo Mortensen. The film is packed with wonderful ideas though, and Howard Shore's score is truly outstanding. “Crimes of the Future” is a good film, it is just not a great film. Still I suppose a “good” Cronenberg film is better than most directors at their best, due to the fact that he is a true original. I would still recommend “Crimes of the Future”to fans of David Cronenberg, just with a slight caveat though.

3 Stars.