Crimes of the Future (2022)

The latest David Cronenberg body horror feature, Crimes of the Future, prompted some viewers to walk out of a screening at Cannes, with the remaining audience reported to have given it a ten minute ovation. I’m in the middle on the film, not horrified enough to walk out (and while I understand why some did, it's not for the reasons you might expect from a body horror film), but I also feel Cronenberg did a better job covering the same territory earlier in his filmography. 

The story takes place in a point where human evolution has gone into overdrive. Humanity no longer feel pain, which is explained as not always a good thing by a character.  I appreciated that brief moment, as pain is an important part of the human experience.  It's unpleasant, but it tells us something is wrong and keeps us from damaging our bodies further.  It's unfortunate this is only given a brief explanation, and not explored further in the film.  Despite all the rather unsanitary ways people exploit the lack of pain for some sensual pleasure, I'd like to have seen some of the obvious issues that would accompany these acts, like rampaging infections and neurological damage brought on by people cutting into each other without knowing where not to slice.

Though this image is pretty horrifying on screen.

Instead, the film focuses on how some people are generating new, unnecessary, organs as a result of this leap in human evolution.  Saul Tenser (Viggo Mortensen) is able to grow such organs, and his performance artist partner Caprice (Lea Seydoux) removes them in front of a live audience.  And early on, we are exposed to the idea of surgery as the new sex, mentioned by Timlin (Kristen Stewart) later in the film.

It's obvious this is one of the film's basic ideas, as Saul experiences ecstasy during the procedure, while other scenes show others experiencing such a feeling as this ultimate form of penetration.  Given Cronenberg's filmography, one should expect such a statement, and it feels right in this world.  If you missed this idea, you had your eyes closed when Caprice unzips Tenser's abdomen and performs fellatio on his internal organs.  And his statement as she begins seals the deal.

 Oh yeah, it goes there.  Pleasant dreams, everyone.

The idea is intreging, but never fully explored for it's potential and, as I mentioned earlier, pitfalls.  Sorry, I have some medical history in my background, and watching a woman have the skin flayed from her ankle while her face mirrors sexual ecstasy only makes me think of how she's going to lose her foot due to an infection from the obviously unsanitary surroundings and her inability to feel the pain such an infection would create.  Sure, maybe Cronenberg had more to explore in this world, but it just took me out of the moment. 

This might be Quentin Tarantio's wet dream.  Just saying.

Saul is in constant discomfort as the new organs grow, resulting in his use of several biomechanical devices allowing him to sleep and eat. He also becomes involve with the National Organ Registry, a government office cataloguing newly involved organs, and one of the employees is Timlin.

And things get weirder, as Saul meets with evolutionists looking to push humanity into consuming their own refuse, such as plastic pollution, by modifying their internal organs.  

And, as expected, body horror mayhem ensues.

What, you thought I'd find a normal photo from a Cronenberg body horror film?

I love the ideas put out in this film.  Okay, that humans could evolve beyond experiencing pain was a bit of a stretch, but the theory that humanity might need to evolve in order to eat our waste products was interesting.  But my issues with this film is less with the ideas presented, but that Cronenberg offers his audience no firm anchor to empathize with.

Most of Cronenberg's body horror have solid protaganists an audience can relate to.  Seth Brundle (The Fly), Frank Carveth (The Brood) and even Max Renn (Videodrome) were sympathetic protagonists.  Sure, Renn was a bit of a sleazy character, but as the audience was able to identify with his plight as he was drawn into the conspiracy he fell into.  I felt no such connection with Saul.  He's little more than a guide into this new reality, with nothing that can connect him to the audience, leaving us to experience this alternate reality with no anchor to the changes that have occurred in this world, and how they might affect the characters.

To go any further, I need to address the reasons for the walk outs.  And that will provide SPOILERS, so you’ve been warned. 

Okay, here we go.

The film opens with a mother killing her preteen son, who has the ability to eat plastic. It’s not graphic, but it’s brutal enough that I understand why people walked out. Then, in the final act, his body is autopsied to make a political statement. The scene is graphic, but not exploitive, as it serves the basic narrative. It's not Cannibal Holocaust awful, but I understand why some viewers will find it hard to watch.  Unlike Deodato's film, Cronenberg isn’t trying to shock the audience, just following his narrative to the film’s conclusions. 

And that final moment is just puzzling to a point.  The boy's father assumes he inherited the mutated organs from him, even though Saul explains that's not possible.  And when it's proven true during the autopsy, the father is killed for a reason never explored.  It's a wasted opportunity, which I wish Cronenberg had explored.

End SPOILERS. 

 

Okay, any discussion of this film could fill a textbook after several re-watches, and I’m only giving my initial impressions after a single viewing. Still, I think gut reactions to any work of art are important, regardless of how impressions may change with repeat exposure. And yes, this is art. Nasty and brutal, to be sure, but an attempt to say something about humanity.

The major flaw with the film, in my opinion, is I never connected emotionally to the characters  Mortensen is terrific, as is the rest of the cast, but he's little more than a guide to this world, rather than the Brundle-Fly the film needed.

 I'm just gonna lay here and hope the audience empathizes with me.  Think it will work?

I’m fine with Cronenberg exploring how evolution might change human perspectives.  When Timlin whispers “Surgery is the new sex,” we see it, I get the concept. But Cronenberg's remake of The Fly was a better vehicle to explore that dynamic.  Evolution is messy, full of dead ends, and Crimes of the Future pales in comparison. 

It’s not a bad film. I was just hoping for more. I get what Cronenberg was aiming for, but I think he missed the mark. If you’re into body horror, check it out. Just don’t expect anything as gut wrenching as The Fly. It’s a good film, but too impersonal to be a classic. 

 Oh yeah, baby, cut me.  You think the audience might feel something now?