Well...again, I don't see it as mainstream a flick as it was marketed as. It experimented too much with the viewing experience itself. And I don't see how you can just shoo off the Darwinian theory. This is a paraphrased quote from Cronenberg on the title of the film: "It refers (1) to a suspect with a long history of violence; (2) to the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and (3) to the innate violence of Darwinian evolution, in which better-adapted organisms replace those less able to cope." There are three ways of viewing the movie right there. My theory would be somewhere between the second two, I guess, the view in the film that violence is innately human and instinctual.
As for cliched-ness and predictability, I already explained my thoughts on that. Blame it on the graphic novel if you want, but Cronenberg is a skilled director and doesn't mind deviating from the source to make his own point (Naked Lunch, anyone?). Just saying, because while it is based off a pulpy graphic novel (which I haven't read) and while he didn't even write the screenplay, you have to remember that this director is largely known precisely because he does his own thing, away from mainstream Hollywood. I mean, it's possible he's just losing his edge after so many years, or tripped up this once, but I really didn't view the movie as either case.
EDIT: that's a pretty food list of Allen films. I'd have to add Manhattan in there, though. Awesome photography and writing on par with Annie Hall.
|
