Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Stereo: David Cronenberg


I almost feel guilty in writing a serious review for David Cronenberg's Stereo.  After all, it was Cronenberg's very first feature-length film.  He wrote, directed, shot, and edited the entire production himself. It was shot in black and white and without sound because Cronenberg's camera was too loud.  It purports to be a kind of documentary of educational resources and case study footage taken at the Canadian Academy of Erotic Enquiry. It depicts an experiment carried out by Dr. Luthor Stringfellow where young men and women are instilled with telepathic abilities which can be enhanced via sexual contact with other volunteers.  The volunteers are encouraged to sexually explore as much as they want with whoever they want, regardless of gender. Dr. Stringfellow hopes that these relationships will coalesce into a new social unit that can replace the modern family unit. Of course, we don't learn any of this by what we see on the screen. Instead, all of this is explained by a series of dull, monotonous voice-overs parodying complex scientific and medical jargon.  If one were to set the film on mute, the viewer would be left with an incomprehensible collage of bizarre images and sex.  Apparently there is a sub-plot about a female volunteer who develops a split-personality during the experiment, but I couldn't pick up on it. The problem with Stereo is that the beleaguered voice-overs which drone on and on about nonsensical, incomprehensible subjects and observations lulls the audience into a hypnotic stupor.  We can't pay attention to the images because we are trying to understand the narration. And if we ignore the narration, then the images make even LESS sense.  Stereo was clearly a stepping stone for Cronenberg's career. He would not be the director that he is today without making it. But that doesn't make it a good film. Stereo remains a confusing, torturous, and frustrating viewing experience.
 
2/10

2 comments:

  1. I had never even heard of this before. I wouldn't consider this his first "real" film but as you said I'm sure it was important in the development of his career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was important. But that doesn't change the fact that it suuuuuuuucks.

      Delete