What was 'The New Flesh?'
>>67765929
What are the extras on the criterion blu ray?
New Flesh is a metaphor of change
>>67765981
A limited edition short film of old Cronenberg wanking off to a video of young Cronenberg wanking off to another video of him wanking off to a video of a nympho wanking off to Videodrome.
technological existence / the singularity you fucking retard
>>67765929
>>67766136
Sorry but you're not allowed to berate someone with such a low word count of an answer. It's the equivalent of saying 'you're gay and your shit's all retarded'
>>67766122
>>67765929
What are some good lesser-known body horrors?
Is there a "/tv/'s essential body-horrors" chart?
>>67766175
its a low word count because it is not even a slightly complex idea
the new flesh is about people living on past the 'old flesh' through technology, be it as a video recording or as an AI or whatever other ways you can think of
you see what the new flesh is loads of fucking times in the movie when the people are in the red bdsm room.
learn how to watch a fucking film please
>>67766136
No it's not you fucking imbecile, holy shit do you fucking morons have boulders for brains? Go watching the movie again jesus fucking christ.
Humanity
>>67766263
Society. Amazing effects, pretty daft movie
>>67766284
>you see what the new flesh is loads of fucking times in the movie when the people are in the red bdsm room
No that was Videodrome you dunce
>>67766308
seen it already
dad's a butthead
>>67766304
Humanity being the old flesh.
The new is total individual depravity.
This, but made of flesh
What happened to Cronenberg man? Why won't he go back to his good stuff?
>>67765929
A driving force of the lead's psychosis.
>>67766290
yes it is retard, the new flesh is existing within technology rather than as a flesh and blood being.
Y O U L I T E R A L L Y S E E I T I N T H E M O V I E
>>67766326
the new flesh is the concept of man living in technology, he kills himself to 'escape' his old flesh and live on as a recording inside of technology. WHY DO YOU THINK VIDEODROME IS TORTURING THE PEOPLE IN THE RED ROOM RETARD, THEY ARE THE NEW FLESH.
>>67766263
Street Trash is the only one I can think of
>>67766403
The torture sequences played through Videodrome are just the transmitted hallucinations that came from the Image Accumulator you fucking dunce
>>67766392
A History of Violence, Maps to the Stars, Dangerous Method & Only Lovers Left Alive were pretty based though?
>>67766403
The New Flesh is the body without Videodrome.
>>67766511
ok retard i guess thats why we see the red room several times before he puts the image accumulator on!!
its just a meaningless hallucination no significance to it at all!!!!
>>67766561
Buddy you did not understand the movie nearly as well as you think you did.
>>67766452
thanks
>>67766511
>>67766561
also the fact that he only ever sees members of the new flesh while he has the image accumulator on kind of proves my point about them being humans living inside technology
>>67766561
No as in the the accumulator transmitted hallucinations from the past test subjects into pre-recorded tapes. James Wood sees the red room because they're recordings of red room hallucinations from the other subjects, thus when HE puts on the accumulator he enters the red room, because he's hallucinating it.
Surprisingly how great Debra harry is. Especially on re-watches.
>>67766540
>Only Lovers Left Alive
>>67766626
It's not about human beings living inside technology, it's about technology living inside human beings.
>>67766540
Mate those all suck
>>67766694
I disagree
If only for Knightley acting her ass off in Dangerous Method.
>>67766689
It's not about any of that. James Woods is having a nervous breakdown.
I loved the way TV's were used in this, the way Cronenberg presented them to us, how they behaved. Those old TV sets had a lot of personality to them.
I can imagine a remake of Videodrome being almost impossible to use with modern TV's and the internet instead of radio/tv broadcasts, it would just feel too sterile.
>>67766765
That's a valid interpretation if you want to be boring and dismiss the ever-increasing effect that technology has on humanity I guess.
>>67766838
Videodrome has already taken over. A remake would only serve to dull and obfuscate the potency of the ideas in the original.
>>67766926
>Videodrome has already taken over
Not really, if David wanted an accurate insight into the future of over-stimulation then he should've made Memedrome
>>67767013
>Not really
Where do you think you are right now?
>>67767013
>Memedrome
FUND IT
>>67767013
>>67767072
Do you guys really not see the redundancy?
>>67767137
EXPLAIN IT TO ME
>>67766865
>Technology vs. Humanity as a Theme
>Not boring
>>67767172
Effecting subtle changes on thought patterns through pushing certain ideas to the forefront of the subconscious while placating/distracting the brain with pleasurable rewards. We are all on Videodrome right now and have been for quite some time.
>>67767290
>A topic that we know little to nothing about and yet continues to effect us on a daily basis
>Boring
>>67767290
It's not about humanity versus technology, it's about the two becoming one, living through technology.
>>67767461
No it's not. Has anyone actually seen this movie?
>>67767351
Overplayed then, boring from repitition.
>>67767461
>>67767511
It's just an excuse for body horror splatterporn on the story of a man going insane.
>>67767511
Yeah, I have. And that's what it's about. Adaptation to a technological biology.
>>67767597
>It's about the RoboRapture!!
Singularity fag.
>>67767597
No it's not it's about the complete rejection of the technological biology. Videodrome was the video word made flesh, the technology was manipulating his brain and creating tumors in it to the point where he killed himself. I don't know how you could watch this movie and think it's about accepting technology.
>>67767584
>an excuse for body horror splatterporn
The movie isn't that violent. And anyway, this is what good horror does - it taps into our fears and anxieties. Saying that it's just an excuse is a pretty flimsy argument. It's what the film is about.
>>67765929
Technological symbiosis
Videodrome was so fucking good
>>67767682
It's not about acceptance or rejection. It's about inevitability. That the character tries to reject it, doesn't mean the film is too.
>>67767584
You are posting from a technological device that keeps you constantly connected to a hive mind and effects the way you think on a daily basis to dismiss a work of art that highlighted these ideas 30 years ago when they were merely abstractions. It may be boring to you but that doesn't somehow invalidate the importance of the ideas put forth by the movie.
>>67767743
>>67767753
It's not about symbiosis or inevitability. It's about figuring out what's being sent to your brain and rejecting the signals that aren't your own. Killing your old manipulated thought patterns and starting over. The film absolutely is a rejection of pervasive technology.
>>67767860
Right, and Fight Club advocates rejection of consumerism and becoming a real man.
>>67767860
He asked what the New Flesh was not what Videodrome was m8
>>67767786
Probably worthwhile to point out that the mega onset of ADHD in the millennial generation is equivalent to the tumors in the protag's brain.
>>67767932
No, Fight Club satirizes those ideas. Videodrome is not a satire.
So what's the answer? Try and turn it all back Butlerian Jihad style or let it happen? Are we too far past the threshold to make that decision?
>>67767996
No, but it doesn't advocate anything either. They're merely observations through art. If the main character were to happily accept his fate, there would be no conflict. No conflict, no story.
You're the only person I've talked to that thinks Videodrome is some kind of luddite proclamation.
>>67767786
You're really overselling the internet if you think of it as an insidious hive mind brah.
>>67768121
>Technology kills Woods
I don't see how you see this as pro technology.
>>67768121
Watch the last few minutes of the movie again and tell me it's not advocating anything.
>>67766263
964 Pinocchio
Death Powder
Genocyber
Have a dank meme of a time with those
>>67768169
It's not pro technology. It's not anti technology either. It's just a perspective on technology that plays on our fears and anxieties. It turns abstract ideas about the interaction of people and technology and makes them physical reality.
I don't see it as a condemnation of technology any more than I see the Thing as condemning assimilation, or the Fly as denouncing potential transportation advances. They are horror movies. They play on our fears and anxieties. There's nothing didactic about any of them.
>>67768029
It's hard not to sound portentious when discussing these things but in a lot of respects it does feel like we are too far gone. "Objective" reality is essentially ignored and distorted ways of thinking and living have been so ingrained in the public consciousness that detaching from them seems impossible.
>>67768415
>Not anti tech
The whole film. The whole premise is technology destroying a person and society at large.
Was 'They Live' also 'not anti capitalist' in its themes...?
You can't say VD is playing on fear of technology whilst also stating its stance on tech is neutral. Thats a fucking contradiction.
>>67768415
There is inherently more to Videodrome and its themes than those other two movies. You are forgetting the fact that it is a form of visual entertainment that is commenting on visual entertainment. It definitely has something to say, and while the possibility remains that it was made as a titillating piece of entertainment like those other two movies and just randomly hit on great ideas the fact that it is still culturally relevant to this day should be evidence that there was didactic intention behind Videodrome. Actually, strike that, there is overwhelming evidence that there was thematic intention behind the film, I still don't really know where you are coming from.
>>67768376
thanks famalam
>>67769068
Watch Genocyber dubbed
>>67767682
He kills his real body to continue life as a video recording, how the fuck is that a rejection
>>67768763
>It definitely has something to say
A piece of art can have something to say without being didactic.
>and while the possibility remains that it was made as a titillating piece of entertainment like those other two movies and just randomly hit on great ideas the fact that it is still culturally relevant to this day should be evidence that there was didactic intention behind Videodrome.
I'm not saying it hit on its themes and substance by accident. I'm saying it exploits these things to tell a compelling story.
>Actually, strike that, there is overwhelming evidence that there was thematic intention behind the film, I still don't really know where you are coming from.
You're not disagreeing with me.
>>67768659
>You can't say VD is playing on fear of technology whilst also stating its stance on tech is neutral. Thats a fucking contradiction.
It's a very negative view of technology, but I see anti technology as something different. I don't see Videodrome as trying to turn the viewer against technology or to convince them in teal life to go live in a hippie commune in peace with nature. I see Videodrome as showing potential dangers and exploiting them. Yes, there is a commentary there. But that commentary doesn't amount to advocating some kind of action on part of the viewer. It is merely observation. Part of what makes Videodrome scary is that what it portends is unavoidable.
>>67768252
Its not advocating it is predicting
>>67766308
hilarious movie, I should give it a rewatch
>that 80s cheese
>>67769199
Real life *
Although maybe we do live in teal life.
>>67766694
A Dangerous Method is pretty great though, very underrated
>>67766263
Body Melt
>>67769271
seen it
>>67766263
The Stuff
>>67769199
>Very Negative isn't the same as anti.
Semantics.
>It doesn't tell you how to behave!!
And?
It's obviously a warning to be wary, but at the same time it know not to be a preachy bitch.
Again, "They Live", painfully anti capitalism, agreed? Yet Rowdy Roddy doesn't wink at the camera and say 'Hey kids, smash the system."
Does VD need to have a MotU / GI Joe public service announcement for you to acknowledge it's anti technology...?
Fuck off.
>>67769416
thanks!
>>67769432
>Semantics.
But it's not. Amplifying the negatives aspects of reality to make a compelling horror story is different than outright rejection. I highly doubt Cronenberg is some anti tech luddite. He just likes to explore the darker side of what is considered by most as progress.
>It's obviously a warning to be wary
I wouldn't even go that far.
>Again, "They Live", painfully anti capitalism, agreed?
Agreed (probably more anti consumerism though), but the film works in spite of that, for a number of reasons.
>Yet Rowdy Roddy doesn't wink at the camera and say 'Hey kids, smash the system."
But he is a pretty straight forward hero fighting against an encroaching evil. That's unlike Videodrome. James Wood isn't a hero. Videodrome portrays the rot as within, and technology latches onto it like a virus.
>Fuck off.
Okay.
>>67766263
Would Tetsuo count?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROMTzJsfOI
>>67770063
It's certainly body-horror but
>lesser-known
Maybe. Lesser known among normalfaggots for sure, but it gets a fair amount of attention on the internet.
>>67770063
seen it
>>67769199
What are you arguing exactly? That unless a film ends with a rallying cry to action (which, ironically, Videodrome exactly does) it does not have anything relevant to say in "reality"? That art is essentially meaningless storytelling and not a valid means of exploring ideas? It sounds like you are just using this as an excuse to sound intellectually superior while not saying much of anything at all.
>>67769888
There's is a vast difference between being a luddite and thinking that the vast proliferation of technology without understanding how it effects our brains (coupled with well documented and scary implications as to how it does) is a bad thing that should definitely be discussed if not outright rejected until we know more about it. Your stubborn attempts to invalidate the themes and ideas that are clearly put forth in the movie by classifying them as "not real" are borderline scary.
>>67769220
No it is very clearly advocating a course of action, and also plays on the themes of the movie by allowing that course of action to take place within your mind.
>>67770377
>That unless a film ends with a rallying cry to action (which, ironically, Videodrome exactly does)
But it's the rallying cry of the characters in the film, not the filmmaker, and desu it's pretty tongue in cheek.
>it does not have anything relevant to say in "reality"?
Um what? I'm saying a film can have something to say without being didactic. A film can portray something in a negative light without being wholesale against it.
>That art is essentially meaningless storytelling and not a valid means of exploring ideas?
Huh? Art is a lot of things. It doesn't need to be anything more than what it is. It is in an end in and of itself. What you're saying doesn't reflect what I've said.
>It sounds like you are just using this as an excuse to sound intellectually superior while not saying much of anything at all.
Videodrome doesn't have to be pro or anti technology to be meaningful. There's more to be said or expressed than picking a side. I don't come away from Videodrome thinking about how evil technology is.
>>67770566
>There's is a vast difference between being a luddite and thinking that the vast proliferation of technology without understanding how it effects our brains (coupled with well documented and scary implications as to how it does) is a bad thing that should definitely be discussed if not outright rejected until we know more about it.
And there's a difference between that and simply exploring those themes in the context of a story, or through artistic expression. Again, you can consider the negative effects of things without having to reject them wholesale. I really don't think the film does anything more than express and articulate these fears to tell a compelling story. And that's all it needs to do.
>Your stubborn attempts to invalidate the themes and ideas that are clearly put forth in the movie by classifying them as "not real" are borderline scary.
Yeah, I'm not doing that.
I can almost see
The blackest eyes
The New Flesh
A new disguise
>>67771122
>the rallying cry of the characters in the film, not the filmmaker
Pedantically splitting hairs while missing the point
>a film can have something to say without being didactic
Look up the dictionary definition of didactic and tell me how having something to say and conveying those ideas through art isn't didactic
>A film can portray something in a negative light without being wholesale against it
Portraying something in a negative light is a significant way to be against it.
>It doesn't need to be anything more than what it is. It is an end in and of itself.
Pseudo-intellectual nonsense that says nothing, least of all refuting the notion that you are arguing ideas are meaningless when portrayed in a way that you don't approve of
>There's more to be said or expressed than picking a side
But the entire point of Videodrome is picking a side. It is meaningful and anti-technology. The fact that you don't come away thinking about how evil technology is doesn't suddenly invalidate those ideas, especially when they can be expressly backed up in the work itself.
>>67771400
>I really don't think the film does anything more than express and articulate these fears to tell a compelling story.
>Yeah, I'm not doing that
Do you really not understand how you are coming across as an anti-art right now? You are expressly saying that the ideas put forth in the film are somehow lessened by their context, which is a weirdly anti-intellectual stance for someone who is trying to sound smart. Ideas transcend the limitations of artistic mediums. Do you think that art has no importance other than to entertain?
>>67771740
>Pedantically splitting hairs while missing the point
No, it's important to understand that main characters aren't always stand-ins for their author.
>Look up the dictionary definition of didactic and tell me how having something to say and conveying those ideas through art isn't didactic
"Intended to teach, having moral instruction as an ulterior motive." So you can't imagine art that says something without intending to teach or provide moral instruction? Okay...
>Portraying something in a negative light is a significant way to be against it.
Videodrome also portrays people in a negative light. Is it misanthropic because it's trying to rally a movement against humanity, or because it's useful and interesting in the context of the story?
>Pseudo-intellectual nonsense that says nothing
Making demands on what art should be is pseudo intellectual nonsense.
>least of all refuting the notion that you are arguing ideas are meaningless when portrayed in a way that you don't approve of
How am I doing that?
>But the entire point of Videodrome is picking a side.
It seems you've picked your side, and you sit there wasting away at your computer.
>It is meaningful and anti-technology.
It can be one without the other. Art can be meaningful without trying to inspire social change.
>>67768133
Your right, it's not like there would ever be a hive mind effect over something like, i don't know, the poorly written and shot intro to a movie about a man in a cape punching people, huh?
>>67771919
>Do you really not understand how you are coming across as an anti-art right now?
I am very much in favor of art. So much so that I don't think it needs to have loftier goals outside of itself. Art is an end in and of itself.
>You are expressly saying that the ideas put forth in the film are somehow lessened by their context
Because it's not the ideas themselves which are significant but how they are expressed through art. You see, that's not anti-art. A film is so much more than a collection of transcribed ideas.
>Ideas transcend the limitations of artistic mediums.
And I'd say art transcends the idea. But I'm the one who's anti art?
>Do you think that art has no importance other than to entertain?
I don't care about importance. Art is what it is and I engage it on its own terms.
>>67772247
Main characters aren't always stand-ins for their author, but they are one of the primary tools used to convey meaning in a work of art. Didactic-intended to convey instruction and information as well as pleasure and entertainment. Portraying something in a negative light doesn't always mean you are against it but at it's most basic level it does (misanthropy isn't a main theme of the movie so your own example proves you wrong). Your ideas about the division between art and social change are misguided at best and malevolent at worst. Insulting me won't change your inability to understand the world around you. It's obvious based on your inability to grasp the basic concepts within the movie that you're either incapable of discussing anything or you're just trying to get a rise out of me. In both cases you are doing the artistic world of ideas a great disservice. Get the last word if you want, just make sure that you don't "sit there wasting away at your computer" while trying to tear down perfectly valid and meaningful ideas and interpretations.
>>67772681
>Main characters aren't always stand-ins for their author, but they are one of the primary tools used to convey meaning in a work of art.
Right. But not always. Definitely not in a fucking Cronenberg film where the protagonists are often sleazy pieces of shit.
>Didactic-intended to convey instruction and information as well as pleasure and entertainment.
Yeah, but information for educational purposes. That definition is the same as mine. You seriously think art can't say something without being didactic? You think something like Hamlet is trying to provide moral instruction or educate people?
>Portraying something in a negative light doesn't always mean you are against it but at it's most basic level it does
So it doesn't have to? Yeah.
>(misanthropy isn't a main theme of the movie so your own example proves you wrong)
It not being the main theme not only makes it a moot point but proves me wrong? What.
Look, what I'm saying applies to the film's treatment of technology. The film is misanthropic because it suits the story. The film portrays technology as negative because it's a horror movie. The horror element would be undermined if it gave a balanced look at tech. And further, you could say that it is just commenting on one aspect of technology, not technology as a whole. The latter would be fucking retarded
>Your ideas about the division between art and social change are misguided at best and malevolent at worst.
Yeah, I love art for itself and judge it on its own terms. What a monster.
>Get the last word if you want, just make sure that you don't "sit there wasting away at your computer" while trying to tear down perfectly valid and meaningful ideas and interpretations.
You're really insecure.
