Stereo

David Cronenberg #1

Great photography, which manages to elevate the university setting, and some interesting performances too, but what was happening on screen bore little relation to the dry philosophical narration. Good if nothing more than an example of the importance of sound for full immersion.

To be initially engaged by it you need to be either fascinated by the concepts of communications & psychology, generally open-minded, turned on by academic mumblecore or just slightly bored with your existence (preferrably all of the above). If you can suffer it's overbearingly studenty style there is certainly something in there in terms of aesthetics & ideas.

Slightly more weight than Crimes of the Future & this holds some themes Cberg would revisit throughout his career in much more accessible films. Good example of the value of atmospheric sound design as this has zero and lacks immersion due to it. The same can be said for the limited nature of the university setting. Not for the overly verbose voice-over though, he lets the philosophical jargon fly loose. A film of extreme extremes. Turns out if they were reigned in they'd make a film career.

Stereo is beautifully shot in black and white, and could almost function better as a silent film if the imagery were to be adapted for silent narration. The unfortunate presence of the voice-over narration as the sole audio element throughout provides a mystifying socio-political commentary drenched in an inelegant critical theory that I associate usually with new-age bullshit and farcical interior decorating.

I do want to achieve three-dimensional sexuality as much as the next man, but it’s hard to glean exactly how from watching this: it seems to involve eating fruit. Carefully composed images of modern architecture are juxtaposed with an occasionally intriguing pseudo-scientific voiceover, but nothing very discernible actually happens. One has to start somewhere, I suppose, and it’s certainly possible to see the germs of later work in this fairly rudimentary effort.

56.500

For Cronenberg completionists only. An experimental film and also a largely silent film, as in there is no music, SFX, or even ambient noise and the only audio is intermittent voice-over narration. Apparently, this was less of a stylistic choice and more of just an accident because the camera Cronenberg was using was too loud to record audio simultaneously and they didn't do any ADR/foley. Even at just an hour long, this is interminably dull.

To some extent, it anticipates most of Cronenberg's conflicts -- suppressed sexuality being revealed in wild ways, the human body as the cause and consequence of inside and outside tensions --, but Stereo is mostly a well-shot, off-narrated experiment about a bunch of horny telepathic subjects.

Cronenberg's very first feature is an interesting document of the man's young mind but not much else. It has the seeds of some of his later ideas, like the mysteries of the human mind, cold scientific analysis and sexuality. Most impressive is the photography, which demonstrates an intuitive visual sense. The film's format (the only sound is dry narration, meant to evoke a scientist/researcher reading findings out loud), however, makes for a dull and frustrating experience.

Cronenberg's first feature, this movie is mostly just a curiousity for hardcore fans or those, like myself, seeking to see everything he's made. There are no sound effects, dialog, or music. Just scattered voiceover. The film's pretty damn dull. I was pretty annoyed by the seemingly complete disconnect between the narration and what was on screen at any given time. I have to say though that the movie is quite well shot, with lots of dramatic lighting and interesting lines, shapes and spaces.

I love Cronenberg dearly, and cannot truly be bored with anything he's done (I mean, until the 90's). This avant-garde film does has it's moments (and the stunning Ronald Mlodzik), but I'm not sure it's worth an hour of concentration.