Cronenberg's Crash

[B-side]

Just got done watching it, have some mixed feelings, though mostly positive. First off, the subject matter is fantastic and nothing short of intriguing for me. Suffice it to say, I'm fully fascinated by masochism. Personal interests aside, I've got an itch to discuss the film.

It seems to have any number of a dozen or so different ideas at the framework of its story. I've got several that ran through my mind throughout, not the least of which being the nature of masochism. This link between car crashes and sex could be seen as the physical representation of this idea, that when we're at our most vulnerable, we're able to connect best. The traffic could be seen as society's resistance to such ideas and acts. Another, the idea could be to bust taboos and the repressed sexual nature of our society. I've got more, but they're all somewhat similar in nature. I do feel the film is rather flawed in that it seems more flabbergasted by the act and therefore fascinated by it, and in doing so it kinda leaves the actual characters as mere catalysts for this sexual notion. I felt the characters deserved more exploration, more depth. Towards the end it kinda devolves into a series of sex scenes involving identical situations and set-ups. Kinda redundant. Maybe I'm looking at it the complete wrong way?

[Derek]

I didn't care for the film when I first saw, but like most Cronenberg films, they're more fascinating to read and think about than watch. I don't mean that as a knock, since it makes even his worst films very worthwhile. For something to chew on, check out Baudrillard's essay on the original novel here (http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/55/baudrillard55art.htm). Cronenberg's fascination with hyperreality is very much in line with Baudrillard's (from the very little I've read from him) so it still taps into much of what the film has going for it. Really needs a rewatch, this one.

[Grouchy]

I do feel the film is rather flawed in that it seems more flabbergasted by the act and therefore fascinated by it, and in doing so it kinda leaves the actual characters as mere catalysts for this sexual notion. I felt the characters deserved more exploration, more depth. Towards the end it kinda devolves into a series of sex scenes involving identical situations and set-ups. Kinda redundant. Maybe I'm looking at it the complete wrong way?
I suspect this is deliberately done by Cronenberg so that we can see how unimportant is everything not related to the crash sexual stimulation to the characters. Had the origins of their fetish or some previous S&M activity been undisclosed, it might point too much into only one direction instead of exploring the fetish itself.

I like this movie a lot. The novel by J.G. Ballard is also pretty excellent stuff.

[B-side]

I suspect this is deliberately done by Cronenberg so that we can see how unimportant is everything not related to the crash sexual stimulation to the characters. Had the origins of their fetish or some previous S&M activity been undisclosed, it might point too much into only one direction instead of exploring the fetish itself.

I like this movie a lot. The novel by J.G. Ballard is also pretty excellent stuff.

I wasn't saying that they had to have backstories consisting of sexual abuse or something to attempt to explain the fetish, just more exploration of their individual psyches. There's also very little in the way of viewing them as they naturally are, just more anticipation/execution of the sexual acts.

[Melville]

I didn't really care for it. Here's what I wrote a few months ago:

Rather than providing insight into its characters' fetishes, it mires them in overblown portentousness. And the whole thing seems to take place in a world completely divorced from our own. It makes sense that the characters would exist in such a world, since their obsessions obviously pull them away from social norms; but there is no glimpse of normalcy or otherness to contrast with the characters' world, to give that world meaning. Considering that traffic, which the characters' obsessions require, is inescapably connected to an objective social world, the film's refusal to examine the characters in terms of that objective world seems like a major flaw.

[Melville]

Towards the end it kinda devolves into a series of sex scenes involving identical situations and set-ups. Kinda redundant.
I think that was probably done on purpose. As the characters are overcome by their fetishistic obsessions, the sex acts become repetitious, losing their sense of violent (transgressive) newness.

[B-side]

I think that was probably done on purpose. As the characters are overcome by their fetishistic obsessions, the sex acts become repetitious, losing their sense of violent (transgressive) newness.

I can see that, but my issues with it are pretty much in line with yours, except I actually liked it.:P

[D_Davis]

JG Ballard rules - Crash and The Atrocity Exhibition are both wonderful, insightful, and harshly scathing examinations of America's sexually charged fascination with machinery, especially the automobile, and how the violent atrocities of automobile accidents and the decay of machinery represents the rapid decline of modern Western civilization. The whole idea behind crash began with Ballard's fascination with Ralph Nader and consumer culture.

I've posted this in the lit thread:

http://www.ballardian.com/images/atrocity_nader.jpg

Given Ballard's feelings towards the violent sexualization of automobiles and Nader's crusade to make them safer, one might read quite a bit of perverse innuendo into the above photograph.

I haven't seen Cronenberg's film from start to finish, but I am going to soon after I reread the novel due to me recent re-interest with Ballard.


I do feel the film is rather flawed in that it seems more flabbergasted by the act and therefore fascinated by it, and in doing so it kinda leaves the actual characters as mere catalysts for this sexual notion. I felt the characters deserved more exploration, more depth. Towards the end it kinda devolves into a series of sex scenes involving identical situations and set-ups. Kinda redundant. Maybe I'm looking at it the complete wrong way?

I believe that this is probably intentional, as characterization was never Ballard's strong point, nor was it ever something he seemed particularly concerned with. He was far more concerned with ideas.


I wasn't saying that they had to have backstories consisting of sexual abuse or something to attempt to explain the fetish, just more exploration of their individual psyches. There's also very little in the way of viewing them as they naturally are, just more anticipation/execution of the sexual acts.

It seems to me that characters, to Ballard, are more often then not simply the sums of their actions and reactions. Like the machines we so desperately pattern our lives around, many of his characters simply go through motions that mirror computer-like programming, or actions based solely on habit and ritual that has lost all symbolic significance.

[origami_mustache]

It's been too long since I've seen it to discuss it really, but I liked it and think I'd feel pretty similar upon a rewatch. The criticisms expressed here are certainly valid, and I myself had mixed feelings, but I still found a lot about the film to be uniquely fascinating.

[B-side]

It seems to me that characters, to Ballard, are more often then not simply the sums of their actions and reactions. Like the machines we so desperately pattern our lives around, many of his characters simply go through motions that mirror computer-like programming, or actions based solely on habit and ritual that has lost all symbolic significance.

But these types of fetishes and ideas revolve and depend on the characters. Would it not benefit the film to have characters that are at the very least contrasted to normal society?

[D_Davis]

But these types of fetishes and ideas revolve and depend on the characters. Would it not benefit the film to have characters that are at the very least contrasted to normal society?

Can't comment on the film, but from what I remember I did not have a problem with the characterizations in the novel. Maybe it is because they are handled better, or maybe it is because I am just used to Ballard's handling of character. Again, I can't tell you.

I did recently finish The Atrocity Exhibition, a book featuring similar themes, or at least variations of Ballard's singular vision, and there is almost no characterization in the traditional sense. Of course it is considered a pinnacle of the experimental prose novel, and characterization is not really important to its narrative.

Crash is a more traditional narrative, and so it may also have more traditional characterization. After I reread it and watch the film I will have more to say.

However, with Ballard I do not generally find that he is interested in contrasting the characters and situations in the Ballardian world with those of our world, the "normal." More importantly, I don't think Ballard makes a distinction between the "normal" and the "abnormal," because really they are the same thing, it just depends on perspective and how one percieves something. With Crash, from what I recall, he doesn't contrast the "abnormal" sexual lives of his characters with the "normal" sexual lives of other characters.

Speculative fiction rarely contrasts, it is more concerned with extrapolation, and, uh, speculation. :)

Ballard is more interesting in the ideas his characters represent than he is with their personalities.

[Melville]

However, with Ballard I do not generally find that he is interested in contrasting the characters and situations in the Ballardian world with those of our world, the "normal." More importantly, I don't think Ballard makes a distinction between the "normal" and the "abnormal," because really they are the same thing, it just depends on perspective and how one percieves something. With Crash, from what I recall, he doesn't contrast the "abnormal" sexual lives of his characters with the "normal" sexual lives of other characters.
As I mentioned in my capsule review, I think the "normal" in this case is absolutely essential to the meaning of the "abnormal." The characters' fetishes only exist within the context of traffic, which is a world of social interactions with a specific norm; the crashes may be binary relationships as far as the characters are concerned, but in practice they are inherently related to a multitude of other people and a set of social expectations.


Ballard is more interesting in the ideas his characters represent than he is with their personalities.
But the ideas they represent are largely psychological ones, so they would be a lot more meaningful if they were related to human psychology. (I'm guessing that Ballard probably does a better job of abstracting away from particular human psyches than Cronenberg does, based on the passages quoted in Baudrillard's essay.)