Original Post

This post is a heavily-truncated version of the original post, as per the new rules.
As always, I recommend reading the original post. In it, I go into detail about why Videodrome is as "prophetic" as it is, and how it ties into things which are happening in the modern era. I must also warn you that the original post also contains spoilers.

Videodrome was Mr Cronenberg’s first major success, and although it flies under the radar these days, I consider it to be one of his best works, especially in light of the world it paints. The world of Videodrome is the world of 1992, as seen by the eyes of people living in 1983. There is no internet, there is no reliance on telephones. There is only… television. People communicate over television, they spend most of their lives watching television. There are “missions” set up around the city where homeless people are made to watch television for hours at a time. And hanging over all of this is the enigmatic Dr Brian O’blivion (Jack Creley) — a Big Brother-esque figure who tells us early on that:

“…television is reality, and reality is less than television.”

We follow Max Renn (James Woods), the president of a controversial TV station which markets itself as “The one you take to bed with you”. Renn is on the lookout for new programming, and it’s made quite clear to us that Civic TV is about as bottom of the barrel as far as television goes. The channel specialises in softcore pornography and the like — programming which Renn publicly defends. Renn lacks enthusiasm for anything he considers “soft”, and bemoans the fact that he can’t find the “tough” kind of material that’ll help his channel break through.

And then he finds it. It’s name? Videodrome.

Renn becomes obsessed with finding the source behind Videodrome, so that he can include it in his channel’s programming. And the further he seeks the source, the more he gets drawn into a vast conspiracy.

The movie soon lurches us into nightmarish visions, which we see through Renn’s eyes. The movie doesn’t shy away from displaying body horror in all its grotesque glory; and the effects, with the exception of two instances, hold up rather well all these years later. On the technical side of things, Videodrome is a really well made production, and I can’t fault the movie for any of its choices.

Videodrome is a masterful work by a director known for his work in the genre. It’s a little disappointing that a movie of this calibre has gone so far under the radar in this day and age. Whether or not the movie will see a resurgence in popularity given the times we live in (I hope there is never a remake) will be interesting to see as the next few years go by, but it does deserve to be higher in the public consciousness. Disturbing, lurid, and yet thoughtful, Videodrome is unfortunately not for everyone. The movie contains quite a lot of gore, and therefore I can’t recommend it to everyone, although I highly recommend the movie as a whole. The movie also features a style of filmmaking that is typically 80s — a kind of aesthetic in both pacing and framing that relates it to other masterworks of horror such as Possession.

Videodrome deserves all the accolades I have given it over the years, and I expect it to continue to find relevance to our human condition as the years go by.

Long live Videodrome.

FINAL RATING: 8.5/10