Editorials
The Father/Son Cronenberg Conversation in ‘Antiviral’ [Maple Syrup Massacre]
Maple Syrup Massacre is an editorial series where Joe Lipsett dissects the themes, conventions and contributions of new and classic Canadian horror films. Spoilers follow…
Three films into his feature film career, Brandon Cronenberg has established himself as an innovative and confronting auteur in his own right. When he debuted his 2012 feature debut Antiviral, however, the quality of the film was a secondary topic; first and foremost he was compared to his famous father, David Cronenberg.
There’s a obvious level of cynicism involved whenever a celebrity’s child enters the same field (let’s all agree to bury the term “nepo baby” and move on with our lives). But in the case of Cronenberg junior, there’s an interesting argument to be made about how his father’s work influenced Brandon’s creative approach, and where he’s established himself in his own right.
For a time, David Cronenberg was indisputably Canada’s most famous director (he and Atom Egoyan seemed to parry for public favour throughout most of the early 90s). Not only had Cronenberg senior carved out a niche for himself with his “body horror” films of the 80s, Cronenberg was one of the few Canadian filmmakers actively working in horror. There were plenty of folks involved in the Tax Shelter Era of the late 70s and 80s*, when Canada was actively courting American investment – often in low budget horror films – but few writers and directors were making a career of it.
*There’s also been plenty of debate about the quality and merit of a lot of the films made during this period, but that’s another editorial.
All of this to say that, in the 80s and into the 90s the most active, recognizable Canadian working in genre was David Cronenberg, which means he shaped the industry and public perception of horror and sci-fi.
Fast forward to 2012 when Brandon Cronenberg debuted Antiviral at Cannes, his debut feature competed in the Un Certain Regard section. Cronenberg senior’s Cosmopolis, meanwhile, was in competition for the Palme D’or. And both films share the same female lead (Sarah Gadon). So not only was the son contending with the legacy of his famous father, they were both in the public eye with the same actor at the same time.
Comparisons were inevitable.
Antiviral follows Syd (Caleb Landry Jones), a low-level employee working at the Lucas Clinic. In the film’s gently futuristic world, the public’s obsession with celebrity has been taken to extreme new lengths, including the collection of celebrity diseases for injection, and incubation in their most ardent fans. Throughout the film we see Syd peddling the fantasy of being closer to fictitious celebrities like Aria Noble (Nenna Abuwa) or Hannah Geist (Gadon) via infection with their herpes or flu.
The real money, however, comes from corporate espionage. Syd injects himself with patent-protected diseases and uses a bootleg ReadyFace machine in his closet to crack the security mechanism, leaving him free to sell the diseases to Arvid (Joe Pingue), whose legitimate business is growing celebrity cell steaks for literal cannibalistic consumption.
The plot of the film kicks in when Syd accidentally doses himself with a deadly virus that is slowly killing Geist, necessitating plenty of desperate deals with seedy underworld types in order to uncover a cure before he dies.
As a film, Brandon Cronenberg’s feature debut is a little too long, a little too repetitive, and lacking in the same critical bite that his subsequent features – Possessor and Infinity Pool – contain.
As a debut feature, Antiviral accomplishes two simultaneous tasks. On one hand it establishes the foundation of Brandon’s visual style and narrative interests that will continue throughout his subsequent films. On the other hand, it also appears to be drawing from, engaging with, and even anticipating his father’s (past and future) work.
Like many of his father’s body horror films, Brandon’s feature debut has a cool, antiseptic visual aesthetic that stands in stark contrast with the dirty real world. There are plenty of scenes set within hotels and private clinics – with an emphasis on white walls, sterile syringes and medical equipment. This contrasts with the film’s grimy, low-fi vibe – embodied in the repurposed look of the ReadyFace machine, the basement of the restaurant where Syd is brought to Levine (James Cade), as well as Arvid’s unhygienic backroom.
These visual signifiers carry over into Possessor’s assassination office space, as well as the first-class resort in Infinity Pool. Possessor also adopts Antiviral’s same narrative interest in exploring corporate espionage, as well as themes of assassination and the loss of bodily autonomy. With its defined capitalist critique and slight shift away from body horror, Infinity Pool suggests a similar, albeit new creative direction for Cronenberg junior.
So what about Antiviral’s connective tissue (heh) to David Cronenberg’s films?
Syd’s status as an individual caught in a vast corporate espionage conspiracy tracks with 1981’s Scanners and 1983’s Videodrome, though the intersection of celebrity, body horror, and capitalist spy games most closely evokes David Cronenberg’s unofficial Videodrome sequel, 1999’s eXistenZ. In that film, celebrity game designer Allegra Gellar (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who also stars in Possessor) goes on the run following an assassination attempt by a corporate rival while beta testing her new game.
There are brief moments of hallucination in both Antiviral and eXistenZ: the uncertainty of the changing Canadian landscape in the latter, partnered with Pikul (Jude Law)’s fear of penetration is reminiscent of Syd’s nightmare in which his mouth has been replaced by a metal grill that leaks blood. The blossoming contusion on Syd’s arm where Levine takes a skin sample is evocative of eXistenZ diseased game pod, while Syd’s physical degradation, including his reliance on a cane, brings to mind Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum)’s transformation in The Fly.
Sidebar: it’s ironic that few critics noted how funny Antiviral is, particularly in the moments when Syd eavesdrops on the inane conversation of his co-workers. Cronenberg senior has a dark humour streak through many of his films, including eXistenZ. Case in point: Willem Dafoe’s performance as Gas.
The conversation between father and son appears to go both ways. Cronenberg famously returned to body horror last year with Crimes of the Future (a spiritual sequel to Videodrome & eXistenZ). The visual signifiers of Syd’s weakening condition, his sudden ascent in popularity due to his illness, the potential to profit from individuals’ literal bodies, and even the disgusting celebrity cell meat in Antiviral all have counterparts in Cronenberg senior’s return to horror (hint: think of those toxic purple bars).
Whether Cronenberg senior was deliberately drawing connections to his son’s work, or it is further evidence that father and son’s creative sensibilities remain entwined, the parallels are fascinating. Considering David Cronenberg’s substantial contributions to the development and (eventual) recognition of the artistic merits of genre films in Canada, watching Brandon embody the same visual and narrative preoccupations while also emerging as a powerful artist in his own right has been incredibly exciting.
David Cronenberg is currently in post-production on new genre film The Shrouds, which begs the question: where will his and Brandon’s work go in the future and (how) will they continue to engage each other in cinematic conversation?
Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.
Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.
Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.
It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.
At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.
It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.
As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.
Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.
Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.
Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.
I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.
‘Infested’ Review – One of the Best Spiders Attack Horror Movies in Years
Dev Patel’s ‘Monkey Man’ Is Now Available to Watch at Home!
Five Underseen Vampire Horror Movies to Stream This Week
‘Stream’ – Horror Movie from the Team Behind ‘Terrifier’ Sets August Theatrical Release
Limited Edition ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ Monster High Doll Releasing This Week!
You must be logged in to post a comment.