*******

We live in a world in which politics has replaced philosophy.

............ Martin L. Gross

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.

............ Philip K. Dick

Or, of course, the manipulation of images. This is, after all, the video age.

............ OnM

Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.

............ Gilbert K. Chesterton

*******

Humans, as a rule, are very suggestible creatures. For persons such as myself, who depend on selling either physical/intellectual labor or material things for income, this is generally a beneficial characteristic.

In my situation, things tend to work out for the best if the potential buyer already tends to know just what it is that they want, and so if you have it, or know where they can get it, great. If you don't, they don't waste your time (or their own) hanging around, they move on to the next place in pursuit of the goal, whatever it might be. Statistically speaking, most shoppers don't fit into this category, it's just one end of a bell-curve. At the other end of the curve is the customer/client who is every salesperson's / professional's worst nightmare. These are the folks that really haven't a single clue what it is that they are looking for-- they have only a vague, very fuzzy notion that they need to get 'something', and they want you to tell them what it is.

Alas, while I have a number of mostly useful skills, telepathy or divination are not among them. Instead, I end up asking questions and making suggestions until hopefully there is a meeting of the minds and a suitable positive result is achieved. However, this latter tactic only works well if the person is a secure individual who is looking for a 'solution', and if they find it, they stop right there-- goal accomplished. In some cases-- mercifully, only a moderate number-- providing a 'good' solution is not enough for certain customers. They not only need to have their problem solved, they need to know with absolute certainty that it is also the best possible solution of any and all available solutions, not only for right now but for an indefinite future period. This might seem perfectly reasonable, and it would be, except for one annoying little fact.

It's almost never possible to provide the 'best solution', at least in my business. Why? Because there are just too many variables to take into consideration. Customers ask me all the time, after I suggest a certain brand and model of, say, a DVD player, "What about Brand S? Do you think that would be a better choice? Or how about Brand P?"

Here comes the problem. If I answer them honestly, they usually won't be happy. If I answer them evasively or dishonestly, they might either be happy or think I was lying to them, and it's largely a crap-shoot to guess which it will be.

The truth is, there are umpteen-leventy-leven brands/models/etc.of equipment available. No store, no matter how big, can handle all of them. Unless I have personal experience with a given brand/product, the only honest answer to the customer's question is going to be 'I don't know'. This is not an answer that the customer normally wants to hear. They want reassurance, not ambiguity. So, most salespeople in this position do what needs to be done to save the sale-- they lie, or at least make something up that corresponds with what the customer expects to hear. Depending on largely hard-to-define characteristics such as 'personality' or 'charisma' the customer will accept the 'exaggeration' or not. Since I seem to have what could best be described as an 'odd' personality, and rather little charisma, I generally just tell the truth and hope that I get lucky and they buy the thing anyway.

And sometimes they do, but it's frustrating nevertheless. I make no claim to be all-knowledgeable about things audio or video related, but I do know a lot-- easily enough to reliably guide folks to sensible, practical solutions to their needs. As an audio guru, I pass muster. But if what the customer wants is a god and not a guru, that's not going to be me. I can only suggest, I can't pontificate.

And therein lies the rub for the buyer-- whom do they place their faith in? If the buyer doesn't understand what he or she needs from the 'purchase', and the seller lacks omniscience, the result will have to allow for a level of ambiguity.

So far, I have assumed that the ambiguity just described is a 'benign tumor' of sorts. You really don't need it, but it doesn't really hurt you, either, it's just there. Suppose the ambiguity falls from a suggestion that comes from a hidden agenda, one not in keeping with balancing the honest needs of both buyer and seller. This kind of 'tumor' might very well turn out to be malignant, and devolve in a number of nasty ways. So far, I've been using the retail industry as an example, but for real potential malignancy let's go back to those two 'demons' I mentioned in last week's column, organized religion and politics.

Are there honest politicians and religious leaders? Of course, just as there are evil, disingenuous ones. At the one end of the bell curve we have Clem and Lorne, and on the other we have Sahjhan and Angelus. In between, we have Merle and Anyanka, who aren't necessarily outrightly 'evil' in the usual sense, just mostly self-interested and/or opportunistic. These mid-vector dwellers are examples of beings that could go either way-- darker or lighter, benign or malignant-- depending on circumstances. While external factors might play a significant role in determining the direction taken, there is another consideration of equal importance, a consideration that all of the major characters in both BtVS and A:tS have been working with in this last season.

Who am I really? What do I want? On whom or what do I rely upon for moral guidance? What's the bottom line?

This is exactly the dilemma that faces the main protagonist of this week's Classic Movie and 'guilty pleasure', director David Cronenberg's 1983 release, Videodrome, when he unwittingly becomes a pawn for two warring political/religious factions.

Max Renn (James Woods, in one of his earlier but still very memorable roles) is a television programmer for 'Civic-TV', a tiny cable station in Toronto, Canada. Since his station needs a way to make its presence felt among the larger competitors in the region, Max and his two partners specialize in shows emphasizing violence and soft-to-moderate level porno material. Max understands what his audience wants, because it's what interests him, although he tells himself it's just 'a business decision'.

Early on in the film, Max is a guest on a local talk-show along with Nicki Brand, a radio 'relationship consultant' (Deborah Harry of 'Blondie' fame) and a mysterious man named Brian O'Blivion (Jack Creley) who never appears in public, but only on a television screen. Max is immediately attracted to Nicki, and makes a pitch to her for a date right there on the talk-show set. The host, who attempts to return the subject of conversation to the topic at hand-- the effects of television sex and violence on the viewing public-- gets a cryptic and tangential response from O'Blivion, and a much shorter and more sound-bitey answer from Max-- "Better on TV than on the streets."

Max's simple and somewhat self-serving answer begins to gradually deconstruct when a techno-geek friend named Harlan (Peter Dvorsky) pirates a satellite broadcast carrying a program named 'Videodrome'. Max correctly interprets the name as meaning 'The Video Arena', but what kind of conflict is being resolved? All the broadcast consists of are shots from a single video camera placed in a room, recording scenes of torture, rape and murder. Max is fascinated-- is this the 'harder stuff' he is looking for to push Civic-TV ahead in the ratings? Max assumes that what he is seeing is only acting and special effects, but the scenes look so real that they are even more disturbing than they would otherwise be. He ignores the disquieting feelings, and directs Harlan to capture more of the broadcasts, while he has a business associate, Masha (Lynne Gorman) try to track down Videodrome's producers to see if he can purchase the rights to it for his station.

Max goes on his date with Nicki, and as they become more intimately acquainted, it turns out that she's a perfect match for Max -- while assertive and commanding in her public life, in private Nicki is a sexual submissive with a taste for pain, and coaxes Max into feeling free to explore his fantasies with her. When she discovers Max's tapes of the Videodrome transmissions, she's becomes fascinated with them and even tells Max that she wants to become a 'contestant' on the show.

Max has been warned away from pursuing Videodrome by his friend Masha, who informs him that Videodrome is 'political', and that the scenes he is seeing aren't acted-- they're real. But it's too late. It turns out that the Videodrome program contains a piggybacked transmission that somehow stimulates growth of a tumor in the brain, causing bizarre hallucinations on the part of the viewer. After Max begins hallucinating, he seeks out the elusive Brian O'Blivion, whom he suspects is behind it all. Naturally, it isn't as simple as that.

The visions continue in both increasing frequency and intensity, until Max is no longer sure what is real and what is not. On the face of things, the movie seems to be asking that age-old question of to what degree we define reality as internal or external, but this is a red herring. What is really taking place is that Max has been effectively turned into a warrior for first the forces who have created Videodrome, and then for their enemy. But are either of these shadowy groups interested in furthering any agenda beyond their own? The final scene of the film answers this question, and it's not a happy ending.

"Long live the new flesh!" are the last words that Max speaks in the film, but the irony is that the 'new flesh' is an illusion and that the same old method of suggestion which repeats a lie over and over again until it becomes 'the truth'-- or the 'new flesh'-- is still the time-tested tool of the patently despotic.

Videodrome is a cautionary tale, and one that, sadly, rings as true today as it did almost 20 years ago. Max Renn didn't start out to be evil, and in fact does not finish as an evil man, but it hardly matters. First Words, and now Images shape our interpretation of 'reality', and so the determination of the moral issues of the day increasingly rest with those who choose the images we base our current inner reality upon.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

The New Technical Flesh:

Videodrome is available on DVD, which was also the format of the review copy. The film was released in 1983, and running time is 1 hour and 29 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which is preserved on the DVD. The screenplay was written by director David Cronenberg. The film was produced by Pierre David, Claude Héroux, Lawrence Nesis and Victor Solnicki. Cinematography was by Mark Irwin with film editing by Ronald Sanders. Art Direction was by Carol Spier, with set decoration by Angelo Stea and costume design by Delphine White. Special visual effects design was by industry veteran Rick Baker. Original music was by Howard Shore. The original theatrical sound mix was in plain ol' mono.

Cast overview:

James Woods .... Max Renn
Sonja Smits .... Bianca O'Blivion
Debbie Harry .... Nicki Brand
Peter Dvorsky .... Harlan
Leslie Carlson .... Barry Convex
Jack Creley .... Brian O'Blivion
Lynne Gorman .... Masha
Julie Khaner .... Bridey
Reiner Schwartz .... Moses
David Bolt .... Raphael
Lally Cadeau .... Rena King
Henry Gomez .... Brolley
Harvey Chao .... Japanese Salesman
David Tsubouchi .... Japanese Salesman
Kay Hawtrey .... Matron
Sam Malkin .... Sidewalk Derelict
Bob Church .... Newscaster
Jayne Eastwood .... Woman Caller
Franciszka Hedland .... Bellydancer

*******

Miscellaneous:

Reality can get pretty strange without any help from television-induced tumors and such. True story here:

Last week, when I recommended Election, I had to resort to digging up my tape-off-satellite copy to review the film, since I couldn't find my DVD copy. I looked all over the place, but no DVD. Did I hallucinate ever having one? Did it go wherever the socks in the dryer go? Whatever the case, this is certainly a disc that I want in my collection, so I resigned myself to getting a (new?) copy.

My two regular DVD stores didn't have a copy of Election in stock, so I went back to another store, a chain that I used to shop regularly at because they had a good selection at good prices, but who have since had steep price increases, along with an annoying physical display layout and an overly-aggressive sales staff. These changes caused me to eventually avoid buying there unless there was no other choice to find a disc locally.

So, I meander in the store and after checking out some new releases, I go looking for Election. While I am passing by the 'Sci-Fi/Horror' section on the way to the 'Comedy' section, I catch a certain disc cover out of the corner of my eye, and I stop. There, right out in the front of an assortment of discs is none other than a DVD copy of Brian Yuzna's Return of the Living Dead III. I looked for this title for close to half a year, and finally gave up, since no one seemed to have it in stock or ever had it in stock. And now, there it was, and at a good price, too.

So what's the relevance? Well, yesterday was August 31st, and exactly one year ago to the day, I posted a review/recommendation here at CMotW *for this very film. And there it was. Freaky, man. I understand that it's just a coincidence, but still... a very strange little bend in reality, I would suggest.

Oh, yeah, I not only got a copy of Election, but also found Freeway, a film starring Reese Witherspoon that several other ATPo movie fans recommended when I spoke highly of her acting work in my recent review of Legally Blonde. For $9.95, no less!

Freaky, I tell ya.

*******

The Question of the Week:

Whether or not my film-related analytical skills have improved by watching and writing about all these flicks over the last one and a half years (not to mention 122 Buffy eps and 66 Angel eps), I was somewhat surprised to note that while I've seen Videodrome several times since it was first released, this last viewing prior to writing this week's column was the first time that I really felt I understood what Cronenberg was trying to say with it.

The question: Do you tend to pretty much 'get' a film (or TV show) the first time you watch it, or do you need repeated viewings or the passage of time to do so?

Post 'em if you've got 'em, dear friends, and I'll see you next week. Summer may be officially over, but the cinema goes on forever.

Or at least as long as there's electricity. Bye!

;-)

*******

Classic Movie of the Week - August 31st 2002 - Videodrome