I'm sweating as I'm writing this, deep south humidity is beyond brutality. Time to share some thoughts I've had about:
Videodrome If there is one film that has inspired me and never ceases to unfold since 1983
Videodrome is one of those films that keeps me thinking about the melancholic function of technology, media and it's effects on reality. I understand I'm probably not the only person who has had something to say about David Cronenberg's
Videodrome being an excellent premonition of contemporary technology. In fact I've been a little hesitant to write about
Videodrome without seeming too redundant. However, regardless of my apprehensiveness I've been looking at the film as being specific to the Internet.
Lets assume Max Renn's tv station "Channel 83" is our archetype of a lascivious website. Obviously the flow of traffic on Max's channel is dependent on what is being shown. Max is obviously becoming desensitized to the usual programming on his channel, so he seeks out something that never ceases to keep his eyes stuck to the screen. Upon discovery of "Videodrome" in the film, Max begins to take on a role like today's online voyeur upon watching the Videodrome infected program. Like Max, the lifestyle of online voyeurs is one that is constantly being desensitized and re-tested.
As the film progresses Max then decides that he would like to start screening this "snuff tv" program in hopes to upsurge the traffic program on his channel, also comparable to the myriad of similar websites found online. However, his plans are thwarted and a downward spiral proceeds. As the film progresses Max's world begins to slowly dissolve, his somatic reality begins to intermingle with television realm, a "video hallucination" as Brian O' Oblivion calls it. This melding between reality and hallucination is so subtle its hard to determine where it actually begins and ends, if it ends at all. This confusion is nothing short of Cronenberg's will. Cronenberg accurately pinpoints how television has elusively crawled under the skin of society and affects the way it perceives and interacts with everything. Let's consider the film's femme fatal Nicki Brand for instance, whether her existence in the film was tactile before she left
to be in Videodrome is arguable.
Her character plays Max's object of desire, once supposedly real ,and then transformed into a TV's RBG pixels. After Nikki's departure the story then leads into the film's most notable scene. Max Renn's television set begins to breath and Nikki's face appears on it's screen. Nikki (on screen) begins to goad Max saying,"Come to Nikki", Max curiously approaches the pulsating TV set and proceeds to caress it, the television erotically replies, Max then smothers his face into this new sexualized object.
Concise and very literal, this scene is an excellent note of how our perverse desires have superseded into technological apparatuses, again much like the Internet, and even video games. Abstractly these physical objects (pc cases, video game consoles, hard drives, video cards, motherboards, RAM, etc) that hosts our digital media almost seem to have a life of their own, living, breathing and under constant flux until their death by obseleition yields to the next best technology that can replace them. Much like sexual utilization of cars in J.G. Ballard's novel C
rash (1973),
these objects have become new and alternative sexualized objects for our libidinous vices.
Identity and fragments:
The character Brian O'Blivion plays the film's most intriguing roll . He refuses to appear anywhere but through the television screen and claims his pseudonym as "Brain O'Blivion". In the film we are led to believe that somewhere this man is alive, interacting with the world indirectly via TV. This is not the case, we are fooled. We find out that Brian O'blivion has been dead for quite some time and what is left of him are fragments of information, monologues he recorded on videotapes. I find this very harrowing if you consider blogging, chatting, YouTube, Myspace and other social networking websites. Users take on false identities to transfer and exaggerate their lives online, ultimately leaving digital fragments of themselves floating around in cyberspace, quite like Brian O'Blivion's video monologues floating around on television in the film
. Also, lets not forget about all the
dead Myspacers, as they now have appropriated a Brian O'Blivion like identity.
As for our online screen names consider this quote by Mr.O'blivion:
"Of course, "O'Blivion" was not the name I was born with. That's my television name. Soon, all of us will have special names — names designed to cause the cathode ray tube to resonate.
"

Retrospectively,
Videodrome is a film that has a slew of prophetic
aphorisms that should be taken account of, especially when society casually accepts what is on screen to be "real", and let it affect them as if it were such. However, the Internet is unmistakably more abrasive than television, given that it is a place made up of other users and their content, which substantially requires more interaction.
Videodrome still faithfully replies to a lot of our technological crisis. Cronenberg's use of violence and sex in his films re-affirm that such content will always yield toward higher emotional responses (which works well given the premise of
Videodrome), reminding us of the human condition, and that we are all voyeurs.