Video essay here: youtu.be/lvapYkTbj4s

David Cronenberg’s “Videodrome” is without question one of most bewildering films ever made. It’s like an acid trip through the depths of hell. The narrative structure is so perplexing, that I don’t think any single interpretation is less valid than any others. At some point in the movie, amid all the hallucinations, torture, sex, and murder, I hope you stop questioning whether the reality depicted in any particular scene is illusory. The truth is, it doesn’t matter. I think Cronenberg really achieved something special with this film.

What’s unique about Videodrome is that despite how baffling the plot may be, it is so rich thematically. Despite the unconventional approach, all the scenes blend together in a way that the whole actually sends a pretty profound message. In fact, I think this message is more relevant today than it was back in 1983, when the film was originally released.

Videodrome is a brilliant satire on the dangers of mass media. Cronenberg’s skepticism of technology’s ability to reach massive numbers of people is a skepticism shared by many more people today. In a way, it’s prophetic, as our obsession and dependence on technological entertainment grows more with every passing year. It’s amazing how spot-on the social commentary is in a 34 year-old movie.

What’s interesting is that when we take issue with what the media and television is doing to us as a population, in a sense we’re actually siding with the villains in the film. The broadcasts of Videodrome, consisting of nothing but snuff, create a brain tumor in those who watch the broadcasts. This is intentional by those trying to get Videodrome seen by a larger audience. They want the low-lifes who are entertained by torture porn to be purged from North America. This begs an important question to ask ourselves. At what point are we supposed to care what other people are amused by? Hopefully at a point where we are not crazy, genocidal maniacs.

It’s great how this movie constantly forces us to question ourselves about our own morality. In the first act, during Max Renn’s TV interview, he argues that TV is a healthy outlet for violent and sexual fantasies. Whether or not we agree with him, he learns right away that this isn’t the case. So after Max begins to suffer as a result of his previous ignorance, we either change our minds or we don’t. When we learn that Videodrome is a socio-political battleground in which a war is being fought for control of the minds of the people of North America, we again question whether Max’s fight against Videodrome is justified. And finally, when Max is convinced to turn on Videodrome, we can reevaluate our stance again. There are four separate stages of motivation for Max, and this keeps things fresh and philosophically interesting despite the bizarrity of the film.

Videodrome is a serious critique of ideology, specifically a commonly-held philosophy by those in power. Cronenberg paints us a potential victim to coercive propaganda, completely out of our control. It’s telling that all of the powerful idealists in the film end up dead.

Professor Brian O’Blivion, who believes that the power of television will one day bring a dawn of enlightenment to humanity, is savagely murdered. The scheming, manipulative Barry Convex, also murdered. Harlan, Max’s old friend who bends to the will of Convex and Videodrome, is murdered too. Cronenberg effectively communicates the deadly potential of ideology with his nuanced approach to horror filmmaking. His works are mostly cited as “body horror”, but I would argue that Videodrome is equally a psychological horror film. The movie’s tagline is “First it controls your mind, then it destroys your body.” I’m not sure if I can think up a more terrifying concept.

I think the different bodily transformations Max undergoes highlight his loss of self-identity. The idea is that by subjecting ourselves to the trash shown on the Videodrome broadcasts, we initiate a process in which we become something else. The vaginal slit on Max’s stomach contradicts his male sexual biology. The gun merged to his hand contradicts his non-violent personality, and we see this personality when he struggles to use force on others. The lack of individuality in society is a theme explored in other science fiction films, but Videodrome definitely has the most realistic approach to it. Max’s handgun also symbolizes how man and machine are no longer independent of each other. It’s evident that this is because we are simply influenced by technology at all times. In the 1980s, more and more people were watching television for hours a day, and now, when most of us leave home without our smart phone we feel naked. This is another example of how Cronenberg is so predictive.

Videodrome is also appealing in the way that it’s completely unapologetic in exploring taboo subjects. This is likely the reason why it’s so polarizing. It acknowledges our natural fixation on blood and lustful desires, so much so that our featured loving couple has sex to the sweet image of a man being tortured to death. Additionally, this is a compelling statement on how easily we’re brainwashed. For the most part, Max seems like a smart-enough character, but even after his initial encounter with Videodrome, he still voluntarily experiments with weird, new technology at the whims of an odd man he just met minutes before.

To depict the extent of the evil of brainwashing, Max seems to lose all agency of his own. He isn’t even able to learn any lessons after all he has been through. He KILLS HIMSELF because a TV tells him to. The first time I ever saw this ending, I was laughing during the end credits. The pure insanity of this movie was unlike anything I’d seen before. When I saw the ending again, I was laughing because I realized Videodrome also works as a satirical black comedy.

The hallucinatory aspect of Videodrome I think also serves a larger purpose, perhaps to run a parallel to the real-world experience of deciding whether a piece from the media is credible. Throughout the film we’re constantly asking ourselves: What is real? In today’s toxic political climate, we’re asking oursevles the same thing. It seems like it should be more important than ever to verify the source of our news, and to make sure the news itself is legitimate. Cronenberg’s doubtfulness about the truth in news media can’t possibly be more relevant.

Because of the vast open-endedness of Videodrome and it’s tendency to stay true to what it’s trying to say, I really have to recommend it to everyone. Despite any crazy interpretation you can come up with, it remains a necessary attack on the potential evils of mass media. With what Videodrome teaches us, hopefully the new flesh can live on without us leaving the old flesh.