On the heels of the twin announcements of a VIDEOROME remake and the Ohio thon's booking on the original, I, by coincidence, happened to stumble across an old issue of Cinefantastique that had a long article about the Making of the original VIDEODROME (Vol.14.2 Dec./Jan. 1983/4).
A few things popped out.
First, of course, is how difficult the special effects were in those Pre-CGI days. Just a simple effect of having an image on a TV set as it dropped into a bathtub of water was a huge deal because they had to actually have the TV set plugged in with electricity to have the picture on the screen (and, natch, make it safe for the actors and crew!).
Second, the long-held myth that there wasn't a completed script when the film began is just that, a myth. There were actually a few drafts that were done. What IS true, is that a lot of changes occured during the prep, shooting and post-production. Budget had a lot to do with the alterations, but so did Cronenberg's tinkering with how the tale would be told. In those pre-NC17 days, VIDEODROME also got slapped with an X-Rating when first submitted (Cronenberg claims he only had to change part of a torture scene so that the man being brutalized got electrocuted in the EARS and not his....uh.....vitals).
One major set of changes ocurred after a Test screening in Boston in April 1982! Anybody go to that, or knew somebody who did??? (I went to the Press screening of the completed film, but had never heard of this test showing). The screening went ok, but, a lot of folks were confused. Part of the confusion happened because Cronenberg and his editors cut out most of the first reel of the movie so it wasn't clear who the Renn character (James Woods) was. Not even that he was a TV producer. Debbie Harry/Blondie's character Nicki also disappeared from that version of the movie without explanation. So, it was back to the editing room and most of the first reel was put back in. Also, new bits and pieces were filmed to try and make the story clearer and to also explain where Nicki had gone.
You be the judge of how well it all worked out. As I noted when we showed the film at Boston's SF/35 (February 2011): "This was never my fave Cronenberg, but I hadn't seen it in over a quarter century so I was willing to give it another shot. Although it's tech is certainly dated - Big Dish Satellite TV? VHS Tape!? - Cronenberg's film actually makes more sense now than when it was released with the proliferation of the internets and other social media. He truly was ahead of his time in many aspects. Debbie Harry isn't the surest of actresses, but her sexy presence is effective. Unfortunately, the last third drags and gets bogged down in one level of (un)reality too many with the "Long Live the New Flesh!" stuff. And, this must be one of James Woods' weakest perfomances - he never seems sure of what the hell Cronenberg expects of his character. The dark ending is brave and nasty, but, the film had already lost its way by then. Still, chilling."
|
