HERE IT IS CRASH FANS, DAVID CRONENBERG's SCREENPLAY OF J. G. BALLARD's CRASH. THE 65 PAGE SCREENPLAY IS PRECEDED BY A 10 PAGE INTRODUCTION WHERE DAVID IS INTERVIEWED BY CHRIS RODLEY. IT ALSO CONTAINS 4 PAGES OF B&W PHOTOS. IF IT'S THE FILM's NARRATIVE THAT YOU LOOKING FOR, THEN CHECK OUT THIS 1996 BOOK. IF IT'S THE SOURCE MATERIAL THAT YOU SEEK, THEN CHECK OUT BALLARD's 1973 NOVEL. IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, CHECK OUT IAIN SINCLAIR's BOOK ON CRASH (BFI, 1999). EITHER WAY, YOU CAN INDULGE YOURSELF IN THE GUILTY LITTLE PLEASURE THAT IS CRASH. IT'LL BE OUR LITTLE SECRET.

And that's saying alot. When was the last time in literature we got to see something sexual that had never been thought of before? Very Chilling, Very perverse, and an extremely new way of looking at fetishism.

Released to coincide with the limited movie release, J.G. Ballard gives a stunning description of one man's obession with auto crashes after surviving his own accident. With brilliant descriptions and a brilliant touch Ballard takes you into a world of automotive love and the love of accidents like you've never seen before. A great weekend read, you won't be able to put this down. Erotic, thrilling, sad, moving

I'd been trying to rent "eXistenZ" for some time, but couldn't find it anywere. Finding the illustrated novel based on the movie, I snatched it up and consumed it. The watercolor panels provided enough clarity to make out what was happening, leaving your imagination to fill in the details of each scene. An excellent substitute/companion to the movie.

David Cronenberg has gained a sizeable cult following throughout his career as the director of a series of challenging and intelligent horror movies. CRONENBERG ON CRONENBERG is the definitive book on the subject; an in-depth and personal look at both the man and his amazing body of work.

The book is written as a series of lengthy commentaries by Cronenberg himself, and is accompanied with brief remarks and observations by editor Chris Rodley. David Cronenberg comes across as being an intellectual individual, and is very knowledgeable about all aspects of his films. Many times, he will go into detail about what his intentions were on a particular scene and how successful he felt it was. There are also passages where Cronenberg talks about his experiences with censorship. However, the book is most entertaining when David Cronenberg goes into these long and amusing anecdotes about his many experiences with actors (a particularly funny encounter involves an actress in the film SHIVERS who couldn't make herself cry on screen). In one of the book's most interesting moments, David Cronenberg explains how many of his ambitious ideas for the film VIDEODROME never materialized and how special-effects wizard Rick Baker (who had been attracted to the project after having read the first extreme draft of the film) had to settle for working on a toned-down second draft with Cronenberg's more surreal moments removed from the script.

The book follows the director from his early exploitation films, like SHIVERS and RABID, to his more ambitious studio work, like DEAD RINGERS and NAKED LUNCH. Fans will probably be intrigued to find out that the book also contains much information about David Cronenberg's early student films like STERIO and CRIMES OF THE FUTURE. The book also focuses on many of the themes and concerns that have become apparent in all of the director's films. Throughout the text, there are numerous photographs and footnotes and the book also offers a definite Filmography that includes a brief synopsis about each of his films.

CRONENBERG ON CRONENBERG is a fascinating portrait into the mind of one of the genre's greatest directors and comes highly recommended. This new edition comes with an excellent interview with David Cronenberg concerning his controversial 1996 film CRASH.

This book is quite simply fascinating. When I was first introduced to Cronenberg's films I was immediately struck by how perverse, disgusting, intelligent and touching they are. What interests me about this book is how articulate Cronenberg is, how the thought processes behind many of his disgusting or "out there" images come from a real sense of purity and clarity. He is a fascinating specimen, and more than deserving of the 256 pages devoted to him. I wish critics, feminists and film historians who have dismissed Cronenberg, based on limited theories, should read this book and learn the workings of a true artist. In my opinion it is hard to criticize something you've never embraced in some way.

David Cronenberg--what do we do with him? Is he a horror filmmaker? A Canadian who makes art films? A schlockmeister? Cronenberg bucks all categories and trends because so many of his films cannot be placed in any genre. You'll not find any tough-talking hipsters a la "Pulp Fiction"; you'll find no romantic cliches a la "Chasing Amy"; you'll find no staid, genteel period pieces a la Merchant-Ivory. With Cronenberg what you get is sui generis, an auteur in the true sense of the word, a man whose perverse, atheistic, disturbing visions are realized on-screen in a wholly uncompromising manner. In this book of interviews you get to hear this brilliant, highly articulate man talk about his films, production, story ideas, influences (Burroughs & Nabokov, how about that!), diseases and viruses, social mores, the responsibiblities of the artist, and more. Personally I find Cronenberg a more interesting thinker than other filmmakers, even ones I like a bit better (Woody Allen, Scorsese), because he's primarily an intellectual who is not afraid to look at the non-human aspect of his films--the insect, the parasite, the video image--and postulate its unique existence. Recent films like "Crash" and "Naked Lunch" are difficult, rewarding works, although I know many people who hate these films. Film fans are notoriously divided on where Cronenberg stands--some called "eXistenZ" a wooden bore, others one of the great SF films of recent years. Some say "Videodrome" is a mashmash of half-thought ideas, or that "Crash" is pretentious and ridiculous. Some men can't watch "Dead Ringers," while many film critics consider it Jeremy Irons' greatest performance. I think these films are oddly brilliant and exciting. And I'd rather watch a mediocre Cronenberg film than just about any independent or Hollywood film--Cronenberg always gives you something to think about. Well, make up your own mind by reading "Cronenberg on Cronenberg." Hopefully this will be the first of many books on the man and his work.

Like most people, I own a stack of Stephen King books, and for some reason I've never gotten around to review the ones I liked best, which makes me sort of ashamed of myself, since I keep saying that the quality of King's writing is often underrated. This is not the usual Stephen King book, this one is actually pretty mellow, compared to Carrie, for example, (that was the first of his books I read, and I hadn't read anything that gory before), but it still has its share of scary stuff, like The Ten O' Clock people, and The Moving Finger (after I read that one I really felt kind of nervous about the bathroom sink for a few days). I only could't get through the essay at the end, Head Down, because I don't understand absolutely anything about baseball. My favorites were Dedication, The End of the Whole Mess, The Ten O'Clock people, The House on Maple Street, and Popsy (oddly funny if you think about it). I suppose hardcore fans of King's horror will be sort of confused by this book, but I think any lover of short stories, like me, is bound to enjoy it.

i like SK particularly as a short story writer. if he has a good story he never fails then. considering his other collections, this was not as inventive as the two previous. not as matheson-like as the first. this was a great collection. a bit mixed. the end of the whole mess and umney's last case seemed to be the most inventive ones. but his other horror stories were good too. there are even some crime stories here, they are actually pretty good. although SK delivers, his collection is all in all very readworthy, his writing style good, this collection marks the sad decline of SK. some of the stories are great, true. some of the stories, however, are only good in the hands of a master. and some of the stories are completely uninteresting. it's very enjoyable, but don't expect too much.

As an enormous fan of King, this book was warmly welcolmed in my arms. I wasn't dissapointed. As always, when it comes to King, I was sold. There's also a particular reason why I welcomed this book so much: In various books about King, I learned about many of those early and hard to find King stories, all the uncollected ones, and the rare ones. I was a bit sad about realizing that maybe I would never ever own these oddities. Then, finally, a new collection of King-stories showed up, mostly containing some of those old and hard to find stories. I was happy! And the book also featured a few new ones. Again, with Night Shift and Skeleton Crew, I liked all the stories, even the teleplay Sorry, Right Number (I haven't seen the adaptation yet), the Brooklyn August-poem and the Head Down-essay. I loved The Night Flier, The Moving Finger, Chattery Teeth, You Know They Got a Hell of a Band, Home Delivery, Crouch End, Rainy Season. My Pretty Pony really touched me. I don't know a hang about baseball (I am Danish, sorry!), but King makes it interesting. All I can say is that any true King fans must read this book. There's also a Sherlock Holmes-mystery involved. I only wished that King had included stories like The Cat from Hell, Man With a Belly, Pinfall, and some others of those hard to find. What about this story "The King Family and the Farting Cookie" that he wrote for his children some years ago? That could have been major fun to own that gem!

This book is a solid introduction to the work of David Cronenberg, which follows his career up until Naked Lunch.
For a much better analysis of his work, refer to "Cronenberg on Cronenberg" ed. Chris Rodley!

Crash is the perfect example of the combination of technology and that which is organic. Although I feel the novel is much too descriptive, Ballard gets his point across quite easily. The characters in Crash all have the same sort of unrealistic fetish. Most people just have weird fetishes that do not really threaten their existence, such as the foot fetish, but Ballard and his posse have a sexual association with cars, speeding, and the inevitable crash that follows reckless driving, and they love the life threatening thrill. In the process of reading the novel, I found myself asking "Where in the world is the plot in all of this madness?" In all reality, there is no plot. Crash is simply the story of a random string of events in the lives of Ballard, his wife, and the crew of people that have car crash fetishes. The characters are constantly confusing fiction and reality in the way they act out their sexual desires. Vaughan in particular confuses fiction and reality, but he is not necessarily interested in sex, but in the technology of it all. Vaughan's strange obsessions with Kennedy and Elizabeth Taylor are mentioned quite frequently, and he acts out his sexual fantasies on a prostitute who is meant to symbolize a younger Elizabeth Taylor. Not only do the characters have sexual relationships with random prostitutes, they have sexual relations with each other's significant others. Vaughan has a sexual experience with Ballard's wife, and basically beats her up, but Ballard is turned on by the scratches and bruises all over his wife. He describes them as little "car accidents." All in all, Crash is the perfect example of the marriage between sex and technology. But if you have a problem with graphic pornographic material, I suggest you find another book to read.

Ballard's Crash is truly a piece of work! While I have never been a big reader, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this particular book. It is a very interesting examination of how technology can prevent intimacy from person to person. Almost to say that technology is preventing people from showing and using their senses because it destroys the need for them and gives us "artificial" senses. I have recently seen the movie Crash and find that it does not truly represent what the book shows.

The series of crashes continues the "destructiveness" of the previous and we see how James Ballard, the main character is no longer able to control the results of getting back his senses, in particular, his sex drive. The book really provides some extremes of how one might try to regain his path in life and come back to the world he has known in a life with his wife. Overall, the book is very well written and allows one to visualize all that is taking place. It almost puts you in the head of Ballard and you begin to realize what technology can prevent us from doing.

I must admit that there is plenty of reason that one could find the book to be revolting, but I think that in just looking at the way it was written and understanding that it is an extreme, I think it is anyway, it is the type of book that is tough to put down. I recommend the book over the movie if you like to imagine things in your own way.

"Crash," by J.G. Ballard was one of the strangest books I have ever read. From the beginning of the story, the reader knows that the story they are about to read is going to be something very different, but very exciting at the same time. This science fiction title focuses on the lives of a few people that are obsessed with the fetish between sex and car crashes. Eventually, all of the characters interact somehow deeply affecting their lives forever. Throughout the novel each character eventually gets more and more interested in the idea of the car crash, and having sex in a car.

This novel portrays a vast array of emotions to the reader from caring and tenderness, to violence and darkness. All of these emotions are weaved together very well by Ballard, somehow even fitting tenderness and violence together. I have never really looked at how car crashes and sexuality can be combined, but this book does is in a very good, although very strange way. Overall, a very good book that will keep your attention until the last page. Be prepared for something different, but entertaining.

I'm pretty sure I've read every book available about David Cronenberg in two languages (English & French). This book by William Beard is probably the thickest and says the least.

Beard analyzes Cronenberg film by film (up to but not including Existenz). His approach is academic. Now I have no problem with theoretical or erudite books, being a professor myself. But this book, entrenched in academic film analysis, must be the least enlightening book on a director that I've ever read. It takes utterly trivial insights and phrases them in the most long-winded verbiage.

Here's a sample from the first paragraph of the chapter about Videodrome. Decide for yourself:

In Videodrome, "there is finally a shift of the ground of the action into the male protagonist, a centralization of this masculine figure who can now properly represent the masculine sensibility of the film. The marginalization or diminishment of this figure in the earlier features looks in retrospect like a kind of evasion -- or, to be more charitable, perhaps simply a stage in the filmmaker's continuing hunt to discover the ground zero of desire and prohibition. Now, that centre is at last discovered to be not the sexually transgressive woman, nore the inventor-father, nor unfeeling and predatory elements of society (although all of those forms are importantly present in Videodrome), but, rather, the self. And the appetites and anxieties, with their bodily mutations and diseases, finally unfold in and enact themselves on the self, and the self's body. The self is the monster." (page 121)

I would think that this must be a central paragraph of Beard's book, since he bases his title on it (artist as monster). But what is he really saying? That the "self" is monstrous because "appetites and anxieties" give it a working-over? Everyone has appetites and anxieties -- why is that so monstrous? How does that illuminate the film? It's hard to tell what analytical stance this even represents -- some vague form of psychoanalytical criticism?

In the preface to the book Beard admits that he thinks Cronenberg is not a "great artist but a powerful minor one." I couldn't help but think that this was the book's entire problem. It thought more of itself than of Cronenberg.

Personally I think Cronenberg is a great artist, and this book is a minor one -- a powerless minor one.

(If you want help understanding Cronenberg, try the Pocket Essentials book by John Costello -- which is clear and to the point -- or, if you can read French, the interviews with Cronenberg by Serge Grunberg. The latter is probably the best book about Cronenberg available).

William Beard is probably the most enlightening critic to write on Cronenberg's films; this book is a long overdue successor to the stunning essay he wrote on DC's first five films for The Shape of Rage back in 1983. Thankfully, he avoids imposing an external, politically correct cultural/gender "discourse" and sticks to an internal analysis of the films themselves. His impeccably close and detailed readings are unfortunately couched within a somewhat verbose style, a quality which did not characterize the essay in The Shape of Rage. But having invested the effort, I found the results more than worth it, to say the least. Try to get your hands on a copy of The Shape of Rage for the essay, then read this book.

Cronenberg is a director worthy of extended scholarly discussion, and as such Grant's collection of seven essays and an interview with Cronenberg is a welcomed entry. Unfortunately, the assortment is uneven, often too narrowly focused, and includes too few essays of import to necessitate reading in its entirety. While the variety of methodological approaches is rather interesting, the utility of the majority of the essays is limited, hardly explaining the film (or films) that the author attempts to unravel, and doing little to explain science fiction/horror films or Cronenberg's oeuvre.
Parveen Adams's "Death Drive", a Lacanian analysis of Crash (1996), is the most interesting, and well written, of the essays in the collection that directly engage Cronenberg's work. Adams attempts to unravel the stylistic complexity of Crash and to align Cronenberg's directorial effects with the narrative estrangement at the heart of the film. While Adams's study is limited to only Crash, she does see beyond the film, linking Cronenberg's visual manipulations in the film to Luc Besson's earlier work, and, by implication, to work outside of Cronenberg's. Engaging and interesting for its use of Lacan and Cronenberg, Adams's essay is worth considering for any film scholar.
Most interesting of the essays is Andrew Klevan's "The Mysterious Disappearance of Style: Some Critical Notes About the Writing on Dead Ringers", which chides both specific film scholars, and film scholarship as a field for its lack of consideration of a variety of filmic elements other than simply narrative. While inflammatory, Klevan's analysis of contemporary scholarship is a vital critical entry, acting as repudiation of the earlier essays in the collection (Klevan is placed last, directly before the interview with Cronenberg, in which Cronenberg also chides scholars for their lack of critical scope). Grant's editorial introduction spends too much space attempting to find faults in Klevan's argument, but his defense is too much a protest, and in both the introduction and Grant's contribution to the collection it is quite clear what Klevan is attacking: Scholars who are too concerned with their own scholastic exercises to actually attempt to engage the text at all, instead building a fortification of "theories" to hide ignorance behind. As such, Klevan's contribution should be required reading for every film scholar.
The interview with Cronenberg is rather interesting, more for his concerns about the uses of scholarship than for his biographical revelations. The majority of the interview is spent considering critiques of his films, as well as arguing against attempts to understand his oeuvre through broad biographical or psychoanalytic means. Thus Cronenberg appears to be endorsing the methodological approaches embodied in the collection, which, with the exception of Grant, employ more contemporary theoretical modes. Otherwise, of interest in the interview is Cronenberg's extension of his earlier discussion of the aesthetics embodied in his work and the response of the audience to the grotesque visions in his films, which he attributes more to the reception of the audience than to his directorial intent.
Finally, the collection is rather myopic in its cinematic interests: A predominant number of essays concern M. Butterfly (1993) and Dead Ringers (1988). Crash and The Fly (1986) are also widely considered (and a number of the essays insist on redundantly summarizing identical scenes); eXistenZ (1999) is largely ignored, as are The Dead Zone (1983), Videodrome (1982), and Scanners (1981), with many of Cronenberg's earlier, more horrific and science fictional works mentioned only in passing. The collection also includes an extensive filmography and selected bibliography of Cronenberg criticism and reviews, which should prove useful for future studies, which will hopefully learn from the mistakes of The Modern Fantastic.

In the brief (page and a half) introduction to this collection of his first four feature scripts, David Cronenberg is clearly puzzled and typically provocative. One can almost hear him getting the phone call from the publishers saying they'd like to publish his first four scripts as a book, followed by a looooong pause, and then Cronenberg's response "Why?" For, as he quite fairly asks, "How can anyone possibly read a film script? A script is not writing. A script is a ghost of something not yet born." He elaborates: "Screen prose is rigorously functional.... its purpose is very limited.... Screenplays are scrutinized, not read.... elegance and beauty in screenwriting are qualities not responded to, not rewarded, not actually noticed..." Finally, after challenging the notion of a script as something to be read at all, he then goes on to question the reader: "How can you possibly approach reading these four odd scripts...? ...you have no function... What, in fact, are you?"

And he does have a point. After all, why exactly would anyone be interested in "reading" the scripts for Stereo (1969) and Crimes of the Future (1970), scripts that are nothing more than after the fact transcriptions of voice-over monologues. The only reason one can imagine is if the reader is attempting to chart the early fumblings of the stylish, but self-indulgent Canadian writer-director. However, even at eleven and four pages respectively, the "scripts" are tedious and pretentious in the extreme, and the idea of spending an hour watching the actual films (they are both just over an hour) strikes me as a singularly bad idea. More useful are the scripts for Shivers (1975) and Rabid (1977), solid horror/sci-fi pieces that clearly demonstrate Cronenberg's gradual progression to such works as The Brood, Scanners, and Videodrome. These, at least, can be examined and deconstructed by writers seeking to unlock the secrets of the decent horror script. Realistically though, it's hard to imagine anyone other than the hardcore Cronenberg fanatics finding this early work very interesting on the page. Those seeking to gain better insight into Cronenberg are much better off reading Chris Rodley's series of interviews with him in Cronenberg on Cronenberg.

Priest's book isn't a good transposition of Cronenberg's eXistenZ, in my opinion. I'll give you some short items: 1. there are many different things and episodes between them 2. the author describes characters' feelings in a way that has no correspondance with their behavior 3. the book explains really EVERYTHING! The readers should have the chance to try to play their own game! 4. why in the end TranscendenZ and not transCendenZ? Anyway, I'm not a writer, only a reader, and I hope you will not get angry for my comments! Bye, Paola