A man with an expressive face sits in a chair and laments his aging. While he is there, a group of elementary aged kids bring a big, professional movie camera into the house. He is to be the subject. He talks about how his life is coming to an end and he doesn't seem to have the desire to do much about it. Meanwhile, those kids literally put that camera to its appropriate use. An unusual but thoughtful film.
17 Reviews
A Subtle Yet Brilliant Film From Cronenberg
gavin694210 March 2013
While a veteran actor (Leslie Carlson) laments the state of film and film acting, a group of young children sneak a Panavision camera into the apartment where the actor resides and decide to make a film with it.
While I understand that the inspiration for this film comes from a childhood dream that Cronenberg had, I am not at all clear on why he apparently made it much later in life and threw it on as an extra for "Videodrome". But it is interesting to note that Cronenberg in 2000 is not the man he was in, say, 1980. He has increasingly moved away from experimental film and is today (2013) largely mainstream. This same film made in 1980 would have likely had a very different -- perhaps surgical -- feel to it.
What is the message (if there is one)? Hard to say. Clearly it is about youth, aging, death, and the world of film and photography. But how does the camera affect aging? The common belief seems to be that photos keep us young forever, but the man in this film says almost the exact opposite...
While I understand that the inspiration for this film comes from a childhood dream that Cronenberg had, I am not at all clear on why he apparently made it much later in life and threw it on as an extra for "Videodrome". But it is interesting to note that Cronenberg in 2000 is not the man he was in, say, 1980. He has increasingly moved away from experimental film and is today (2013) largely mainstream. This same film made in 1980 would have likely had a very different -- perhaps surgical -- feel to it.
What is the message (if there is one)? Hard to say. Clearly it is about youth, aging, death, and the world of film and photography. But how does the camera affect aging? The common belief seems to be that photos keep us young forever, but the man in this film says almost the exact opposite...
Confronting mortality
movieman_kev19 June 2005
This 6 minute short film directed by David Cronenberg, which can be viewed on the Criterion Collection 2-disc DVD of "Videodrome" has an elder actor (Genre great Leslie Carlson) coming to terms with his own waning mortality after a group of young children find an old Panavision camera and wish to film him with it. He goes into a monologue about how he distrusts this camera equating it with death. For some reason I felt it was Cronenberg himself trying to express his thoughts and fears. The short itself is a tad impenetrable and difficult to derive any specific meaning from and although I did think it was good. it's not one of his better works. Despite (or maybe because of) this short being so introspective) or perhaps I just wasn't used to this kind of work to come from David.
My Grade: C+
My Grade: C+
Blip Time: Part 5
tieman6410 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"The more unique, unusual and difficult your film is, the harder it is to get it financed. That's why a lot of good filmmakers are doing television." - Cronenberg
(For Part 4, see my review of Cronenberg's "Spider")
Edward Ruscha quit painting in 1974. For two years he made nothing but prints and drawings, a time period many tout as being the official "End of Painting", an idea that had been building in the art community since the early 1960s.
Today you can almost imagine an ancient painter toiling away at his latest painting. Fast forward to the invention of the printing press, film, TV and later the photocopy machine. In this new world, the artist's work has now been replicated ad nauseam. While there are countless positives, a certain economic logic also results in an over production of copies, over-familiarity and perhaps even a decrease in the "value" of these copies. Paradoxically, the "real image", the artist's original, may increases in worth due to the formation of elite circles who are able to put the original in context. Pretty soon you end up with a strange situation: while nobody now cares about or enjoys the Mona Lisa ("Fck paintings, man! Film takes 24 paintings a second!"), there always exists a select/educated community willing to spend billions on procuring this very item.
It's the same case with theatre. Movies started the move away from stage, broadcast television amplified this transition and then cable/satellite took things further. Now high-speed networking strangles cable.
Likewise with films. The days of filmmakers being limited to ten-minute reels and physical constraints are long gone. In our digital world, every composition is possible and one can shoot as much footage as one has hard-drives. Paradoxically, now that everything is possible, the perception exists that everything has already been done - not true at all, the limits are purely socio-psychological - and that the very ease at which it can be done lessens the value of the outcome. With this, the subversive, critical, oppositional function of modernist art is gradually replaced with a postmodern world that is atemporal, ahistorical and artistically impotent. This is a "pick and mix", "pastiche" or "cut and paste" world in which films are increasingly just pieces of other films, existing nihilistically for no larger purpose (eg the Coens, late-Scorsese, in which nihilism is the purpose; postmodernism at its purest) and yet are increasing digested because of an increasingly schizophrenic inability to put anything in context. (Cronenberg: "All that's left is playing with the pieces...and when you're done, all that's left is playing with the pieces faster.")
This impotency has been produced by our extreme alienation from the incomprehensible network of economic and cultural production, the west having long moved from a society of production to one of consumption. Unable to conceive of the global network that produces the commodities we consume, we find ourselves thrown into spatial (as well as social) confusion and thrown back on an experience of both "elite" and "mass art" as sheer reception. We consume fragmented yet homogeneously commodified "surfaces" without spatial or historical depth. Postmodernism traded in art's radical history only at its retail value, so to speak.
This does not mean that avant-garde art is no longer possible, but that such art will perhaps become increasingly niche and financially insupportable. Think modernist fare like "The Wire", a series obsessed with "mapping", which survives on word of mouth only, or the way that today's challenging films are absolutely destroyed upon release (to paraphrase Jameson: "As film dies, television matures, as television dies, so will the new cyber medium rise." Ie- only frantic mediums can keep up with an era of cultural overload)
Now, with postmodern theory supposedly on the decline, we enter what is now being termed "critical postmodernism", in which some modicum of objectivity is possible and radicalism shows signs of recovery. "This new critical art," philosopher Frederic Jameson says, "is concerned with the world space of multinational capital, seeking a breakthrough to some as yet unimaginable new mode of representation, in which we may again begin to grasp our positioning as individual and collective subjects and regain a capacity to act and struggle which is at present neutralised by our spatial and social confusion."
The key words there are "social confusion". The great con of postmodernism has always been, in late capitalism's inherent dead-endedness, how to keep people watching. How to project the illusion that something new is being consumed or said when it isn't. How to sell the possibility of change, the illusion that products still have any power, let alone need to be digested, while doing the opposite. This is the very ruse of capitalism (Capitalism has made a career of celebrating the individual/product/nostalgia/desire while mutating him/her/it). The solution was once sheer spectacle. Now its schizophrenia. Or rather, schizophrenic art mirrors a schizophrenic world, and so any hopes of "critical postmodernism" or simply "modernism" getting a foothold, depends on budding artists unscrambling or mapping the schizophrenia.
Anxieties about the inability of future artists to do precisely this is what Cronenberg's "Camera" and "The Last Cinema in the World", are about. "Camera" is narrated by the past and "Last Cinema" by the future, but in both Cronenberg symbolically kills off cinema (now associated with toilets, garbage and junk storage) and ushers in the network society, the artists of which are associated with children and juvenilia, all of which exist in a kind of flat, digital, mixed media space. But whilst these artists are proud to be ushering in "the new flesh", to themselves give their bodies over to "it", Cronenberg mourns the intrusion of this malevolent new media, as it penetrates and parasitizes both society and the home, obliterating the last vestiges of humanity along with it.
(For Part 6, see my review of "Shutter Island")
(For Part 4, see my review of Cronenberg's "Spider")
Edward Ruscha quit painting in 1974. For two years he made nothing but prints and drawings, a time period many tout as being the official "End of Painting", an idea that had been building in the art community since the early 1960s.
Today you can almost imagine an ancient painter toiling away at his latest painting. Fast forward to the invention of the printing press, film, TV and later the photocopy machine. In this new world, the artist's work has now been replicated ad nauseam. While there are countless positives, a certain economic logic also results in an over production of copies, over-familiarity and perhaps even a decrease in the "value" of these copies. Paradoxically, the "real image", the artist's original, may increases in worth due to the formation of elite circles who are able to put the original in context. Pretty soon you end up with a strange situation: while nobody now cares about or enjoys the Mona Lisa ("Fck paintings, man! Film takes 24 paintings a second!"), there always exists a select/educated community willing to spend billions on procuring this very item.
It's the same case with theatre. Movies started the move away from stage, broadcast television amplified this transition and then cable/satellite took things further. Now high-speed networking strangles cable.
Likewise with films. The days of filmmakers being limited to ten-minute reels and physical constraints are long gone. In our digital world, every composition is possible and one can shoot as much footage as one has hard-drives. Paradoxically, now that everything is possible, the perception exists that everything has already been done - not true at all, the limits are purely socio-psychological - and that the very ease at which it can be done lessens the value of the outcome. With this, the subversive, critical, oppositional function of modernist art is gradually replaced with a postmodern world that is atemporal, ahistorical and artistically impotent. This is a "pick and mix", "pastiche" or "cut and paste" world in which films are increasingly just pieces of other films, existing nihilistically for no larger purpose (eg the Coens, late-Scorsese, in which nihilism is the purpose; postmodernism at its purest) and yet are increasing digested because of an increasingly schizophrenic inability to put anything in context. (Cronenberg: "All that's left is playing with the pieces...and when you're done, all that's left is playing with the pieces faster.")
This impotency has been produced by our extreme alienation from the incomprehensible network of economic and cultural production, the west having long moved from a society of production to one of consumption. Unable to conceive of the global network that produces the commodities we consume, we find ourselves thrown into spatial (as well as social) confusion and thrown back on an experience of both "elite" and "mass art" as sheer reception. We consume fragmented yet homogeneously commodified "surfaces" without spatial or historical depth. Postmodernism traded in art's radical history only at its retail value, so to speak.
This does not mean that avant-garde art is no longer possible, but that such art will perhaps become increasingly niche and financially insupportable. Think modernist fare like "The Wire", a series obsessed with "mapping", which survives on word of mouth only, or the way that today's challenging films are absolutely destroyed upon release (to paraphrase Jameson: "As film dies, television matures, as television dies, so will the new cyber medium rise." Ie- only frantic mediums can keep up with an era of cultural overload)
Now, with postmodern theory supposedly on the decline, we enter what is now being termed "critical postmodernism", in which some modicum of objectivity is possible and radicalism shows signs of recovery. "This new critical art," philosopher Frederic Jameson says, "is concerned with the world space of multinational capital, seeking a breakthrough to some as yet unimaginable new mode of representation, in which we may again begin to grasp our positioning as individual and collective subjects and regain a capacity to act and struggle which is at present neutralised by our spatial and social confusion."
The key words there are "social confusion". The great con of postmodernism has always been, in late capitalism's inherent dead-endedness, how to keep people watching. How to project the illusion that something new is being consumed or said when it isn't. How to sell the possibility of change, the illusion that products still have any power, let alone need to be digested, while doing the opposite. This is the very ruse of capitalism (Capitalism has made a career of celebrating the individual/product/nostalgia/desire while mutating him/her/it). The solution was once sheer spectacle. Now its schizophrenia. Or rather, schizophrenic art mirrors a schizophrenic world, and so any hopes of "critical postmodernism" or simply "modernism" getting a foothold, depends on budding artists unscrambling or mapping the schizophrenia.
Anxieties about the inability of future artists to do precisely this is what Cronenberg's "Camera" and "The Last Cinema in the World", are about. "Camera" is narrated by the past and "Last Cinema" by the future, but in both Cronenberg symbolically kills off cinema (now associated with toilets, garbage and junk storage) and ushers in the network society, the artists of which are associated with children and juvenilia, all of which exist in a kind of flat, digital, mixed media space. But whilst these artists are proud to be ushering in "the new flesh", to themselves give their bodies over to "it", Cronenberg mourns the intrusion of this malevolent new media, as it penetrates and parasitizes both society and the home, obliterating the last vestiges of humanity along with it.
(For Part 6, see my review of "Shutter Island")
Short film from David Cronenberg
Leofwine_draca30 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
CAMERA is a short film from Canadian director David Cronenberg that's about the film-making process itself. It's a brief little effort, effectively shot in somebody's kitchen, in which actor Leslie Carlson (who played the sinister company director in VIDEODROME) laments his loss of youth and talks about the disappointment of ageing.
Such mournful and quite tragic scenes are juxtaposed with the childish joy of a group of kids who get hold of a cinema camera and decide to make a movie. These scenes build to a crescendo of joy that gives the film a happy ending amid the tears. That it works is testament to the skill of unknown actor Carlson, who brings real poignancy to his role.
Such mournful and quite tragic scenes are juxtaposed with the childish joy of a group of kids who get hold of a cinema camera and decide to make a movie. These scenes build to a crescendo of joy that gives the film a happy ending amid the tears. That it works is testament to the skill of unknown actor Carlson, who brings real poignancy to his role.
The Camera Captures the Death of the Moment
TheExpatriate70023 May 2011
Camera is a surreal, at times impenetrable film following the attempt of a group of young children to make a short film with an elderly actor using an antique camera. In the process, they examine many of Cronenberg's typical themes, all without the use of body horror.
Or is it? In the end, the film deals with the ultimate transformation of the body, death. The actor's monologue deals with his aging and mortality, and the way that the camera catches past moments. In some respects, this is the ultimate body horror, a very real threat to all people.
Simultaneously, this short deals with some of Cronenberg's past themes regarding technology and in particular the visual image. To a certain extent, the film is a meditation on how cinema captures chunks of the past. This visual focus makes it a good complement to Videodrome. (Indeed, it is included on the Criterion Collection DVD of said film.)
As some reviewers have stated, this film does not really have a narrative and can be difficult to decipher. However, I think most people who are actually willing to seek this film out will be able to appreciate it.
Or is it? In the end, the film deals with the ultimate transformation of the body, death. The actor's monologue deals with his aging and mortality, and the way that the camera catches past moments. In some respects, this is the ultimate body horror, a very real threat to all people.
Simultaneously, this short deals with some of Cronenberg's past themes regarding technology and in particular the visual image. To a certain extent, the film is a meditation on how cinema captures chunks of the past. This visual focus makes it a good complement to Videodrome. (Indeed, it is included on the Criterion Collection DVD of said film.)
As some reviewers have stated, this film does not really have a narrative and can be difficult to decipher. However, I think most people who are actually willing to seek this film out will be able to appreciate it.
Cronenberg reminds us just how good he can be
mintonmedia31 May 2001
A great short, one of the two best created by Canadian auteurs to serve as Preludes for the 25th Anniversary of the Toronto Film Festival. (The other MUST-see from the group is Guy Maddin's "Heart of the World".)
It is not a two-character piece (as misstated elsewhere), but a somewhat rambling, splendidly written monologue "filmed" by an intriguing on-screen crew of unlikely film makers. Warm, funny, ironic and profound (not qualities normally associated with Cronenberg), yet a wee bit little creepy (and with this director, could it be anything else?), it will haunt your memories. Inspired by a dream, it captures the irrational clarity and lurking unease of the dream state in a way that may remind you of Altman's "Three Women" or Lynch's "Eraserhead". This feeling of lucid drifting is a feat that many films attempt but few achieve.
All in all, "Camera" is a splendid few minutes of film, not easy to find, but well worth seeking out.
It is not a two-character piece (as misstated elsewhere), but a somewhat rambling, splendidly written monologue "filmed" by an intriguing on-screen crew of unlikely film makers. Warm, funny, ironic and profound (not qualities normally associated with Cronenberg), yet a wee bit little creepy (and with this director, could it be anything else?), it will haunt your memories. Inspired by a dream, it captures the irrational clarity and lurking unease of the dream state in a way that may remind you of Altman's "Three Women" or Lynch's "Eraserhead". This feeling of lucid drifting is a feat that many films attempt but few achieve.
All in all, "Camera" is a splendid few minutes of film, not easy to find, but well worth seeking out.
Brilliance
Sammahel26 April 2005
This is an extraordinary fable about aging and about film-making.
This old actor, unhappy with the route of his career is also the symbol of the great problem faced by the elder ones: looking back and not finding something to be proud about.
However youth comes to rescue him, giving him a chance to always be remembered by spectators and to feel useful to a new generation.
Especially well achieve by Cronenberg is the camera motion and positioning, which seems that of a child discovering all the potential of the found camera.
Pure brilliance!
This old actor, unhappy with the route of his career is also the symbol of the great problem faced by the elder ones: looking back and not finding something to be proud about.
However youth comes to rescue him, giving him a chance to always be remembered by spectators and to feel useful to a new generation.
Especially well achieve by Cronenberg is the camera motion and positioning, which seems that of a child discovering all the potential of the found camera.
Pure brilliance!
Cronenbergs short little masterpiece
ZiggyFloydZeppelin23 December 2007
I saw this short on youtube and have watched it twice and probably will watch it again. Camera deals with an aging actor that has passed his prime, both in life and career vise. The old man talks to the screen about life, acting and the effects a camera that ,,the children" brought home will have on them all. He speaks about the camera as it were a curse that would destroy them all as the children make the camera and other film equipment ready to film the old man.
In over six minutes Cronenberg manages smoothly to summon up the most common human flaw: fear, and its effect. As soon as the old man finishes talking about the terrible effect the camera will have on them and the children start filming the old man starts lying and the short film changes from being realistic to being a fraud.
After watching this film I finally ,,discovered" Cronenberg and what it is that he has been trying to say with pretty much all of his films. Cronenberg has dedicated his career into revealing the ugliness behind mechanism by connecting it with monstrous things such as the scientist who becomes a fly, the victims of a car crash who become perverse, the TV producer who becomes illusional, computer game players who can't separate the game from reality, the exterminator who starts sniffing bug spray and also becomes illusional and can't separate truth from imagination, and most of his other work like in Dead Ringers, Scanners and The Dead Zone and probably in his older work that I have yet not reviewed. They are all trying to examine the horrifying side of machinery and the cause it will have on us in the end. Camera is the piece of film that made me realise the genius of David Cronenberg, even though I had loved most of the films I have seen by him I now have a more profound respect for him and I'm going to watch all of his work that I can get my hands into.
Camera - 10 out of 10.
In over six minutes Cronenberg manages smoothly to summon up the most common human flaw: fear, and its effect. As soon as the old man finishes talking about the terrible effect the camera will have on them and the children start filming the old man starts lying and the short film changes from being realistic to being a fraud.
After watching this film I finally ,,discovered" Cronenberg and what it is that he has been trying to say with pretty much all of his films. Cronenberg has dedicated his career into revealing the ugliness behind mechanism by connecting it with monstrous things such as the scientist who becomes a fly, the victims of a car crash who become perverse, the TV producer who becomes illusional, computer game players who can't separate the game from reality, the exterminator who starts sniffing bug spray and also becomes illusional and can't separate truth from imagination, and most of his other work like in Dead Ringers, Scanners and The Dead Zone and probably in his older work that I have yet not reviewed. They are all trying to examine the horrifying side of machinery and the cause it will have on us in the end. Camera is the piece of film that made me realise the genius of David Cronenberg, even though I had loved most of the films I have seen by him I now have a more profound respect for him and I'm going to watch all of his work that I can get my hands into.
Camera - 10 out of 10.
Cronenberg back to the roots
Horst_In_Translation15 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Director David Cronenberg started his career as many other big name directors with short films. In the 1960s and early 1970s, he made a whole lot of these, also for television. However, "Camera" was his first turn back from full features to quicker pleasures since 1972. And as it's a return of his almost 60-year-old self back to his early days, the film stars one older actor and a whole lot of young children who move in a camera while the actor keeps reminiscing about his past glory, how his best days are behind him and how death may be the next step. I quite liked his quote that you actually record the death of the moment when you record the moment. Besides that, however, it's 6.5 of the most forgettable minutes of Cronenberg's career and I'd really only recommend this short film to Cronenberg completionists and the most hardcore short film lovers.
Some thoughts on the analytical point of view
antoniomt_200030 September 2005
I just recently watched camera for the first time (there showing it on www.lovefilm.com for free).
What i gathered that this film somewhere along the line parallels with cronenberg's life (just speculation). Les carlson (the old man) seems to talk about the anxieties of not working and that the thoughts/dreams or physicality of the film world keeps him motivated and feeling less anxious. we also see the kids (these are the secondary subject, or maybe the primary)as they plod along setting up the camera but not in a childlike or juvenile way, they rig, set up the mixing boards, set the lights and rig the camera completely. Some thoughts on this subject made me think of the new generation of filmmakers Cronenberg has to encounter (he also could be calling new filmmakers 'Kids', but this illustrates a more profound answer - maybe they are not, and they are taking over). I mainly state this as the solution to the old man talking as the kids are setting everything up around him - he doesn't notice whats going on, he's to busy talking about his own problems and the fact that he is a retired actor.
you really have to watch the film to get what I mean.
It could also just be a fragment of cronenbergs sense of humour.
I hope more people watch this short film and offer their thoughts as to its subtext and maybe even symbolism.
What i gathered that this film somewhere along the line parallels with cronenberg's life (just speculation). Les carlson (the old man) seems to talk about the anxieties of not working and that the thoughts/dreams or physicality of the film world keeps him motivated and feeling less anxious. we also see the kids (these are the secondary subject, or maybe the primary)as they plod along setting up the camera but not in a childlike or juvenile way, they rig, set up the mixing boards, set the lights and rig the camera completely. Some thoughts on this subject made me think of the new generation of filmmakers Cronenberg has to encounter (he also could be calling new filmmakers 'Kids', but this illustrates a more profound answer - maybe they are not, and they are taking over). I mainly state this as the solution to the old man talking as the kids are setting everything up around him - he doesn't notice whats going on, he's to busy talking about his own problems and the fact that he is a retired actor.
you really have to watch the film to get what I mean.
It could also just be a fragment of cronenbergs sense of humour.
I hope more people watch this short film and offer their thoughts as to its subtext and maybe even symbolism.
Requires thought
bob the moo5 July 2003
An old man sits in his home and tells how his group of children found an old camera and brought it home with them. He dreads the action of the camera but prepares himself to be filmed by it with an air of inevitability.
As I watched this I found it quite difficult to get into and struggled to understand what was going on. As I watched this I found this to be a weakness however afterwards I realised that it's strength is that it forces you to analyse it after you have finished watching it as you search for understanding. The film is essentially driven by a good performance by the man who practically gives a one man show (asides from the children). His fears over the effect of film are voiced well albeit without an abundance of explanation or clarity.
I don't know why the subject interested Cronenberg but he has made an interesting short regardless. The idea of film capturing the moment has always been a good thing to me I never thought that it might be hard to know that the moment it captured is now gone forever and is not just another second of your life it is more a finished chapter. Of course I may be just chattering here because I am still not 100% sure what it was getting at but that is the reason I enjoyed it.
At times the direction seems a little clichéd, mostly notably when the old man is shot with a very close focus on his lower face, however this was only the odd shot. For the most part it is a clever mix of shots, all of which are held together by a well written and well delivered narrative.
Far from his most interesting work but this is still worth seeing as it is quite thought provoking and interesting. The downside for me was that, although thought provoking I am still leave without good answers as to what it was actually getting at beyond my own interpretation.
As I watched this I found it quite difficult to get into and struggled to understand what was going on. As I watched this I found this to be a weakness however afterwards I realised that it's strength is that it forces you to analyse it after you have finished watching it as you search for understanding. The film is essentially driven by a good performance by the man who practically gives a one man show (asides from the children). His fears over the effect of film are voiced well albeit without an abundance of explanation or clarity.
I don't know why the subject interested Cronenberg but he has made an interesting short regardless. The idea of film capturing the moment has always been a good thing to me I never thought that it might be hard to know that the moment it captured is now gone forever and is not just another second of your life it is more a finished chapter. Of course I may be just chattering here because I am still not 100% sure what it was getting at but that is the reason I enjoyed it.
At times the direction seems a little clichéd, mostly notably when the old man is shot with a very close focus on his lower face, however this was only the odd shot. For the most part it is a clever mix of shots, all of which are held together by a well written and well delivered narrative.
Far from his most interesting work but this is still worth seeing as it is quite thought provoking and interesting. The downside for me was that, although thought provoking I am still leave without good answers as to what it was actually getting at beyond my own interpretation.
Potent and Acidic
necrozen28 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As it is with most brilliant, potent, abstract pieces of work - the "meaning" is in the eyes of the beholder.
So what did I see? Well - I read what other people had to say, and I think what I saw was a lot scarier than most.
This is a movie about time, I think - and how slippery it is. We are forced, as viewers, to dissect what time is, and how it relates to film (cameras). The camera zooms in and out, isolating the narrator - making him look alien and organic at the same time. Every time he said the word death, my heart skipped a beat. After all, just as the Aged Actor who forms the center-piece of the film explains to us, film is time, and time is death.
This is a movie about birth and death. The old Actor (Narrator) personifies the camera - almost making it out to be a tinkering toy and a monstrous beast at the same time. I think this is a movie about isolation as well - you feel isolated watching it - you start to look at yourself and your "time". There is also the isolation of old and yough, and the gap of understanding.
And the end is the ultimate punch - where I think, if you look close enough you can actually catch the darkness between the frames (As they flick by at mindnumbing speeds) where death waits...
So that's my take on it.
I don't want to give too much away - you just have to watch it. It's very short, only like 6 and a half minutes long, but it hits you in the stomach like a truck and stays with you.
In case your having trouble finding this movie, let me tell you that I couldn't find it anywhere for purchase, but I did find a low-res version of it on google video.
Later I found out that it's an extra on the Criterion Collection version of Videodrome - so now I have to buy that.
Later folks! -jay
So what did I see? Well - I read what other people had to say, and I think what I saw was a lot scarier than most.
This is a movie about time, I think - and how slippery it is. We are forced, as viewers, to dissect what time is, and how it relates to film (cameras). The camera zooms in and out, isolating the narrator - making him look alien and organic at the same time. Every time he said the word death, my heart skipped a beat. After all, just as the Aged Actor who forms the center-piece of the film explains to us, film is time, and time is death.
This is a movie about birth and death. The old Actor (Narrator) personifies the camera - almost making it out to be a tinkering toy and a monstrous beast at the same time. I think this is a movie about isolation as well - you feel isolated watching it - you start to look at yourself and your "time". There is also the isolation of old and yough, and the gap of understanding.
And the end is the ultimate punch - where I think, if you look close enough you can actually catch the darkness between the frames (As they flick by at mindnumbing speeds) where death waits...
So that's my take on it.
I don't want to give too much away - you just have to watch it. It's very short, only like 6 and a half minutes long, but it hits you in the stomach like a truck and stays with you.
In case your having trouble finding this movie, let me tell you that I couldn't find it anywhere for purchase, but I did find a low-res version of it on google video.
Later I found out that it's an extra on the Criterion Collection version of Videodrome - so now I have to buy that.
Later folks! -jay
maybe the most light-hearted piece Cronenberg ever made, still with one or two creepy moments
Quinoa198420 October 2007
Camera is a loving exercise to the magic of movie-making as the subjects are an aged man who became that way while watching a movie in a theater (based a dream Cronenberg really had), and a bunch of kids who have a 35mm camera and sound equipment and are getting ready for a shot. "They just figured it out," says the old man on how they're able to operate film equipment. It's a moment like that which puts a genuine smile on my face- Cronenberg does love cinema, and not simply for the reasons that could be taken from his most notorious work (i.e. Videodrome, Naked Lunch, Crash). The only times when one feels the old Canadian maverick kicking in is when we see the video camera moving in on the man's face (Leslie Carlson as the actor, who has a great, unique face for long, lingering hand-held close ups). This is contrasted with the straightforward, innocent shots of the kids setting up the equipment. And then that final shot, where it becomes like a moment out of the best theater, if only for a moment. It's a nifty little piece that is a good accessory to see as a Cronenberg fan- the big pyshcological dramatic points are lessened for the sake of an intro to a film festival.
Cronenberg's second worst, but still good.
TheEmperorAndWolf19 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I found this short to be uninteresting while watching it, but afterwards it did stir up some thought in me about the horror and beauty of film.
I don't really know if this is a spoiler, but just in case you may not want to read.
The Old Man mentioned something about the camera captures the death of a moment and the old man says he is a retired actor. To me at least that meant that this Old Man has been slowly dying in front of the Camera his whole life (reference from his dream). He has a new life until the children bring the Camera into the house, and he notes that children and camera's should not be put together. Obviously again noting since that this Camera "captures the death of a moment" that would make sense because the children should have a life instead of slowly dying like the old man. Write something back to me if you want to discuss.
Also I liked how it was a sort of criticism on cinema itself, but at the same time honoring it. Plus the idea that the Old Man is dying, but is being immortalized by the same camera that is killing him.
I gave it a 4 strictly because of visuals. Other than that, at least it was better than Fast Company.
I don't really know if this is a spoiler, but just in case you may not want to read.
The Old Man mentioned something about the camera captures the death of a moment and the old man says he is a retired actor. To me at least that meant that this Old Man has been slowly dying in front of the Camera his whole life (reference from his dream). He has a new life until the children bring the Camera into the house, and he notes that children and camera's should not be put together. Obviously again noting since that this Camera "captures the death of a moment" that would make sense because the children should have a life instead of slowly dying like the old man. Write something back to me if you want to discuss.
Also I liked how it was a sort of criticism on cinema itself, but at the same time honoring it. Plus the idea that the Old Man is dying, but is being immortalized by the same camera that is killing him.
I gave it a 4 strictly because of visuals. Other than that, at least it was better than Fast Company.
A short film from David Cronenberg with very selective appeal
Red-Barracuda25 September 2016
This is Canadian director David Cronenberg's first short film since his early days as a film-maker. It has an elderly man sit at home and tell us that today a group of children found a movie camera and brought it home; he waits, knowing he will soon be filmed by them with it, this inevitability causes him some trepidation.
Clocking in at six minutes, there really isn't much time for this to achieve anything too much and I can't say I came away from it very impressed or enlightened. Short films, especially when they are this short, are something that have limited appeal for me in that they rarely make an impact; this one is no different for me. The actor talks about the function of the camera being to capture the death of the moment and to expand on this he tells of a dream he had where he sat in a cinema and watched a film in which he was being filmed and this led him to rapidly age, causing him a feeling of terror. So the film has something negative to say about the process of being filmed. But this one ultimately is very much for Cronenberg diehards, although I would say it is of limited interest even then.
Clocking in at six minutes, there really isn't much time for this to achieve anything too much and I can't say I came away from it very impressed or enlightened. Short films, especially when they are this short, are something that have limited appeal for me in that they rarely make an impact; this one is no different for me. The actor talks about the function of the camera being to capture the death of the moment and to expand on this he tells of a dream he had where he sat in a cinema and watched a film in which he was being filmed and this led him to rapidly age, causing him a feeling of terror. So the film has something negative to say about the process of being filmed. But this one ultimately is very much for Cronenberg diehards, although I would say it is of limited interest even then.
Interesting Short Film
Michael_Elliott23 November 2016
Camera (2000)
*** (out of 4)
An elderly actor (Leslie Carlson) is discussing cinema when some children enter his apartment with an old movie camera.
This six-minute short from David Cronenberg isn't the greatest thing that the director ever did but it is an interesting piece to his filmmography. I honestly can't say I know what the director was going for but it's got a rather surreal nature to where you're watching it, not knowing what it's trying to do yet when it's over you find yourself thinking more about it. Obviously morality is something I think plays a role in the film. The elderly man talks about getting old and how he once had a dream about growing older due to a camera. The lead performance by Carlson is very good and there's no question that he draws you into the material.
*** (out of 4)
An elderly actor (Leslie Carlson) is discussing cinema when some children enter his apartment with an old movie camera.
This six-minute short from David Cronenberg isn't the greatest thing that the director ever did but it is an interesting piece to his filmmography. I honestly can't say I know what the director was going for but it's got a rather surreal nature to where you're watching it, not knowing what it's trying to do yet when it's over you find yourself thinking more about it. Obviously morality is something I think plays a role in the film. The elderly man talks about getting old and how he once had a dream about growing older due to a camera. The lead performance by Carlson is very good and there's no question that he draws you into the material.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
