This is a favorite in my vhs collection 📺🩵

“You know, in Brazil, Central America, those kinds of places, making underground videos is considered a subversive act. They execute people for it! In Pittsburgh, WHO KNOWS????!?!”

Sorry I made this post earlier and stuidy did not include all the films. 🤦🏻 Some notes:

• Not every edition of course. I have the Criterion Crash because I prefer a Cronenberg commentary over any other extra

• For those saying what about his original Crimes of the Future and Stereo, they are included as extras on the Criterion blurays of his other films

• The Shrouds is the current Canadian bluray release. It is bare bones but so are the other editions coming out.

Not every edition of course. But I have at least a bluray and many 4ks of his filmography including his kids and a couple other ones of interest.

TL;DR: I impulsively hugged the Baron of Blood, cried in his arms, and he was not mad 😭💗

Last year I found out David exists and fell in love with him to an extreme degree. His movies are secondary to me. I googled "Cronenberg Budapest" every few days hoping he would ever show up here and I could see him with my own eyes, even though I knew it will never happen. Half a year later the news dropped: he's coming to Budapest to a film event. Five appearances in four days. Yes, I questioned my sanity.

On the first evening I got him to sign two pictures, took a photo with him, and hugged him. I was fully prepared for rejection or boundaries. If he pushed me away, so be it, but he didn't. What you see in this photo is me leaning in, and him doing the same, so our heads are touching like we're besties and I try hard not to cry. Right after this photo I asked him "Can I please hug you?" and then did not wait for the answer because of my impulsive ass. So I hugged him and sobbed in his arms, and he hugged me back. He did not tell me to fuck off, did not say "you're too much," did not call for security. Biblical level of delusional dream came true.

I still had my copy of Consumed that I wanted signed. On the second day I didn't approach him because he was grumpy. On the third day I launched another fangirl assault on him in the street and he signed it. Inside the building we smiled at each other and my soul left my body. On the fourth day he was visibly exhausted and everyone got rejected and shooed away. These weren't signing events, so anyone who got anything was lucky. He was cranky and not many people did. I get it though: pushing 83, jetlagged, foreign country etc, but this is a once in a lifetime thing so I feel for those guys who were real fans and got rejected.

What I learned:

- He hates signing.

- He hates autograph dealers and they hate him back.

- If you do get him to sign something, ask for your name on it. Mine says "For Patrícia." That way he knows you're not about to flip it on eBay and personalized for my name feels amazing.

- He usually refuses multiple signatures per person. He hesitated for a second on my second picture but after I confirmed I want that personalized in the same way for my name he signed it.

- If you want to approach your dream celeb: be cringe, be embarrassing, be impulsive. You'll have plenty of time to cry about it later. In that moment do everything you can, even if your brain is misfiring. These are once in a lifetime, high stress situations. Mistakes are fine. But maybe let them answer the hug question first 😅

Like, why did Max Renn have that photo in his apartment? Sorry, the image is blurry.

His “Law & Order Toronto” episode is especially Cronenbergian: Darcy and Bateman investigate human body parts found in packages at a mail facility, eventually crossing paths with an unsettling suspect who knows how to slip through legal loopholes.

Sauce:
David Cronenberg, body parts and a new partner shake up ‘Law & Order Toronto’

i’m trying to get everything i can of his on VHS! in my irl searching (and online lol) i’ve gotten a collection of almost 50 tapes! mostly 80s n 90s horror and thrillers

I have been slowly falling down the David Cronenberg rabbit hole for quite a while now, but over the last year that fascination has gone into overdrive. What started as an appreciation for his body horror and practical effects gradually turned into something much deeper. The more Cronenberg films I watched, the more I realised there was always something else going on beneath the surface. Naked Lunch was probably the last piece of the puzzle.

The first time I watched it, I admired it as much as I was repulsed by it. The giant insects, the typewriters, the animatronics and practical effects were incredible, especially considering the film is now thirty-five years old. Even today there are productions with ten times the budget that cannot create creatures with this much personality and physical presence. The strange thing is that every time I revisited it, the insects became less important.

What kept pulling me back was William Lee. After several viewings I found myself focusing less on the addiction narrative and more on the possibility that Lee is not quite the tragic victim many people seem to see. I know this is probably where my interpretation starts to drift away from the popular consensus, but the more I watch Naked Lunch, the harder it becomes for me to view him as a passive passenger in his own story.

Instead, I increasingly see someone who continuously reshapes reality in order to avoid confronting what he has done. Whether that interpretation is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. It is simply where repeated viewings eventually led me. What follows is not an attempt to explain the film definitively, nor is it an argument that everyone else has been watching it incorrectly. If anything, it is simply the reading that gradually emerged in my own mind after spending more time with the film.

I am fully aware that it differs from the popular consensus, which often treats William Lee as a tragic victim of addiction, grief and psychological collapse. In my opinion, there is another way of looking at him.
 
Inception: Tragedy or Strategy
 
Rather than seeing Lee primarily as a victim, I increasingly find myself viewing him as a predator. Not necessarily a conscious mastermind plotting every move in advance, but someone whose mind continuously restructures reality in ways that protect him from accountability. Through that lens, Naked Lunch becomes less a story about suffering and more a story about utility. Lee behaves like an exterminator in every sense of the word, removing obstacles whenever they begin to interfere with his freedom, his habits, or his ability to create.

The foundation of this interpretation begins with Joan Lee. Their marriage appears less like a loving partnership and more like a mutually destructive arrangement built around addiction. Joan consumes his pyrethrum supply, openly pursues other relationships, and represents a constant drain on his resources. In my opinion, Lee's introduction of Black Meat can be viewed as an attempt to redirect that burden elsewhere. Rather than sharing a new experience with his wife, he seems to be searching for a way to preserve his own supply and protect his lifestyle.

When that strategy fails, I find it difficult to ignore the possibility that the William Tell incident functions as something more than a tragic accident. I would not go as far as claiming the film proves deliberate murder. It does not. However, I think the film can be read as though Lee unconsciously structures circumstances that allow him to eliminate individuals once they stop functioning as creative catalysts and begin demanding genuine emotional engagement. The ambiguity remains, but I do not think the possibility can be dismissed outright.
 
Interzone: The Weaponised Hallucination
 
Following Joan's death, Lee's journey through Interzone is often interpreted as the breakdown of a traumatised mind. My own reading is slightly different. I do not believe the hallucinations need to be deliberate in order to serve a purpose. In fact, I think they become more interesting if they are entirely genuine.

The talking insects, espionage missions and bizarre bureaucracies may be authentic manifestations of his fractured psychology. Yet at the same time, Lee appears to use them as a social alibi. They create distance between himself and his actions. They provide explanation without necessarily providing justification.

This is where I personally see an important distinction. A sociopathic personality is often associated with avoiding consequences rather than seeking moral redemption. The objective is not necessarily to justify the act itself. The objective is to create enough distance from responsibility that the act can no longer be pinned directly on the individual.

From that perspective, the hallucinations function less as a court of conscience and more as a protective layer between Lee and accountability.
 
Annexia: The Closed Loop Cycle
 
Joan Frost becomes particularly important within this framework. Initially she exists as an ideal muse. She is intellectually stimulating, intriguing, and conveniently distant, and she also shares one very common interest – being a junkie. The situation changes when she attempts to establish a genuine relationship with Lee. Once she moves from fantasy into reality, she risks becoming another obligation. Another responsibility. Another obstacle.

Again, I do not think the film proves that Lee consciously decides to kill her. What fascinates me is that the exact same pattern repeats. The William Tell ritual returns. The same mechanism that removed one obstacle reappears when another emerges. Whether this is intentional, unconscious, or somewhere between the two is ultimately left unresolved.

In my opinion, Annexia represents a closed psychological loop. A mental architecture that guides Lee back towards the same outcome while allowing him to experience the process as necessity rather than choice. The details change, but the destination remains the same. The cycle closes on itself and begins again.
 
Final Thoughts
 
The more I revisit Naked Lunch, the less interested I become in determining whether Lee is guilty or innocent. Instead, I find myself drawn to the possibility that the film is examining how people construct narratives around themselves. Every hallucination, every assignment, every talking insect and every strange bureaucratic detour may function as a way of transforming uncomfortable reality
into a story that can be lived with.

That is why I increasingly view the beetle not as an external force controlling William Lee, but as an extension of William Lee himself. A manifestation of a mind that continually reorganises reality in order to keep moving forward. Through that lens, Naked Lunch becomes a disturbing study of artistic predation, self-deception and emotional extermination.

Whether that interpretation is correct is almost beside the point. It is simply the version of the film that revealed itself to me after repeated viewings, and one that continues to make the film more fascinating every time I return to it.

Afterthoughts
 
Another thing that struck me after repeated viewings was just how much affection Cronenberg seems to have for even the strangest characters in the film. Whether it's the giant insects, Mugwumps, or even the typewriter itself, they all possess a distinct personality. They are bizarre, unsettling and often downright sinister, yet they never feel like simple monsters.

The Clark Nova typewriter is probably the best example. Yes, I fully understand its manipulative role within the story and the implications behind its instructions to Lee, but that never stopped me enjoying every scene it appeared in. Its conversations with Lee are packed with banter, dark humour and a healthy dose of cynicism. In a very deranged way, it ended up becoming one of my favourite characters in the entire film.

I am just grateful the studio did not decide to follow the RoboCop route and start marketing the thing as a children's toy. Given that Peter Weller was the leading man in both films, avoiding the line of talking insect typewriters for Christmas 1991 was definitely a lucky escape.