text: eXistenZ is an exploration of reality and virtual reality, wherein characters run from realm to realm, landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the goal of or exactly where it's leading them. Within that virtual reality game is more layers of virtual reality games, calling into question which reality they arrive from is the "real" one.<br /><br />Of course it's not spectacular at hiding the fact that it's not going to reasonably answer to a true reality, instead tossing the idea of whether it's real or a video game into question even up to the end. I'm not even sure Cronenberg pretends that twist won't be there, it's so incredibly obvious in a sense it's kind of disconcerting.<br /><br />The problem with this film though is its base nature, in a sense. Cronenberg is questioning reality AND criticizing game play. Yet the same things that he uses to criticize game play makes him revel in it: the violence, the discontinuity, the lack of focus and in a sense, the pixellation even if there isn't such pixellation in the film. I have once heard someone state that Cronenberg's violence is actually a criticism of hyperviolence in media, but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans, animals, and amorphous piles of biological sludge.<br /><br />What IS brilliantly written and done about this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what you want to say during cut scenes, relative lack of surroundings or surroundings that don't make sense, only a few people around where it feels there should be many and vice-versa, all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. It definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that's nauseating and absurd, but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal "pods" of biological matter that squirm and shift and are, frankly, disgusting to the one of the most horrifying degrees. For what it's worth, this film causes a reaction in you.<br /><br />But what for? It criticizes virtual reality, but it's a movie: it is its own virtual reality. It seems to criticize the banality of video game plot lines and character design, yet it maintains that banality. It definitely seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life, and yet I say again, it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people, objects, beasts, things, and organisms into bloody shreds.<br /><br />So whereas it has a key focus of angst, it doesn't really do anything with it, not really. Only what it does do is present that angst in such an original way it can't really be denied its own moment of splendor.<br /><br />In a sense, it'd be much easier to just hate this movie for being gory and violent, because there's no good reason I can see for loving it and yet I can't disregard it as mediocre or bad. It'd be easier to simply not be able to take it, but since I can, there's nothing I can really do with it. I do believe it is a little excessive, it really didn't need to go as far as it went, but Cronenberg's intentions are so mixed up and confused I don't know if that was Cronenberg's flaw or Cronenberg's point, and I don't think there's really any way to figure it out except maybe ask him directly.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB