David Cronenberg Ditches Hollywood Delusions to Embrace Digital in Tragic New Film ‘The Shrouds’

In his latest movie, “The Shrouds,” currently screening in cinemas through Sideshow and Janus Films, David Cronenberg‘s influence is evident. Vincent Cassel portrays Karsh, a tech genius from Canada who designs a cemetery where you can observe your deceased loved ones decaying in real-time using an app. Given the visual similarities between Karsh and Cronenberg, such as his distinctive hairstyle and minimalist fashion sense, and the fact that Cronenberg wrote this film after his wife’s death in 2017, some critics have suggested that the film is heavily autobiographical. However, Cronenberg himself has denied these claims. In a conversation with EbMaster, he discussed various aspects of his artistic process, including his focus on the audience, his positive view towards technology, and his reluctance to be confined by genre.

So many of your movies feel like they have personal elements. “The Shrouds” seems like one of your most personal works. Did you have any anxiety about putting so much of yourself in this film?

Indeed, while my inspiration for this film originated from the loss of my wife and my subsequent emotional response, once I began writing the screenplay, it transformed into a work of fiction. The protagonist, Karsh, is a high-tech entrepreneur, a role I don’t personally identify with. He owns a cemetery and a restaurant, among other things. At this stage, I step away from reality and real people, crafting a fictional world instead. I was not concerned about it, as it wasn’t a matter of defaming anyone or anything, so in this instance, my answer would be no.

Now that the film is out in the world, do you think about death differently than when you first started making it?

The response is negative, but I delved deeply into various global burial traditions due to an initial idea for a Netflix series. In this hypothetical show, Karsh would explore different nations, aiming to create high-tech cemeteries, yet facing potential resistance from countries due to religious, economic, or political concerns. The diversity of burial practices worldwide is truly remarkable, but none of them significantly influenced my perspective on life and death.

Some filmmakers obsessively consider how audiences will receive their films and how they will react to certain beats or ideas. Others just focus on putting their vision out there and say they don’t think about the audience at all. Where do you fall between those different philosophies?

In a unique and introspective manner, I consider my audience. Unlike Alfred Hitchcock, who controlled his viewers like a puppeteer, I foster a different connection. I share my thoughts, introduce intriguing characters, and invite you to journey with me as we explore their lives in the film. This experience encourages us to question, ponder, and reflect. I’m not crafting a puzzle for the audience to solve; rather, I aim to portray the complexities of life on screen, eschewing the traditional, neatly-tied narrative structure that some might find frustrating. Instead, my focus is on creating a movie that mirrors real life as we know it.

Your filmography is so indelible. Is it sometimes challenging to release a film knowing that people are going to be watching it in relation to your full oeuvre versus a unique new work?

I generally avoid contemplating my past films and how audiences might perceive them during the filmmaking process. If I dwelled on that, I’d likely become overwhelmed and unable to create. There are countless ways to analyze such considerations, and predicting audience reactions is impossible. While each movie shares connections due to my unique sensibility, pondering past films doesn’t provide creative inspiration — it doesn’t offer me tools or resources to utilize. Consequently, I treat every film as if it were the first one I’ve ever made, disregarding any prior work during production. It isn’t until the movie is released that people — particularly critics — draw connections between my films, and while I can acknowledge some of these links in hindsight, I don’t concern myself with them during the creative process. Instead, I focus solely on the task at hand.

When developing a new story, do you tend to think of the characters first, the inciting incident, the genre or something else?

I completely disregard genre when creating my films. To me, categorizing them is more about marketing strategies, such as deciding whether to market a movie as a horror or a gangster film in order to sell it. However, these labels don’t provide any creative guidance for me as an artist. For instance, movies like “Dead Ringers” and “Naked Lunch” defy traditional genre classifications. I find that many critics grapple with the question of what genre my films belong to, but I’m not concerned with such labeling since it doesn’t influence my filmmaking process. I may not be familiar with specific genres like “body horror,” as it wasn’t a concept I developed myself. If classifying the movie helps people understand or appreciate it, I have no issue with it, but it isn’t something that enters my mind during production.

During your career, you’ve been attached to many projects that have taken a turn in the development process and not worked out, including directing projects like “Top Gun” and “American Psycho.” Are there any films that didn’t work out that now you look back and you think, “I’d have loved to take my shot at that one?”

In retrospect, I find myself being quite level-headed about such situations. Occasionally, there are opportunities that slip through my fingers, and in those moments, I’m grateful for not having dived headfirst into them. Looking back, I can clearly see how detrimental it could have been for me, yet at the time, I was captivated by the allure of the idea.

At one time, I had discussions with MGM regarding a film adaptation of Robert Ludlum’s novel, “The Matarese Circle.” I reached out to Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington as potential leads for the movie. I shared some quality time with Tom, and we hit it off quite well; he seemed genuinely enthusiastic about my screenplay based on that book, and was eager to embody the character. However, MGM faced bankruptcy, which unfortunately halted the production of this film, and no one ever revisited the idea again. It would have been a highly anticipated spy flick. Could it have been excellent? Perhaps intriguing? The script showed promise, but only time can tell. Am I sorry about it not happening? Not exactly, but it’s something that occasionally crosses my mind.

Which of your films do you feel would be ripe for rediscovery?

It’s quite common for many of my movies to be remade or receive restorations, such as “Rabid.” For instance, a 4K restoration of “Crash” was shown at the Venice Film Festival a few years ago. The response from the audience, which was large and young, was significantly different than the initial screening in Cannes during the 80’s, where the audience was often scandalized or outraged. This time around, they stayed for the Q&A session and their questions were thoughtful and intelligent. It was fascinating to witness this fresh discovery of “Crash” by this modern audience. However, I’m unsure if the 4K version sold beyond that initial screening.

You’ve done some recent interviews where your comments about using AI in film work and shooting on digital surprised some creatives. Why do you think you are so willing to embrace new technology at a time when other filmmakers might not want to, or are obsessed with the idea of reaching back to the past by shooting on film?

Some film directors may believe they’re tapping into the legacy of old Hollywood by working with traditional film instead of digital. However, I personally find this notion rather misguided. Recently, I received an email from a cinematographer I’ve collaborated with on my last two projects, who shared his experience of comparing scenes shot on 35mm Kodak film and digital versions side by side. He mentioned that the results were indistinguishable. To me, working with film is nothing short of a hassle, especially when it comes to editing and splicing. We romanticize film because many classic movies were made using this medium, but that doesn’t make the medium itself superior. In fact, digital technology far surpasses its primitive counterpart in numerous ways.

Filmmaking is all about having control over various aspects, like lighting, which can be adjusted even after a scene has been shot in digital production. This flexibility is lacking when working with film. Therefore, I see no justification, not even financially, for shooting on film nowadays. The costs associated with film production are high due to the scarcity of labs capable of processing it. In fact, some directors have had to send their films from Los Angeles to Mexico, as there were only a few places left that could handle such work. It’s like chasing a ghost, trying to connect emotionally with the unique quality of film. However, this doesn’t translate into a visually distinct final product, and for me, that’s the crux of the matter.

Could you tease what project you’re working on next?

I’m currently collaborating with Robert Lantos, a well-known Canadian film producer who has worked on “Crimes of the Future” and some other projects with me, on the possibility of adapting my novel “Consumed” into a movie. He’s been interested in transforming this book into a series or a film for quite some time, and he’s managed to persuade me that it could be a good idea. As a result, I’m now writing a script for my own novel, which is an entirely new experience for me since I’ve only written one book so far. The question remains whether the script will be something we both want to pursue and if it can be financed. Given that the story takes place in four countries, it won’t come cheap, but we’ll see where this project leads us.

Watch the trailer for “The Shrouds” below.

2025-04-27 00:47