In 1980, our understanding of our own world as we continued to look to the stars was beginning to look rather incomplete. Nowhere is this more apparent today as in the field of neuroscience and mental health, where so-called charities are hard at work trying to convince people they are diseased when they really have more in common with the likes of Einstein or Spielberg. I say this because it has suddenly become trendy to make films that proclaim to explore the daily life difficulties of people who share this divergence, yet they are all flawed in one manner. By trying so hard to dramatise and commercialise something the makers have no understanding of, they create caricatures that are ridiculous and insulting. Much of my own video work concerns the fact that when films do get it right, they do so entirely by accident. Blade Runner was one such film. Scanners, David Cronenberg's first film to gain an international release (and at the time when home video was becoming a reality), is another.
Scanners is set in a contemporary time, not wishing to make any odd predictions about our future. The only clues to the time in which the story takes place are historical references to the development of a synthetic hormone given to women during the gestational period. This drug is overtly designed to calm or sedate the women in question, but it has the effect of altering the neurology of their children. Said children grow up with the thoughts of every individual around them echoing in their heads until a point is reached where they break down. One such individual, we see as an adult named Cameron Vale. After hearing the thoughts of a woman repulsed by his appearance, and causing her to have a seizure with his reaction, he is pulled from the street by shady government agents. When he awakens, a doctor Paul Ruth sits with him and explains, at least partly, why he has been in such an acute state of distress for so long. What he neglects to tell his latest subject is that there are plenty of other scanners out there, and not all of them are nice.
As if we needed any demonstration of that last fact, we cut to the inside of the government facility the good doctor works for. There, a scanner who has been "tamed" is giving a demonstration of his powers. Asking for a volunteer, he is met with reluctance until a seemingly ordinary man from what appears to be the scientific community puts up a hand. Asked to think of an unclassified secret that does not relate to his own organisation, the volunteer sits and calmly participates. But the man giving the demonstration shows increasing distress, convulsing and shaking as if being tortured. If you have already seen the film, you know what is coming. If you have not seen Scanners, no amount of description can prepare you. Literally, our lecturer is scanned to death, as in his head explodes. While this was not Michael Ironside's first role, starlets being groomed to be the next Nicole Kidman could not hope for a better introduction. And thus, we have the first of many performances from Ironside as a mean, ruthless sod.
This is why Scanners is a deeply flawed would-be masterpiece. While a protagonist is only as strong as your antagonist allows him to be, Stephen Lack is best summed up in the primary role by his surname. He lacks charisma, he lacks emotion, he even looks like he lacks a pulse. This would explain why Jennifer O'Neill, passive and inactive as she is, received top billing. This is why actors who can draw an audience can command millions of dollars in fees. Put simply, one does not notice when a film has halfway decent actors because they are doing their job. That job, at least in part, is to shore up the reality of the film they are in. For all the complaints I have heard people throw around regarding the abilities of actors like Hayden Christensen or others of his generation, they might as well be Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee when compared to Lack or O'Neill. They are totally the wrong people to build a film around, and were I remaking the film with similar actors, I would shift focus to make Ironside's character the hero.
The plot also becomes a problem in the final act. Cronenberg unwisely attempts to explain the origins of the scanner phenomenon, where our hero fits into it, what makes Daryl Revok the way he is, and why the good doctor is not so good, almost all in the one half hour. The end result is disjointed, although not quite pointless. Cronenberg does manage to spin the final scene into something of a climax, but the loss of the thread is really only highlighted by the fact that audiences remember the head explosion, a sequence that occurs in the first two reels of the film, better than the final scanning battle. Not that I am too surprised, as that shot was a tough act to follow. Nonetheless, the film's highlights are many, and they more than make up for most of the problems. The only problem that remains is that the scale of the story is simply too big for the budget, the technical expertise available, and the running time. Fortunately, Cronenberg was able to rectify this in his subsequent projects.
When I add it all up, I consider Scanners an eight out of ten film. It is almost a masterpiece, and a must-have for fans of gore or outsider stories.
23 out of 30 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
