7/99
Iain
Sinclair is the kind of writer who sends you running to your reference
library. His novels, essays, poems, and short stories cannot be read with
complete satisfaction without a good dictionary and a copy of A to
Z London, or without access to a really big bookstore nearby, available
for dashing off to at a moment's notice to look up the multitude of new
authors he's prone to casually introducing. He is truly a London-based
author, for much of his work, such as his novel Downriver, is a
consideration, if not an autopsy, of that metropolis. When reviewing other
writers in the London Review of Books
and elsewhere, he favors books about walkers in that city, and
he knows not only the streets and shops and criminal dives, but also the
renegade practitioners of literature and other arts who have percolated
just below the surface at various times since the '50s. He was one himself
for a while. He seems to favor stripped-down transgressive lit, but Sinclair
the essayist writes an intense, clotted prose, packed with imagery and
insight. He seems a natural for a monograph on Crash for the British Film Institute
series of modern classics. And in fact, Sinclair mentions that the opportunity to write
the book came at a time when he wanted to hook up with J. G. Ballard, author of the
source novel for the film. But if this monograph seems a logical extension of
Sinclair's interests and the BFI's project, it is also one of the more unusual books
in the series. Not only is it among the longest of the 50-plus volumes in the two
pronged assault on cinema that comprises the Film Classics and Modern Classics series,
but it is rather unique among them for disparaging the film that is ostensibly a
"classic." Sinclair finds Crash the movie to be "a film without a sense of
smell," the book that has inspired it has been "neutralized by esteem."
Toronto, where Cronenberg shot the film, is where Ballard's "dream went
to die." But if Sinclair honors the film version best by ignoring it for
the most part in his text, he is very good on certain aspects of it, such
as Deborah Kara Unger as the wife. A walking Helmut Newton photo, Unger,
a philosophy student turned actress, captures for Sinclair the studious
sexuality of the book's equivalent. "She acts with her hair, minor adjustments,
tosses of the head that advertise the transit of small emotions." Better
yet, "she can't keep the bedclothes out of her voice." If the book is unusually disparaging about the movie it's covering,
Crash is also unusual in the amount of labor and legwork Sinclair
indulged in to write it. Not only does he track down Ballard (though not
Cronenberg), but also a host of filmmakers who in one way or another composed
ur-Crashes. Among them is Christopher Petit, now a novelist (Robinson,
The Psalm Killer), but once a filmmaker, among his works the intriguing
Radio On, which dwells in the same "frozen aesthetic of motorways,
business parks, airports hotels: franchised Surrealism" as Crash,
what Sinclair calls the "not here" at the edge of a city. Sinclair pinpoints
a significant difference between the movie and book of Crash, but
one that Petit links up with. In a subplot of the book, the main character
has dalliances with his secretary, Renata, who is color-coded with a bright
red plastic raincoat. "The clothes that people (especially women) wear
place them in a hierarchy of caste and sexual availability." That Cronenberg
drops Renata from the film (though he had originally included her in the
screenplay version) is just one of the director's many sins against the
text, one that Petit doesn't commit in his variations on Ballard's themes.
Petit pops red raincoated girls significantly into his video films, because
he knows, as Sinclair notes, that "video tape, unlike film, responds hungrily
to scarlet PVC. If I am making BFI Classics: Crash sound like a downer, that's
unintentional. Instead, I'm trying to isolate its unique characteristics.
Among them is Sinclair's exultant critical prose. Here he is on the Ballard
aesthetic: "Ballard's compacted novels of the '60s and early '70s read
as much like storyboards for unmakeable films as auditions for future
books. He revealed himself as a master of the list, the image cluster,
the questionnaire; rapidly cut high-angle drifts across previously underimagined
territory and savagely implicated close-shots. Spinal canals. Conradian
lagoons infested by cretaceous monsters. Hot jungles breaking through
the tarmac. Sexually alluring corridors. Formulae for assessing the ridges
and contours of alien pudenda. A vocabulary that lurches between Victorian
circumlocution and forensic exactitude." Sinclair is one of our best critics,
and it's fascinating and rather enjoyable to read him on one of our best
writers, while subtly disparaging one of our best contemporary films.
This book can be ordered directly from the Indiana University
Press. For a lengthy consideration of the source novel, the film,
and Canadian filmmaking, consult Jonathan Rosenbaum's archived review
in the Chicago Reader.
Return to Cinemonkey Home Page