Genre. Croneneberg.

If one were to examine the most recent films of David Cronenberg, A History of Violence (2005) and Eastern Promises (2007), it would be easy to prematurely conclude that he works solely in the family drama. But unless the population of films from which one is observing is 3, then 2 samples doesn't manage a very representative examination.

While the concept of family has indeed pervaded his work form the beginning, it has only been in the most recent millennium that Cronenberg films have narrowed focus and arrived precisely at this category. Early in his career, the director was most fascinated with assaults on the body, and from within the body, found most readily available in the horror genre. Thus his filmmaking career came to prominence as scientific experimentation goes wrong and the effects cannot but help detriment society. Yet within these relatively straight horror films the family would still play an important role.

As the 80’s transitioned in, Cronenberg’s film incorporated additional science fiction elements that had been hinted at in the previous decade. The director assaulted his characters by using their own bodies against them. His work continued through the next decade, described more accurately by his adaptations of other’s works with his own brand stamped on.

Thus the oeuvre has incorporated numerous genres, at times mixing, at times sampling. Of more interest here, aside from what particular genres the director navigated, is the effect that such navigation has on his career. Long established as one of the foremost cult film directors, in the new millennium, he finally admits to being able to ‘sell out.’ And Cronenberg is not the only director to have started out in horror, made a name for himself, and moved more mainstream. However, his career can still be defined largely by the horror elements, specifically his commanding hold on body horror.

It would now be relevant to examine how the concept of auteur is related to the idea of genre. As is evident, the range of Cronenbergian films remain distinguishable despite exploration of numerous genres. While other directors have been firmly cemented into a particular genre and identified with such, Cronenberg has managed to stray. It is still most relevant to describe him as a horror director, at least for a little while longer until his body of work more populated with films the reject the horror completely. (If it is possible for him to ever reject it completely)

It would also be relevant to include the production sensibility behind sticking to a genre. With success of a particular film it make sense for producers to place the director at the helm of a film that deals with similar themes since he has proved himself able to tackle them in an understandable and available way. This is not to say that such a pattern can be altered. It can indeed, as the director gains credibility, he also gains freedom.

I think it goes without saying that genre is an important component of the filmmaking practice both from an industry standpoint and a personal standpoint. It allows both an audience to demand work and a filmmaker to deliver it.