David Cronenberg
Maps to the Stars

The highly publicized "Maps to the Stars" by Cronenberg, which is released in conjunction with its participation at the Cannes Festival, its trailer airing on all networks ten times an hour, and which until yesterday was permeating the homepage of "La Repubblica", and which, by releasing on a Wednesday, locks the ticket price at 7.50 EUR. even though on Wednesday the Cinema would cost 4.00 EUR., damn it!

As we were saying, therefore, we were saying. Actually, no, let's preface: I have placed "Spider" (2002) at the center of a line, hypothesizing it as a breaking point between what is on the left (pre-2002) and on the right (post-2002) in the director's filmography.

Although all of David's work remains somehow consistent with his poetics and philosophy, faced with this new release, I found myself disoriented, unable to place it either in the post or the pre. A stimulating premise for something new. But for this film, I would say the opposite since it didn’t really grab me, and at some points even risked being boring.

The plot? The decadence told through the Hollywood context: intertwining the stories of a declining diva daughter of an artist, a sort of Justin Bieber of Cinema, and also a driver aspiring to be an actor, ending with a disfigured "tourist" who arrived in Hollywood from Florida. There's everything you can imagine, a protagonist (Julianne Moore) willing to do anything to have the role in the remake of a film that made her mother famous, reenacting the same role that the latter had in hopes of dispelling the ghosts (literally) that hide a dark and disturbed mother-daughter relationship. A 13-year-old pompous actor obviously a victim of the starsystem, the recommendations, the drugs, the parties, the cynical irony. Everything. I would feel like a bit of a jerk talking about trivialities, superficiality, flatness, I would really feel like a jerk... but... well maybe I am a jerk.

Obviously, something is saved, but it's the usual argument with the response: of course. Of course, the actors' performances should be sufficient, of course, some moments should be amusing (or rather "irreverent") like the one in which "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" (better known as "DO YOU RINGO!?") is sung to celebrate the death of a child.

Of course.

There's one thing I want to say, I'll try to spoil as little as possible. I agree with staying on a low budget, I'm completely bored with special effects in cinema and it's not a criterion for judging a film, of course. But Christ of the good God, *A BIT OF SPOILER, SORRY* if the script requires a person to catch fire, and the script is part of a Cronenberg film, I can't digest special effects reminiscent of an episode of Goosebumps, what the hell. It drops the ball for me, I'm already on the verge of not understanding what there was to like about the film, plus I see this semi-trash scene, and it deflates the bag for me. Well indeed if it’s true that in the heart it becomes a vent, then I must say what I don’t like about the blaze!