Infinity Pool, Brandon Cronenberg and "Nepo Babies"

I've seen my first genuinely excellent film of 2023, and it is Brandon Cronenberg's Infinity Pool. 

Brandon Cronenberg is the son of David Cronenberg. Right now, both on social media and in the entertainment press, there's an entire conversation happening about "nepo babies," which is less about direct nepotism in film and other media, and more about the questions of what the role of privilege plays in the children of people who are or were prominent in media in some way also achieving success and prominence. 

There are two real pieces to this discussion/discourse/debate. First is the question of opportunity. The connections of a parent or relative who has been successful in an industry can be priceless. For people who don't have connections in many of these media, entertainment and journalistic industries, the most significant hurdle they face is getting a foot in the door, just getting the chance to let someone else take a chance on them. For people in these industries or interested in going into them, this is a salient conversation, for many reasons. It can involve questions about representation (when so many of these industries have been dominated by whiteness, it's reasonable to question whether "nepo babies" contribute to that continued domination), the health of the industries and the creative arts they're often fueled by (are people who might be better at x, y or z missing opportunities because someone can pick up a phone and get a family member in contact with decision makers?), and basic fairness. 

As questions about these industries there is a lot worth considering, and those discussions should be happening within those industries. 

The other part of this is yet another example of the unsavory way entertainment press (and press in general) operate in the age of the internet. 

It's becoming a habit of the entertainment press to spring "nepo baby" questions on celebrities at any opportunity. The only reason to  ask some celebrity their opinion about "the nepo baby issue" on a red carpet, where the entire interaction lasts less than two minutes, is in the hopes of getting some juicy quote that will feed the sense of drama the entertainment press has built around the issue. It's been presented as "nepo babies versus anti-nepo babies." It's not about the health of the industry or the creative mediums the industries are based on. It's about rage baiting people who've decided they've picked a side, so they'll click on the articles because of the inferences in the headlines. 

We've seen the same instinct to ask older directors who've had long, illustrious careers, people in the most rarified statuses (usually white men), what they think of "superhero films" during a press junket. It's not the evidence of an instinct for inquiry or an interest in the well being of the industries around the creative arts. It's bullshit tabloid-ism. It's another symptom of the outrage clickbait industry. Martin Scorcese and Ridley Scott have earned their right to have whatever opinions on anything they want in relation to the film industry. Treating them as fodder for tabloidism is disrespectful to their legacies, the body of work they have assembled over those long careers, and it's disrespectful to the art form. "We're going to post this so all the rabid superhero fans will rage click our articles and we'll be at the center of three days or three weeks of outrage discourse, so the piece will be shared a million times." It sucks. That's all there is to it, and the degree to which people fall for this, constantly, says nothing good about the media literacy of the general public or modern fandom.

Now, in an in depth interview where the idea can be explored? Great. What are the thoughts of people in those industries, when they have a chance to go into more depth on a complex topic? That's great. Jordan Crucchiola wrote a great piece about Allison Williams (daughter of long time NBC anchor Brian Williams), whose acting career has blossomed into celebrity. Jordan's piece is an example of why the long form is preferable where this conversation is concerned, for many reasons. 

Maybe you're sitting there thinking, "What the fuck does this have to do with Brandon Cronenberg and Infinity Pool? Would you get to the review already!" 

Brandon Cronenberg, and specifically Infinity Pool are examples of what makes the "nepo baby" conversation complicated. Infinity Pool is an excellent film. It is the work of a fully formed, mature filmmaker whose taken the raw materials which were present in his previous work and shown he can harness those materials to produce something that goes beyond good or interesting, and reaches excellence. 

I enjoy his two previous films, Antiviral and Possessor. I'm a fan of  interesting thematic experiments in narrative cinema, and even as Possessor is clearly an evolution from Antiviral, it does still have that feeling. There is absolutely a place for the artistic meditation on ideas, the kind of work that is more interested in asking questions than making declarations. One of the inescapable truths of that kind of exploration is that whether or not the artist/creator behind them wants to give away what they're particular thoughts or position on a given idea is, the way that they frame them often does. I think Possessor is a very good film, and certainly a cinematic experience worth having, a journey worth taking. Antiviral might be more for people who do take a particular interest in all the things film can be, but I still enjoy it. 

What both films have in common, beyond a singular cinematic style, is the feeling that Brandon Cronenberg is trying not to say what he has to say. What he has to say is there, implicit in the way he frames the themes and the questions the films leave us with, but it's somewhat obscured. It's less leading us to questions than it is a feeling he's not fully confident in declaring his feelings or thoughts on those questions. Still very interesting films, good films, but with Infinity Pool, he's making a declaration, and it reaches beyond the success or effectiveness of those films, from being very good and/or interesting meditations or experiments, to being an excellent piece of narrative filmmaking. "Saying it with his chest" suits Brandon, apparently. 

Infinity Pool is the work of a talented director, with confidence in his voice, his abilities and the story he's telling. This is the work of a fully formed director, an individual creating a piece of work they are passionate about and a story they are ready to tell, in all its complexity. In this sense, there's no reason to continue connecting Brandon Cronenberg to his father. He's clearly a great filmmaker and doesn't need to be connected to his father in any way. 

At the same time, their bodies of work are an example of the two men having extremely similar interests and creative or artistic obsessions. Identity, technology, the individual versus the group/society are themes at the center of both men's work. Brandon Cronenberg is both an individual filmmaker, possessed of his own abilities and talents, and his father's son in a recognizable, and I'd say positive way. 

From the perspective of an observer, someone to whom the medium of film has tremendous meaning, I'm very glad to have someone with the level of skill and talent Brandon has, picking up the themes and ideas his father previously worked in, and applying his perspective to them, in a new time and environment. Whether or not his name helped him get his first feature financed and into distribution, Brandon is an exciting artistic voice, and that he can make a strong, intelligent, impactful contribution to the future of the medium shouldn't be a question at this point. Infinity Pool is the kind of contribution we should hope is being made as the future of film is forged. 

It's not a leap to think that he treats film as a worthy artistic medium, and that he saw it as a viable medium in which to make a living because of his upbringing. The goofball who is your parent (and all of us see our parents as inept at some point, no matter what they do for a living), is making a living doing it, so why couldn't you? There are many millions of people throughout the world who harbor a dream of making a living in different artistic mediums, and never try, because their particular environment discourages it, whether in their homes or their larger communities they're part of. The arts are often treated as silly, selfish, meaningless endeavors for one to build a life in and on. That's not true of people who've seen their parents make lives in industries based on the arts. The reality is the arts are so central to human life and history, we engage in them no matter what else may be true about our conditions and environments. We may not know or be able to express exactly why the arts are so central to human life and well being, but no argument against that centrality stands up to real interrogation. Whatever the constellation of reasons might be, we make shit, no matter what, and it's obvious we have to. 

People who have seen their elders make lives in the arts, are going to know the importance of the arts. They're also going to know they are work, despite what certain varieties of cultural belief say to the contrary. Effort and labor must be expended in the creation of good art, even mediocre or bad art. There are sets of skills necessary to each medium. Those skills are not going to be denigrated by people who are making a living with them or whose living is intricately connected to others having them. If we're going to have industries based on the arts, it's going to be important for some of the people coming into them to understand these things from the beginning, as part of how they see the world, just as it's important for people who haven't grown up with the reality of life in the creative arts or media and have to learn the reality becoming part of those industries. It shouldn't be shocking that people who have familial ties to artistic industries can also do well in them, beyond the initial opportunities those connections may afford. It's absolutely true that it isn't fair that those familial ties can give them opportunities not afforded to other people, and that should be address, and these "nepo babies" should also be able to stand on the quality of their work. 

It's also true that our approach to the arts, and the industries surrounding them creates the kind of exclusivity which leads to such a relatively small number of people being able to make a decent, secure living. Maybe we should be considering whether or not multibillion dollar corporations should be the centers of these industries, at all, and that decentralization might be a better solution, allowing a greater number of us to build legacies, passing our crafts down to our children and other family members, as a way to make a living and make a contribution to the project of humanity. Maybe part of the solution to the idea of undo privilege soaking up opportunities is to create an environment where people don't become millionaires or billionaires, but making a decent living is within the reach of a whole lot more people. Maybe we stop treating the arts like a luxury, and start treating them like what they are, a core component of what makes human beings human, and a central part of what makes human life livable. 

Infinity Pool is itself concerned with undo privilege. It's at the core of the film's themes. It's a statement about what privilege does to our sense of identity, and how easily our sense of who we are can be radically altered when we're given access to environments where privilege and the exploitation of it are the norm. It's also about what's hiding underneath the constant fight for privilege, for wealth and status, and suggests it doesn't matter who the person is that wins that fight, once they've entered that world, the only way they can stay is to become a very specific kind of person. 

Technology plays a role in this, but it's essentially a macguffin. At least in Infinity Pool, Brandon Cronenberg isn't interested in what technology is doing to us. Technology is more an excuse. The characters are using technology as an excuse to overcome the cognitive dissonance created by the moral chasms created by the privilege of great wealth and the status it confers in the world. Infinity Pool positions privilege as a release from consequence, and posits some less than flattering ideas about what that does to the people who have it. 

The official synopsis is, "James and Em Foster are enjoying an all-inclusive beach vacation in the fictional island of La Tolqa, when a fatal accident exposes the resort's perverse subculture of hedonistic tourism, reckless violence and surreal horrors." 

Through this relatively simple set up, Cronenberg manages to craft a film commenting on the gravity privilege has in the world, shaping environments and people it exists in to further its influence, and further distance those who have it from consequence. Cronenberg uses Infinity Pool to comment on privilege having a basis in one of the modern iterations of colonialism's consequences, the world's wealthy treating less wealthy and powerful nations as playgrounds, and the way that  influences how those nations exist and govern themselves. Nothing escapes the gravity of privilege in this world, and the people who wield it may not be monsters when they enter it, but it will make them monsters before they leave it. It is both micro and macro. One cannot, and more importantly, will not be allowed to exist in those most privileged worlds, without becoming or being made into a sociopath. 

At the center of our band of players are Alexander Skarsgård as James Foster and Mia Goth as Gabi Bauer. If modern genre film were going to have a Tracy/Hepburn or a Bacall/Bogart, I'd be advocating for these two. I'm not necessarily saying they should pair up personally or even that they shouldn't. That's none of my business, but this would be a powerhouse creative/professional relationship. I say this because of how courageously they have both approached their careers and eschewed the path to movie stardom which is obviously still a safer, preferred route for many of their peers. 

After the success of True Blood, and the heaving lust he inspired across the internet as a result, Skarsgård could have geared himself into the role of hunky action/romance lead. He's taken a few of those roles, but he's also taken a number of roles in high profile projects which are antithetical to the kind of career path actors take to achieve and solidify that kind of status. James Foster is not the role of someone who is interested in turning themselves into an action star or merely being a sex symbol. In many ways, James Foster is the direct antithesis to the kind of role which builds that status, and he's excellent in it. The range he shows, in this role alone, is impressive. He and his brother Bill are also another examples of why the "nepo baby" discussion is more complicated than the way it's being played out in the headlines of entertainment news. 

That brings us to Mia Goth or as I have now defaulted to referring to her,  Mia "FUCKING" Goth. At only 29, she's already a veteran in the film industry with a decade of strong performances in supporting roles, mostly in genre films. She has a knack for projects that at least on paper, are interesting. Whether or not they always turn out to be very good is another question, largely out of her hands, as is the case for any actor. Her star got a strong bump with her excellent turn as Sara, in Luca Guadagnino's controversial remake of Suspiria in 2018, a film I have a borderline obsession with. 2022 began a stretch of leading roles which have given Goth the opportunity to demonstrate what an uncommon talent she is. Beginning with dual roles in writer/director Ti West's X, then into its prequel, Pearl (you can read me gush over Pearl, and Goth's performance, at length, behind this link), and again as the lead in Infinity Pool, Mia Goth is proving to be one of the more charismatic, agile and powerful talents in a crowded field of peers. She's having what is arguably one of the all time great runs in the history of genre film, and is likely to extend it further when the final film in the X trilogy, MaXXXine, releases later this year. 

Gabi Bauer is a very different role than Pearl, though comparisons are inevitable because of how ferocious both characters and performances are. In Infinity Pool, Goth is playing Gabi Bauer as a force of will whose privilege elevates her to being a force of nature. This could easily have been a femme fatale lifted from the pages of any rote noir from the forties and transplanted to the fictional island La Tolqa in the near future Infinity Pool is set in. Combining Cronenberg's writing and direction with Goth's uncommon power, agility and intelligence as a performer, the character is so much more than that. 

In Goth's hands, with Cronenberg's writing, Gabi Bauer becomes someone who sees herself as an engine of destiny, a maker of transformation, whose freedom from consequence gives her the ability to act as the more utterly terrible gods of Greek tragedy have. The psychological and emotional foundations of other people's identities are her play things and freeing them from them, whether they consent or not, is something she sees as both gift and necessity. Goth's grasp on who this character would have to be, and her uncanny ability to subtly reveal and conceal Gabi's interiority, simultaneously, at different points in the film, makes her one of the more terrifying characters I've encountered in a long time. When she fully removes the mask, and we come to understand who she is, what she wants, and why she's done what we've seen her do, and it's clear who someone would have to be to have to do all of this, it's terrifying to consider someone like Gabi Bauer could be walking among us. If you come into the gravity field of her over privileged playgroup, she's going to remake you, because she enjoys it, because that's the price of entry, and you will be who have to be not to upset their order, whether or not you have any interest in any of it. Mia Goth is a utterly compelling and a truly terrifying force to behold in Infinity Pool. 

The emotional intelligence and maturity that come through Goth's portrayal and Cronenberg's writing are striking. Both understand insecurity, and the manipulation of insecurity in a way that can only come from that maturity and intelligence, and it's part of what makes Infinity Pool compelling, deeply unsettling and at moments, frightening. We tend to associate the idea of emotional maturity and intelligence with the positive. When we want to touch on the negative expression of these things, we use manipulation as the description. Part of what Cronenberg's script gets at through the character of Gabi Bauer is that the line between emotional maturity, emotional intelligence and manipulation becomes null when there are no consequences for the latter. When the environment, group structures and norms that surround us require us to be something particular, there isn't a step too far in terms of coercion or manipulation, and the sociopaths most capable of and comfortable with stamping out any traits which threatens that order become the ones leading the pack. It's a pretty horrifying mirror of what a good deal of the world is today.  

Infinity Pool also sees Cronenberg putting his striking visual style and imagination to work in a way that serves to draw us further into the characters and story. He's always been good at using imagery to help convey characters complicated experiences, things the audience may not or in some cases, couldn't have experience with because they are interacting with technology that doesn't exist in the real world. He smartly avoids a lot of jargon about "how" something works, and instead uses imagery to convey what it feels like when it's working on you. 

With as strong a visual imagination as he has, it's hard to fault Cronenberg's previous films for leaning into it as much as they do. It's part of their charm and part of what makes them interesting. With Infinity Pool though, there's a good deal more restraint. It has a visual style for sure, the cinematography by Karim Hussain is gorgeous. The quality of the overall look, the visual language of the film, are beautiful overall. When Cronenberg's signature visual style inserts itself, be it through masks worn at one point, a few dream sequences and a scene involving hallucinogenics, it has that much more punch because every frame isn't saturated with it. In a world that feels very natural, those instances of these surreal, beautifully ugly images and sights are all the more jarring. There are some real nightmare images in the film, and because it's not just a constant parade of them, they're memorable. I'm not likely to forget those masks or one particular shot during one of those highly stylized sequences, any time soon. Finding the beauty in ugliness is a particular talent, one Cronenberg has demonstrated well before, and now he's demonstrated he can do the opposite as powerfully, revealing the ugliness behind all this dangerous beauty. 

Infinity Pool is an excellent film. It may be a genuinely great film. I'm not quite ready to give it that level of praise because I know I'm given to some degree of recency bias, but if it's not one of my favorite films of 2023, that will mean it's a year for the record books.