Its the 1960s at the University of Toronto. Doug is a well-liked senior with an equally popular girlfriend. Peter is a shy freshman, and new to the big city. Peter and Doug become best ...
See full summary »
Its the 1960s at the University of Toronto. Doug is a well-liked senior with an equally popular girlfriend. Peter is a shy freshman, and new to the big city. Peter and Doug become best friends and soon start going to concerts, drinking, and playing in the snow together. When Doug brings Peter to a steam bath and washes his back, the friendship seems headed to a whole new level, at least in Doug's mind. But when Peter emerges from a party after having sex with a co-ed, things get even more complicated...Written by
Havan Ironoak <Havan_Ironoak@bigfoot.com>
[Director David Cronenberg on the influence Winter Kept Us Warm (1965) had on his career:] "I can't say the 'University of Toronto' led me to horror, but what it did do was lead me to cinema, though I never studied cinema. There was a student called David Secter who was making a movie called Winter Kept Us Warm (1965), which starred some friends of mine. And it never occurred to me that you could make a movie. It was unlike someone growing up in LA where everybody's parents were in the business. In Toronto, no one's parents were in the movie business because there wasn't a movie business.(...) The number of films I've seen that have impressed me is endless. But actually, Winter Kept Us Warm (1965) is the most influential film of my life in a weird way. It wasn't a horror film - it was a drama about students coping with life at the 'University of Toronto' - and it wasn't because of its artistry. It was just the fact it was made. It's hard to reproduce the shock I felt when I saw my classmates on screen in a real movie, acting. It was like magic: you are watching TV and suddenly you are in the TV, acting in some TV series. It was that kind of shock." ('The Guardian' 14th Sept. 2014) See more »
This film was shot at Sir Daniel Wilson Residence at the University of Toronto with a cast of amateur actors. I was at Sir Dan's at the time: most of us trooped out to see it later in the year - and were rewarded with a couple of nude scenes that were mildly titillating then and would be positively tepid today. The movie is being flagged under headings like "gay interest" and "shower scene" - and it's noted that it was screened at Cannes. For all these reasons, it may have a modest degree of sociological/political/cultural interest. But be in no doubt: this is an amateur effort. I found the script painfully naive when I viewed the film 40 years ago - and it must be a profound embarrassment today. Not worth your time unless you're into the history of Canadian cinema.
4 of 26 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this