|
Directed by: David Cronenberg Starring: Peter Weller, Ian Holm, Judy Davis It’s customary to give a brief plot synopsis in a review, but it doesn’t seem practical for this film. It’s not that there are too many surprise twists or plot points that shouldn’t be spoiled; it’s the basic nature of the film that doesn’t lend itself to being condensed into a single paragraph summation. I don’t know if I could do it justice even if I tried. I will however explain my categorizing the movie as a film-noir. Imdb lists it as “drama/fantasy/ sci-fi,” which isn’t necessarily incorrect, but the atmosphere and style of the film reminded me more of an old detective movie than anything else. It’s a semi-adaptation of William S. Burroughs’s novel, which was written in the time of the great noir films, and this movie seems to adopt a lot of the style and conventions of that genre and era. Naked Lunch isn’t an adaptation in the normal sense, but rather an amalgamation of elements from Burroughs’s writings and his own life. It keeps some of the central themes and tone from the original novel, but it isn’t bound by any specific material, which is refreshing for anyone dreading a strict adaptation (which would probably be a disaster in this case). It actually isn’t a bad place to introduce yourself to Burroughs’s work or even Cronenberg’s. It’s pretty weird at times, but the narrative doesn’t seem to get weighed down by some of the exotic elements and strange visuals, which are actually easier to take in the context of a prolonged drug trip in comparison to a more conventional film (not that Cronenberg can be accused of making conventional films). Fans of Cronenberg and Burroughs will be pleased. This film features the joining of organic and mechanical like many of the director’s other works, though it adds Burroughs’s own unique perspective to make things even more alien and fantastic. There are some really shocking visuals throughout the film, and many incredibly interesting (And explicit) moments of eroticism. The typewriters in particular come across as very provocative, especially the one that turns into what is basically a creature made up of a bunch of sex organs (the initial transformation is quite graphic). The underlying indications of Burroughs’s own sexuality also add to the film’s attitude towards identity, particularly in regards to homosexuality (it’s not a coincidence that the main character shoots both women he becomes involved with). The presentation of addiction and habits also reveal a lot about Burroughs and his life. I’m sure anyone could write a textbook based on all of the visual metaphors and symbolism at work here, because the film is so incredibly dense with potent images. One of the more surprising aspects of the film was the quality of Peter Weller’s acting. I loved him in Robocop and Buckaroo Banzai, but I haven’t really seen him in anything else and kind of wrote him off as a flash-in-the-pan of the early eighties, but he gave a really interesting performance here. His character is sort of the cinematic alter-ego for Burroughs, the author of the book Naked Lunch, and he plays it in a really unusual way. It’s sort of a combination of Steven Wright’s dead-pan comedic delivery and a film-noir anti-hero, like Sam Spade or Mike Hammer. He comes off kind of alien and cold for the most part, but he’s really quite funny if you can step outside the story and watch from a distance. It’s a very complicated character and performance, and it’s worth watching the film more than once to pick up on all of the little details he adds to the role. He really made me want to learn more about Burroughs’s life and read more of his work. The supporting cast is great as well, especially Ian Holm. Holm is a brilliant comedic actor, but for the most part he’s limited to serious roles. It’s a treat to see him have fun with his character here and get to do something different. Judy Davis gets to play a double role, which is pretty interesting, especially considering the similar fates of each character and their different relationships throughout the film. Roy Schneider has a small part, but he seems out of place a bit. He doesn’t pull off the comedy that well except for when he’s playing the straight-man, and one of his scenes is just too bizarre to think about. The music by Howard Shore also adds a lot to the film. It’s a blend of lounge-lizard jazz and a few other styles (often depending on the location), which helps give the film its hallucinatory sense of atmosphere. The movie is supposedly set in the fifties, but it never quite feels like it’s based in any real location or period, and the music helps enhance this feeling of timelessness. It also evokes the environment of the beat generation, which is the context in which Burroughs was working. It kind of reminded me of the music in Ravenous in that it was so eclectic while also loosely grounded in a known period and style. The cinematography also helps establish the mood of the film, and makes it something like a neon-noir, adding a nuclear juke-box to the genre’s conventional style. Naked Lunch definitely isn’t a film for everyone. The plot seems to take a back-seat to the visuals at times, and it can be a pretty confusing experience if you don’t know what you’re in for or even if you miss a few moments of it. It’s one of the more interesting adaptations I’ve seen though, and I wish more filmmakers would concentrate on the thematic content of novels they adapt rather than just replicating every plot point. I guess a good comparison would be Gilliam’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which is another adaptation of an “un-filmable” novel that aims for capturing the essence of the book, not just translating it. RATING: 4.0 PROS: introspective look at Burroughs's life, great music and acting CONS: bizarre, possibly confusing ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102511/
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2004 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
I bought the Criterion version of tis on a whim last week and returned it the next day, after watching it. To me, drug movies are fine as long as they are still somewhat comprehensible. Fear and Loathing is a good example of what I'm talking about. Naked Lunch was just way too bizarre. Typing in bug/alien heads, a gay Moroccan getting penetrated by a giant bug man, and all of the other wacky stuff that Cronenberg managed to pull from the book seemed to take precidence over any kind of narrative or plot. True, the acting was good, and there were a few redeeming qualities, but as a whole, this film just seemed too odd to really enjoy. The best description I can give is that it's exactly like watching a bad dream. Nothing makes sense, there are contradictions, things repeat many times, and at the end, you wake up and go "God, what the gently caress was that?" True, it's a rare quality for a movie to be able to mimic a bad dream, but it still doesn't make it a good movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2004 08:01
|
|
|
I loved the bizarreness of the film. It starts off so innocent and straightforward but then trainwrecks into weirdville. The best part is that everyone in the movie is privy to the idea. Its not one of those movies where the aliens appear and everyone is freaked/grossed out. Its as if the universe in which the movie takes place has talking typewriters and other such "things." Thats what makes the movie fun. The music is very noir-ish and can easily be placed into any movie in that period and not stand out in a wacky fashion, but still keeps its great atmosphere. For the most part all the actors play it cool. They seemed very natural in their respective parts. Overall if you are looking for a surreal film I would recommend it. 4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2004 08:06
|
|
|
This move is definitely out there. I would recommend renting/buying the Criterion edition to watch the movie one time and get really confused/weirded-out/disgusted but then follow that up with the director's commentary. Cronenberg/Weller explain things well enough to make each scene pretty understandable. For example, I read the book/read a short bio on Burroughs before watching the movie so I could make out that this was some bizarro story of Burroughs' writing career. Something that I didn't know was that at the beginning two of the seeming random guys discussing writing weren't just regular friends of William Lee, they were in fact representations of Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, friends of Burroughs/mover-shakers of the Beat generation. Like it was mentioned a couple posts earlier, this movie is like a bad dream/trip. The author was a junkie and parts of the novel were written while he was under the influence. I think Cronenberg does a good job of combining real life elements (Kerouac/Ginsberg discussions, playing William Tell with the wife) with an interesting and imaginative view of Burroughs' writing process to make something very entertaining. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2005 09:43
|
|
|
I read the book at least 10 years ago and saw the movie not long after. The book is much more subversive and mind-loving. The only thing I thought was great in the movie is going to be spoilered when the character talks about killing his wife and his lips are out of synch talking about something else. The whole book was that kind of crazy. I don't think you could ever make the book a proper movie. And that's not like, a Stephen King novel or something which at least has a CHANCE of coming across. The book is just too weird. One of the last books banned in large parts of the US. So just read the book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2005 20:57
|
|
|
I like Cronenberg and I like Burroughs, but I'm not thrilled with this film. It's a good Cronenberg movie, but a really poor adaptation of Naked Lunch. I think his handling of Burrough's life and homosexuality was silly at best and the important parts of the book were ignored for the horror elements. It's still fixedly narrative, which seems absurd considering the subversive changes Burroughs was inaugurating with his fiction. It's certainly not a bad movie, but one would be better off ignoring that Burroughs had anything to do with it. 3.5/5 edit: dan's review reminded me about the score. I really enjoy all of Shore's work with cronenberg, and this is no exception. Bumps it up a half point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2005 10:04
|
|
|
I rented this movie when I was in my early teens when it was released because it starred Peter Weller. I mean for god sakes he was RoboCop! My poor poor childhood psyche was never ever the same after sitting through 1/2 the film. To this day I still have not sat through it because its just so drat bizarre. 2/5 As above posters I much more preferred Fear and Loathing or Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2005 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
'Naked Lunch' is almost kind of cute? Maybe? Can a Cronenberg movie be cute? I don't know. In 'The Brood' there are little flashes of cuteness. In 'Dead Ringers' there are some near touching moments that border on cute (one of the twins eventually regressing into a simpering toddler who just wants some ice cream). I liked 'Naked Lunch', but not a lot. Everything that Cronenberg has done since 'Videodrome' (which caused him to have a near nervous breakdown... and was the last of his own original material for a long stretch) has been a little sketchy. 'Naked Lunch' almost seems like a snapshot of movies of its time... it shares the same time/space as 'The Piano' and such. It's classic 90s Cinemax Thursday nights at 9pm. I don't know.
tvoblivion5 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Aug 20, 2005 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2005 21:20
|
|