Naked Lunch (1991)

nTitle: Naked Lunch (1991)

n

nDirector: David Cronenberg

n

nWriter: David Cronenberg (script) and William S. Burroughsn(novel)

n

nCast: Peter Weller, Judy Davis, Ian Holm, Julian Sands, RoynScheider, Joseph Scoren, Monique Mercure

n

nReview:

n

nNaked Lunch is a film that many consider to benincomprehensible, the kind of film that some will watch and inevitably reach anpoint where they’ll think “what the hell is going on here?” I can understandnanyone who ends up feeling this way while watching Naked Lunch because itncertainly has various levels of bizarreness going for it, but in my opinion thenfilm is not the unintelligible mess that some make it out to be. Personally Inthink you can watch Naked Lunch as a comment on drug addiction and nothing morenand you’ll be fine, but you’d understand the movie on a whole other level ifnyou go in knowing and understanding the films background, where it’s comingnfrom and how it came to be. So with this review my dear readers I offer you ansmall glimpse of the tale that comes before the movie, so it’ll help younunderstand it just a little better. But going into Naked Lunch what you mustnfirst keep in mind is that it’s a film about writers and writing. It’s a filmnthat explores that whole world of literary guys and gals who live, breath andndie for writing. As one of the characters says in the film: “It’s a literary high, a Kafka high” 

n

n

nNaked Lunch the film, is based on William S. Burroughs novelnof the same name. Now Naked Lunch isn’t any old novel, it was written bynBurroughs in 1959 and it is based on Burroughs own experiences with variousnforms of drug addiction. Upon it’s first release the book was considerednhighly controversial, it was banned in many states and countries because it wasnconsidered too vulgar.  Burroughs was anJunkie in the worst sense of the word. He was not only addicted to Heroin, henalso dabbled in all sorts of drugs. He got into all sorts of legal troubles throughoutnhis life because of his drug addiction, he even did some jail time. In a way, I’dncompare him with Hunter S. Thompson; both of their writings where based onntheir own personal experiences with drugs. It’s like they went into this crazyndrug addled trip and then came back and reported everything they saw in theirnhallucinatory states. This is why in the film; the main character takes a drugnthat takes him to an “alternate universe” called ‘Interzone’. Being “in thenzone” is a term often times used to refer to being under the influence, so innthe film, whenever the main character says he’s in Interzone, he’s in a drugntrip. In the same way that Dorothy visited the magical Land of Oz when she gotnhit in the head, William Lee, the films main character visits Interzone when hentakes the drug called ‘Black Meat’. So you have to pay attention to the momentsnwhen we are in Interzone, and the moments when we are in the real world.

n

n

nI saw Interzone as Burroughs own literary fantasy land,nwhere everyone is a writer, everyone has their own living typewriters; that’snright, on Interzone typewriters are alive (actually they resemble giantninsects!) and they also speak. The typewriters in Interzone are sexually excited when they like whatnyou type into them. Of course, this is a metaphor for a writers own desire tonwrite things that are worth a damn. In Interzone, if your writing is good,nmaybe your typewriter will have an orgasm. The theme of writing and the thingsnthat writers care about permeates the whole film. In this film characters talk about things like the validity of stream ofnconsciousness writing vs. a more coherent form of writing. They talk aboutnwriting what comes out of your brain, vs. constant rewriting and so forth. Sonif you’re not into writing, then don’t bother with this film! If on the othernhand you like to explore the nature of writing, and the crazy world of writers,nthen indulge, this movie was made for you.

n

n

nNow something that we need to keep in mind when watching NakednLunch is that it’s more of a Cronenberg film then an actual adaptation ofnWilliam Burrough’s novel, so don’t expect a literal translation of the book.nCronenberg himself has gone down as saying that this film functions more as annamalgamation of many of Burroughs novels, including Junkie, which is also onenof his most famous ones. Cronenberg explains that Naked Lunch the film, capturesna lot of who Burrough’s was as a human being, it tries to capture the kind of lifenhe lived, which is probably why the film dives deep into the life of a man whonstruggles with his own homosexual desires. Other similarities with Burroughsnlife include, same as the main character in the film, working as annexterminator, being addicted to various drugs and accidentally killing his wife,nan event that marked Burrough’s life and writing till the end of his days. Innfact, he said on one occasion that it was her death that pushed him to become annaccomplished writer. So do not expect an exact literal translation of the book,nrather, expect a mix up of events and elements from Burroughs life, elementsnfrom various Burroughs novels and Cronenberg’s own visual perks as a directornand storyteller, for example, the insect typewriters are all Cronenberg, whonadmits to having something of an obsession with insects, what can you expect from the guy who directed The Fly (1986)? In my opinion, this melding of two geniusnminds makes for an extremely interesting and unique film, one that you won’tnsoon forget.

n

n

nNaked Lunch cost something from 16 to 18 million dollars,nbut only made about 2.6 in theaters, something to be expected from a film that’snso offbeat. I sometimes wonder how David Cronenberg continues to make movies! Surenhe has a hit every now and then, like The Fly (1986) and A History of Violencen(2005), but a lot of his films don’t make their budget back or don’t makenenough to be considered a success, so how does he do it? He makes flops yet alwaysnfinds someone to finance his next one. Take for example Cosmopolis (2012), anfilm that cost 20 million to make yet only made 6! It flopped because it was sondense, so stale, 90% of the film takes place inside of a limo! I’m not saying Indidn’t like Cosmopolis (I actually enjoyed the themes) but I will say that it’snnot an easy film to see on one sitting because everything happens inside of ancar and there comes a point where you can’t avoid thinking it’s monotonous; anfact that ensured its failure even though it starred current ‘it’ boy RobertnPattinson. And yet there’s Cronenberg, slated to direct yet another film callednMaps to the Stars (2014). But who cares if they make money or not as long as henkeeps making his movies. I’ve always admired Cronenberg as a director, in mynopinion, he has never sold out. He refuses to make stupid cinema, and for thatnI respect the guy immensely. Cronenberg caters to those that like brainy films,nfilms with meat to them, this of course does not sit well with the masses whonlove only explosions and special effects. Cronenberg aims to feed your mind,nhis films always have a philosophical angle to them, which is what attracts mento them.

n

n     

nNaked Lunch is a film that speaks in symbolisms, sonwhen you see something terribly strange like a person who kills bugs with hisnbreath, well, you just gotta ask yourself what the filmmakers are trying to saynwith these visuals. Same goes for all the bizarre things you’ll see in thisnmovie which range from giant half caterpillar, half human creatures, to aliennlike beings known as ‘Mugwumps’. But when we look at it from a Cronenbergnperspective, and the kind of films that Cronenberg makes, all this weirdnessnfits in perfectly, after all, we’re talking here about the guy who made filmsnlike Videodrome (1983) and eXistenZ (1999)! Bottom line with this movie is thatnyou must strap yourself tight for one bizarre trip. It’s not a film forneveryone. This is a film for those who have a resistance to the bizarre, thendark, the depressive, if you can take a trip to the dark side of the moon, thenngo for it. Otherwise you’ll just be weirded out.

n

nRating: 5 out of 5

n

n