I have not had the chance to read William S. Burroughs’ book called “Naked Lunch” or anything else he has written. The legend behind it, however, seems to be everlasting in its effect. Many people protested it and called it obscene. Many wanted it banned, and that is usually what gives a book like that its power. All I know is that many said that it was an unfilmable book, and that narrative is very non-linear. Adapting a book like that into a movie sounds impossible, but after seeing the movie version of “Naked Lunch” last night at the New Beverly Cinema, it is clear that only David Cronenberg could have pulled something like this off. Cronenberg has a style all his own, and it seems to fit the subject matter that Burroughs deals with here.
“Naked Lunch” the movie follows Bill Lee (“Robocop’s” Peter Weller) who is a writer whose day job is as an exterminator. We see him at the start of the movie spraying this bug powder all over a person’s room, and then he soon runs out of it. It turns out that his wife Joan (Judy Davis) has been using the bug powder to fulfill her own narcotic fantasies. We see her blowing on an unwelcome cockroach which soon dies from a whiff of her poisoned breath. From there, the movie follows Bill as he heads into a drug fueled spiral that includes hallucinations of his typewriter turning into a large and hideous looking bug who tells him that he needs to kill his wife.
Describing this movie is difficult to say the least, but it basically deals with the blurry view between what is real and what is not. This is the case with many of Cronenberg’s movies like “eXistenZ” and “The Dead Zone” among others in his large volume of work. My understanding is that the movie only takes so much from the book, and that it actually borrows liberally from other writings of Burroughs. Anyway, this is not meant to be a book to movie comparison since I have not yet read the book. It sure does make me want to read the book at some point in my lifetime.
“Naked Lunch” is not the most enjoyable movie ever made, but it is not meant to be. It is meant to be an experience more than anything else. As Bill Lee gets deeper into his drug taking, we cannot tell what is real and what is not. For those of you who know the personal history of William S. Burroughs, you know that he shot his wife by accident when he tried to shoot a glass off of her head. Then later on in the movie, we see Judy Davis playing another character (or is it the same person?), and I was wondering if this was his chance to correct the mistake he made in accidentally shooting his wife, or maybe this was just another delusion of his.
As we hurtle faster and faster into the future, the line what is real and what is not blurs more and more. “Naked Lunch” was made into a movie back in 1991, and yet its themes are all the more timely. The film was shot in the period that the book was written which was back in 1959 or so. Suffice to say, are dealings with drugs have not gotten any better. Bill seems to want to stay clean as he does not like seeing his typewriter turn into a hideous looking bug who wants some of that bug powder he uses Bill uses as an exterminator. But with drug abuse, getting clean is the easy part. It’s staying clean that is the hard part. Whether Bill admits it or not, staying on drugs seems to cut through the reality of his existence. You wonder if he can ever live without them. There seems to be a truth to reality when he is on drugs, and he comes back to them whenever he cannot figure out what is going on.
Peter Weller gives a performance that seems detached from emotion, but there are moments where he seems to be suffering. Perhaps it is withdrawal, or perhaps it is that he cannot be sure of what is real and what is not. It should be noted that Peter turned down a lot of money to star in “Robocop 3” to do this movie (smart move if you ask me). You have to wonder if his character is so detached from life that he has to wonder what it all means. Peter’s character seems to be more alive when he is under the grasp of some chemical substance, and he captures the conflicted state of his character in a way that no other actor could. His performance is very good here, and he keeps you wondering what he will do next.
Judy Davis, a Ferrari among actresses in film and stage, is brilliant here as she is in the throes of an endless drug addiction. It is a fearless performance that she gives, and she disappears into a character who does not care about reality as much as she does being hooked to the illegal substance of her choice. Judy has long been a daring actress to say the least, and she never holds anything back. You can’t take your eyes off of her when she is onscreen. After all these years, Judy Davis is a force to be reckoned with.
“Naked Lunch” also has many other great performances from the always reliable Ian Holm who plays Tom Frost, a writer with an unusually close connection to his typewriter. You also have the late Roy Scheider on board as Doctor Benway who appears to have a cure to the addiction of bug powder. In the end, he seems to be more of an enable than anything else. There are no bad performances to be found in this movie.
Seriously, this is the perfect kind of movie for David Cronenberg to do. It deals with the perversion of the human body and mind which is a common thread through all of his movies, and it deals with how we define what is real to us. The design elements of this movie are hard to compare to other movies. How many other movies do you know where the typewriters turn into bugs that speak from their behinds? Have you ever seen another movie where one typewriter attacks another? I sure haven’t! That’s what makes the movies of David Cronenberg so interesting. Cronenberg has a style all his own, and you can see from many other movies of his that they cannot be easily compared to anybody else’s.
Watching “Naked Lunch” makes me want me want to buy the Criterion DVD release of this movie. A day after I saw it, I am still fascinated by what I saw. When the movie reaches it’s end, you still find yourself locked into the plight of Bill Lee. How do you find your way back to reality when you cannot even recognize what it is? Today, we are always looking to experience something other than the reality that we are in because reality is not always what we prepare ourselves for. To experience an alternate reality is irresistible when our own reality feels like a prison. But you have to wonder, is it worth it to lose all sense of reality to really feel alive?
“Naked Lunch” is a daring movie that dares to make the unfilmable filmable. It also shows how David Cronenberg is a brilliant storyteller who doesn’t shy away from a challenger if it involves a subject that truly interests him. Watching a movie like this just once is not enough because there is a lot to think about and a lot to discover. What you find in this movie will give you a lot more questions than answers, but that is probably the point. As we all try to escape the routine of our daily jobs and mundane routines, we have to wonder if it is worth the price.
***1/2 out of ****
“Naked Lunch” the movie follows Bill Lee (“Robocop’s” Peter Weller) who is a writer whose day job is as an exterminator. We see him at the start of the movie spraying this bug powder all over a person’s room, and then he soon runs out of it. It turns out that his wife Joan (Judy Davis) has been using the bug powder to fulfill her own narcotic fantasies. We see her blowing on an unwelcome cockroach which soon dies from a whiff of her poisoned breath. From there, the movie follows Bill as he heads into a drug fueled spiral that includes hallucinations of his typewriter turning into a large and hideous looking bug who tells him that he needs to kill his wife.
Describing this movie is difficult to say the least, but it basically deals with the blurry view between what is real and what is not. This is the case with many of Cronenberg’s movies like “eXistenZ” and “The Dead Zone” among others in his large volume of work. My understanding is that the movie only takes so much from the book, and that it actually borrows liberally from other writings of Burroughs. Anyway, this is not meant to be a book to movie comparison since I have not yet read the book. It sure does make me want to read the book at some point in my lifetime.
“Naked Lunch” is not the most enjoyable movie ever made, but it is not meant to be. It is meant to be an experience more than anything else. As Bill Lee gets deeper into his drug taking, we cannot tell what is real and what is not. For those of you who know the personal history of William S. Burroughs, you know that he shot his wife by accident when he tried to shoot a glass off of her head. Then later on in the movie, we see Judy Davis playing another character (or is it the same person?), and I was wondering if this was his chance to correct the mistake he made in accidentally shooting his wife, or maybe this was just another delusion of his.
As we hurtle faster and faster into the future, the line what is real and what is not blurs more and more. “Naked Lunch” was made into a movie back in 1991, and yet its themes are all the more timely. The film was shot in the period that the book was written which was back in 1959 or so. Suffice to say, are dealings with drugs have not gotten any better. Bill seems to want to stay clean as he does not like seeing his typewriter turn into a hideous looking bug who wants some of that bug powder he uses Bill uses as an exterminator. But with drug abuse, getting clean is the easy part. It’s staying clean that is the hard part. Whether Bill admits it or not, staying on drugs seems to cut through the reality of his existence. You wonder if he can ever live without them. There seems to be a truth to reality when he is on drugs, and he comes back to them whenever he cannot figure out what is going on.
Peter Weller gives a performance that seems detached from emotion, but there are moments where he seems to be suffering. Perhaps it is withdrawal, or perhaps it is that he cannot be sure of what is real and what is not. It should be noted that Peter turned down a lot of money to star in “Robocop 3” to do this movie (smart move if you ask me). You have to wonder if his character is so detached from life that he has to wonder what it all means. Peter’s character seems to be more alive when he is under the grasp of some chemical substance, and he captures the conflicted state of his character in a way that no other actor could. His performance is very good here, and he keeps you wondering what he will do next.
Judy Davis, a Ferrari among actresses in film and stage, is brilliant here as she is in the throes of an endless drug addiction. It is a fearless performance that she gives, and she disappears into a character who does not care about reality as much as she does being hooked to the illegal substance of her choice. Judy has long been a daring actress to say the least, and she never holds anything back. You can’t take your eyes off of her when she is onscreen. After all these years, Judy Davis is a force to be reckoned with.
“Naked Lunch” also has many other great performances from the always reliable Ian Holm who plays Tom Frost, a writer with an unusually close connection to his typewriter. You also have the late Roy Scheider on board as Doctor Benway who appears to have a cure to the addiction of bug powder. In the end, he seems to be more of an enable than anything else. There are no bad performances to be found in this movie.
Seriously, this is the perfect kind of movie for David Cronenberg to do. It deals with the perversion of the human body and mind which is a common thread through all of his movies, and it deals with how we define what is real to us. The design elements of this movie are hard to compare to other movies. How many other movies do you know where the typewriters turn into bugs that speak from their behinds? Have you ever seen another movie where one typewriter attacks another? I sure haven’t! That’s what makes the movies of David Cronenberg so interesting. Cronenberg has a style all his own, and you can see from many other movies of his that they cannot be easily compared to anybody else’s.
Watching “Naked Lunch” makes me want me want to buy the Criterion DVD release of this movie. A day after I saw it, I am still fascinated by what I saw. When the movie reaches it’s end, you still find yourself locked into the plight of Bill Lee. How do you find your way back to reality when you cannot even recognize what it is? Today, we are always looking to experience something other than the reality that we are in because reality is not always what we prepare ourselves for. To experience an alternate reality is irresistible when our own reality feels like a prison. But you have to wonder, is it worth it to lose all sense of reality to really feel alive?
“Naked Lunch” is a daring movie that dares to make the unfilmable filmable. It also shows how David Cronenberg is a brilliant storyteller who doesn’t shy away from a challenger if it involves a subject that truly interests him. Watching a movie like this just once is not enough because there is a lot to think about and a lot to discover. What you find in this movie will give you a lot more questions than answers, but that is probably the point. As we all try to escape the routine of our daily jobs and mundane routines, we have to wonder if it is worth the price.
***1/2 out of ****
I"m always glad I waited to see thsi after I read the book.
Still have not read enough by Burroughs, but this is a wild and worthwhile read.
I like the film. I adore Cronenberg and anything he does, well mostly, but no one else could have done this film except for him.
Excellent review!!
Yep. Naked Lunch is the shit. The book is tough. Extremely postmodern. Very drug-heavy, experimental. Movie is pure gold.