| |
|
To my mind, the film is the core of Cronenberg's loose 'identity/reality' trilogy, framed on either side by Videodrome and eXistenZ. All consider the practical and moral questions raised by a reliance on perceptive reality, but only Naked Lunch, prodded by the source, tackles sexuality in any real way.
The intersection of Burroughs and Cronenberg is fascinating not only because of their shared fascination with sexuality and those manifestations of it that occur free from gender and the restrictions of identity, but because they see the human body in such different ways. As Jack said, Naked Lunch on paper was quite disgusted with the frailty and mutability of the human form. Cronenberg, however, seems to find nothing more engaging than the idea that humanity's frailty makes the body perfectly suited for change, which parlays nicely into Burrough's own misanthropic portraits of recombinated gender.
And what would be the point of adapting Burroughs, or any other author, without filtering it through the sensibilities of the filmmaker? Unless Bill himself made the film, it would be impossible to do otherwise, so be thankful that the right man came along for the job. Is Naked Lunch a good adaptation of the novel? Thank god, no - it's so much more, a real, living thing that can rest on its own merits.
I can't imagine how a Burroughs fan couldn't like the film. Anyone that demands a note-by-note recreation of the novel would be missing the point in a colossal way - isn't it much more apt that Cronenberg chose to incorporate Junky, Exterminator and Big Bill's own experience into the text? It's been suggested that Burroughs began writing to cope with having killed his wife, and in that respect the film is a perfect translation of the notion that writing, and creation, is a way out of not only mortality, but morality.
Also keep in mind that the film was originally scheduled to be shot in Tangier, but the advent of the Gulf War mere days before the beginning of principal photography forced a relocation to constructed sets in Toronto. The sets make the film work just that much better, as the additional layer of deception contributes to the atmosphere.
And how has no one mentioned that Judy Davis is fucking brilliant in it. |
|
|
I'll have to see it for myself I guess.