MovieChat Forums > Naked Lunch (1992) Discussion > Another director should tackle Naked Lun...

Another director should tackle Naked Lunch

posted 11 years ago by Edward_de_Vere
11 replies | jump to latest

Cronenberg's film really doesn't use very much material from the novel Naked Lunch itself, only a few out of context quotes and characters. It's mostly a fictionalized account of Burroughs' life and creative process.

Cronenberg stated that a direct adaptation of the novel wouldn't work because a. there's no plot, b. the violence and pornography are too over the top, and c. it would be prohibitively expensive.

Now, I could see why a director might shy away from putting "Hassan's Rumpus Room" or "A.J.'s Annual Party" on film. However, it certainly would be feasible to adapt any number of scenes in Naked Lunch on the screen, and in so doing put together a film that gives the viewer a much better idea of the content and spirit of the novel.

As for the lack of plot, I think that the right model for such an adaptation would be Fellin's Satyricon, which in a sense used the picaresque Naked Lunch of ancient Rome as its source material.

Normally I detest remakes, but when it comes to adapting novels and plays as source material, the more attempts we have to get it right the better.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 11 years ago

Hmm, I was prepared to completely disagree with you, but you do raise some interesting points.

Maybe a closer adaptation wouldn't be so bad. Though there are plenty of things in the book I'd rather not see. It was bad enough reading them. lol

Straightedge means I'm better than you.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

Plus this film is already a masterpiece, anyway.

Any film that claims to be based on or an adaptation of a book, and then gives the viewer absolutely no idea of the book's content is hardly a "masterpiece."

If somebody did a film claiming to be an adaptation of Moby Dick that took place in New York City instead of at sea, where Ahab was a minor, peripheral character, and where there was no mention of a whale, that would be something of a let-down. Cronenberg's film is precisely that.

As I said, I don't think that a good adaptation would require hardcore homosexual pornography or snuff film material. It would require having a number of other scenes and characters that appear in the novel. Much of the material involving Benway and the various other medical satire would adapt to the screen very well.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Any film that claims to be based on or an adaptation of a book/-/".

"Adaptation" no, but it most certainly is "based on" Burroughs´ book. And in a sense I think Cronenberg´s decision to introduce a more broadly biographical element to his film was a wise choice - as it seems to be not very accessible as it is, one can only imagine how it would have gone down with the more general audiences if the madness of the novel would have been presented in its original shape, without this clearer, somewhat softening edge.

"And then gives the viewer absolutely no idea of the book´s content is hardly a "masterpiece"".

I don´t see how that is of any relevance at all when it comes to the quality of the film.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

One aspect of this film that always rubbed me the wrong way is that in those instances where Cronenberg decided to have a verbatim quote from Burroughs's novel, it was always forced, out of its original context, and often cringeworthy. Examples include:

"America isn't a young land, it is an old and dirty and evil land..."

"No Glot, clom Fliday..."

"Have you heard the one about the man who taught his *beep* to talk..."

"Homosexuality is the best all-around cover an agent can have..."

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

I particularly like the last one.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Any film that claims to be based on or an adaptation of a book, and then gives the viewer absolutely no idea of the book's content is hardly a "masterpiece."

If somebody did a film claiming to be an adaptation of Moby Dick that took place in New York City instead of at sea, where Ahab was a minor, peripheral character, and where there was no mention of a whale, that would be something of a let-down. Cronenberg's film is precisely that.

As I said, I don't think that a good adaptation would require hardcore homosexual pornography or snuff film material. It would require having a number of other scenes and characters that appear in the novel. Much of the material involving Benway and the various other medical satire would adapt to the screen very well.

Completely disagree.

A movie need not be a full-on faithful adaptation of a book to be a masterpiece.

I can understand thinking a movie is not as good as the book, but if the movie is very well made, that doesn't matter.

A masterpiece is a masterpiece no matter the medium.

Can't stop the signal.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

A movie need not be a full-on faithful adaptation of a book to be a masterpiece.

I never said that it had to be full-on faithful. I said there should be at least a modicum of connection between the book's content and the film's. I don't believe I've ever seen a film claiming to be "based on a novel" that had less connection to the source material. As I said before, picture a film "based on" Moby Dick with no ocean and no whale, where Ishmael is a grocer who likes to get drunk with a Herman Melville-look alike writer buddy and who gets hassled by a cop named Ahab for disorderly conduct, and you get the equivalent of this movie.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

I said there should be at least a modicum of connection between the book's content and the film's.

And I don't believe that's true. Again, two different media.

As I said before, picture a film "based on" Moby Dick with no ocean and no whale, where Ishmael is a grocer who likes to get drunk with a Herman Melville-look alike writer buddy and who gets hassled by a cop named "Ahab" for disorderly conduct, and you get the equivalent of this movie.

But again, whether or not it's even close to being a faithful adaptation won't mean anything if the movie is still good. Whether a movie is or is not a masterpiece is not dependent on how close it follows the book it's based on.

Blade Runner. Total Recall. The Omega Man. Soylent Green. Willy Wonka. The Fantastic Mr. Fox. The Shining. Planet of the Apes.

All radically different; all really good movies.

You're judging this all wrong. Whether a movie is a close adaptation and whether it's good or a masterpiece are mutually exclusive. One doesn't affect the other.

That movie you describe might be a terrible adaptation of Moby Dick, but it might still be a really good movie with its own themes, drama, and great characters.

Can't stop the signal.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

That movie you describe might be a terrible adaptation of Moby Dick, but it might still be a really good movie with its own themes, drama, and great characters

That was my point all along - that as an adaptation, this film is terrible. It's not bad as a stand-alone film, but to call it an "adaptation" of NL is ridiculous.

Blade Runner. Total Recall. The Omega Man. Soylent Green. Willy Wonka. The Fantastic Mr. Fox. The Shining. Planet of the Apes.

I would say that Cronenberg's NL has far less in common with Burroughs' novel than Blade Runner has with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep or Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining has with King's novel. It's much closer to my Moby Dick scenario. That being said, I never thought much of The Shining as a book, so the fact that Kubrick's movie isn't a faithful adaptation never bothered me. I can't comment on the rest on your list because I haven't read them.

reply

[–] clockworkorange13 8 years ago

I'm halfway through reading the book and I don't see anything filmable here. I love all things weird but this book is just complete and utter nonsense. There's a few laughs to be had but I see nothing of value or interest here. If you told an extremely psychotic/schizophrenic person to write a book you'd get something like Naked Lunch.

reply