Why do people...


like this movie so much?

I watched it last night and when it was over I was like "...what the hell did we just watch?" I was expecting to be shown at the end what was really going on while he was hallucinating, and was sadly disappointed.

So, yes, the movie is about drugs, but what exactly is it saying about them?

There were certain scenes I liked a lot (and certain scenes that I disliked a lot), and I really loved the main character but the movie left me with a sort of "Huh?" feeling.

Has everyone read the book and that's why the movie is good to them? At any rate, I do indeed plan to read the book.

Lose yourself in nature and you will find yourself at home.

reply

The book is far stranger and more confusing than the movie. You might come away with an appreciation for the film once you read it though. Once you see the material that Cronenburg had to work with. He actually used material from other books of Burroughs as well as Naked Lunch. Not my favorite Cronenburg movie or Burroughs book by far, but still it is an interesting movie. I think Cronenburg should have given Burroughs a cameo in it.




give me a stage where this bull here can rage and though I can fight I'd much rather recite.

reply

I read that the book was too difficult to make into the movie, so the movie is more of a making of the book. Either way, I'd still like to read it.

I haven't seen much of Cronenburg's films, but I am working on that.

ridiculous to see you smile knowing you prefer to cry

reply

It is unfortunate that you feel you need further explanation. It's simply not one of those movies where the hero wakes up in the end and everything is explained. You must accept the fact that this movie is not a mystery nor a dream, it simply takes place in the alternative universe you see in front of you. Why must every movie come with a message? As for myself I really enjoyed the "Welcome to Annexia" -ending, meaning he is stuck in a limbo. Stuck in his personal hell.

There are some very good reviews out there about what's going on, but in general terms it's about a writer who uses drugs as a way to stimulate his creativity (much like Burroughs did) but finds himself stuck in a paranoid state of mind, hallucinating his way deeper into himself. Some drugs have good effect on him, while others seem to be spies (!) sent out by corrupted corporations trying to control people's minds. Or something like that... I agree it's somewhat complicated, and there is no point in reading the book, it makes even less sense. Read about the author instead, you might understand more about who Bill is, and what Cronenberg was trying to do.

reply

I agree that it is unfortunate. My boyfriend always says "Don't look for answers. Art doesn't have to make sense."

I do like your explanation that the movie does not need explanation. I did indeed like it for what it is, but I was left with the feeling that I had no clue what was really going on.

ridiculous to see you smile knowing you prefer to cry

reply

I would recommend that you read Junky and Exterminator before you read Naked Lunch. These are both more straight forward narratives which will ease you into Naked Lunch territory. Definitely check out some of Cronenberg's other movies. Dead Ringers and Crash are both far better than Naked Lunch IMO.



give me a stage where this bull here can rage and though I can fight I'd much rather recite.

reply

My girlfriend had the same attitute towards 'Naked Lunch' when I showed it to her the first time, and I had a hard time explaining what it was all about, basically because I wasn't quite sure myself, the film is so rich on substance it's hard to keep up if you must explain every turn it takes.

I've read some very intresting reviews and analysis of the film, and I've even listened to the audio commentary on the Criterion dvd, and I can tell you that this is not one of those movies where there is no explanation, obviously Cronenberg made something intresting out of Burroughs' un-filmable pulp, which means he had a clear vision. So there is order in chaos, but you must find it on your own.

Anyway, I'm gonna see it with my girlfriend again and hopefully she'll like it more because she wasn't very familiar with surreal cinema back then, and now I have introduced her to the phenomenon, and she seems to be getting into it.

reply

theres a certain amount of absurdism in this movie.. its not like a Lynch mystery where things have deeper meanings and its own kind of logic. Most of it is supposed to be rediculous and complicated for no reason.

"some movie quote"

reply

the book naked lunch was one of the first,if not the first non-linear naratives. I cant finish it. Anyone that tells me they have finished it I call them a liar.This movie comes very close to the spirit of the book.

reply

OMG I tried reading Naked Lunch like 20 times! I got about half way, then I had to return it to the library. Every once in awhile it would snap into some really clever social commentary or a funny surreal anecdote, but for the most part it felt like the pain of addiction in writing form. A kind of withering, dry feeling that without fail would put me to sleep. I came to the conclusion that it must be designed so that you can pick it up at any point and not be lost; that it doesn't tell a narrative. That the book is like a drug in that you can get into it at any point and it will put you in a certain frame of mind.

Seeing the movie though, makes me wonder if this effect was obtained because it was created by a man like bill who is struggling with his own demons and can only write things that tread the same emotional ground and don't really connect in any meaningful, NARRATIVE way...

I thought the movie did a good job of capturing the essence of the book, even though I didn't really enjoy either... Movies don't have to be pleasant or make a person feel good. Naked Lunch made me feel confused, distraught, disoriented, uncomfortable. Just like the book. Maybe I just need to watch/read it again sometime.

reply

"Movies don't have to be pleasant or make a person feel good."
amen to that!
I think half of the ignorant comments on IMDB are from people that expect all movies to be entertaining, and are disapointed by ones that arent all exposions, boobs and family values.
About Burroughs I like to say that he wrote the best sentences ever written in the english language. Burnished shining poetry. But he wasnt so hot at paragraphs and chapters.
Kronenberg is kinda like that too. Some of my favorite movies came out of Kronenbergs brain. Videodrome for instance. He makes great scenes and characters. But overall his movies have kind of a 2 dimensional narrative.

reply

"I think half of the ignorant comments on IMDB are from people that expect all movies to be entertaining"

It's true and totally enraging sometimes. Moreso they showcase their dilettantism whilst being very sure about themselves having a "discussion about art". Check disuccions about IRREVERSIBLE, SALO and so on.


"D-E-S-T-R-O-Y : E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G"

reply


"I think half of the ignorant comments on IMDB are from people that expect all movies to be entertaining"


A movie thats not entertaining is for what purpose then? Education?

reply

russdaren:

This movie comes very close to the spirit of the book.


Actually that is not true. The reason I liked the film (same reason as I know I'd hate the book) is that Cronenberg had a clear vision about what to do with the material. Many critics have said that the film is as much of a mess as Burroughs' novel, but I find it hard to believe that any of these critics have actually seen the film. In contray to what many people say, the film has a linnear plot that is easy to follow.

The film is not difficult to grasp at all. It's a simple plot involving agents, strange missions and talking A-holes but in general what it's all about is Bill Lee sitting in his apartment and hallucinating the content of the book he is writing under the influence of drugs. He has it mixed up in his mind that he is an agent working for Interzone inc. sending reports to his commissioner, when in fact all he is doing is writing "Naked Lunch". This becomes clear when he returns from one of his fantasies and is sitting in the apartment with his friends discussing the pages of the book he is writing, which he can't recall writing for obvious reasons. So it is obvious that the film goes in and out of his state-of-mind, so I don't know what is so hard to grasp here. It's a litteral fantasy about the creative process of William Burroughs' alter ego.

And all the secondary plots about agents and double-agents is just a way for Cronenberg to portray Bill's paranoid state of mind. The homosexual content is basically Bill dealing with the fact that he might be homosexual, and if it is so, then he might have killed his wife on purpose on an unconscious level, which Burroughs claimed to be the reason behind his sense of guilt. I'm not sure if that's Cronenberg's vision since it pretty ambigous, but that's all a part of Burroughs life. And that is what makes "Naked Lunch" briliant, it's so ambigous and rich on content.

The ending is briliant as well, altough I have a feeling most people hated it because it gave no explenations. In the end Cronenberg takes us to where we were at the beginning. William Burroughs said he started writing as a way of dealing with his personal demons: the guilt of shooting his wife. And that is what happens in the beginning of this film, which is repeated in the end upon the arrival to Annexia. Bill is still wrestling his demons in the fantasy landscape of his mind, which basically means he is working on another book.




reply

I like it, because it inspires me. I am a hobby writer and can partly indentify with Lee and his two buddies.

And I would also like to live in an exotic town, taking halucinogenic drugs and write all the time. Only the homosexual "coverage" wouldn´t be something for me.

P.S.: It makes me happy, that you love the main character. So do I.

reply

its one of those movies that leaves you with a feeling of punching the *beep* screen because you dont understand but you want to and thats the appeal of it all

reply

...do a little reading/research?


That's just a bit of frustration - wanting to punch the screen. There are so many little sub plots from the book that are just barely touched on in a lot of ways, and reading and reading and re-reading the book helps quite a lot. I saw the movie when I was 16 and was confused, read the book quite a few times for about five years and re-watched the movie. It allowed me to see that this is a very unique and detailed film that is exceptional to the tripe one normally has to put up with. Narrative isn't the holy grail for writing, movies, or any art, it is simply a component that can be utilized to as much or as little extent as the artist chooses; whether it comes out good is dependent upon that artist's skill. Burroughs used in this book and quite a few others his preferred method of 'cut ups' (analogous to collage in visual art) or 'folding in' passages, words, sentences into non-related material forming something new. He takes it to a very extreme level with the so called "nova trilogy", even combining words of his own with other authors (Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot). He had a lot of strange theories he lived by at different points in his life. Look up 'orgone accumulators' for an example. He was a Scientologist in the 60's but ultimately saw through the autocratic hierarchy of the cult, and abandoned it. He saw language, or more particularly words, as a type of virus that can cross-infect, typically as a method of control. Control in all its forms is one of the overarching themes behind Naked Lunch and most of his work after.

Naked Lunch is a tome of sarcasm, and a few of the funnier 'routines' are included in the movie, or just hinted at. The Talking *beep* and the Schlup routines are fine examples of his insane creativity, but there are so many more in the book, it just takes a bit of digging and reflection to rise above the individual pages, look down and see a miasma of brilliant commentary on modern life, though written in the 50's has vitality and relevance to our modern technological society. Some of my favorites are the Octopus barber and high colonic can-do kits, the predictions of plastic surgery addiction (flesh corset routine), AJ's Annual Party, et cetera.. careful, though, if you become addicted to reading this book, you may become inscrutable.. inscrutable as a turd.

reply

I'm not sure why I like this movie so much. It wasn't until I watched it a third time I truly "enjoyed" it, but there was something about it which kept drawing me back. It's unique and oddly compelling.

reply

"Yes the movie is about drugs, but what exactly is it saying about it"?

It is saying they getya high and cause yer typewriter to become an as-hole.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I haven't read the book but I watched the movie few days ago and I have to say I really liked it. Not my favorite Cronenberg film but still a good one. I watch a lot of Cronenberg and Lynch films so i'm definitely one of those people who don't need their movies to be dumbed down and easy to understand. I do have the whole art doesn't have to make sense mentality(thats what you get watching Cronenberg and especially Lynch films.lol)And just one suggestion for anyone who wasn't able to "get it" or hasn't seen it yet, you really need to "abandon all rational thought". Doing that really helped me enjoy the movie while watching it. You just gotta go where the movie wants to take you.

"I Am The Way"

reply