MovieChat Forums > Frisk (1996) Discussion > They made a movie out of this?

They made a movie out of this?

posted 19 years ago by Lopsided55
10 replies | jump to latest

Wow. It was at the top of my list of books that could never ever be made into movies. I haven't seen it because I can't find it, not even on p2ps. Is it a faithful adaptation?

[–] KMPINTJ 19 years ago

I remember reading the book long ago and I, too, wondered how it could be done. Netflix has it. Suffice to say that, while I don't remember much of the actual details of the book, the "mood" is there. It's quite bizarre, disturbing, and perverse, just like the book. And has no real plot, ditto.

[–] Lopsided55 19 years ago

Thanks for the info! I'll check Netflix, then.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanMarshall 18 years ago

No I don't think it is faithful. On film it just came across as exploitive.

[–] Cassandra666 18 years ago

Really, Sean? That's too bad it wasn't that good, or faithful to the book.

I actually just heard about this movie today for the first time when Netflix listed it as one of the "Other Movies You Might Enjoy" after I added "Swoon" to my queue, but then I thought, no, this couldn't actually be based on Cooper's book, it's just another movie with the same name. I almost passed out from shock when I saw that it was in fact based on the novel. Wow! This is even more of a surprise than when "Mysterious Skin" was made into a movie!

Sorry, Sean, I think I'm gonna see it anyway. I'll just make sure I don't have very high expectations for it.

"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." -Anton Szandor LaVey

[–] jimmycurry01 16 years ago

This is definitely a disturbing movie. I have not read the book and was a bit confused by the end, but just don't think I care quite enough to read the book for better explanation. And here is the spoiler..... Did he finally do it, did he actually suffocate the guy at the end, was it role play between the two, or was it just another fantasy?

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

This is an extremely disturbing film and certainly not for everyone, which usually means it's for me. Obviously, it's very low budget, and much of the cast is not up to the task, but I liked this film much more than I expected. I don't think I'm strong enough to read the book just yet, though.

Regarding your question about the ending, I'm puzzled as well. Until the end credits, I assumed that Dennis killed Kevin as planned. But if you watch the end credits, you see Dennis removing Kevin's mask and the two cuddling romantically. The segment at the end is in black and white, though, so I suspect that was the director's way of reassuring us that this was "only" a movie. In other words, I think Dennis killed Kevin.

Can anyone who has read the book shed any light on this?

[–] construct 15 years ago

The book is very clear about its opening and closing. The book begins with descriptions of five snuff pictures in a series. About thirty pages or so later, we find out (as Dennis finds out) that the pictures are fake. The book ends with descriptions of five fake snuff pictures in a series.

The book is presented as a combination of forms. It begins and ends with the very objective descriptions of the pictures. Part of the book is straightforward first person narrative. Part of the book is told as a fact-based mystery story that Dennis is writing intercut with Dennis telling about what's happening on the plane while he's writing it. Part of the book is told through Dennis's letters. The book is playing with the boundaries of literary forms including the boundary between fiction and non-fiction. The two series of pictures represent that boundary. Artifacts can be set up to convince a viewer or a reader of a different reality. That may seem a little mundane in the age of photoshop, but I believe the book retains its power because it's more about the literary blurring of boundaries.

The book is terrific. Like the movie, the most disturbing thing about the book is that it is not disturbing. You know you ought to be repulsed, and you feel a little bit creepy because you're not. That is part of the beauty of Dennis Cooper's art.

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

Thanks very much for your elaboration and your private message. I'm replying here because you don't get alerts for PMs.

After reading your post, I'm intrigued enough to seek out Dennis Cooper's novel. Unlike most people who saw this, I appreciated this film very much, but it had limitations in terms of acting and direction. Now it appears that the film is more of a companion to the novel – which generally doesn't speak well of a movie, but I still it was worthwhile.

In many ways, it appears the book and film were well ahead of its time, with elements that we would later see in the films of Darren Aronofsky and David Fincher. I wonder if Chuck Palahniuk may have been inspired by "Frisk" when he wrote "Fight Club." Certainly they are both unique works, but the involve the blurring of fantasy and reality in response to boredom or dissatisfaction with modern existence.

It is always a challenge to adapt a novel to the screen, particularly once that relies more on the author's (and reader's) imagination rather than presenting a strict description of chronological events. Many people are quick to judge a book or film because of its content, as a means of distancing themselves from the characters. I do not think that is appropriate, and there is much to be gained by exploring the "other side." A little knowledge never hurt anyone.

Thanks again for your responses.

[–] construct 15 years ago

I'm not sure I see much of a resemblance with Aronofsky or Fincher. Granted I haven't seen all of either's films, but from the ones I've seen, I don't really see the resemblance. Both of them are much more polished.

Cooper's writing is almost minimalist. It's as if he polishes each sentence down to almost nothing--almost completely affectless. I suspect that's one of the reasons they take so long to write. Two years on such slender novels?! Well, I've tried writing like that, and it's really very hard to do, and it takes a lot of revisions.

Cooper is more often compared to Sade, Genet, and Burroughs. I suspect that's mostly because of subject matter. His style is different from any of those. I'd think Bret Easton Ellis is much closer to Cooper's style. In interviews, they claim that they haven't read each other's work, but the similarities are stunning. Frisk is kinda sorta like American Psycho, and Period is kinda sorta like Glamorama. Ellis's writing is much more sweeping and sprawling than Cooper's. He's more generous, but I like Cooper better.