Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch" C or D?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (111 of them)
Yeah, I went through a major Burroughs obsession, and Naked Lunch is definitely one of the key books. The "Literary Outlaw" bio kind of killed it for me, though.

There's what sounds like a fairly faithful indie version of Ballard's "Atrocity Exhibition" out on DVD now. Less filmable than Crash, you would have thought. Haven't seen it, but the stills look cool, though the reviews I have seen haven't tempted me to spend the money.

Soukesian (Soukesian), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 22:44 (seventeen years ago) link

The "Literary Outlaw" bio kind of killed it for me

Ugh, I never even finished that thing. The interview books are much better.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 22:52 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, never read the bio, not interested. the Collected Interviews, however, is fantastic.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 22:56 (seventeen years ago) link

i like that bio

akm (akmonday), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Gentleman Junkie is pretty cool, though. A very quick reading bio with lots of pictures on full color pages. Worth seeking out a used copy.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:05 (seventeen years ago) link

"Literary Outlaw" is a pretty thorough literary bio, it was just a bit too much of the man behind the curtain for me. He certainly doesn't come out of it as the all-seeing guru the industrial bands of the early 80's had him cracked up to be.

Soukesian (Soukesian), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:29 (seventeen years ago) link

I can already guess at all the dirty laundry he's got (a closeted homo and avowed mysognist who murdered his wife, hmmm) I don't need to dig through it with a fine-tooth comb.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, it's tedious.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 23:52 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost; Not so much the dirty laundry, which I more-or-less knew about anyway, what came through for me was an unmerciful picture of a rather hapless and gullible flake.

Soukesian (Soukesian), Thursday, 4 January 2007 00:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Haha I like the part where he talks about Lou Reed being a moron while completely misinterpreting the lyrics to "I'm Waiting For The Man".

Marmot (marmotwolof), Thursday, 4 January 2007 00:12 (seventeen years ago) link

"the one thing a drug addict would not do is chase black women."

Marmot (marmotwolof), Thursday, 4 January 2007 00:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Dar1a:

Cronenberg strips Crash of all intent to harm (not to offend, shock or transgress, but to somehow do real damage to those who encounter it). He strips it of its formal inventions and radical intent. He strips away most of its thematic content, and presents the core narrative (thin, strange, fascinating) as Crash itself. Why? Why did he do this?

Only David Cronenberg knows his own mind. I can't say anything convincing about what his choices REALLY reveal. But I can talk about how those choices strike me, as a viewer. With Crash, he implicitly asks us to acccept that he was attracted to the narrative and the narrative alone. To the simple human story underneath all the superficial carnage. And I just don't buy it. Crash's narrative is only a very small part of its strength and function as a novel.

But Crash is (or was, before Cronenberg filmed it) a famously "unfilmable" countercultural novel, and one with seemingly "Cronenbergian" themes. [Please excuse all the quotes and parens, I'm doing the best I can.] On paper, it's a match made in heaven. It reeks of late-80s literary cred and intellectual self-regard. And I can certainly see why he might not have wanted to devote significant time, effort and money to crafting the sickening meatgrinder that a TRULY literal adaptation of Crash would resemble. I'm not saying that he should have taken a strictly literal approach.

But that's the really interesting question. How do you do something like that, and still produce a releasable, watchable, compelling film? How do you honor the spirit of this stupendously fucked-up, misanthropic, borderline psychotic text within the cinematic medium? 'Cuz if you don't really want to try, why not film a different book? Or, why not make something that deals with similar themes and situations without linking it by name to a celebrated, challenging and widely-respected work of literature?

I'm not saying that David Cronenberg shouldn't have made Crash the way he did. It's his right to pursue his artistic vision wherever it takes him, and if the copyright holders were okay with it, then more power to him.

I just didn't like it much. I felt let down. Cheated. I felt that Cronenberg was attaching himself to the notoriety and (perhaps overblown) intellectual/literary cache of the novel without rising to meet it on its own ferocious terms.

adam beales (pye poudre), Thursday, 4 January 2007 00:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Videodrome is the shit.

His early films are very good.
He seems to be one of those artists who starts at the top of their game or near it and then slowly drops to nothing.

Geza T iz tha Rainy G. Toronado (The GZeus), Thursday, 4 January 2007 03:57 (seventeen years ago) link

He seems to be one of those artists who starts at the top of their game or near it and then slowly drops to nothing.

This is very OTM, my earlier silly hyperbole aside. History of Violence is by far his weakest effort yet.

walterkranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 4 January 2007 05:58 (seventeen years ago) link

I used to have the terrible habit of discovering artists like that.
The common thread seems to be an initial lack of concern for the 'rules' of their choice of medium and/or media.
They slowly develop their OWN rules and their scope gets narrower and narrower and it takes a shit, because their rules are based on odd personal quirks rather than generations of research.

Geza T iz tha Rainy G. Toronado (The GZeus), Thursday, 4 January 2007 09:52 (seventeen years ago) link

What was particularly weak about A History of Violence? The previews put me off, but fortunately it was one of those movies that's nothing like how the previews suggest it'll be. Much more straight-up than your usual Cronenberg (didn't see Spider), but with some seriously blacke humour in parts. Very enjoyable.


Also.... ballard on cronenberg

wings hauser (davidcarp), Thursday, 4 January 2007 17:13 (seventeen years ago) link

four years pass...

When people say, well, “A Dangerous Method” doesn’t seem very Cronenbergian — I always say I prefer “Cronenburgundian” — it’s irrelevant to me. Creatively it means nothing.

As a director you’re literally making 2,000 decisions a day, and no one else is going to make those same decisions. So it’s definitely going to be your movie, in the sense that everything filters through your nervous system and your sensibility, and you don’t have to worry about it beyond that. Whether it’s obviously what people think of as a Cronenberg movie or not is irrelevant. And when I’m making a movie I forget all my other movies. It’s as if they don’t exist, other than the craft and the experience, which of course is there. As I say ad nauseam, the movie tells you what it wants, and you give it what it needs, in terms of style, in terms of what lens you choose for the close-ups — the classic long lens, or the more interesting wide-angle lens where the camera’s closer to the person and the background is more in focus than it would be otherwise.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/03/david_cronenberg_its_as_if_my_old_movies_dont_exist/singleton/

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 18 December 2011 17:30 (twelve years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.