And so Cronenberg spliced together an unholy beast of a film
February 1, 2025 5:59 AM   Subscribe

"However, it’s in 1991’s Naked Lunch that Cronenberg most openly takes a clear-eyed look at the work of the creative and, in doing so, a look at himself. In conversation with Film Comment, Cronenberg called his adaptation of William S Burroughs’ surreal classic 'a meditation on the artistic process'."
posted by cupcakeninja (21 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite
 
Yeah. It was a clever take on the core of the book. And it worked! Roy Schieder was miscast as Benway though.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:44 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]


A love letter to manual typewriters.
posted by Lemkin at 7:23 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]


I can think of at least two things wrong with that title!
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:42 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]


I used to think that Cronenberg's Naked Lunch was one of the two weirdest things that I'd ever laid eyes on, the other being cartoonist Chester Brown's "Ed the Happy Clown" story in his minicomic-turned-indie-comics-phenomenon Yummy Fur. But I don't think that that's right; there are certainly weirder things out there, but they're mostly incoherent. What drew me to both stories is the protagonist at the heart of both of them, and how identifiable it was for me to see them attempting to cope with the runaway weirdness surrounding them and happening to them.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:10 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]


Renting this from our local blockbuster in high school was like getting a ticket to mars for my brother and I. It was so hard to get something properly messed up in suburban Kansas in the 90s.

Additional edit- what a preview!
posted by q*ben at 8:17 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]


Years ago, in the cable TV era, I had mythbusters on as background noise and they did a pseudo jump cut scare with a shot of a mugwump from naked lunch which was unexpected. Turns out one of the dudes from that show did the practical effects for those lil freaks!
posted by Ferreous at 10:04 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]


Is it OK to say that I loved Naked Lunch, without having any deeper analysis to offer, and just enjoy this time in the company of others who did, too?

I don't remember any of its scenes as clearly as the Lost Highway scene where Robert Blake approaches Bill Pullman at a party, but I do remember that they made a similar haunting impression on me on the several occasions that I watched it.
posted by It is regrettable that at 11:02 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]


But I don't think that that's right; there are certainly weirder things out there, but they're mostly incoherent.

This is a really important observation and one that I think says a lot about the arts in general. A lot of my alt's followers on Bluesky were talking about the Crossed comics series the other day (after I posted one of its more tasteful covers) and there was a lot of "this comic is sick; it's the most disgusting comic book evar" type discourse, and this was immediately wrong to me because I've seen far more disturbing comic books, but the difference is that those are amateurish and unprofessional outsider art, whereas this may well be the sickest comic book ever created by serious writers and professionally trained artists. And I think that's a big difference. One is probably just garbage -- therapeutic garbage, one hopes, for the creator; but nothing that a reader would be interested in unless it's to marvel over how weird and bad it is -- and the other, even if you don't like it, isn't garbage at all.

There's no question Naked Lunch is a serious-minded film made by a sober-minded creator (regardless of whether Burroughs was himself literally sober when he wrote the novel on which it is...um...with which it shares a title). A lot of people could have made some kind of art involving similar things, and it probably would have been trash. It takes extremely talented people to make a film that feels chaotic and random, but moves with absolute self-assurance and speed to an ending that feels inevitable.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:46 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]


I have not watched Naked Lunch.

I have read Naked Lunch.

Guess I could never see how the book could have been turned into a movie, so never bothered. Also Cronenberg...

Too much body horror in his films I have seen.
But now, I probably have to find my copy and reread. "Room for one more..."
posted by Windopaene at 11:46 AM on February 1


My impression is that this is the genius of the Cronenberg adaptation—he doesn't try to make a movie out of the text of Naked Lunch, which would probably be impossible, but rather to understand something about what's going on in the mind of a man who can write it, and to try to bring the reader to something like that same headspace.
posted by It is regrettable that at 12:06 PM on February 1 [6 favorites]


From what I remember, the "what happens" aspect of the film owes much more to works like Junky, Queer and Exterminator! than it does to Naked Lunch the book, but the tone is all from its namesake.

It's been ages; I should re-read *and* re-watch.
posted by Slothrup at 12:24 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]


A fine film. Also an achingly good sound track.
posted by doctornemo at 12:47 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]


There's a streamable copy on the Internet Archive.
And I agree that the movie is more like a mashup of his books and personal life, illustrating his mental state as he was writing Naked Lunch and sending "reports" to Ginsberg and Kerouac (who are in the movie). Think of it as Cronenberg's take on his alter-ego Bill Lee.
posted by indexy at 2:50 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]


Back when the TIFF theatre had money, they had an amazing Cronenberg exhibition. The tv from Videodrome. The pod from The Fly. The flesh guns from Existenz. But in a side room, they had an Interzone bar set up with a life-sized Mugwump sitting on a stool. When and where else can get you get a photo op with a Mugwump?
posted by thecjm at 6:30 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]


Just look at this glorious thing
posted by thecjm at 6:32 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]


Yeah, back when they announced a film version of Naked Lunch, I said "Nah that's un-filmable!" I was right, instead Cronenberg made surreal biopic about Burroughs' life, which was great. I think that it's Cronenberg's masterpiece (up there with Dead Ringers). I think I was in tears watching the scene when his friends leave in the bus station in Tangiers.

Roy Schieder was miscast as Benway though.

In the book Dr. Benway was dark and intensely menacing, but Roy plays him cynical and ironic in the script. But hey, Roy is cool.

Also an achingly good sound track.

Ornette Coleman & Howard Shore, it's something else!

Years later we went to an art show of the props used in this film (those typewriters!). Someone brought a little kid into the gallery, they had to grab them and scurry away when some pretty weird scenes from the film played on a video monitor in the corner...
posted by ovvl at 8:34 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]


Also an achingly good sound track.

in my all time top tier list. It takes me there ... wherever there is.
posted by philip-random at 1:54 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]


This film is part of our family lore. I took my then girlfriend on our first date to see this film. I didn't realize at the time that she was as big a fan of bizarre cinema as I was. Somehow I manged to get a second date, and we've been married for 30 years now. She does still like to quote Nelson Muntz on NL: "I can think of two things wrong with that title!".
posted by Larry Duke at 1:26 PM on February 2 [1 favorite]


In the book Dr. Benway was dark and intensely menacing, but Roy plays him cynical and ironic in the script. But hey, Roy is cool.

Indeed. Scheider is a great actor, but I too would've expected a Doctor Benway that oozed Dick Cheney energy.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:22 PM on February 2


I came in here to see how long it would take for someone to make the Simpsons reference. Answer: 104 minutes. Probably would have been in the single digits if this wasn't posted at dark-thirty in the morning.
posted by intermod at 7:12 PM on February 2


anyway the Burroughs book we should all probably read is My Education (a book of dreams), his final novel. But are dreams fiction? And if they aren't, what are they?
posted by philip-random at 11:09 PM on February 2 [1 favorite]


« Older eagre to be devour'd   |   David S. Ware - A World of Sound Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.