Well, I finished the documentary and read a bit of the essays included with Naked Lunch. Unfortunately I’ve not learned much that was new about the film. The most interesting thing that I gathered was that Cronenberg was most nervous about the fact that he doesn’t have homosexual tendencies so that he wasn’t sure he could capture it right on film. He then asked Burroughs if it would be acceptable to use women more frequently.

As a bit of history between myself and the film: this is a movie I saw at a friends house after my parents were outraged by it. Nothing says interesting to a teenager more than “you can’t do/watch/play/read that.” So of course my friends and I went through great lengths to track this film down and I finally saw it approximately 3 years after it’s initial release. It was at this time that I had no idea what I was watching and yet was very intrigued by what I was watching.

I have since seen the movie nearly a dozen time (possibly more) and I’m pretty sure I have it all sorted out about what is going on where and what most of the intentions are. I almost wish I had watched the documentary first because it would have been more interesting to go back through the film knowing what I now know about Cronenberg and his non-homosexual tendencies.

I feel that this film really is nearly a masterpiece of the medium because of what it manages to say about writing, drugs, and society within a medium that only speaks to you with images and sound. The fact that all special effects for this movie are done on screen (no after effects from computers, a thing I would like to see more of and am glad that it is slowly becoming more popular again over horrible CG effects) adds to the longevity of the film, and it’s ability to be viewed as modern and contemporary even after 15 and some odd years.

Without consciously realizing it I have watched two films in a row which are both introspective commentaries on opposite mediums (Peeping Tom and film: Naked Lunch and writing) yet both remain very similar on how you have to view the characters. In Peeping Tom it’s more about attempting to understand Carl Boehm’s character and how he turned out the way he did. In Naked Lunch it’s about trying to figure out what we are seeing and how it relates to Peter Weller’s portrayal of William Burroughs. In one it uses the unconscious obsession to film, and the other the unconscious compulsion to write in order to understand.

About Naked Lunch specifically: I loved exploring this film over time. Separating what is literal from what is internal, to what the symbolism is. A few years back I finally read the book, and was shocked at how large of a key it was to understanding the film. The film itself is not an adaptation of book, but the tale of how the book was written and more about the author himself. Having seen the film a couple times since I read the book I have noticed how lovingly certain items were placed in the film just to homage the literary work (such as the mugwomp (sp?) and the hanging boy figure at the pawn shop window). To say that I understand every last thing in the film would be wrong, but I feel that I know it well enough now.

To me this is a pretty big break through because normally when I watch these documentaries things strike me that I had never though of, or views and opinions are present which strike me as coming straight out of left field. Having only taken one film criticism class (which was honestly very basic and taught me nearly nothing at all) I find this to be a successful achievement in my personal exploration of film.

After such surreal films, I don’t think I can shift gears properly to go back to looking at more straight forward films, so I’m going to play some videogames!