On August 28, 2008, my favorite book will become a movie. Well, to call it my favorite book might not be the best word choice, since others ring in my head and heart more frequently and loudly. Chuck Palahniuk’s Choke was recommended to me in the summer of 2005 by a random acquaintance on MySpace. Up to that point, I had only heard the author’s name in reference to Fight Club, since his 1996 novel was the foundation of David Fincher’s 1999 film of the same name, starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton.

Essentially, Choke was the fifth book that I ever read for pleasure and by my own choice. The first four were the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Kerouac’s On The Road. Having just graduated from college and cowering under the threat of the real world, I turned to Choke for shelter. And holy geze, did I need shelter. Leaving MSU inspired severe reminiscences of childbirth trauma. I found myself in a state of extreme cynicism, anger, and hopelessness. Choke was my guidebook.

So to see that Palahniuk’s 2004 novel about a medical-school-drop-out-turned-swindling-sex-addict will be made into a film made me very excited. This will only be the second time that I’ve read a book before the corresponding film came out (The LOTR trilogy was the first). To read that the film will star Sam Rockwell, Angelica Huston, and Brad Henke (who was a supporting male in Me and You and Everyone We Know, one of my new favorite movies) also made me giddy, since I can easily picture those actors in their chosen roles.

But seeing a clip from the film gives me mixed feelings. Don’t worry. I’m not some sort of book snob who wishes I had the story to myself. I think it’s one of the first great stories of this post-Y2K generation, and a direct continuation of many concepts presented in Fight Club. While I enjoyed the book Fight Club, I thought the movie adaptation was almost superior in its presentation of the plot. But in Choke, Palahniuk wrote with a very cinematic style, where the chapters even resembled scenes in a movie. I’m wondering if the film will add to the story’s value (as was the case with Fight Club) or detract from it (as is the case with most book-to-film adaptations). At least the movie was made independently, for something like $4 million.

Link:
IMDB
Chuck Palahniuk

A clip from the movie, where Victor Mancini visits a sex addict workshop.

I just watched I’m Not There, the 2007 film where six different actors play variations or segments of Bob Dylan’s life. It made me more interested in Dylan than his music alone ever did…but then again, I’ve never put much effort into listening to it. Ironically, Cate Blanchett not only had more speaking lines than the other versions, but she also achieved the deepest characterization and looked the most like the real Dylan.

My favorite line came from Ben Wishaw towards the end: “The only truly natural things are dreams, which nature cannot touch with decay.” It reminded me of the book that I’m reading right now: Life Against Death by Norman O. Brown. Brown uses the work of Freud to dissect history and human nature.

In a dream sequence, Arthur Rimbaud (one of the Dylan personas) hangs like a balloon above a fair.

In the section on art, Brown explains that art, dreams and neurosis are all connected to the unconscious. Although, art is the only one which is unrepressed. Dreams and neurosis, on the other hand, are sort of trapped. There doesn’t appear to be a way to stop yourself from dreaming about your long-lost friend, or a place you often visited as a child. And don’t get caught up on the word neurosis – the simplest definition is any major flaw that results from being an adult human. As Brown puts it, “Art seduces us into the struggle against repression. [...] Dreams and neurosis give expression to the repressed unconscious, but they do not liberate it.”

I think it’s safe to assume that Dylan is more of an artist than the majority of professional musicians in the world. And Dylan’s art was liberating to multiple generations, especially way back in the turmoil of the ’60s. Brown: “Art, if its object is to undo repressions, and if civilization is essentially repressive, is in this sense subversive of civilization.” So it is strange then that Dylan would prefer the rigid, unchanging nature of dreams. Perhaps dreams were a safe solace from the chaotic spotlight of fame.