"Choke" On Your High Hopes

In films, hardcore nudity, graphic depictions of sex, rape and blasphemy are still touchy subjects, what with the existence of the South and the Mid West. So it might be disappointing to hear that a great book, filled with nothing but sexual taboos and touchy subjects, was being made into a movie. After all, how could they possibly be faithful to the hardcore source material? Well, Clark Gregg, the writer and director of “Choke” managed to pull off a miracle.
The story of Choke is the story of a sad, empty man named Victor. As med-school dropout, he works as a historical re-enactor at a colonial village to pay for his crazy mother’s mental health facility bills. Well, at least partially. The other money he makes is from scamming people at restaurants, by pretending to choke on his food. When some customer saves him, that customer feels responsible for Victor’s life, to the point where they send him money, and he milks the savioristic feeling they get for all it’s worth.
The graphic sex comes from the fact that Victor, on top of everything else, is a sex addict. He cruises sex addicts anonymous meetings because it’s easy to score. As the book says, you put a bunch of people with the same problem in a room together, what do you expect?
The book the film is based on is by Chuck Palahniuk, the esteemed author of Fight Club. He is a man with an army of rabidly loyal fans who worship his every word, so it’s with great caution that I say, Fight Club was a much better film than it was a movie. The screenwriter, Jim Uhls, was able to take a scatterbrained, messy book and turn it into a coherent, brilliant work of art, and change a terrible ending into an amazing one. Unfortunately, Clark Gregg wasn’t able to pull off such a feat.
While Gregg stayed incredibly close to the source material, which was excellent, the most interesting parts of the book have nothing to do with the plot, but rather long expanses of little-known facts of conspiracies, told more to the reader just for show than any sort of plot development. When you take those long, rambling, fascinating monologs out, your left with an okay plot, with little to no character development.
Nothing felt conclusive, but nothing felt intentionally ambiguous either. The whole movie, especially toward the end, felt like it just kept forgetting where it was going, and forgetting where it had been, leaving everything up in the air, but not in any sense that felt like it had been done on purpose.
Nothing bad can be said about the acting though. Sam Rockwell played Victor, and he was flat-out amazing. He captured the depravity and hopeless emptiness of Victor so well, it was hard to believe Rockwell isn’t a psychotic sex-addict with self-loathing tendencies (and who knows? Maybe he is.)
Angelica Huston plays his emotionally abusive, mentally deranged mother who slips in and out of lucidity, and she is really the only person who could match Rockwell’s immersive believability. While Kelly Macdonald, as Paige Marshall, Victor’s love interest, was very good, as was Brad William Henke, Victor’s best friend Denny, it was Rockwell and Huston who upstage everyone.
One other note a praise about the film is it’s very successful use of dark humor, and it was very, very funny in all of the places where no other film could have been, but it was also unrelenting and unapologetic in it’s portrayal of the sex and the sexual culture and experiences. Needless to say, this isn’t a movie for kids, unless you have a really screwed up kind of family. Then, feel free.
While the movie may have not pulled off what made the book great, and may not have the impact of Fight Club (but hey, what does?) it was still an entertaining film. Adding to the mix was the almost-nonexistent budget of $3.4 million and a freakishly short 25-day shooting schedule, and it’s amazing the movie came out as well as it did. If your looking for a few good laughs and some attractive naked people, I would say this film is a win.

