Choke

Leading a double life is nothing new for Victor. He's a historical theme park worker but also a self-proclaimed con artist and sex addict. In order to pay the high hospital bills of his mother Ida, who suffers from Alzheimers, he'll do whatever it takes. He is the best around, pretending to choke in restaurants where affluent customers feel an obligation to save him. With his inability to form emotional attachments, Ida's doctor believes she has the answers. As their relationship begins to intensify, Victor's mother is ready to tell him who his real father is. Having what seemed like a permanent gap never knowing about his childhood, Victor is faced with coming to terms on whether he can handle the missing pieces.

The one thing that interested me most about seeing Choke was the fact that it was from Chuck Palahniuk who wrote Fight Club, a movie that was strange but had a way where you didn't want to stop watching. Choke, on the other hand, although I liked the story, it didn't translate on screen very well for me. The flashbacks with Victor and his mother were the only parts that seemed to have some substance as it showed the gradual breakdown of any sense of normalcy that Victor could have in his life. I also liked the pseudo-choking moments. There was some nicely twisted humour in spots and the rawness of Victor's character as a sex addict was believable, but the movie as a whole didn't live up to its potential.

Choke is based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel of the same name. It almost goes without saying that the novel is better than the film. The film just didn't work and here's why: the novel was a character study of a lonely guy haunted by his demons. He's looking to make a connection with people in, shall we say, an unconventional way. Although at times the narrative is outrageous, it does convey to the reader a degree of depth, creating sympathy for the protagonist without an unbroken identification (the reader may be sympathetic to but probably won't like Victor).

The film botched this. It was part farce, part twisted romance, and part social commentary. The mixology didn't work. Victor was likable from the start with his frizzed up hair and we never really got a sense of his angst or the self-destructiveness of his life. In the novel Victor is trying to turn everything around. In the film we don't have a sense of the desperation. I suspect this has to do with the writing. The screenplay needed to stick closer to the style of the prose and cast off the farcical elements (the nudity was pointless, the fantasy-flashes could have been more cryptic to create a sense of temptation and provocation). The romance also needed work. It played too quickly on screen without the chemistry required by the script. He falls in love, that has to be felt by the viewer. In other words, the film needed an edge.

That being said, don't be too discouraged (but don't expect much). Fans of CP should check it out. It is interesting to see how the novel has been adapted to film even if the film isn't particularly good. The exegesis of the novel, what was left in and what was removed, makes for some fun speculation.