So, I just finished reading Chuck Palahniuk’s “Choke” and while I had this question burning in my head after the first 25 or so pages, once I thumbed through the final page I was convinced there was no chance this film could possibly be made to resemble the 293 pages I had just read. This was my first time finishing a Palahniuk novel, my first attempt was with “Fight Club”, but since Jim Uhls’ screenplay seemed to be word-for-word what Chuck had written and Fight Club was a movie I had seen damned near 100 times, I decided against reading it and ran the DVD back 100 more times.
So, while I knew Palahniuk wasn’t afraid to write some gritty stories, I wasn’t quite ready for what “Choke” had to offer considering I knew the film was going into production and according to IMDB is already in post-production, which I took to mean the material was at least something a studio would touch, but guess again… “Choke” is anything but a film Hollywood studios typically distribute. In my opinion, the only way for this story to be told, and told properly, is in an NC-17 rated film, that is unless writer/director Clark Gregg knows something I don’t.
Choke is described as a black comedy following Victor Mancini, a sex addict who works as a Colonial War re-enactor and runs a con scheme that involves deliberately choking in restaurants and attaching himself parasitically to his rescuers, all to fund his mother’s care at a private mental hospital.
Yeah, that synopsis is correct, but it sort of glosses over a MAJOR portion of the story, Victor is a sex addict, a sex addict of the worst kind. I am not talking about a guy that just likes to have sex (if that were the case then we are all sex addicts), it is more than that, a lot more than that, and it is a vital part of the story, particularly the “worst kind” of sex addict part. The grotesqueries of Victor’s addiction are what make his character. Where it is assured to get dicey is in the third act where things really get graphic.
In regards to that description above I also think “attaching himself parasitically to his rescuers” is a gross exaggeration. It is not Victor that seems to be doing the majority of the attaching in as much as his resuers are attaching themselves to him. It is just one more thing that adds to the story’s overall message. I hope they don’t twist it too much.
I also hope they don’t try to make this funny, I hope they use Chuck’s words to make it funny. I hope this film is as dry and matter-of-fact with its humor as the pages are. When Victor says, “I thought you meant this other rape,” that it comes out as honest and earnest as I heard it in my head as I read. I want birth-deformed chickens and I want a house full of rocks. “Choke” may be the title, but there are things far more despicable and depraved that make up Victor Mancini than that and I personally think they are far more important to the story.
The choice of Sam Rockwell is perfect for Victor Mancini considering he is one of Hollywood’s best (and most unrecognized) actors right now. Kelly Macdonald should play out just fine as Paige Marshall and Anjelica Huston may be a good decision for Ida Mancini, I just hope she has done a little dieting since I last saw her in 2004 in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. The casting won’t be the problem with this flick; it all lies in the script and how well they stick to the source.
This is only the second time a Palahniuk novel has been adapted into a film and from what I have read and what people have told me the rest of his novels are all great candidates for more films so I hope they don’t fuck this one up by watering it down and changing it around. Since this is Clark Gregg’s second script (first was What Lies Beneath) and his first time in the director’s chair I have no idea what to expect, but I am hoping for the best.
