Popcorn (1996) van Ben Elton (Thin Blue Line, Blackadder, The Young Ones, etc). De laaiend enthousiaste quotes in en over het boek hebben het over Popcorn als mengvorm van komedie, thriller en moreel debat, en dat is ook wat Elton beoogd had. Net als de meeste van z’n andere romans gaat het om een satire, en bij momenten tonen de dialogen (want veel verhaal is er eigenlijk niet) Elton op z’n best: absurd en scherp. Samengevat: filmregisseur Bruce Delamitri ontvangt een oscar voor z’n populaire geweldfilm Ordinary Americans, maar komt tegelijkertijd terecht in een spiraal van geweld als zijn pad, en dat van de “Mall Murderers” - een op hol geslagen koppel dat dood en vernieling zaait, en zich zou laten inspireren door ’s mans laatste film - elkaar kruisen. De aanleiding voor het boek was de commotie die was ontstaan rond Natural Born Killers van Oliver Stone het jaar ervoor. Die provocerende film diende overduidelijk als blauwdruk voor de film van Delamitri (en het koppel Wayne en Scout werd duidelijk gemodelleerd naar Woody Harrelson en Juliette Lewis), maar ook voor het eigenlijke verhaal van Elton. Dat Natural Born Killers eigenlijk een rommeltje was dat amper te bekijken viel, doet er niet toe. Het is de premisse - uitzinning, nihilistisch geweld dat à la American Psycho en C’est Arrivé Pres de Chez Vous een boodschap heeft voor de getrainde lezer/kijker - die telt, en Elton stelt (on)rechtstreeks relevante dingen aan de kaak: de invloed die geweld op TV al dan niet heeft (is het een reflectie van de realiteit, of volgt de realiteit voor een deel de impulsen van het kleine en grote scherm?), censuur, en het wankele evenwicht binnen een maatschappij die zich enerzijds als open, veilig en geweldloos profileert, en anderzijds een zieke fascinatie heeft voor excessief geweld zonder morele basis. Stone was natuurlijk niet de eerste die geweld zo centraal stelde, de voorbeelden zijn legio: Dirty Harry van Don Siegel werd al veroordeeld tot foute machofantasie, de combinatie van absurde humor en bruut, willekeurig geweld in Kubricks verfilming van Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange is nu nog shockerend, en geweldmeester Sam Peckinpah verlegde de grenzen met prenten als Straw Dogs (de stoppen slaan door bij Dustin Hoffman) en The Wild Bunch. De esthetisering van het geweld in die laatste film kwam ook terugbij regisseurs als John Woo en Quentin Tarantino (wiens Pulp Fiction ook duidelijk de nodige invloed heeft gehad op Popcorn én Delamitri), regisseurs die verder gingen dan de overdreven rechtvaardiging van het geweld in rampzalige geweldklassiekers als I Spit On Your Grave, Rambo 2 en - god beware ons - Cobra. Geweld wordt niet zomaar voorgesteld als iets alledaags, of een noodzakelijk iets, maar een stijlvolle way of life. Een hobby, maar dan wel een coole. Elton suggereert (en een paar miljoen anderen met hem) dat de media hierin een cruciale rol vervullen. Er zijn een aantal woorden die nog steeds niet kunnen op TV, maar moord en mishandeling kunnen probleemloos, en dat 24/7, en als de kans zich dan voordoet dat feiten die met geweld te maken hebben breed uitgesmeerd kunnen worden, dan wordt daar gretig van gebruik gemaakt, cf. John en Lorena Bobbitt, O.J. Simpson, the Unabomber, Rodney King, etc etc. “The public gets what the public wants” dus, en dat is dan ook het uitgangspunt dat Elton tot een perverse climax doortrekt aan het einde van Popcorn. Het is een beetje makkelijk van Elton om een satire te schrijven om de Amerikaanse maatschappij/media/XL-hoerenkast genaamd Hollywood, maar de snedige dialogen zorgen ervoor dat heel wat clichés geneutraliseerd worden. Een instant classic is het niet, maar het past wel prima in de mid-90s discussies over media, geweld en de combinatie van de twee. Een discussie die, zo bewijst een blik rondom me, eigenlijk nog steeds relevant is. Dit gezegd zijnde ga ik nog wat steaming-filmpjes bekijken op YouTube. So long, suckers!. (***1/2)
This is your textbook example of a 3 star book. Right between all the good and all the bad books. The story was gripping, the moral dilemmas were interesting, the build-up was well carried out. It worked as a satire on media, violence disguised as art and entertainment and basically our society that doesn't want to take responsibility for anything. There is a whole industry dedicated to finding the culprit for just about anything that goes wrong in your life, and check this - it's never you!So all the above were the good bits. The premise was good. The characters... well, not so much. For example we had teenage American white trash speaking like British comics. Sometimes they would speak with a complete disregard of grammar rules and showing an IQ of bonobo chimpanzees, but when Elton thought of something funny they would all of a sudden produce eloquent complex sentences like:"Well, I guess a plan to avoid being executed for murder, Bruce. I can't think of an agenda more immediate than that for people in the position me and Scout find ourselves in". That is sarcasm! Two American teengers with half a brain between both of them would not be sarcastic. At some point Ben Elton must have realised he let it go too far and that two teenagers who drop out from school when they were 13 could not possibly be able communicate like that so he made a desperate effort to explain it through his narrator. Well, apparently it is because they watch a lot of television. They watched television all the time and that made them smart. Good news, if watching television makes you so smart we have a generation of geniuses entering the labour market right now.My other complaint about this 'viciously funny satire' is, well, that it wasn't. Funny, that is. That might be me, though. There are other things that other people find hilarious and I don't. Like Little Britian, for example. There was one scene in the book that did make me chuckle, though. It was when Elton's narrator was taking the piss out of mornings shows on tv. God, how I hate those. Just because it is 8 am and our brains haven't fully woken up yet doesn't mean you should treat us like imbeciles. So other than this scene, Elton was mildly amusing at best. But he did try very hard. Too hard.
What do You think about Popcorn (2015)?
I liked this book. It was a fast paced, witty, sarcastic and irreverent social commentary - all things expected of a Ben Elton book.Nature or nurture? Do movies and television reflect society, or make and shape it? These are things for other forums.Written almost 20 years ago, the topic is still relevant today though. Unfortunately.The way the events in the book all headed for an inevitable climactic collision, and particularly when the police, SWAT and television crews all converged at once on Oscar winning director Bruce Delamitri's mansion, was reminiscent of a good Tom Sharpe story. The clever interchange of writing styles, between normal prose and movie script mirroring the protagonist and topic, added to the experience.One of Ben Elton's better novels I think.
—Wilton314
This novel, by comedian Ben Elton, was very thought provoking. It looked thoroughly into the topic of violent films, and whether or not they influence violence in the real world. I myself do not think that violence in films is responsible for real violence - I've seen plenty of violence on the TV, and I am not likely to go and start killing people in real life. Elton evidently has the same views, as he portrays his protagonist, a director by the name Bruce Delamitri, as the victims of media and disgruntled relatives seeking to find someone to lay the blame on. But, as Bruce himself states on page 19; 'Human beings aren't Pavlov's dogs. You can't just ring a bell and make them salivate. They don't simply do what they see. If it were easy to manipulate people, no product would ever fail and no government would ever fall.' Bruce is particularly annoyed to hear that a couple of lunatics have gone around copying violent scenes from his movies in real life - which prompts his speech about the influence of films. At first he pays little attention, but when he is held hostage by the two criminals and forced to 'admit' that he was responsible for their crimes, thus granting them a lessened sentence, the line between fact and fiction becomes considerably blurred for the protagonist. The book focuses on the theme of taking responsibility for your actions, and not attributing them to fictional violence. Elton does not state definitely, however, who was to blame for the massacre (though he obviously implies it is the criminals, Wayne and Scout), and I believe this was because he wanted to stress the fact that no-one in the novel, in fact, wanted to take responsibility. Wayne and Scout didn't want to take responsibility for fear of execution; Bruce didn't want to take responsibility because it was not his to take; and the media definitely did not want to take responsibility because, even thouhg they shaped the situation, they convinced themselves that they were mere observers. This ambiguity is stated in the final line of the novel, 'So far no-one has claimed responsibility.' However, the reason I have taken a star away from this novel is because, after reading similar books by Elton such as Dead Famous, his characters seem to resemble each other a little too much. For instance, no character in this novel is particularly likeable; Wayne and Scout kill people, and Bruce is arrogant and self-obsessed. These are trademarks of some of Elton's other characters, and they are not interesting enough to sustain for very long.That said, this book is about a very interesting idea and concept, told by a very humorous person, and examines all angles of the topic being discussed.
—Lachlan Smith
I think the fact that in this modern era we're so intimately familiar with Hollywood From Afar that our knowledge becomes more of a distraction than what the story presents. Because the characters are so very close to real people, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out who the inspirations were; unfortunately, this did not seem to detract from the long-winded, repetitive nature of the story and I was able to tune back in when something happened in the scene (audiobook version). The book didn't cover anything we're not already aware of and have formed opinions and taken sides over, but it seemed almost endless. Too much navel gazing and not enough bang bang. I also took slight exception to the narration tone for Wayne and Scout - I've worked with people who talk like that, and it's not something one wants to hear for hours on end. The whole drawl issue could have been a bit less pronounced. But that's just me. (again, audiobook version)This is really hard to sum up because on the one hand it's definitely not one of the best books ever written, but on the other hand the little pointed jabs at the media and police and Hollywood management are enjoyable. I would say that at the time of the reading, it made me think and snort a bit, but overall it's not a book that I will remember for very long.
—That70sheidi
