review: Naked

There has never been a film that has caused within me more disruptive damn meditative self-quarreling than Naked. I saw it years ago and hated it, but knew that I needed to revisit it. Why would a movie which contains great acting, direction and a script densely saturated with sharp philosophical genius (all of which are components of intrigue for me), make me feel so bothered? Perhaps I was bothered by the fact that a rapist carries the message that “Man isn’t the be all and end all.” And I, in no way can argue with that. Perhaps it is the fact that this same criminal of sexual assault reminds us that “god doesn’t love ya, god despises ya. So there’s no hope. And mankind is just a component of the device by which the devil creates itself.” Once again, I challenge anyone to argue that with any kind of objective intellectualism. The problem, I believe, is the fact that this character acts upon these convictions in a way which suggests that all those who think similarly are apt to violate the rights of those around them, because the wrath of god is not a fear. THAT is what bothered me. Because the argument that committing assault against another is justifiable by the fact that the rather logical notion that god, it he/she exists at all, has done a sub par job or at least had more in mind than humankind being the be all end all, is a bit of an insult to those of us who are able to locate morality elsewhere. Where? Why, in the commonality of suffering, of course. That is to say, we are all suffering through this existence, whether it be god’s plan or not. And, therefore, we must recognize the universal nature of said struggle. What I failed to notice in my last endeavor at this film, however, is that it was explicating the precise quandary that I was suffering over. This is, if you think about it, incredible. So I guess that I will buy it and add it to my list of favorite movies and watch it a few more times. Because, how many films can cause that kind of deliberation?