BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Adaptation, in which Jonze and Kaufman destroy your head.

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
videodrome
18:26 / 14.11.02
I thought about waiting to post this, as the film doesn't open in the states for another month, and who knows when elsewhere. But looking over some of the Invisibles threads, I can't wait, because this film, in many ways, is the best filmic representation of what so many people love about Grant's work.

What we have is Adaptation, a film about Charlie Kaufman, the kid that wrote Being John Malkovich, trying to adapt Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief. It's a plotless book, non-fiction reportage that resolutely resists being turned into a film. As Charlie struggles with the work, his twin brother Donald is also writing a script, a mainstream thriller for which Charlie has little respect. As Charlie continues to struggle, he begins to write himself into the adaptation...leaving us with a film about Charlie Kaufman writing a film about Charlie Kaufman writing a film.

The script is credited to Charlie and Donald Kaufman, and the fact that Mrs. Kaufman did not, immediately before or after the birth of Charles, drop another bouncing boy and name it 'Donald', is completely beside the point. He writes and Spike Jonze directs with simple assurance that everything will be fine, but it won't. At all.

We see what Charlie envisions, the detours and straight book-to-film transfers, with Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper playing Susan Orlean and the object of her book, respectively. And then, as his writing and its subjects come together, Kaufman begins to alter the world around him through the process of writing.

Charlie and Donald are played by Nicholas Cage, in perhaps the best performance he's given. As twin brothers, he trumps Irons in Dead Ringers, in the process overcoming all the reservations I've ever had about the guy. Anything that makes me change my mind about Nic Cage must be seen...

I'll say no more until some others have seen the film. And see it, damn you all! It's brilliant, getting more shine in my mind as time passes. I'm looking forward to it's release so I can inflict it upon others.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:01 / 08.12.02
I saw it yesterday, and it was just jaw dropping. I honestly don't even know where to start in talking about it, it's a movie that could be written about endlessly. I don't even know it's fully soaked into my mind yet - I feel the need to see it again, because like Donnie Darko, it's a film that the first time through I'm more focused on plot and resolution and I feel like there's a lot to gain from seeing this film repeatedly. Also, I share Videodrome's reticence to talk about it too much since it seems like maybe only three or four Lithers have had the chance to see it yet - I think it is best to go into the film knowing as little as you can so it can unravel for you as it goes along.

I would agree that Adaptation is related in subject matter to Grant Morrison's writing and to Donnie Darko, but I've got to say that I think that it is significantly better and more successful than either. I think the writing is a step ahead, and I think not having the baggage of comics and sci-fi, and keeping everything firmly grounded in some sense of reality is far more palatable to my sensibilities. It's a film about writing, it's a film about fictionsuits, it's a film about what people want from fiction, it's a film about insecurity, it's a film about failure, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

There's some worthwhile press about Adaptation here and here, and Videodrome has written something here.

So, bring it on. I'm willing to discuss this movie, I'm ready whenever you are. Even if that just means Videodrome at this point...
 
 
videodrome
16:43 / 08.12.02
I'll get more more comments soon, but for now David Denby's review is available here. To the suprise of absolutely no-one, he misses the point, and it's fun to watch him in the process. I think this is the fate of the film, as a general unwillingness to think about film and let it sink in is going to hurt Adaptation, but there really is no reason for anyone who reads Barbelith not to see it.

I also think it's more successful as a meta- than Donnie Darko, sinply becuase there isn't the whole integrated film/website nonsense. And it's without parallel as satire, simultaneously pandering to and skewering the needs people have for fiction.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:33 / 08.12.02
It is far too tempting to dismiss that as "sprawling New Yorker shit", isn't it?

I was fine with that review at first, he was certainly seeing things from a different (highly defensive) point of view, but once he completely dismissed the final act I just couldn't respect the guy. I don't think the final act is a cop out, and I don't think it is insulting or condescending.

The thing that's so beautiful about the ending, and most of the film along the way, is that it really does seriously consider different ways of thinking about the film's central dilemmas. I think Jonze and Kaufman really nail it in that Voice interview, that the film is like a conversation; and though Charlie dominates the argument and is meant to be the most sympathetic character, there's never a clear sense of who or what is right. Charlie as a character acknowledges this too - he's constantly stepping back and giving himself merciless autocritiques, tearing apart every idea and starting all over again.

I think that the final act explores the notion that, y'know, maybe giving people "what they want" isn't so bad after all. Sure, the final act is implausible and over the top, but Donald does supply the audience with some sense of thrill, adventure, and meaning; all of the things missing from The Orchid Thief, but also which defined it. I don't think the ending cancels out Charlie's ideas, or those of Susan Orlean or John Laroche. I think it gives equal time to Donald and McKee, but also does sincerely come from Charlie in a way - I think the "big lesson" learned in Donald's final act isn't just a nod-and-wink gag, but something quite sincere that Charlie does realize himself.
 
 
videodrome
23:01 / 08.12.02
And I'm talking out of my ass to a certain extent (hey, what's new?) when I said above that Adaptation is free from the "integrated film/website nonsense" of DD because the film is not only a dialogue between it and the audience, it and itself and it and the filmmakers, but also between the media of films and prose.

Reading the book in advance isn't really a good thing, because some of the reality-bending pleasure of the film will dissipate. I wish I'd gone into the film a virgin. But reading it afterward may be rewarding, as insight into the loops Kaufman put the structure of the film through will be gained.

Additionally, there's the third act.

"Donald does supply the audience with some sense of thrill, adventure, and meaning; all of the things missing from The Orchid Thief, but also which defined it"

This is true to an extent, but more properly he translates from prose to film the otherwise unfilmable ways in which the book does convery thrill, adventure and meaning. Because those things are certainly there, but dissovled into a non-standard solution, spread throughout the scope of the book. There are no chase scenes in The Orchid Thief, nevertheless it communcates the idea that a very fluid, dynamic spirit of change and desire drives the characters. This is very difficult to film, at least in a standard way, and I think Kaufman and Co. have come up with an admirably non-standard way of working it out.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
01:33 / 09.12.02
Interesting. I think that maybe you did gain something from having read The Orchid Thief prior to seeing the film, because I think you're seeing the ways in which Adaptation is an adaptation of Orlean's writings, the non-literal ways in which Kaufman captures the spirit of the book. One of the pieces in the Village Voice was suggesting the same thing, that many of the parts of the film which don't obviously have to do The Orchid Thief are definitely in one way an adaptation of some of the book's passages.

How does The Orchid Thief rate on its own? I'm extremely interested in reading it now, before I see the film a second time.
 
 
videodrome
03:02 / 09.12.02
I quite liked the book. I read it just before seeing the film, since I knew I'd be interviewing Susan Orlean, and I wanted to be properly informed. There's places where her tone is too NYC for me, with relation to the way she mentally interacts with the Florida landscape, but my reaction is to be blamed on me as much as on her, obviously. It's a very readable book, covering a wide array of topics all of which ultimately relate to the adventurous spirit that caused Florida to be what it is.

I think the film probably benfits from ignorance of the book, as the levels of reality were clear to me from the beginning, and I spent a good deal of time marvelling at the ways in which Kaufman had crammed certain things into the film. Still, in a few places I was surprised at Jonze's ability with the material. When the loss of Laroche's teeth is explained, for instance, I knew exactly what was coming, but was still devestated by the manner in which Jonze showed it to me.

But I think you're on the best path. See, read, then see again.

Oh, and I'll try to make MP3s of the interviews available on my site soon - will post al ink when that happens.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:49 / 09.12.02
How long am I waiting for this fucker?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:20 / 09.12.02
I can't seem to find the UK release date for Adaptation anywhere - that's very troubling. I can't imagine that it will be ke[t from UK audiences for too long. Right now, it's only out in NYC and LA, to be put in wider US release in a week or two.

You can check out the official site for trailers and movie clips in the meantime...
 
 
PatrickMM
14:35 / 09.12.02
And on January 10, it goes even wider. Can't wait to see this.
 
 
The Natural Way
15:19 / 09.12.02
I wouldn't be too sure about the wait, Flux. Afterall, us Brits had to wait almost a whole year for Donnie. Grrrzle....grump.....bitch.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:28 / 09.12.02
But Donnie Darko was an enormous bomb in the United States, and it looks like Adaptation is going to be a modest hit with massive mainstream critical acclaim and possible Oscar nominations.
 
 
videodrome
15:31 / 09.12.02
DD never got a proper release in the States, though, Runce. It only played art houses in very limited engagments here, so the UK got more of a proper release for that than the States did.

Adaptation was set to open wide here 20 Dec, but got pushed back to Jan so it wouldn't have to compete with all the big guns, one of which is Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, the other current picture written by Charlie Kaufman. IMDB lists a March opening for France, so maybe you'll have it by then - hopefully sooner.
 
 
Seth
16:41 / 09.12.02
I couldn't find a UK release date when I looked last night, either. I typed UK so many times that it started to sound better pronounced "uhk."

This calls for grant or Jack Fear scale web-fu.
 
 
grant
20:44 / 09.12.02
It's an indie film (or "indie" film), so they probably don't have a UK release planned out yet.
Can't find anything.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:53 / 09.12.02
Adaptation is not an independent film. It was made by Columbia Pictures/Sony.
 
 
videodrome
22:42 / 09.12.02
The UK release date is 28th Feb. This is reliable. Not great, but not bad...
 
 
Jack Fear
12:10 / 10.12.02
Where'd you find this? IMDb lists release dates for Australia, the Netherlands, and Iceland, but not for the UK...
 
 
videodrome
18:28 / 10.12.02
I did the junket for the film (the one described in the Onion piece), so I got in touch with the PR guy I dealt with at Sony.
 
 
videodrome
18:31 / 10.12.02
Oh, and I saw Confessions of a Dangerous Mind this morning - Kaufman's other flick, directed by George Clooney, starring Sam Rockwell as Chuck Barris. It's pretty good, and quite a different film from Adaptation. Curiously, Sam Rockwell looks even more like Kaufman than Nic Cage does...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:44 / 10.12.02
Speaking of Kaufman's other work, has anyone seen Human Nature, which he wrote and Michel Gondry directed? I've been curious about it, but I've read very mixed reviews. What's the good word on that one?
 
 
videodrome
19:32 / 10.12.02
Just got a copy of Human Nature today. Will watch in the next couple days and comment. Am looking forward to it, though I fear I may be disappointed. Gondry is directing Kaufman's next script, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, as well.

Addendum:

Just watched HN. That's a good flick. It's a comedy in the sense that not everyone is dead at the end of the flick, rather than in the 'rolling in the aisles' mode. It's very easy to see why it did not do well, as it's certainly not the film people would expect to see. That is, if they don't know Kaufman.

I think his two newer pictures are better, as there's a few places where Human Nature is pretty dry. But I think it's quite succesful on its own terms, and there's quite a few things that later wormed into Adaptation in altered form. May write some more later, but I'd recommend it, especially to those who enjoyed other Kaufman work. I'm now very much looking forward to next year's further collaboration between Kaufman and Gondry.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:16 / 16.12.02
I'm gonna post about Adaptation a bit later, once I get my thoughts together, but I've got a question/observation for you guys:

Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze both started off as directors of music videos, and they've both adapted (...) the aesthetic they developed for the small screen, 3-4 minute format successfully, with the help of Charlie Kaufman. What makes Kaufman's scripts so amenable to the skills of these whimsical guys, and vice versa? To further sweeten the pot, we could throw David Fincher's Fight Club in the mix as another example of a video director adapting to and thriving with somewhat outre material (though Fight Club is a much more commercial film). Or how about Michael Bay? Okay, scratch that. What would a Fincher/Kaufman collaboration look like? Do we think Kaufman would respect Fincher's work?

Oh, and SPOILER WARNING - Question for those who have seen the film:

My immediate reaction to the ending was that it would somehow make more sense, and ring truer, if it was actually ~Charlie~ who died at the end, and Donald remained alive to finish Charlie's script, fall in love with Charlie's girl, etc. (I can elaborate on this, if anyone has an idea) Is there any evidence for this in the film? The only thing I can think of immediately is when Charlie calls his mom to tell her about Donald, she says "Charlie, is that you?" and he doesn't identify himself. I know, I know, it's a mug's game to try to "improve" on any script, especially this one, but I'm curious to see what ya'll think.
 
 
videodrome
12:41 / 16.12.02
****spoilers*****







No, I don't think so. One of the overarching ways to read the film is that it's about Charlie's need to reconcile different ways of approaching the script as he tries to write it. He kills Donald when he's come to terms with what Donald represents. Charlie is the writer, and he creates a homunculus brother to deal with his own writing instincts. I don't think it makes more sense for Donald to remain, though that would be more in keeping with the current ironic tendencies in screenwriting.

As part of this argument is the idea that Donald never did exist. When Charlie talks to Amelia at the end of the film, she reacts almost like he's talking about a character he had to kill off. "I really miss him." She says, "How's the script coming?" When Charlie talks to his mom, he doesn't say that Donald's dead. And despite the fact that we see Donald's chair and workspace, Charlie ("the craaaazy white man") could have put those things there to help 'create' Donald. I don't quite share this particular interpretation, but it's an interesting one.

Oh, and for those who don't know, Robert McKee is real, and he's not Brian Cox.

I watched this again last night (through the modern miracle of loaned Academy screener tapes) and feel as strongly about it as I did the first time...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
21:19 / 16.12.02
I watched this the other day. It's getting a release in Australia on Boxing Day, I think, same as Frida, though I went to a preview at the Dendy chain, some nice arthousy cinemas which I think are only in Sydney. Human Nature gets a release there soon, I think.

I don't know what to say. I'm probably not in the best headspace for this film at the moment, given my current state, but I thought it was great. It is, in Colemanballs style, a film of two halves: the first half is the self-doubting, neurotic side of Charlie, while the latter has the active fucked-upedness of a Donald script. But they're looped togehter in such a way that... I don't know. I too don't want to share about it. The way that crashes are portrayed onscreen were fucking terrifying, though, really, really awful.

Tilda Swinton is amazingly attractive; this I hadn't noticed before. And there's something about Cara Seymour too, that just made me go "aww".

Maggie Gyllenhaal - any relation?

Carter Burwell's score is, once again, wonderful.

Robert McKee does exist. He has a page on the film, too. But Brian Cox is cooler.

I htink in common with Malkovitch, there's that same piercing love of life filtered through tragedy. The incredible sadness of the trapped protagonist in that film, looking at the object of his love from a prison is equally found here, only it's found in more basic real life events: it's not as far-out as to need the portal idea of Malkovitch, but it's more... honest? Like how Charlie is in the car, how he can't kiss people, how he fantasises. It's like everything is touched by tragedy, and he can see it, and he tries to rationalise his way out of it. I sat there covering my face for the most part, becase it was just so awful, so sad, you know?

I think I am Charlie Kaufman.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:43 / 16.12.02
Maggie Gyllenhaal is indeed the sister of Jake. She was in Donnie Darko, as Donnie's sister Elizabeth, and as Lee in Secretary.

I would like to echo that the car crashes in Adaptation were extremely powerful and disturbing, and seem to capture the sheer instant horror of such things in a way that I don't often see in cinema.

I agree with Videodrome about Donald being a fictional construct in reality as well as in the film - it's a way for Kaufman to isolate different parts of his own character for effect, and also to be a character who causes problems and situations for the Charlie character. I would think that a lot of Donald's characteristics are part of Kaufman in reality; the parts that socializes with actors and crew members on the set, the kind of person who he has to become when he has to meet with Susan Orlean. I think a big part of the film is Kaufman coming to terms with the Donald part of himself, and once he begins to understand the value and positive qualities of Donald, he no longer needs to be a separate character and is killed off. Of course, Donald only dies after the "big lesson". Donald becomes integrated into Charlie, who at the end of the film is slight more confident with himself, and gets over some of his more childish fears and convictions.
 
 
videodrome
03:40 / 19.12.02
When I spoke to Jonze and Kaufman, I asked them if they had a thing for Cronenberg, given the obvious relation to Dead Ringers, and the absolutely perfect depictions of auto accidents in Adaptation. As part of that question I asked if he'd really thought a lot about the crash sequences and how to present them.

In typically reserved fasion, the answers were as follows:
Re: Cronenberg and Dead Ringers:
Yeah, though that movie was made so long ago that it’s a lot easier now to do that, so at the time their accomplishment was much greater. We watched it, and watched the making of on the DVD. (laughs) Stole all that, and learned from them.

Re: crashes:
SJ: We wanted it to be very sudden and as subjective as possible, with a violent event that can change everything, and use it to reveal that there’s a lot more going on than we’ve perceived.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
05:20 / 23.12.02
SPUHOILERS!











Just caught it today, at last, and it's definitely a hand grenade of a movie. I remember expecting to be absolutely floored by the third act (I mean mcKee sets up the Deus Ex Machina in a way where you can pretty much expect anything and I was leaning way more towards Anvil From Sky than Drug Peddling Seminoles) but upon much reflection, it's clearly growing on me. One of the things that most impressed me about BJM was how i sincerely felt for these people in the most (literally) incredible of situations. I was devestated by the end of the film and Stephen's final fate. And it really was due to a complete synthesis of every creative person involved, from Kaufman to Burwell. If you haven't, try and track down the original screenplay, which is way way way way more fantastical and way way way way less emotional than the final product. Unbelievable that someone actually optioned the thing (but wonderful at the same time, obviously).

Once again I admire Jonze's stylistic restraint, really the only director who's come up from videos who is practicing such a thing. When one looks over his body of work, from Jackass to the new Bjork video, one really gets the sense that he can do anything, and 94% of it extremely well. I was also blown away by Cage's performance. I missed him since Raising Arizona. The way he captured Donald's sincere love, admiration, and envy for his brother was remarkable. Just as in BJM, causing a sincere and powerful emotional reaction from the most ridiculous of situations.

Really impressive the way that Kaufman, more than anything, is trying to come to grips with Adaptation, of the book and of himself. The confrontation between Susan at the end is one of the more honest and true portrayals of a writer confronting their work than I've ever seen: occasionally, just pure hatred. "You fucking bitch, why are you doing this to me?? Why can't I just sit at home and eat waffles?? WHY do you make me worry about such perplexing and unknowable things??" Why are you, literally, trying to kill me? I was looking at the third act as much more than "The Hollywood Ending". Charlie was being persecuted, misread, and violently wounded in his attempts at adapting the book into a film, and the Swamp Chase was all a personification of that. When John and Susan have him cornered on either side, I felt like I was looking at one of the most effective metaphors ever captured on screen (although if I was thinking that, I guess it wasn't?).

As far as car crashes go, Paul Thomas Anderson and Spike Jonze are making it very difficult for me to sit through a jaunt on my local thoroughfares. It's a dangerous and random fucking world out there.

And God bless Chris Cooper for sending his performance through the fucking roof. Much praises due to Nicolas, but John is really the soul of the film: free in the ways that pretty much everyone else in the film isn't. Then again, he's had everything taken from him, either by God or by his own free will. Naturally there's something any neurotic would find fascinating about such an existence. "Get your own fucking life," indeed.

More later, possibly, but for now, I've got my own swamps to wade through.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:05 / 27.12.02
I think you're right about that confrontation in the third act between the fictionalized versions of Charlie and Susan, in which they just tear each other apart by cutting straight to the heart of why Charlie loathes himself and why he's grown so frustrated with Susan. Three and a half weeks after seeing the film, that's one of the scenes that stays with me the most, it's such an emotionally visceral thing.

Apparently there's a lot of people who really don't like/get that third act, but I think it's just brilliant, and is a challenge that I think many people aren't willing to fully engage.
 
 
PatrickMM
19:01 / 21.01.03
I just watched the film yesterday, and it was great, probably not as strong as Malkovich, but still an excellent film.

About Donald being fictional, it ties into a lot of what is said earlier in the film. In The 3 script, Donald has different aspects of a multiple personality interact with each other and the environment, with no concern for the reality of it, which could be exactly what Kaufman does here. Also, when Charlie calls his mother at the end, she says "Charlie," even though Charlie and Donald's voices are virtually indistinguishable. Still, I think they were meant to be seperate characters, but part of one whole.

I was expecting something a little more odd in the third act, since most reviews seem to say that the third act killed the film. I thought it fit well with what went before, and provided the conclusion that The Orchid Thief was lacking, without getting overly sappy or blockbustery.

It does tie into a lot of The Invisibles ideas, and I think reading Invis, may have dulled some of the impact of it. I noticed people puzzling about what was real, etc. when after reading Invis, I knew that that wasn't what matters.

And, if you want see more Spike Jonze Invisibles stylee stuff, check out the video for the Beastie Boys' Sabotage, which essentially stars Mister Six.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:19 / 21.01.03
Ah, but Mr. Six several years before Morrison created him...
 
 
000
00:24 / 15.02.03
LUUUUURVED it.

Wow.

What a great movie.
 
 
Brigade du jour
01:39 / 15.02.03
28th February 28th February 28th February ... daaaaamn, I can't wait!
 
 
RadJose
21:56 / 20.02.03
went and saw this last night... and wow... i loved it! but did anyone find it as funny as me and 2 of my friends did? the 3 of us laughed and annoyed the other 2 people w/ us for about the whole film and later were told "you were all laughing at stuff that wasn't remotely funny!"
 
 
000
22:10 / 20.02.03
What I found remarkable was the fact that people laughed at different scenes and situations throughout the movie. Although I certainly could see the funny side to most things, I also fell for passages that I found immensely sad. Glenn Kenny's, critic from Premiere, remark that the reviews and opinions about the movie performed the function as a Roscharch test is very true for this particular movie.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply