BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Adaptation, in which Jonze and Kaufman destroy your head.

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
John Brown
22:41 / 23.02.03
rajose--you weren't the only one. I saw it on 2/21, as well, and I couldn't stop laughing through that last half hour.

Obviously, on one level, Kaufmann and Jonze are discoursing on how to give a story the ending that the audience wants/expects and the one the story deserves--a discussion with rich metaphorical implications about (particularly modern and filmic) communication and what people do with each others' stories.

But, at the same time, they were also having the audience on. I really almost couldn't believe that they were doing the "Hollywood" ending, and that it was actually making their point to do so. And I couldn't stop laughing about the choice.

On the other hand, the two women with whom I saw the film (neither of them particularly appreciative of things "post-modern") found it to be an ending really of interest only to people in Hollywood and, therefore, self-indulgent.

We agreed to disagree.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:01 / 24.02.03
found it to be an ending really of interest only to people in Hollywood and, therefore, self-indulgent.

Well, I find that to be depressingly simplistic.

Let's say you hate the ending, fine. Does that still negate the themes and content that come directly from The Orchid Thief? I really don't think so, and I would tend to believe that those themes still run through the ending.

I don't understand why it would "only be of interest to Hollywood folks", because a) doesn't everyone watch/read stories? and b) I would think that most everyone can relate to someone who is forced into compromise.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:21 / 02.03.03
Saw it this afternoon with Kit-Kat and found it a bit of a let-down. Being John Malkovitch was more interesting and after the first half an hour this a film that could have been made by anyone, whereas BJM was unique. About half way through 'Charlie' says he wants to just make a normal, mainstream, movie, which is sadly what we get.

Which is not to say it's awful, as other people have said the car crash scenes were extraordinarily vivid and the opening ten minutes were great. Nicholas Cage gives a brilliant performance, makes up for some of the pain for Windtalker.

But, it was just pedestrian. Before the usual complaints are made, yes I did get the metaphors thanks, they weren't exactly hidden. I knew that when Donald got involved in helping with the story it would immediately turn into an action movie and that was the problem. Even once he was dead it didn't recover. I was fairly certain when I saw the crocs and car crash that we would be revisiting one or other of them, didn't count on there being both of them.

And wearing my super-sparkly pedant-pants it's not an Invisibles film per se because at no point does Charlie write himself into a deeper level of the narrative in order to make changes (and Charlie the writer of THIS film writing himself into the first layer of the film being the story of Charlie trying to write a film about the book doesn't count as there needs to be a story frame extant without that influence, which there isn't with Adaption but would be with The Invisibles.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
22:18 / 02.03.03
About half way through 'Charlie' says he wants to just make a normal, mainstream, movie, which is sadly what we get.

Says you. I think you're looking at this film in a very shallow way, which is a real shame. This isn't "The Hours", man.

And no, it isn't strictly just-like-the-Invisibles, because it's about a million times better written, smarter, and more emotionally engaging. Invisibles can't come close to what Adaptation achieves.

I only read Roger Ebert's review of the film the other day, and I think he gets it exactly right.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
22:52 / 02.03.03
Depends, doesn't it - I went to see this with Lada, as he says, and I actually agree with him that there's something unsatisfying about the film (despite the fact that it plays out without too many major surprises). It's good, and intellectually entertaining for the most part, and emotionally quite involving for the most part. Didn't think it was that much of a headspinner, but then that may be because I had an inkling of what to expect. But I didn't find much of the last section convincing, and that disappointed me - it doesn't work if you're not convinced (on any of its levels).

I don't think it's a normal mainstream movie, but that doesn't excuse its faults (or, what I thought were its faults - since everyone else likes it so).

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

FWIW I think the deus ex machina was the alligator...
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
03:14 / 03.03.03
Ebert said he leaned forward during much of this movie. So did I. I was drinking coke, and it was snorted up into my nose at several points. Hysterical.

I've got to see this movie again. Alas, tonight was the last showing. Have to wait for DVD, I guess.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:45 / 03.03.03
Is David Denby's 'Adaptation' review still available anywhere as the New Yorker doesn't seem to believe in Archiving?

And I was amused by Ebert's saying there was a big surprise in the last twenty minutes as, by that time, everything that happened was predictable.

And Flux, if you'd like to actually back up your argument about my pov I'd love to hear it.
 
 
rizla mission
13:20 / 03.03.03
Saw this the other day and, predictably, thought it was absolutely superb. Rarely have I found so many different shades of genius flying around in the same film..

..now I suppose I've got to defend that assertion. Er, damn.

Basically, my main fear when reading about the premise of the film was that it would go completely up it's own arse and end up consisting entirely of brain-hurtingly clever inter-textual references and pointless post-modern tomfoolery. And I was pleasantly surprised by the way it completely *didn't* do that.. I mean, those things were certainly there in spades, but they were never the focus of the film, they always remain in the background. I thought the characters and linear stories were engaging and touching enough in their own right to have made a successful film on their own - the weirdness was just the icing on the cake, so to speak. There were some really, really beautiful moments in there, and, dammit, I thought the ending was great too.

And I did enjoy the clever details as well - like the way Charlie's twin brothers dumbness is toned down and he becomes a more believable character after he 'reads the script' and becomes an active participant in the story - he ceases to be the exaggerated comedy character of the script up to that point, as his 'real' actions and dialogue begin to get represented.. and the way that Charlie rants early on about how he's not going to write about stupid stuff like gun battles and car chases, and ends up being drawn into writing a script that features car chases, shoot-outs and a crocodile attack! That was fun. But unlike a lesser 'clever' film (eg, Vanilla Sky), these things are never shoved in your face, like "LOOK - WE'RE BEING CLEVER! DO YOU SEE??", they're just quietly slipped in, for you to pick up on if you want to, or ignore if you prefer.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:41 / 03.03.03
Rizla and the way that Charlie rants early on about how he's not going to write about stupid stuff like gun battles and car chases, and ends up being drawn into writing a script that features car chases, shoot-outs and a crocodile attack!

Isn't that the point of Richard E. Grant's character in 'The Player'?

I was really hoping Charlie would physically enter the world of his script, crash into the swamp while the others are looking for flowers. Oh well...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:54 / 03.03.03
Stop whining and Adapt!

That's the message of the film for me, and I'm very aware that it's only one of several readings of it - I wouldn't want to exclude several others. I'm also aware that the Rorschadt test thing holds true here, and that this is likely to be a film that divides opinion strongly even amongst the people who like it.

So, this is just the overwhelming impression I got from my first viewing: that the film is about how self-pity and constant self-analysis are really self-defeating and self-indulgent things, both in life and in art.

I honestly think that the film can be seen as a wake-up call to whiny, whiny babies - now, I know that sounds unbelievably harsh, so bear in mind that I say this as someone who can identify almost 100% with the opening monologue, which I think is brilliant, very accurate, and ripe for sampling. I'm sure a lot of people know exactly how that feels - constantly listing the things they ought to do to improve their lives - take exercise, lose weight, read more - but never actually doing it. And what does this achieve, this sitting around and fretting about thing syou're clearly never going to do? Nothing, except making yourself miserable. I've done it, I suspect many people here have too, and it can very easily become an obsession in itself, as I think happens to Charlie. It's indulgent, it paralyses you, and most of all it blinds you to the things that are good about your life.

I think it's important to realise that right from the start of the film, and even if you see Donald as completely separate individual (as I think is correct), Charlie has a great life - he just can't see it. He's a successful screenwriter, people like him, and in fact the woman he wants to be with clearly would have been interested in being with him if he hadn't blown it at the most clangingly obvious time.

One of my favourite moments in the film is when Amelia shows up at the party with the guy she's seeing, and he's slightly chunkier than Charlie, which is hugely important since Charlie's biggest hang-up is his weight. I think a lesser film would have had Donald as a slightly slimmer man with better hair and more obviously 'hip' clothes: Cage's biggest achievement is probably the way he conveys how much more appealing someone can be just because of the way they carry themselves.

And Donald is appealing, IMHO. Charlie is afraid that to be more like Donald is to be an arrogant, obnoxious buffoon, but it's worth noticing that there's only one moment when Donald comes off like that at all - at the party where he does the embarrassing "push, push in the bush!" dance. Otherwise, okay he's goofy, maybe his wit isn't as sharp as Charlie's, but his idiosyncracies are in fact less of an obstacle to human interaction than his brother. And look how much he loves and looks up to his brother, who's always berating him. One of the most beautiful moments in the film for me is when Donald shares an idea with Charlie over breakfast and, when Charlie offers some kind of approval, Maggie Gyllenhaal (lovely, lovely Maggie etc etc) turns to Donald and says something like "see, I told you he's like it". It's so sweet and telling and it makes me all tingly.

I also love, love, love, love the scene where Charlie asks McKee why you can't make a film in which nothing happens and nobody learns anything, like, y'know, real life - which is quite a common idea, and one that *sounds* like it oughta make sense - and McKee tells him in no uncertain times, real life isn't like that at all: life is exciting and terrifying and thrilling and dramatic, and if you don't believe that - poor you. Because life should be full of epiphanies, and in this case Charlie's epiphany is that it wouldn't be such a bad thing to be more like his brother (which he only realises fully after he loses him).

Gotta go shortly but I'll end by saying I think the film also has some things to say about art that will cause debate... Let's put it this way: I'm not saying that I think The 3 (Seven?)would turn out to be a *great* movie, but I think there's a strong argument that it could hardly be worse than a film about flowers starring Meryl Streep in which nothing happens, which is the movie Charlie originally wants to make.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:55 / 03.03.03
I was really hoping Charlie would physically enter the world of his script, crash into the swamp while the others are looking for flowers. Oh well...

But why? Because St. Grant would do that?

I can't see how that idea would have fit into the movie at all. It certainly has nothing to do with anything the film is trying to express.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:17 / 03.03.03
That's a very interesting take, Flyboy.

I think you're right on about most of what you're saying, though I tend not to think of Donald as being someone who separate from Charlie - I think that part of Charlie's problem is that he separates the introverted and extroverted parts of his personality because he has so much trouble reconciling their differences until he finally integrates both parts of himself in the end and becomes a better person for it. For the first half of the film, Charlie's a wreck - he doesn't start getting things working til he starts cooperating with Donald. He finally decides to go to McKee's seminar because of Donald, he makes Donald talk to Susan Orlean, he lets Donald co-write the film.

I think you're right on about McKee's angry speach about Charlie's ridiculous 'nothing much happens in life' comment being one of the key moments of the film - I remember when I first saw the film, that bit really got to me, because I identify with Charlie a lot and that comment is exactly the kind of thing I could imagine myself saying. And McKee's right. He's totally, totally right. It rips right through all the smug detachment, the depression and the fear of engaging with life, and the elitism that Charlie uses as a defense mechanism.

All the same, I don't think McKee, LaRoche, and Donald are meant to be seen as being necessarily better than Charlie or Susan - they all obviously have their flaws, are both somewhat reductive in their view of life and art.

So, Flyboy...I'm curious. What's your take on John LaRoche and Susan Orlean?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:44 / 05.03.03
Good question - I'm aware I've left them out of my take on the film to a large extent.

Blunt, gut instinct answer: I hate Meryl Streep, and I hate films about upper-middle-class Manhattanites meeting someone salt-of-the-earth - "he may not have our comfortable lifestyle, but he has lust for life!" - unless the film is Six Degrees Of Separation. I was quite gratified by the way the LaRoche/Orlean relationship & story got fucked all to hell in the film's final act. Buuuut... I'm aware that these two characters are important parts of the film, and I don't want to dismiss them entirely.

Shit, I need to see it again.
 
 
videodrome
20:02 / 05.03.03
I've got other stuff to say that'll get posted soon, but for Flyboy:
I think the dinner scene at the Orleans' demonstrates quite ably that the film has very little respect for the urbanite-meets-redneck scenario. And that's merely the tip of the 'berg - the entire characterization of Laroche and Orlean makes clear that, upper choppers notwithstanding, the guy has a lot more happening for him that the film's Susan Orlean.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
20:18 / 05.03.03
Yeah, I liked the way the film deliberately did not try to portray him as some urban 'noble savage', though I think Orlean might have seen him that way.
 
 
The Strobe
00:35 / 06.03.03
I liked it a lot.

Brief notes:

car crashes are fucking scary.
film is really pretty straightforward, but with some interesting twists. It's not a headfuck. It's just curious.
I am praying Jonze/Kaufman's next film is The Three.
Cage is really very good.
There are some wonderful lines in the film that are just so Donald, the greatest being "I cannot say much more; it is the Indian way".
It catches up with itself. I like that.
Hints that Donald may not be real, ultiamtely: 1) Multiple Personalities are the most overused plot device; 2) Charlie's Mum instantly assumes it's Charlie even though he only whimpers into the phone; 3) When Charlie says to Amelia (after his cuts have healed really rather fast) "I miss him" she pulls a rather unsympathetic, angry face.
Chris Cooper was awesome.
Streep was good - far better than in Hours.

That's a condensation, really. That's my headspace at the moment.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
21:50 / 06.03.03
I'm a bit gibbering, so I'll keep it short. Yes, yes, yes, oh good golly gosh yes. Much better than "Being John Malkovich" (which is on on ch4 Sunday I believe), but that may just be because I relate to it in so many ways. It reminds me very much of things I am/have been working on, and it really pleased me and kinda blew me away in lots of happy ways. I'm really not in the right kind of mood to explain myself too well, but i seem to remember thinknig BJM was a pretty normal film, albeit with an interesting premise at the core.. but this seemed entirely different, and a whole lot more exciting for it. I thought Cage was absolutely suberb, and pretty much forgot it was even him. He has now gone through the roof in my estimation.

It's just the best thing I've seen in ages, and I'm sure I'll be thinking about it for a long time...
 
 
rakehell
23:28 / 06.03.03
It's been a while since I saw it, but I had the feeling that Robert McKee was the deus ex machina even while advising against its use.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
23:45 / 06.03.03
I don't understand how McKee would be the deus ex machina. That character and his ideas are pretty well integrated into the story, fairly early on. Charlie's decision to go to his seminar and eventually talk to him is a crucial turning point, but it certainly doesn't operate as a deus ex machina. The deus ex machina seems to be pretty obviously the alligator which kills John LaRoche, if we're talking about a strict interpretation of the phrase.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:53 / 11.03.03
I love that sudden act of acceleration towards the end as Charlie's dragged in to this story that seems to bear a tenuous relationship to the rest of the film. Then you examine it and realise that there's nothing tenuous about it at all and actually you should have expected it. Oh so beautifully self-referential! I really loved every second of it and it did make me laugh and there were some truly cringe-worthy moments and 'it is the Indian way' brought me close to tears.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
17:14 / 11.03.03
Hahaha. I've used that line to people on MSN that I didn't want to talk to.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:48 / 11.03.03
Da Flyboy sez:
I also love, love, love, love the scene where Charlie asks McKee why you can't make a film in which nothing happens and nobody learns anything, like, y'know, real life - which is quite a common idea, and one that *sounds* like it oughta make sense - and McKee tells him in no uncertain times, real life isn't like that at all: life is exciting and terrifying and thrilling and dramatic,and if you don't believe that - poor you.

Yeah - this is the core of the film - which why it fucking baffles me when I read reviews saying that this film is all about Jonze and Kaufman being clever and precious, and that they have McKee in the film just to rip on formulaic scripts (you know, those that aren't cool like theirs). The brilliance of this film is that it manages to be clever and precious and also be moving, "realistic", terrifying (the car crashes, the car crashes...), and funny - which is no mean trick.

The Larouche character is one of my favorites to ever grace the screen - and, I think is very, very misunderstood to simply be a counterfoil to the clever New Yorker people. Larouche is my mind, is part of set that includes American Movie's Mark Borchardt, of people who "clever" people (Orlean's "husband", etc.) would dismiss as losers but are incredibly complex, intelligent, resourceful American originals.
 
 
sumo
16:10 / 21.04.03
This is probably massively insignificant, but both Flux and Kit-Cat Club have proposed that the deus ex machina is the alligator, which I disagree with. The alligator is certainly ridiculous and unexpected (in a very expected manner), but doesn't actually miraculously resolve any plot complexities per se. I think the actual deus ex machina is the affair between Orlean and Laroche, mainly because its possibility is first introduced - through Donald's voyeurism on both the web and subsequently into Orlean's apartment - immediately after Charlie's discussion with McKee, where he admonishes its use, but also because the realisation of the affair sets in motion everything that leads directly to the contrived denouement: Kaufman's trip to Florida, the confirmation of the affair - recall, too, that initially Donald was going to move closer to Laroche's house for a "better look", but that Charlie called him back, mumbling "it should be me... shouldn't it...?", punctuated by the incessant warning beeps of the opening and closing car doors - the discovery of the drug plot, the decision to kill Charlie, and the eventual death (reassimilation) of Donald.

The potential relationship only vaguely hinted at in the subtext of Orlean's book is realised as an actual relationship, which is the film's deus ex machina.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply