Review of ADAPTATION

"As I sit here in the process of writing this sentence, I realize that I may be perceived as attempting to write one of those clever pieces that tries to imitate the style of the film at hand. Now I imagine someone taking this admission as another way of trying to be clever. But then isn’t it the task of a film critic or movie reviewer or cinema analyst (whatever you feel like calling someone like me) not only to express one’s opinion about a film but also to try to communicate the experience of watching the same film? Trying to convey the experience of watching Spike Jonze’s Adaptation is a difficult undertaking. First of all, to assign Jonze possession of the film is misleading. Pretty much all credit for the film’s success belongs to screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (credited with his brother Donald Kaufman, an entity who exists only in the film), who has written one of the most inventive and truly original screenplays since his previous one for Being John Malkovich. To do the experience a great disservice, let me sum the whole thing up by calling it—for better or worse—the ultimate inside joke of post-modern filmmaking."

Mark's Full Review

Based on your movie review, it can be interpreted to mean that there is really only one screenwriter who has written a screenplay that has two screenwriters who are brothers and that we are seeing this screenplay being acted out on the screen. The reality and fantasy are blended throughout the entire movie and in real life then the brother never existed and thus was never killed and while there was an Orchid expert and a novel writer who actually wrote a book, the actual end of reality is when the book ends and the storyline then is made up based on the screenwriter idea that came from a screenwriter workshop to just end with a big finale regardless of what came before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
Based on your movie review, it can be interpreted to mean that there is really only one screenwriter who has written a screenplay that has two screenwriters who are brothers and that we are seeing this screenplay being acted out on the screen. The reality and fantasy are blended throughout the entire movie and in real life then the brother never existed and thus was never killed and while there was an Orchid expert and a novel writer who actually wrote a book, the actual end of reality is when the book ends and the storyline then is made up based on the screenwriter idea that came from a screenwriter workshop to just end with a big finale regardless of what came before.

---

Yes, that's what I got from the film.

I think. :)

You've seen it, I assume?

Based on your interpretation of the movie, how someone perceives the ending can change dramatically. I wonder how many other people saw the movie the way you did. If your interpretation stands up, it would make the movie brilliant and worthy of movie award nominations on a number of counts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
Based on your interpretation of the movie, how someone perceives the ending can change dramatically. I wonder how many other people saw the movie the way you did. If your interpretation stands up, it would make the movie brilliant and worthy of movie award nominations on a number of counts.

---

Ironically, Kaufman also breaks the rules during the finale--explicitly the use of a deus ex machina.

My problem with the movie is that I saw how it was going to play out well before any of it started to happen.

Well...ok. Tell me how many other people that you know were able to tell what was going to happen before it did? Are you a screenwriter or what? A genius? What about all of the rest of us?

Could it be that the "problem" isn't the movie, but that you are just too intelligent? Sigh! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
Well...ok. Tell me how many other people that you know were able to tell what was going to happen before it did? Are you a screenwriter or what? A genius? What about all of the rest of us?

Could it be that the "problem" isn't the movie, but that you are just too intelligent? Sigh! ;)

---

I didn't know exactly what was going to happen, but once I got the structure of the movie and saw what Kaufman was doing, I caught on to how it was all going to go down--more or less his structure started to show seams. Of course, I'm wondering if that was intentional as well...

I'm not a screenwriter. I'll leave the other option to be determined by people smarter than myself. :)

This just in in today's AP, "Kaufman jokingly fantasizes in the film's climax that Orlean was a drug-crazed, would-be killer."

Definitely a fictionalized ending. I mean would Orlean consent to such a depiction if it were true? Very entertaining. I especially love that Donald's screenplay can go for $600,000 - $1.5 million without ever resolving the major logistics problem - that all 3 characters in "The 3" are the same person. Hilarious.

Jonze's direction is perhaps a bit underplayed as Kauffman takes center stage. But what a great job with a truly great script. Perhaps my movie of the year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pmw
Definitely a fictionalized ending. I mean would Orlean consent to such a depiction if it were true?

---

One of the first things I wondered is, I hope Susan Orlean has a good sense of humor.

QUOTE]that all 3 characters in "The 3" are the same person. Hilarious. [/QUOTE]

What three characters?[

The Hollywood-screenplay writing brother is writing a thriller which involves a serial killer, a kidnapped woman and a cop. According to him, the kicker is that they are all the same person, a split-personality! Which of course as Charlie mentions, is impossible to film or even conceptualize. Nevertheless, the agent thinks that it could go for 1.5 mill.

Kind of makes Donald sound a lot like Charlie, doesn't it?--I mean the 'real' Charlie. If there is a 'real' Charlie. I'm beginning to like Charlie more and more since I just saw "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind." I ought to go back and watch "Being John Malkovitch" again.

With the ending of Orlean's book and Charlie's willingness to take brother Donald on board, the movie changes from Charlie's movie and ideas to Donald/McKee's movie and ideas. A movie with no dramatic changes, no character epiphanies, changes into a drug-induced, shoot-em-up Hollywood cliche. The satirical mood of the second half of the movie contrasts the two styles, but yet brings the two together.
The genious of this film, as it seems to me, is the blurred line between reality and fiction, as developed through Charlie's dreams and thoughts. This blurred reality is not limited to the movie screen, as it extends into real lives, as Kaufman brings himself, Susan Orlean, and John LaRoche into his vision, and obscures their realities.

The paradox is that the blurred reality has to be made clear or it's just a muddled movie. And I don't think Jonze and Kaufman quite brought that off their ending to "Adaptation," though it's still one of the year's most lively and interesting movies.

The blurry transition towards the end of the movie was confusing and harsh for me. While the movie was brilliant, there really was a point of crazy absurdity which really didn't feel smooth and was so off-kilter that I left a confused, dazed, disappointed aftertaste in my mind.

Charlie Kaufman is a brilliant screenwriter and I am beginning to love his stuff, but he's so high concept that he may have trouble finding ways to end. He paints himself into a corner, and it's a great corner, but how do you get out of it? I didn't feel this with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind: the fact that that was a kind of mock biopic allowed the marriage to sort of wind things up I guess. Anyway the feeling was more consistent throughout.

I would have liked to have seen a descent of rolling down a hill instead of fast drop in a vacuum between reality and fantasy - a transition of bouncing back and forth...insertions and tidbits and suggestions of the unconscious. It was almost as the audience suddenly finds themselves in the unconsious mind without even knowing about it.

I think my main problem with the ending was that it came after two hours or so of careful and sensitive character development. When characters started to die, it wasn't ultimately very funny because their deaths couldn't have been shrugged off as a black joke in the same way that you'd shrug off deaths in, say, a Zucker brothers comedy, and it ultimately stopped me from praising the preceeding, brilliant material as much as I want to.

The history of the world in 30 seconds is an early contender for scene of the year, though.

The problem with the ending of "Adaptation" isn't so much the deaths of characters as the approach the movie took to introduce the ending. The vicious violence wasn't so much the problem as the abrupt transition which had the audience confused without knowing what was happening. Intercutting between reality and fantasy in a suggestive (though not obvious fashion) would have softened the ending to the point that both the careful character development of the movie and the spontaneous cliche ending could have been woven together to allow the audience a softer landing platform from which to exit the theater.

The ending of Adaptation was a jolt for me too, but if you look back, there is a descent rather than a harsh transition. It starts when Charlie decides to go to New York, and goes downhill from there -- everything up to that point, I'd say, was pretty authentic. But from the time he invites Donald to New York and Donald offers to pose as him to meet the author, the whole film winds through an act 2/act 3 "traditional" ending, where the characters are divided into "good" and "bad" and everyone but the main character meets their literal or metaphorical doom, leaving Charlie to make up with his girlfriend at the end. It even includes a "heartwarming moment of truth" between Donald and Charlie shortly before the climactic catastrophe. Notice how things go from bad to worse from New York on -- classic Act 2 escalation of conflict. The script and film are brilliant in that they posit that it's impossible to tell this story according to Hollywood's rules, and then show just how bad an idea it is to try and end it using those same rules. Is there anyone out there who didn't feel robbed by the ending, when juxtaposed with the personal vision presented up to that portion of the film? I think that's the point Kaufman and Jones were trying to make, and the fact that most of us thought the ending was hollow in comparison to the rest of the film seems to support their (presumed) theory.

Your interpretatoin no doubt is correct as to intention, but so many of us don't get it, including well known critics, so I'd say it didn't come off. Markers were needed, but perhaps they just couldn't come up with a way to be ironic and clear at the same time. "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" is Charlie Kaufman's most successful screenplay.

Frankly, I'd have preferred it if he'd have just written a proper ending myself.

Interesting that you say Confessions is Kaufman's most successful screenplay. I haven't seen Human Nature, but among Malkovich, Adaptation and Confessions, I'd easily say Confessions is the most average of the three, the least interesting and the least indicative of his unusual talents. However, that may also make it successful in that it becomes accessible. Malkovich had nothing but unlikable characters, which made the story uninteresting from an emotional point of view, and Adaptation had an ending that apparently is too subversive/unclear/cheap of a way out for most viewers. Confessions, while the safest from both a story and a structure standpoint, is also the only one with a clear narrative and a "traditional" ending, though I hate the fact that he opted for the easy joke at the end.

I'm thinking Kaufman may be a great technician but lack a lot in the character originality department. He can devise genius concepts or plot twists or approaches, but he can't make the characters appealing without becoming cliches, and therefore has trouble involving audiences in his stories. But still, as a technical exercise, I'm glad to have him around.

For me, it all depends on how well he papers over the cracks. When you look at the character of Maxine, her motivation is all over the place - it changes almost on a scene-by-scene basis. But it took me many viewings to notice that.

I've only seen the films of his that Jonze directed, and I suspect a large factor in their success is that Jonze has a very underrated talent for getting good performances out of his cast. It'll be interesting to see whether Kaufman's flaws are more or less obvious in the hands of Gondry and Clooney.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the guy's a genius. But he has weak spots just like any other writer. I think his flaws are trifling compared to a lot of other 'name' writers.

To miseenscene: Of course I disagree with you on this, in fact I think just the opposite. If you know what Kaufman's predelictions are, you can easily see them operating in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, but they are more subtle. Malkovich and Adaptation, though very clever and well done, at times hit one over the head with their cleverness. Far from being average or conventional, Confessions is the oddest and craziest of the three. It's also the one that is the most lighthearted and asks the viewer to do the most thinking for herself. The fact that the screenplay predates the others makes one wonder. I hope Kaufman is not going to be a one-schtick wonder or begin solemnly and self-consciously caricaturing himself. Contrary to appearances, Clooney is not a less experienced filmmaker than Jonze but rather the reverse. He has worked with the best and is more mature than Jonze. But ultimately comparisons are odious and unnecessary. All I really want to say is that when I saw Confessions of a Dangerous Mind I finally acknowledged Kaufman's talent and appreciated the very real pleasure he can give...

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was a George Clooney - underrated movie. Like Jack Nicholson, I wasn't much of Clooney fan at all, but lately he has won me over, particularly in Solaris. I am surpised, Confessions hasn't received more critical attention and I think Clooney deserves to be recognized for his great directorial and acting performance in Confessions.

I think Clooney did a great job stylistically in Confessions. Oddly, I thought the viewer had to do the least amount of inferring or extrapolating there -- the plot seemed pretty straightforward to me. Regardless, I'm glad we can all appreciate Kaufman, Jonze and Clooney, for completely different reasons.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by miseenscene
The ending of Adaptation was a jolt for me too, but if you look back, there is a descent rather than a harsh transition. It starts when Charlie decides to go to New York[QUOTE]

Indeed. the "marker" or transitional scene involves the twins in a room in NYC using binoculars to spy on Ms. Orlean and her husband, learning of her plans to fly to Miami and see Laroche.

Quote:

---

Is there anyone out there who didn't feel robbed by the ending, when juxtaposed with the personal vision presented up to that portion of the film? I think that's the point Kaufman and Jones were trying to make, and the fact that most of us thought the ending was hollow in comparison to the rest of the film seems to support their (presumed) theory.

---

Precisely. The ENDING of the film is more about the corruptive effects of show biz Hollywood style than about Kaufman, Orlean and Laroche. The characters are sold for cheap thrills and a personal vision is sacrificed at the altar of commerce. We feel "robbed". We start thinking of how this process takes place repeatedly in Hollywood, behind our backs. We are robbed by powerful people giving us what they think we want.


The auteurs accomplish this once they have already developed and visualized two major messages/lessons:
1)Change is not a choice. We need to be alert to how things change in order to adapt and function optimally.
2)Feeling intensely about something, no matter what it is, seems to be conducive to happiness, or at least to a life of consequence.Even if it is tropical fish or rare orchids. Others may also interpret this as the importance of appreciating beauty or grace.

See, I understand why they went with that ending perfectly, I always did. But whereas it works on an intellectual level, on an emotional level it just felt like a fairly cheap joke, one without the wit and originality of the other digs at Hollywood in the script. Anyway, isn't arguing that all Hollywood movies descend into idiocy a bit self-defeating after the audience has just sat through two hours of a $25 million movie with big-name stars produced by a major studio that is also quite, quite brilliant?

Indeed.