Review of ADAPTATION

**Mark Dujsik** · 01-14-2003, 03:53 PM

"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

**tabuno** · 01-14-2003, 08:02 PM

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.

**Mark Dujsik** · 01-15-2003, 01:09 AM

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?

**tabuno** · 01-15-2003, 02:54 AM

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.

**Mark Dujsik** · 01-15-2003, 10:01 AM

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.

**tabuno** · 01-15-2003, 11:43 PM

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! ;)

**Mark Dujsik** · 01-16-2003, 12:58 AM

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. :)

**tabuno** · 01-20-2003, 08:49 AM

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

**pmw** · 01-21-2003, 10:06 PM

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.

**Mark Dujsik** · 01-21-2003, 10:10 PM

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.

**tabuno** · 01-22-2003, 07:12 AM

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

What three characters?[

**pmw** · 01-22-2003, 09:33 AM

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.

**Chris Knipp** · 01-25-2003, 08:46 PM

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.

bootleg10879 · 02-03-2003, 10:10 AM

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.

**Chris Knipp** · 02-17-2003, 01:12 PM

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.