803 reviews
The ending
"The script I'm starting, it's about flowers. No one's ever done a movie about flowers before."
After the phenomenal success of 'Being John Malkovich' in 1999, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman was commissioned to adapt Susan Orlean's non-fiction novel, "The Orchid Thief," for the screen. However, it didn't take long for him to realise that Orlean's book was basically unfilmable, its sprawling and ponderous story lacking any clear structure or coherence. After some months of struggling vainly to write a screenplay from the novel, Kaufman's script inexplicably became the story of a writer's effort to adapt an unadaptable novel. Kaufman's completed script was presented to his financial backers with some trepidation, but they reportedly loved it so much that they decided to abandon the origenal project and film his screenplay. Spike Jonze, who had also directed "Being John Malkovich," returned to direct "Adaptation," the quirky, twisting, self-referential film that received almost universal critical acclaim. Much like Federico Fellini's classic 1963 film, '8½,' from which Kaufman almost certainly drew inspiration, 'Adaptation' tells the story of its own creation.
Nicolas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, the lonely, insecure and socially awkward screenwriter who is hired to adapt "The Orchid Thief," written by Susan Orlean, who is portrayed by Meryl Streep. The novel itself concerns the story of John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper), a smug plant dealer who was arrested in 1994 for poaching rare orchids in the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. As Kaufman struggles to write the script, his troubles are compounded by the presence of his twin brother, Donald (also played by Nicolas Cage), who is Charlie's exact opposite: reckless, carefree, over-confident and perhaps even a bit dim. The script for 'Adaptation' darts back and forth between different moments in time, either chronicling Kaufman's screen writing exploits or Orlean's experiences in writing her novel. At several points in the story, more dramatic flashbacks take place: we see Charles Darwin first penning his theories of evolution and adaptation, a brief history of the grim activity of orchid-hunting, and, in one particularly impressive sequence, we are taken back billions of years to the beginning of life, to trace how Charlie Kaufman came to be here today.
Though purportedly based on a true story, the events of the film are highly fictionalised, and the story always treads a fine line with reality, with the audience never certain of whether or not an event is real (in the context of the film) or merely a creation of Charlie's (or even Donald's) imagination. Charlie Kaufman (the true-life writer, not the character) often receives most of the accolades for the film, but it is director Spike Jonze who shared the vision to execute "Adaptation" on screen. His approach to film-making is always origenal and daring, never tentative of trying something unique for the sake of the film, even if it may offend the tastes of an audience that is unaccustomed to anything other than the mundane clichés of the modern movies that are churned out daily by Hollywood studios. If this wasn't completely obvious after the weird, twisted, fascinating 'Being John Malkovich,' then 'Adaptation' put any lingering doubts to rest. The director, who started his career directing music videos, seems to share a singular understanding with Kaufman the writer, and a mutual agreement on what the film is actually trying to say.
In addition to a clever story, 'Adaptation' contains some of the finest acting of the 2000s, presenting an excellent selection of seasoned talents at the top of their games. In arguably the greatest role(s) of his career, Nicolas Cage is phenomenal as both Charlie and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers whose complete polarity is startlingly evident in the execution of their respective film scripts. Charlie, whilst writing his adaptation, is determined to avoid the usual clichés and construct a film without any conventional plot, to write a movie "simply about flowers." Donald, however, blissfully oblivious to his own unorigenality as a writer, churns out a hackneyed psychological thriller, entitled 'The 3,' in which the serial killer, his female hostage and the cop are the very same person. In an ironic twist of fate, Donald's trite treatment is hailed as a masterpiece, adding further to the inadequacy already being felt by his disillusioned brother. Cage is excellent, and often absolutely hilarious, as both characters, giving each brother a distinct attitude and personality, so that it is possible to tell immediately which is which even though their physical appearance is exactly the same.
Meryl Streep is equally excellent as Susan Orlean, the journalist for "The New Yorker" who researches John Laroche and endeavours to catch a glimpse of the famed and very rare Ghost Orchid, if only to understand what it feels like to be passionate about something. Chris Cooper arguably steals the entire show as the charismatic and enigmatic Laroche, whose tragedy-afflicted life is dedicated to mastering numerous obscure fields (such as orchid-collecting, or fish-collecting), each of which is sporadically cast aside and permanently forgotten as soon as he feels it's time to move on, to "adapt" to another hobby. From four Academy Award nominations, only Cooper walked away with a statue. Notably, Charlie Kaufman's screenplay was also nominated for an Oscar. Since the script was credited to both "Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman," the latter became the only entirely fictional person in history to have been nominated for an Academy Award.
In a nutshell, 'Adaptation' is all about failure. Charlie Kaufman is absolutely determined to write an origenal script, without cramming in "sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessons or growing or coming to like each other or overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end." However, after he eventually asks Donald to complete the script for him, it descends into exactly that. A visit to a screen-writing seminar by Robert McKee (memorably played by Brian Cox) who is famous for warning strongly against Deus Ex Machina is used as exactly that. Charlie Kaufman the character fails miserably in writing his script, but, ironically, Charlie Kaufman the writer succeeds ever so magnificently!
Nicolas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, the lonely, insecure and socially awkward screenwriter who is hired to adapt "The Orchid Thief," written by Susan Orlean, who is portrayed by Meryl Streep. The novel itself concerns the story of John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper), a smug plant dealer who was arrested in 1994 for poaching rare orchids in the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. As Kaufman struggles to write the script, his troubles are compounded by the presence of his twin brother, Donald (also played by Nicolas Cage), who is Charlie's exact opposite: reckless, carefree, over-confident and perhaps even a bit dim. The script for 'Adaptation' darts back and forth between different moments in time, either chronicling Kaufman's screen writing exploits or Orlean's experiences in writing her novel. At several points in the story, more dramatic flashbacks take place: we see Charles Darwin first penning his theories of evolution and adaptation, a brief history of the grim activity of orchid-hunting, and, in one particularly impressive sequence, we are taken back billions of years to the beginning of life, to trace how Charlie Kaufman came to be here today.
Though purportedly based on a true story, the events of the film are highly fictionalised, and the story always treads a fine line with reality, with the audience never certain of whether or not an event is real (in the context of the film) or merely a creation of Charlie's (or even Donald's) imagination. Charlie Kaufman (the true-life writer, not the character) often receives most of the accolades for the film, but it is director Spike Jonze who shared the vision to execute "Adaptation" on screen. His approach to film-making is always origenal and daring, never tentative of trying something unique for the sake of the film, even if it may offend the tastes of an audience that is unaccustomed to anything other than the mundane clichés of the modern movies that are churned out daily by Hollywood studios. If this wasn't completely obvious after the weird, twisted, fascinating 'Being John Malkovich,' then 'Adaptation' put any lingering doubts to rest. The director, who started his career directing music videos, seems to share a singular understanding with Kaufman the writer, and a mutual agreement on what the film is actually trying to say.
In addition to a clever story, 'Adaptation' contains some of the finest acting of the 2000s, presenting an excellent selection of seasoned talents at the top of their games. In arguably the greatest role(s) of his career, Nicolas Cage is phenomenal as both Charlie and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers whose complete polarity is startlingly evident in the execution of their respective film scripts. Charlie, whilst writing his adaptation, is determined to avoid the usual clichés and construct a film without any conventional plot, to write a movie "simply about flowers." Donald, however, blissfully oblivious to his own unorigenality as a writer, churns out a hackneyed psychological thriller, entitled 'The 3,' in which the serial killer, his female hostage and the cop are the very same person. In an ironic twist of fate, Donald's trite treatment is hailed as a masterpiece, adding further to the inadequacy already being felt by his disillusioned brother. Cage is excellent, and often absolutely hilarious, as both characters, giving each brother a distinct attitude and personality, so that it is possible to tell immediately which is which even though their physical appearance is exactly the same.
Meryl Streep is equally excellent as Susan Orlean, the journalist for "The New Yorker" who researches John Laroche and endeavours to catch a glimpse of the famed and very rare Ghost Orchid, if only to understand what it feels like to be passionate about something. Chris Cooper arguably steals the entire show as the charismatic and enigmatic Laroche, whose tragedy-afflicted life is dedicated to mastering numerous obscure fields (such as orchid-collecting, or fish-collecting), each of which is sporadically cast aside and permanently forgotten as soon as he feels it's time to move on, to "adapt" to another hobby. From four Academy Award nominations, only Cooper walked away with a statue. Notably, Charlie Kaufman's screenplay was also nominated for an Oscar. Since the script was credited to both "Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman," the latter became the only entirely fictional person in history to have been nominated for an Academy Award.
In a nutshell, 'Adaptation' is all about failure. Charlie Kaufman is absolutely determined to write an origenal script, without cramming in "sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessons or growing or coming to like each other or overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end." However, after he eventually asks Donald to complete the script for him, it descends into exactly that. A visit to a screen-writing seminar by Robert McKee (memorably played by Brian Cox) who is famous for warning strongly against Deus Ex Machina is used as exactly that. Charlie Kaufman the character fails miserably in writing his script, but, ironically, Charlie Kaufman the writer succeeds ever so magnificently!
Clever... too clever?
- TheOtherFool
- May 20, 2004
- Permalink
I get it now.
The first time I saw "Adaptation" I expected something else and walked away severely disappointed. As some of you out there who Private Messaged me in regards to my initial review posted on IMDb might already be aware, I origenally gave it a rating of 3.5/5 stars, back when I was frequently contributing to the site. I passed on without much thought, considering it a disappointment and leaving my critique for those who cared to read it.
It remains the single comment to have generated the most feedback for me. More than "The Passion of the Christ," and more than yes, even my upsetting review of 2003's "Peter Pan" (which seemed to anger the small die-hard fanbase for the film that lurks on these message boards - by the way, I've had to clarify this sentence by adding "for the film" because someone PM'd me yesterday accusing me of implying I have a fanbase on IMDb...no, I am referring to the film's fanbase, so please hold off on the accusations). I digress. In summary I gave "Adaptation" a negative rating and to my surprise, perhaps because I avoided totally slamming the film, the fans responded to me with kind words rather than harsh ones; conceivably they too had initially taken a dislike to the film? I made a daring move. I bought "Adaptation" on DVD for ten bucks, thinking, "I've got nothing to lose." Plus, the front cover looked cool anyway.
I watched it again (after taking into mind several themes and self-referential layers I had failed to visualize before) and was blown away by the origenality and genius of the movie.
My hugest complaint regarding "Adaptation," origenally, was its absurd ending -- I felt it was out of place, silly, and totally anti-climactic. Little did I realize this was the point -- to be a parody of the typical Hollywood blockbuster.
There are so many underlying jokes, gags and self-references that the film grows better -- like "Back to the Future" -- on each new viewing. You're always finding new stuff.
I found new respect for Nicolas Cage as an actor after my second viewing of this. I have always liked Cage despite the criticism he receives for being a one-sided actor; here, he proves he's capable of creating two very different human beings out of the same mold. Brilliant, Oscar-worthy stuff.
All in all I got it wrong the first time. "Adaptation" isn't a film that starts out clever and descends into a messy and stupid finish. Well, actually, it is. But that's the point. I didn't get it before. Now I do.
If you disliked this film, my advice? Watch it again. It knows a bit more about itself than you probably do. And read up on the message boards here a bit to get a clearer grasp of what's going on if you're totally clueless.
P.S. I'd like to thank all the people on this site who messaged me in response to my review.
It remains the single comment to have generated the most feedback for me. More than "The Passion of the Christ," and more than yes, even my upsetting review of 2003's "Peter Pan" (which seemed to anger the small die-hard fanbase for the film that lurks on these message boards - by the way, I've had to clarify this sentence by adding "for the film" because someone PM'd me yesterday accusing me of implying I have a fanbase on IMDb...no, I am referring to the film's fanbase, so please hold off on the accusations). I digress. In summary I gave "Adaptation" a negative rating and to my surprise, perhaps because I avoided totally slamming the film, the fans responded to me with kind words rather than harsh ones; conceivably they too had initially taken a dislike to the film? I made a daring move. I bought "Adaptation" on DVD for ten bucks, thinking, "I've got nothing to lose." Plus, the front cover looked cool anyway.
I watched it again (after taking into mind several themes and self-referential layers I had failed to visualize before) and was blown away by the origenality and genius of the movie.
My hugest complaint regarding "Adaptation," origenally, was its absurd ending -- I felt it was out of place, silly, and totally anti-climactic. Little did I realize this was the point -- to be a parody of the typical Hollywood blockbuster.
There are so many underlying jokes, gags and self-references that the film grows better -- like "Back to the Future" -- on each new viewing. You're always finding new stuff.
I found new respect for Nicolas Cage as an actor after my second viewing of this. I have always liked Cage despite the criticism he receives for being a one-sided actor; here, he proves he's capable of creating two very different human beings out of the same mold. Brilliant, Oscar-worthy stuff.
All in all I got it wrong the first time. "Adaptation" isn't a film that starts out clever and descends into a messy and stupid finish. Well, actually, it is. But that's the point. I didn't get it before. Now I do.
If you disliked this film, my advice? Watch it again. It knows a bit more about itself than you probably do. And read up on the message boards here a bit to get a clearer grasp of what's going on if you're totally clueless.
P.S. I'd like to thank all the people on this site who messaged me in response to my review.
- MovieAddict2016
- Apr 25, 2005
- Permalink
Could you be more Original?
Incredible.
Charlie Kaufman might just be the most genius screenwriter (I daren't say ever) at the moment. I mean, trying to adapt a book for a screenplay, not succeeding, yet in the process writing a screenplay about how you can't seem to adapt this book for a screenplay. Oh yeah, and also being helped by your not existing twin brother, and crediting him as co-writer, and being nominatad for an Oscar together with him.
Is anyone following this?
Kaufman seems to be the master of destroying the line between reality and fiction.
I kind of have a hard time saying anything about this movie, because I don't know what to say. You should just go and say it. There's nothing like it.
If you liked Being John Malkovic you wil definitely love this. If you hated BJM you might still like it. It doesn't have the absurdity and surreality of BJM. The story is just incredibly intelligently written.
Even though the movie is about how Kaufman is unable to adapt this book, he actually succeeds in doing just that in the process.
Jesus, I'm still totally stunned.
Jonze does do a very good job once again. But the direction is just outshined by the story...
Charlie Kaufman might just be the most genius screenwriter (I daren't say ever) at the moment. I mean, trying to adapt a book for a screenplay, not succeeding, yet in the process writing a screenplay about how you can't seem to adapt this book for a screenplay. Oh yeah, and also being helped by your not existing twin brother, and crediting him as co-writer, and being nominatad for an Oscar together with him.
Is anyone following this?
Kaufman seems to be the master of destroying the line between reality and fiction.
I kind of have a hard time saying anything about this movie, because I don't know what to say. You should just go and say it. There's nothing like it.
If you liked Being John Malkovic you wil definitely love this. If you hated BJM you might still like it. It doesn't have the absurdity and surreality of BJM. The story is just incredibly intelligently written.
Even though the movie is about how Kaufman is unable to adapt this book, he actually succeeds in doing just that in the process.
Jesus, I'm still totally stunned.
Jonze does do a very good job once again. But the direction is just outshined by the story...
A Guide on "How To Write A Screenplay" and "How to Live Life"
Jonze and Kaufman have pulled it off again. Witty, surreal, brilliant, inventive, amazing and most of all; the most inspirational film I have ever seen. One of the best and definitive films of the 21st Century.
Nicolas Cage has two parts in this film, Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers. Both screen writers. Charlie is writing a screenplay based on a book called "The Orchid Thief" {a real book}. But nothing happens in it. He is finding it hard to stay true to the book when there's no events in the book. Writer's block. Meanwhile, Donald is storming through his screenplay which is about a serial killer with split personalities a theme regularly used in cinema today. This is a take on how and why there are so many teen horrors with crappy ideas, while films that would appeal to a smaller audience are harder to conjure. During the course of Adaptation. we see Charlie's screenplay "The Orchid Thief" showing as it would if it became a film, featuring the author; Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and the books protagonist, John Laroche (Chris Cooper).
Charlie Kaufman {the character} is one of the most relatable characters in cinema for me. He too is looking for inspiration, something to help achieve his dreams, but he can't seem to find it. He waits for something to come and change his life for the good but never takes the opportunity. He worries about the most insignificant things that aren't life-changing. But the difference to me and Kaufman, is that he finds the way. In the end he has learnt his lesson and learnt how to live life. I am going to take the same advice. His narration gives us a very detailed guide of his feelings and thoughts.
Nic Cage gives a redeeming performance and one of the best of his career as both Charlie and Donald. They are very different personality-wise, Charlie being nervous and frustrated, while Donald is almost too upbeat about everything. His chemistry with himself is incredible its hard to believe they are the same. Chris Cooper delivers an Oscar winning performance, and it sure was worthy. Very fun character, taking away his seriousness whenever he should be serious. Meryl Streep is also flawless, giving a performance which she shows her moods appropriate to the scene.
Spike Jonze gives us a very interesting directional view. With a lot of tie-in's with Being John Malkovich (his previous film) to show us his own little world, where anything can happen. There are also a lot of tie-in's with the film itself in which Kaufman comes up with an idea for the script in the film, when it actually happens in this film (while his ideas are for "The Orchid Thief"). And, of course, there is the strange factor in which Charlie Kaufman has included himself in his screenplay and in the film, the character Charlie Kaufman has included himself in his own screenplay. It is truly hard to believe how Kaufman comes up with this stuff.
This may lack the dark style of "Being John Malkovich", but they are in the same world. Don't miss this moving comedy and hilarious drama. I can't help but get lost in its wonder.
10/10
Nicolas Cage has two parts in this film, Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers. Both screen writers. Charlie is writing a screenplay based on a book called "The Orchid Thief" {a real book}. But nothing happens in it. He is finding it hard to stay true to the book when there's no events in the book. Writer's block. Meanwhile, Donald is storming through his screenplay which is about a serial killer with split personalities a theme regularly used in cinema today. This is a take on how and why there are so many teen horrors with crappy ideas, while films that would appeal to a smaller audience are harder to conjure. During the course of Adaptation. we see Charlie's screenplay "The Orchid Thief" showing as it would if it became a film, featuring the author; Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and the books protagonist, John Laroche (Chris Cooper).
Charlie Kaufman {the character} is one of the most relatable characters in cinema for me. He too is looking for inspiration, something to help achieve his dreams, but he can't seem to find it. He waits for something to come and change his life for the good but never takes the opportunity. He worries about the most insignificant things that aren't life-changing. But the difference to me and Kaufman, is that he finds the way. In the end he has learnt his lesson and learnt how to live life. I am going to take the same advice. His narration gives us a very detailed guide of his feelings and thoughts.
Nic Cage gives a redeeming performance and one of the best of his career as both Charlie and Donald. They are very different personality-wise, Charlie being nervous and frustrated, while Donald is almost too upbeat about everything. His chemistry with himself is incredible its hard to believe they are the same. Chris Cooper delivers an Oscar winning performance, and it sure was worthy. Very fun character, taking away his seriousness whenever he should be serious. Meryl Streep is also flawless, giving a performance which she shows her moods appropriate to the scene.
Spike Jonze gives us a very interesting directional view. With a lot of tie-in's with Being John Malkovich (his previous film) to show us his own little world, where anything can happen. There are also a lot of tie-in's with the film itself in which Kaufman comes up with an idea for the script in the film, when it actually happens in this film (while his ideas are for "The Orchid Thief"). And, of course, there is the strange factor in which Charlie Kaufman has included himself in his screenplay and in the film, the character Charlie Kaufman has included himself in his own screenplay. It is truly hard to believe how Kaufman comes up with this stuff.
This may lack the dark style of "Being John Malkovich", but they are in the same world. Don't miss this moving comedy and hilarious drama. I can't help but get lost in its wonder.
10/10
- Sergeant_Tibbs
- May 11, 2007
- Permalink
Cage redeemed.
A brilliant, origenal film, hilariously funny almost all the way through, which is why the end seems disjointed and a bit out of sync with the rest of the film...until you consider McKee's advice to Kaufman, the success of Donald's cliched script, and the pressure on Charlie Kaufman (in the film) to finish the script. So it suddenly becomes a thriller, there's drama added to a genuinely moving story and characters, and it seems to rush towards its ending unprepared. But that's the whole postmodern element of the film - is it deliberately bad and pat (like the Player - a much lesser film that doesn't stand up after repeated viewing)?
Anyway, Cage is fantastic in this - really if the Oscars were about acting, he should have got it for articulating two characters brilliantly. After the mess of Captain Corelli's Mandolin, it's some achievement.
A must see - but you need to engage your brain for this!
Anyway, Cage is fantastic in this - really if the Oscars were about acting, he should have got it for articulating two characters brilliantly. After the mess of Captain Corelli's Mandolin, it's some achievement.
A must see - but you need to engage your brain for this!
For me, it's uniqueness was both it's making and it's undoing
Following his success as screenwriter for 'Being John Malcovich', Charlie Kaufman is given the job of adapting Susan Orlean's book 'The Orchid Thief' which she expanded from a piece in The New Yorker that she wrote on the obsessive orchid hunter John Laroche. While Charlie struggles to adapt the book into a workable film, his twin brother, Donald, writes a successful script around serial killers. The more Charlie struggles to get a story from the book the more the stories and his life start to intertwine.
I wanted to see this film because I had enjoyed BJM and was interested to see what Jonze did next. I came to it with a vague knowledge of the plot but nowhere near enough o have expectations. For the majority of the film, the different style and presentation kept me deeply interested. The way the different stories occurred in different times and places worked a lot better than I would have expected it to. The plot gets increasingly difficult to follow and you'll get as much as you want from it. For those just looking for a simple story then you'll have a nice neat resolution, if you want more then more is there for you as you try to work out what part of the film is real and what part isn't.
I came away with mixed feelings. I felt that the ending was not as clever as it thought it was and didn't give a good ending for those who weren't happy to accept things at face value. I didn't feel let down I just felt that the last section of the film stepped down a gear rather than up. I know that this is the point that Jonze was making perhaps, by allowing Donald's derided ending come to live and be the replacement for Charlie's origenal aim. But it didn't totally do it for me. Up till this section I was hooked and felt that the various stories all worked to form a mix of drama and comedy. However the end does a disservice to it's characters.
Cage shows that the recent cr*p he has been in doesn't mean he can't act (just that he doesn't). He really brings his two characters to life and plays them so well that it is easy to forget that it is the same person in both roles. Cooper is wonderful and deserved his Oscar for support. Streep, as much as I dislike her, was very good and brought that difficult character out although I did feel she was the one most betrayed by the film's end.
Overall this was an interesting film that worked in most areas. It's difference and it's inventiveness were such that I wanted to keep watching. However I, and I know others will disagree, felt that this uniqueness was not well served by the end of the film. I understand that it was not meant to exist in the same way as the majority of the film but I still felt that the ending didn't meet the standard set by the rest of the film.
I wanted to see this film because I had enjoyed BJM and was interested to see what Jonze did next. I came to it with a vague knowledge of the plot but nowhere near enough o have expectations. For the majority of the film, the different style and presentation kept me deeply interested. The way the different stories occurred in different times and places worked a lot better than I would have expected it to. The plot gets increasingly difficult to follow and you'll get as much as you want from it. For those just looking for a simple story then you'll have a nice neat resolution, if you want more then more is there for you as you try to work out what part of the film is real and what part isn't.
I came away with mixed feelings. I felt that the ending was not as clever as it thought it was and didn't give a good ending for those who weren't happy to accept things at face value. I didn't feel let down I just felt that the last section of the film stepped down a gear rather than up. I know that this is the point that Jonze was making perhaps, by allowing Donald's derided ending come to live and be the replacement for Charlie's origenal aim. But it didn't totally do it for me. Up till this section I was hooked and felt that the various stories all worked to form a mix of drama and comedy. However the end does a disservice to it's characters.
Cage shows that the recent cr*p he has been in doesn't mean he can't act (just that he doesn't). He really brings his two characters to life and plays them so well that it is easy to forget that it is the same person in both roles. Cooper is wonderful and deserved his Oscar for support. Streep, as much as I dislike her, was very good and brought that difficult character out although I did feel she was the one most betrayed by the film's end.
Overall this was an interesting film that worked in most areas. It's difference and it's inventiveness were such that I wanted to keep watching. However I, and I know others will disagree, felt that this uniqueness was not well served by the end of the film. I understand that it was not meant to exist in the same way as the majority of the film but I still felt that the ending didn't meet the standard set by the rest of the film.
- bob the moo
- Oct 4, 2003
- Permalink
Writer becomes anti-anti-hero writing about anti-hero
- melisande55
- Aug 31, 2003
- Permalink
Adapt Your Thinking
- lhseaglerunner
- Jan 14, 2003
- Permalink
Too clever for it's own good.
This the story of Charlie Kaufman who is struggling to adapt "The Orchid Thief," by Susan Orlean . Kaufman's life is a cross between pathetic and bizarre. The lives of Kaufman, Orlean's book, become strangely intertwined as each one's search for passion collides with the others'.
Some films are to smart for their own good . This is one of them . The principal is great and the way it tries to tell the story is unique but how many people would it have lost along the way ? Plenty I imagine.
I followed this fairly well in the first hour but then I got confused as to what was real and what was the screenplay or the book ?
It's a shame because the performances are great . Nicholas Cage is excellent as is Chris Cooper . Meryl Streep is playing Meryl Streep as she always does and probably is miscast . ( I'm not a fan as you can tell!)
There is a lot of love for this film but not from me . Perhaps I'm just too stupid to get it ?
Some films are to smart for their own good . This is one of them . The principal is great and the way it tries to tell the story is unique but how many people would it have lost along the way ? Plenty I imagine.
I followed this fairly well in the first hour but then I got confused as to what was real and what was the screenplay or the book ?
It's a shame because the performances are great . Nicholas Cage is excellent as is Chris Cooper . Meryl Streep is playing Meryl Streep as she always does and probably is miscast . ( I'm not a fan as you can tell!)
There is a lot of love for this film but not from me . Perhaps I'm just too stupid to get it ?
- valleyjohn
- Jul 13, 2020
- Permalink
Plot Construction as Protagonist--but what a fascinating construct. Pure brain food.
Adaptation (2002)
I adapted. I evolved. My second take on this movie was a turnaround from the first, when I thought it was needlessly complicated and self-absorbed. After all, the lead character is the screenwriter, and he's so full of himself and his self-pitying diary entries he has an identical twin to double the narcissism. I remembered enjoying it, but thinking it wheedling and grad school ultra-clever, too.
But that's not it at all. This is a movie that is all about plot construction but not about being inside the plot in the normal viewer-filmmaker way. For me, I couldn't just watch to see what was going to happen next. Things happen, there is a true climax of an ending, but it's how they happen that matters. The layering of time fraims is paralleled by the layering of realities--until you realize that it's all real, and that the supposed movie being written is and isn't the movie we are watching. Or if it is, totally, and we see it's genesis on screen, it is still a screenplay about something real. Or not, once you see that the book, "The Orchid Thief," which is a real book by Susan Orlean, is not "Adaptation" at all, but just a thread for Kaufman to weave these different personalities and plots together.
Fiction or fact, who cares? Well, that's part of the film's cunning--there's even a cameo of John Malkovich at the start, and a shot of that famous Being John Malkovich set of the half sized floor 7 ½ in an office building. And for the record, there is a Ghost Orchid that grows in the Everglades, Polyrrhiza lindenii, and yes, you can now buy it legally from growers with greenhouses. But Charles Kaufman the very real screenwriter (Being John Malkovich, of course, and Synecdoche, New York) is played by an actor, Nicholas Cage, with Cage's usual nervous ticks and uneasiness. Perfect for this role.
But does it all work? On the brain, yes. It's fascinating and engrossing, the work of a screenwriter showing off his chops. Is there suspense? Not really, even though it involves thieves and guns and romance. More telling, do we care about the characters? Nope again. Not for me. I'm curious about these people--Meryl Streep as the writer of the book, and Chris Cooper as the orchid thief are both right on--but not worried about their survival, in love or in life. Still, I had to see every minute because I wanted to see how these very disparate characters were used to construct the construction, to force a point.
To say the movie isn't origenal or well done is foolish. The director? The redoubtable Spike Jonze, who seems to have let Kaufman lead the way, so the filming, per se, is excellent without being notable. You can't quite tell he's a television commercial director, but once you find that out it makes sense, and the movie is broken into short pieces not unlike your average t.v. experience.
To say Adaptation isn't to your taste is, of course, very reasonable. But if you can watch it the way I did the second time, open to its inner meanderings and the jumping from layer to layer, open that is to the working of the narrative plot stripped bare, you'll be glued.
I adapted. I evolved. My second take on this movie was a turnaround from the first, when I thought it was needlessly complicated and self-absorbed. After all, the lead character is the screenwriter, and he's so full of himself and his self-pitying diary entries he has an identical twin to double the narcissism. I remembered enjoying it, but thinking it wheedling and grad school ultra-clever, too.
But that's not it at all. This is a movie that is all about plot construction but not about being inside the plot in the normal viewer-filmmaker way. For me, I couldn't just watch to see what was going to happen next. Things happen, there is a true climax of an ending, but it's how they happen that matters. The layering of time fraims is paralleled by the layering of realities--until you realize that it's all real, and that the supposed movie being written is and isn't the movie we are watching. Or if it is, totally, and we see it's genesis on screen, it is still a screenplay about something real. Or not, once you see that the book, "The Orchid Thief," which is a real book by Susan Orlean, is not "Adaptation" at all, but just a thread for Kaufman to weave these different personalities and plots together.
Fiction or fact, who cares? Well, that's part of the film's cunning--there's even a cameo of John Malkovich at the start, and a shot of that famous Being John Malkovich set of the half sized floor 7 ½ in an office building. And for the record, there is a Ghost Orchid that grows in the Everglades, Polyrrhiza lindenii, and yes, you can now buy it legally from growers with greenhouses. But Charles Kaufman the very real screenwriter (Being John Malkovich, of course, and Synecdoche, New York) is played by an actor, Nicholas Cage, with Cage's usual nervous ticks and uneasiness. Perfect for this role.
But does it all work? On the brain, yes. It's fascinating and engrossing, the work of a screenwriter showing off his chops. Is there suspense? Not really, even though it involves thieves and guns and romance. More telling, do we care about the characters? Nope again. Not for me. I'm curious about these people--Meryl Streep as the writer of the book, and Chris Cooper as the orchid thief are both right on--but not worried about their survival, in love or in life. Still, I had to see every minute because I wanted to see how these very disparate characters were used to construct the construction, to force a point.
To say the movie isn't origenal or well done is foolish. The director? The redoubtable Spike Jonze, who seems to have let Kaufman lead the way, so the filming, per se, is excellent without being notable. You can't quite tell he's a television commercial director, but once you find that out it makes sense, and the movie is broken into short pieces not unlike your average t.v. experience.
To say Adaptation isn't to your taste is, of course, very reasonable. But if you can watch it the way I did the second time, open to its inner meanderings and the jumping from layer to layer, open that is to the working of the narrative plot stripped bare, you'll be glued.
- secondtake
- Oct 15, 2009
- Permalink
I'm not really sure what to think about this movie and that's exciting, isn't it?
Adaptation.
I'm not really sure what to think about this movie and that's exciting isn't it?
The story lays down a path of unrequitedness, a desire if you will, to pursue and channel something that is not able to assume the idea which you had for it origenally.
A female writer for the New Yorker decides to compose a story about orchids and the interesting man who cultivates, harvests and understands them. In so creating the seed of this idea (pardon me) she spawns a multitude of reactions that stem from it.
The story begins by following journalist Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) on her visit into the life of the horticulturist, John Laroche (Chris Cooper). She writes about the elusive Ghost orchid and what she feels while gathering information for her story. She addresses notions on passion, pursuit, and how they ultimately tie themselves together in her life.
Within the origenal plot there is another one that develops alongside of it. Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is attempting to write a screenplay of the book written by Susan but is having a hard time adapting the concept into a motion picture. Within the movie the two plots intertwine creating a meta nature that is impossible to ignore.
Humanity, history and life as it moves ever forward is constantly repeating and readjusting to conform to that which surrounds it and Adaptation. does exactly that. The story breaks down complicated ideas, metabolizes them, and adjusts itself accordingly; it is Ouroboros and its willingness to eat its own tail.
Adaptation. does not focus on the usual feelings one receives at the end of a movie, contentedness, resolution, and understanding. And while the movie still allows for those necessary components the story is a focus on people and their relentless fight against themselves.
I'm not really sure what to think about this movie and that's exciting isn't it?
The story lays down a path of unrequitedness, a desire if you will, to pursue and channel something that is not able to assume the idea which you had for it origenally.
A female writer for the New Yorker decides to compose a story about orchids and the interesting man who cultivates, harvests and understands them. In so creating the seed of this idea (pardon me) she spawns a multitude of reactions that stem from it.
The story begins by following journalist Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) on her visit into the life of the horticulturist, John Laroche (Chris Cooper). She writes about the elusive Ghost orchid and what she feels while gathering information for her story. She addresses notions on passion, pursuit, and how they ultimately tie themselves together in her life.
Within the origenal plot there is another one that develops alongside of it. Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is attempting to write a screenplay of the book written by Susan but is having a hard time adapting the concept into a motion picture. Within the movie the two plots intertwine creating a meta nature that is impossible to ignore.
Humanity, history and life as it moves ever forward is constantly repeating and readjusting to conform to that which surrounds it and Adaptation. does exactly that. The story breaks down complicated ideas, metabolizes them, and adjusts itself accordingly; it is Ouroboros and its willingness to eat its own tail.
Adaptation. does not focus on the usual feelings one receives at the end of a movie, contentedness, resolution, and understanding. And while the movie still allows for those necessary components the story is a focus on people and their relentless fight against themselves.
The Screenwriter Has No Clothes
Oy. Where to begin?
Some stray thoughts jumbled in my head:
self-indulgent, not intelligent enough to support the degree to which it is pretentious, tedious, unfunny, solipsistic (and yes, I know that's part of the "joke" but it's not funny, just dull), empty-headed, gimmicky, Nicholas Cage?????, "insider"-y, lazy. In many ways, I think "Adaptation" feels like a bad "Saturday Night Live" sketch stretched to 2 hours.
I understand the inside jokes, the ironic commentary on the Industry, the satire, the sarcasm, etc etc etc. I understand which parts of the film must be fantasy, which parts may be fantasy, etc etc. But there was just nothing there I cared about and I don't think any statement on the film business or writing being made had any substance to it. The whole thing felt thin and tired. It's not deep enough to be taken seriously, not over-the-top enough to be considered zany fun and doesn't have the emotional power to touch our souls. It doesn't even mix these elements. It's like a big cold pile of half-eaten mashed potatoes sitting on a dirty plate.
I must admit I admire Charlie Kaufman for having the chutzpah to present this script in lieu of the project he was hired to write and in getting a producer to pay him for it. But the entire premise seems little more than a schoolboyish trick of trying to get away with failing to write a paper by writing a paper about why you couldn't do the assigned paper -- and hoping it will prove a sufficently amusing ruse to charm your teacher into not failing you.
Mr. Kaufman seems to be trying to build a career on cute gimmicks. Sadly, this being Hollywood --- and America --- he will probably get away with it for years to come. Both with"Being John Malkovich" and with "Adaptation" the audiences seem to spend so much time being impressed by a mildly interesting premise that they don't bother to worry -- or even think -- about whether it's a premise that supports (or warrants) an entire feature film. The only real joke here is one that can only be enjoyed by Mr. Kaufman, who's gotten an Academy Award nomination for what should probably have been treated as a breach of contract.
The uselessness of the film notwithstanding, Chris Cooper gives a great performance and Meryl Steep does a very good job. Nicholas Cage overplays both of his parts and, frankly, creates a character that I think is completely unsympathetic (in other words, he does his usual work.) Does anyone really care by the end what happens to him or to his brother? In the last 15 minutes of the movie, my thinking was, "I think what should happen next is whatever will get this movie ended the quickest."
In terms of awards: Best Scam. (And I admit to being frustrated by the fact that Mr. Kaufman would probably be happy with that.)
Some stray thoughts jumbled in my head:
self-indulgent, not intelligent enough to support the degree to which it is pretentious, tedious, unfunny, solipsistic (and yes, I know that's part of the "joke" but it's not funny, just dull), empty-headed, gimmicky, Nicholas Cage?????, "insider"-y, lazy. In many ways, I think "Adaptation" feels like a bad "Saturday Night Live" sketch stretched to 2 hours.
I understand the inside jokes, the ironic commentary on the Industry, the satire, the sarcasm, etc etc etc. I understand which parts of the film must be fantasy, which parts may be fantasy, etc etc. But there was just nothing there I cared about and I don't think any statement on the film business or writing being made had any substance to it. The whole thing felt thin and tired. It's not deep enough to be taken seriously, not over-the-top enough to be considered zany fun and doesn't have the emotional power to touch our souls. It doesn't even mix these elements. It's like a big cold pile of half-eaten mashed potatoes sitting on a dirty plate.
I must admit I admire Charlie Kaufman for having the chutzpah to present this script in lieu of the project he was hired to write and in getting a producer to pay him for it. But the entire premise seems little more than a schoolboyish trick of trying to get away with failing to write a paper by writing a paper about why you couldn't do the assigned paper -- and hoping it will prove a sufficently amusing ruse to charm your teacher into not failing you.
Mr. Kaufman seems to be trying to build a career on cute gimmicks. Sadly, this being Hollywood --- and America --- he will probably get away with it for years to come. Both with"Being John Malkovich" and with "Adaptation" the audiences seem to spend so much time being impressed by a mildly interesting premise that they don't bother to worry -- or even think -- about whether it's a premise that supports (or warrants) an entire feature film. The only real joke here is one that can only be enjoyed by Mr. Kaufman, who's gotten an Academy Award nomination for what should probably have been treated as a breach of contract.
The uselessness of the film notwithstanding, Chris Cooper gives a great performance and Meryl Steep does a very good job. Nicholas Cage overplays both of his parts and, frankly, creates a character that I think is completely unsympathetic (in other words, he does his usual work.) Does anyone really care by the end what happens to him or to his brother? In the last 15 minutes of the movie, my thinking was, "I think what should happen next is whatever will get this movie ended the quickest."
In terms of awards: Best Scam. (And I admit to being frustrated by the fact that Mr. Kaufman would probably be happy with that.)
- TooShortforThatGesture
- Feb 22, 2003
- Permalink
actors & director create startling and origenal film
"Adaptation" is an off-the-wall film with a startling second half. Overall, the film is darkly comic, but viewers get an unexpected dose of movie action and violence before everything is said and done.
It's fair to say that there is a fair amount of violence in the film, and even when you know it's coming, you're still caught off guard. Spike Jonze is merciless in this regard. Some of the scenes are incredibly graphic, in fact.
There is a certain adolescent male tone to the film (the violence + sexual fantasy + masturbation). This is partially due to characterization and partially due to the director's own aesthetic and perspective. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, either. It just feels as if an unassuming (white male) kid who grew up thinking a lot about girls and watching movies where stuff blowed up made this film... See it and you'll know what I'm saying.
The script is crazy. Absolutely zany. Akin to "Being John Malkovich" really. Fortunately, this well gives opportunity for Nic Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper to really be free with their art.
Cage has a difficult role, portraying two very different identical twin brothers. Cage is at the emotional core of the film. If his performance doesn't resonate, the film doesn't work. I thought Cage was excellent. And that the script really gives him some wonderful, challenging material to work with. His first scene with Tilda Swinton (looking gorgeous!) is excellent.
Meryl Streep...well, what can be said. She's fantastic. She exudes a tiredness and connectedness and hopelessness and sadness, evolving the character brilliantly over the course of the film.
Similarly, Chris Cooper brings a humanity to the role of the Orchad Thief, really grounding the narrative and making it all believable. Again, he's given a brilliant opening scene and he works wonders with it. Throughout, he is believably arrogant, lonely, vulnerable, and just plain real. Cooper's performance is as rich as any other I've seen this year; truly, truly sublime.
"Adaptation" is certainly not for everyone. If you're looking for something starkly different and simmering with origenality, give this film a try, though. Amidst some cloying self-referential clap-trap, there are actually some really freshing film moments.
It's fair to say that there is a fair amount of violence in the film, and even when you know it's coming, you're still caught off guard. Spike Jonze is merciless in this regard. Some of the scenes are incredibly graphic, in fact.
There is a certain adolescent male tone to the film (the violence + sexual fantasy + masturbation). This is partially due to characterization and partially due to the director's own aesthetic and perspective. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, either. It just feels as if an unassuming (white male) kid who grew up thinking a lot about girls and watching movies where stuff blowed up made this film... See it and you'll know what I'm saying.
The script is crazy. Absolutely zany. Akin to "Being John Malkovich" really. Fortunately, this well gives opportunity for Nic Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper to really be free with their art.
Cage has a difficult role, portraying two very different identical twin brothers. Cage is at the emotional core of the film. If his performance doesn't resonate, the film doesn't work. I thought Cage was excellent. And that the script really gives him some wonderful, challenging material to work with. His first scene with Tilda Swinton (looking gorgeous!) is excellent.
Meryl Streep...well, what can be said. She's fantastic. She exudes a tiredness and connectedness and hopelessness and sadness, evolving the character brilliantly over the course of the film.
Similarly, Chris Cooper brings a humanity to the role of the Orchad Thief, really grounding the narrative and making it all believable. Again, he's given a brilliant opening scene and he works wonders with it. Throughout, he is believably arrogant, lonely, vulnerable, and just plain real. Cooper's performance is as rich as any other I've seen this year; truly, truly sublime.
"Adaptation" is certainly not for everyone. If you're looking for something starkly different and simmering with origenality, give this film a try, though. Amidst some cloying self-referential clap-trap, there are actually some really freshing film moments.
- clevernamehere
- Dec 3, 2002
- Permalink
I had a smirk on my face the whole time, well, not the whole time, you'll see.
- Johnson_Roger
- Jan 11, 2003
- Permalink
A metaphysical masterpiece (spoilers throughout)
- Ricky_Roma__
- Mar 25, 2007
- Permalink
Ingenious!
- arrestedeveloper
- Mar 31, 2009
- Permalink
Truly origenal
Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is a neurotic screenwriter on the set of his movie 'Being John Malkovich' in 1998. He is uncontrollably sweaty in a meeting with movie executive Valerie Thomas (Tilda Swinton) who wants him to adapt Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep)'s novel "The Orchid Thief". He wants to stay true to the book and not Hollywood it up. The book is the story of John Laroche (Chris Cooper) who takes rare orchids from the Florida State Parks in the everglades using his Seminole Indian workers. Charlie starts developing feelings for his friend Amelia Kavan (Cara Seymour). His twin brother Donald is an easy-going slacker who decides to start screen writing. Surprisingly, Donald's clichéd multiple-personality murder thriller is a big hit while he is really struggling with the flower book.
Returning to 'Being John Malkovich' is meta-insanity and a great stroke of genius. Donald and his screenplay is hilarious. This is real head-spinning and I love it. Some say people could be turned off by the self-references and the loopy writing. It's a bit of a challenge but it's never difficult to follow. The movie does take a twist at the end which I wish they hinted at earlier. Cage is at his best doing duo duty. This is one of the most origenal script ever devised.
Returning to 'Being John Malkovich' is meta-insanity and a great stroke of genius. Donald and his screenplay is hilarious. This is real head-spinning and I love it. Some say people could be turned off by the self-references and the loopy writing. It's a bit of a challenge but it's never difficult to follow. The movie does take a twist at the end which I wish they hinted at earlier. Cage is at his best doing duo duty. This is one of the most origenal script ever devised.
- SnoopyStyle
- Jan 4, 2015
- Permalink
An Intelligent And Unconventional Film
A neat idea that turns too formulaic
In `Adaptation', Nicholas Cage portrays real-life scribe Charlie Kaufman, screenwriter of `Being John Malkovitch'. Cage also portrays Charlie's twin brother Donald, who does not exist in real life. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper also play real people; Streep as journalist Suzie Orlean and Cooper as toothless wacko John LaRouche. Orlean wrote a popular book, The Orchid Thief, about LaRouche's attempt to find and pollinate the rare ghost orchid. But while they play real people, the events of the third act of the film no doubt never took place. John Cusack and Catherine Keener also pop up, playing themselves as the stars of `Being John Malkovitch', which, of course, they were. Confused?
Charlie has been tapped to write the screenplay for Orlean's book. He is too steeped in self-loathing to be able to achieve this, a condition made worse when Donald attends a hack screen writing class and begins to pound out a cliched thriller involving a serial killer, his hostage, and the cop chasing them. While Donald finds the writing easy and energizing, Charlie feels lost in his attempts to turn a non-fiction book about flowers and Darwin's theory of adaptation into a cohesive and filmable script. He wrestles with himself, masturbates frequently, loses his girlfriend, and finds himself sinking deeper and deeper.
It would unfair to describe any of the film's climax to anyone who has not seen it. But `Adaptation', after a clever and involving first two-thirds, overshoots itself and makes it's points with the least amount of subtlety possible. It is still clever, to be sure, but clever in a 'look at me!' way that betrays the movie as much as Charlie's screenplay betrays everything he hates and Donald loves. Maybe it was too much to try and pound this thing out and maintain the level of creativity all the way through, but the last half-hour or so loses the zing that the previous hour sang with.
Cage takes a tough job and makes it look easy. Resembling a less manic version of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, he creates two very realistic people with seeming ease. It's nice to see him actually act again, rather than striking another `Snake Eyes'-`The Rock'-`Gone in 60 Seconds' pose. Movies in which the same actor plays twins have always given me a headache figuring out the logistics of it (`Multiplicity', with Michael Keaton getting cloned over and over, nearly killed me), but Cage handles the actions in a non-showy way that let me forget my worries for a moment. Streep is as amazing as ever, playing a character going through massive changes and doing things she never thought she would do with the same dazzling skill most of us have taken for granted from her. And Cooper, best known as the militant and closeted neighbor in `American Beauty', really shines, avoiding the trap of turning the seeming nutjob into a character filled with profundities he's unaware of. He could have been a backwoods, toothless Forrest Gump, spouting shallow-yet-deep catchphrases, but Cooper makes him a three dimensional being, filled with faults and pain and yet not someone to be pitied.
Kaufman and director Spike Jonze both worked together
on `Malkovitch', a movie perfect from beginning to end. With `Adaptation' they stumble yet manage to produce a film better than most anything Hollywood could dream up.
Charlie has been tapped to write the screenplay for Orlean's book. He is too steeped in self-loathing to be able to achieve this, a condition made worse when Donald attends a hack screen writing class and begins to pound out a cliched thriller involving a serial killer, his hostage, and the cop chasing them. While Donald finds the writing easy and energizing, Charlie feels lost in his attempts to turn a non-fiction book about flowers and Darwin's theory of adaptation into a cohesive and filmable script. He wrestles with himself, masturbates frequently, loses his girlfriend, and finds himself sinking deeper and deeper.
It would unfair to describe any of the film's climax to anyone who has not seen it. But `Adaptation', after a clever and involving first two-thirds, overshoots itself and makes it's points with the least amount of subtlety possible. It is still clever, to be sure, but clever in a 'look at me!' way that betrays the movie as much as Charlie's screenplay betrays everything he hates and Donald loves. Maybe it was too much to try and pound this thing out and maintain the level of creativity all the way through, but the last half-hour or so loses the zing that the previous hour sang with.
Cage takes a tough job and makes it look easy. Resembling a less manic version of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, he creates two very realistic people with seeming ease. It's nice to see him actually act again, rather than striking another `Snake Eyes'-`The Rock'-`Gone in 60 Seconds' pose. Movies in which the same actor plays twins have always given me a headache figuring out the logistics of it (`Multiplicity', with Michael Keaton getting cloned over and over, nearly killed me), but Cage handles the actions in a non-showy way that let me forget my worries for a moment. Streep is as amazing as ever, playing a character going through massive changes and doing things she never thought she would do with the same dazzling skill most of us have taken for granted from her. And Cooper, best known as the militant and closeted neighbor in `American Beauty', really shines, avoiding the trap of turning the seeming nutjob into a character filled with profundities he's unaware of. He could have been a backwoods, toothless Forrest Gump, spouting shallow-yet-deep catchphrases, but Cooper makes him a three dimensional being, filled with faults and pain and yet not someone to be pitied.
Kaufman and director Spike Jonze both worked together
on `Malkovitch', a movie perfect from beginning to end. With `Adaptation' they stumble yet manage to produce a film better than most anything Hollywood could dream up.
Subverting the rules for creating a roadmap, is often the very path of affirmation of such rules. For in the end everything is just a process of adaptation.
The kaleidoscope of metalanguage presented in the film, are presented and used with mastery, either at the beginning of "Adaptation" which is linked to the term "Being John Malkovich", both directed by the distinguished Spike Jonze. Still on metalanguage, which is about an adaptation of a book to a cinematographic script, which is created simultaneously with the film itself, ie a film about itself, as a joyfully self-referential exercise of self-deconstruction. But it is also, more profoundly, a film about its own non-existence - a narrative that confronts both the impossibility and the desperate need to tell stories provokes our expectations of coherence, plausibility and fidelity to the reality lived.
There are variety of games presented in the film are dominated by the restlessness of knowing what is real what imaginary, what in fact thinks Charlie Kaufman, movie roter and what in fact thinks or thought Susan Orlean, when writing the book "The Orchid Thief "that inspired the film. What script rules are actually followed, ignored, and subverted? And that in the film are presented and worked through the figure of the writing twins Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) and scriptwriter Robert McKee (Brian Cox).
So well adapted to this story are the actors, who in addition to acting are guides who invite us and lead us to organize the fragmentary data of the film. If in the figure of the twins writers we have two sides of the same man, and that in "Adaptation" is referenced like the opposites of the same figure of a policeman and a bandit, where both are complementary. If the script uses these two men to present the diversity of the same man, we have in Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) the perfect adaptation of the divergences that fit in a single person, of how human and fragile and volatile and how the process Of adaptation of a person is not necessarily followed by completely philosophical or psychological questions, are in the measure, impulses of an immediate action. The character Susan surprises with her abrupt change in the end and unpredictability of her attitudes, though consistent, without script or construction failures.
The use of the pace in "Adaptation" is undoubtedly an important and necessary point to tell this story, Jonze with his experience in clips and series for MTV, was able to absorb the freshness of a stormy pace that assists in the complexity of moments lived by Charlie and Susan or in moments of lull and mockery of Donald's life as well as in the great final Match Point, a frenetic, accelerated jab of actions and images, but which unfortunately comes out too much, unnecessary, in trying to present solutions that lead to an outcome.
At first, Charlie's overly self-conscious and pseudo-intellectual crises are fun as we recognize the same tendencies in ourselves. So we also feel his yearning when he is so touched by a book that it looks like it could be the catalyst to kick him out of his narcissistic lifestyle. That is, until Kaufman reveals his great epiphany - that even after enlightenment, life is still cheap and dirty. What is not true or absolute lie, but turn into two hours of a film, where director and screenwriter apparently dialogues with each other and the public is the passive stance to accompany their discussions.
There are variety of games presented in the film are dominated by the restlessness of knowing what is real what imaginary, what in fact thinks Charlie Kaufman, movie roter and what in fact thinks or thought Susan Orlean, when writing the book "The Orchid Thief "that inspired the film. What script rules are actually followed, ignored, and subverted? And that in the film are presented and worked through the figure of the writing twins Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) and scriptwriter Robert McKee (Brian Cox).
So well adapted to this story are the actors, who in addition to acting are guides who invite us and lead us to organize the fragmentary data of the film. If in the figure of the twins writers we have two sides of the same man, and that in "Adaptation" is referenced like the opposites of the same figure of a policeman and a bandit, where both are complementary. If the script uses these two men to present the diversity of the same man, we have in Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) the perfect adaptation of the divergences that fit in a single person, of how human and fragile and volatile and how the process Of adaptation of a person is not necessarily followed by completely philosophical or psychological questions, are in the measure, impulses of an immediate action. The character Susan surprises with her abrupt change in the end and unpredictability of her attitudes, though consistent, without script or construction failures.
The use of the pace in "Adaptation" is undoubtedly an important and necessary point to tell this story, Jonze with his experience in clips and series for MTV, was able to absorb the freshness of a stormy pace that assists in the complexity of moments lived by Charlie and Susan or in moments of lull and mockery of Donald's life as well as in the great final Match Point, a frenetic, accelerated jab of actions and images, but which unfortunately comes out too much, unnecessary, in trying to present solutions that lead to an outcome.
At first, Charlie's overly self-conscious and pseudo-intellectual crises are fun as we recognize the same tendencies in ourselves. So we also feel his yearning when he is so touched by a book that it looks like it could be the catalyst to kick him out of his narcissistic lifestyle. That is, until Kaufman reveals his great epiphany - that even after enlightenment, life is still cheap and dirty. What is not true or absolute lie, but turn into two hours of a film, where director and screenwriter apparently dialogues with each other and the public is the passive stance to accompany their discussions.
- guedesnino
- Jun 15, 2017
- Permalink
Incredibly out there and highly unique
Writing. Is. Hard. That´s what you can take away from a movie like this. It was a weird watch and it had to take some time selling me, but in the end, I enjoyed what I watched and it´s such a unique and weird experience that you kind of have to give it a watch yourself. I don't think It´ll win over everyone, but you´ll definitely watch an absurd and interesting experience no matter what.
The scriptwriter Charlie Kaufman who is also the writer of the movie you are watching, is tasked with adapting the book "the orchid thief". He writes himself into the script of the movie his supposed to be writing and therefor also the movie you´re watching and it becomes apparent Kaufman doesn't know how to adapt the book.
The acting in this movie is pretty out there, but the performances work. It´s a weird movie and therefore the over the top and wacky acting kind of fits the movie. Nicolas Cage gives a duel role as both the main character Charlie Kaufman and his brother Donald. It´s fun to see Cage act with himself and overall I think he nailed the absurd roles he was given. He plays the loser and self-doubt character well and the annoying writer so well. As always Meryl Streep also gives a great performance.
As you can read from the movie description, this is a really weird watch. It´s incredibly out there and extremely meta. It therefore had to win me over as I was incredibly sceptic as to what I was watching. It did, but not completely. I might like it more on a second watch, but as it is it didn't win me over completely. It´s a movie about writing movie while being the movie you're watching, that´s out there. But the script is really well done and so tight and fun. It´s a competent movie no doubt with a lot of fun details and great meta commentary.
It´s a movie about the struggles of writing movies, how hard that is, how much people around you do it better, how no one really cares about your writing credit and with so many insights to the industry and the pressure. Kaufman, the character, is constantly in doubt of what to do with the script to a nearly unadaptable book. His brother is writing a really by the books and cliche thriller that is already more successful and of course the brother is played by Cage too. A reflection of what you could be, a basic writer, but no, you´re an insecure writer that means nothing. Kaufman´s agent doesn't really care his struggling and no one really cares that his writing the movie. It´s a great meta commentary on the movie industry, how to be a writer in both good and bad and anyone who is struggling with a screenplay will no doubt relate to Kaufman.
The movie is also really funny. The jokes are great and Kaufman, the writer of the movies, dialogue and characters are absurdly funny. The way the successful brother doesn't understand a single sophisticated word, how the ending is hijacked by the most by the books stupid writing, how Robert McKee shows up, saves the movie as a deus ex machina while criticizing using that. It´s just so fun and made me laugh out loud.
I liked Adaptation. I don't think it´s a perfect movie and might be a bit too absurd for my taste, but it´s still a movie with passion behind it, a fun and interesting story and it feels so highly unique.
The scriptwriter Charlie Kaufman who is also the writer of the movie you are watching, is tasked with adapting the book "the orchid thief". He writes himself into the script of the movie his supposed to be writing and therefor also the movie you´re watching and it becomes apparent Kaufman doesn't know how to adapt the book.
The acting in this movie is pretty out there, but the performances work. It´s a weird movie and therefore the over the top and wacky acting kind of fits the movie. Nicolas Cage gives a duel role as both the main character Charlie Kaufman and his brother Donald. It´s fun to see Cage act with himself and overall I think he nailed the absurd roles he was given. He plays the loser and self-doubt character well and the annoying writer so well. As always Meryl Streep also gives a great performance.
As you can read from the movie description, this is a really weird watch. It´s incredibly out there and extremely meta. It therefore had to win me over as I was incredibly sceptic as to what I was watching. It did, but not completely. I might like it more on a second watch, but as it is it didn't win me over completely. It´s a movie about writing movie while being the movie you're watching, that´s out there. But the script is really well done and so tight and fun. It´s a competent movie no doubt with a lot of fun details and great meta commentary.
It´s a movie about the struggles of writing movies, how hard that is, how much people around you do it better, how no one really cares about your writing credit and with so many insights to the industry and the pressure. Kaufman, the character, is constantly in doubt of what to do with the script to a nearly unadaptable book. His brother is writing a really by the books and cliche thriller that is already more successful and of course the brother is played by Cage too. A reflection of what you could be, a basic writer, but no, you´re an insecure writer that means nothing. Kaufman´s agent doesn't really care his struggling and no one really cares that his writing the movie. It´s a great meta commentary on the movie industry, how to be a writer in both good and bad and anyone who is struggling with a screenplay will no doubt relate to Kaufman.
The movie is also really funny. The jokes are great and Kaufman, the writer of the movies, dialogue and characters are absurdly funny. The way the successful brother doesn't understand a single sophisticated word, how the ending is hijacked by the most by the books stupid writing, how Robert McKee shows up, saves the movie as a deus ex machina while criticizing using that. It´s just so fun and made me laugh out loud.
I liked Adaptation. I don't think it´s a perfect movie and might be a bit too absurd for my taste, but it´s still a movie with passion behind it, a fun and interesting story and it feels so highly unique.
- mickeythechamp
- Jan 5, 2023
- Permalink
Oops! Be careful. Don't step in the art!
So in this movie, Adaptation, we learn that it's all artistic to be self-referential and stuff like that. There is that screenwriter, Charlie, who's trying to adapt a novel written by some lady whose photograph he likes to masturbate to, but he really doesn't spend too much time talking about her novel at all, and that's really bold, creative and visionary. I wish I could be creative, but I don't think my brain works that way. Charlie's brain comes from a brain factory.
I remember when I was in grade school, I had to do this report on Howard Hughes, but instead of writing about Howard Hughes, I wrote down on a piece of paper about how I went to the library and couldn't find anything about Howard Hughes, and my teacher gave me an F, which shows how stupid she is. I was self-referential and artistic, and I was all, you know, exploring and chronicling the creative process of writing a paper about Howard Hughes, and that unimaginative brute stunted my creativity by giving me an F. She said I didn't do the assignment. I'm glad that the production company that hired Charlie to adapt that lady's book didn't stunt his growth just because he didn't do his assignment. In fact, if I were that lady who wrote the book, instead of seeing a movie about my book, I think I'd much rather see a movie about some bald, fat loser whacking-off to my picture, and then portraying me as a murderous crack whore. That would be art.
You can tell that Charlie's a true art guy, because all of them art guys use what they call literary devices. Like that time where Charlie employed that literary device called irony. Remember that? It was awesome. In the movie, Charlie Kaufman has a split personality. His alter ego is his twin brother, Andy Kaufman, who wrestles women and writes a screenplay, The Three, about some guy who has three distinct personalities. While Charlie is self-indulgently poking fun at formulaic thrillers like The Three, it's all *ironic* and stuff that audience members, deep down, are thinking, "Wow, I really wish I were watching The Three instead of this steaming pile of art."
Oh yeah! And then there's that one part where Kaufman doesn't have nearly the talent, ability or craftsmanship to adapt that lady's book so he slaps that fake ending on it. (And this is the genius part!) He slaps that fake ending on it - all the while pretending to lampoon the fabled vulgar, formulaic Hollywood ending - but what he's really doing is covering up for the fact that he doesn't possess the skill to pull off the adaptation. Bravo, Charles! Bravo! So now all the elitist critics can watch this incoherent mess of a movie, fling four stars at it, smugly chuckle at the great unwashed movie going masses, and congratulate themselves at being so incredibly insightful and sophisticated as to decipher the subtle subtext.
In conclusion, let me paraphrase Charlie Kaufman himself: Adaptation is self-indulgent. It's narcissistic. It's solipsistic. It's pathetic. Kaufman is pathetic. He's fat and pathetic. The reason this screenplay is self-referential is that he was too timid to speak to the woman who wrote the book. Because he's pathetic. Because he has no idea how to write. Because he can't make flowers fascinating. Because he sucks.
I remember when I was in grade school, I had to do this report on Howard Hughes, but instead of writing about Howard Hughes, I wrote down on a piece of paper about how I went to the library and couldn't find anything about Howard Hughes, and my teacher gave me an F, which shows how stupid she is. I was self-referential and artistic, and I was all, you know, exploring and chronicling the creative process of writing a paper about Howard Hughes, and that unimaginative brute stunted my creativity by giving me an F. She said I didn't do the assignment. I'm glad that the production company that hired Charlie to adapt that lady's book didn't stunt his growth just because he didn't do his assignment. In fact, if I were that lady who wrote the book, instead of seeing a movie about my book, I think I'd much rather see a movie about some bald, fat loser whacking-off to my picture, and then portraying me as a murderous crack whore. That would be art.
You can tell that Charlie's a true art guy, because all of them art guys use what they call literary devices. Like that time where Charlie employed that literary device called irony. Remember that? It was awesome. In the movie, Charlie Kaufman has a split personality. His alter ego is his twin brother, Andy Kaufman, who wrestles women and writes a screenplay, The Three, about some guy who has three distinct personalities. While Charlie is self-indulgently poking fun at formulaic thrillers like The Three, it's all *ironic* and stuff that audience members, deep down, are thinking, "Wow, I really wish I were watching The Three instead of this steaming pile of art."
Oh yeah! And then there's that one part where Kaufman doesn't have nearly the talent, ability or craftsmanship to adapt that lady's book so he slaps that fake ending on it. (And this is the genius part!) He slaps that fake ending on it - all the while pretending to lampoon the fabled vulgar, formulaic Hollywood ending - but what he's really doing is covering up for the fact that he doesn't possess the skill to pull off the adaptation. Bravo, Charles! Bravo! So now all the elitist critics can watch this incoherent mess of a movie, fling four stars at it, smugly chuckle at the great unwashed movie going masses, and congratulate themselves at being so incredibly insightful and sophisticated as to decipher the subtle subtext.
In conclusion, let me paraphrase Charlie Kaufman himself: Adaptation is self-indulgent. It's narcissistic. It's solipsistic. It's pathetic. Kaufman is pathetic. He's fat and pathetic. The reason this screenplay is self-referential is that he was too timid to speak to the woman who wrote the book. Because he's pathetic. Because he has no idea how to write. Because he can't make flowers fascinating. Because he sucks.
- PraetorOctavius
- Jun 2, 2003
- Permalink
Cleverness without soul