Adaptation. (2002)
March 6th, 2003 at 6:34 pm (Uncategorized)
How self-referential can a film be? How about a movie that begins with the screenwriter describing how he is feeling as he begins to work on the screenplay for the movie you are watching? Now, what if the plot of the movie is the screenwriter?s frustration as he desperately searches for a way to write the movie? Throw in a scene where the screenwriter makes a cameo as his alter-ego while he talks to himself in the mirror and you have Adaptation. (2002)
Adaptation struck me as the most innovative and daring film since Being John Malkovich (1999), so I was not surprised to find out that both movies were written by the same talent, Charlie Kaufman. In Adaptation Charlie writes himself in as the main character, his fictional brother Donald as the main supporting character, and the author of The Orchid Thief, the book upon which the screenplay is based, as the second supporting character. It is not clear at first whether Donald is a real brother or simply an alter ego to the fictional version of Kaufman in this fiction-within-a-fiction about-a-fiction work. From there, the layers upon layers of reference become harder to explain, and really must be watched. I highly recommend Adaptation to anyone who enjoys a movie that makes you think. Films like these come once every few years and should not be missed.
Nick said,
March 16, 2003 at 11:56 am
I think I mentioned before here, that I think Kaufman has problems with endings. Do you agree that the film starts to unravel at the point where they all return to Florida?
Leopoldo said,
March 16, 2003 at 5:00 pm
Yes, I would agree that the ending was awkward. I also wondered how he could possibly end a movie like that and thought the way he did it was the best way he could have.
retz said,
March 24, 2003 at 4:59 pm
I don’t think you people understood the ending at all. Apparently you just took it at face value and didn’t understand how deeply ironic it was.
gvarga said,
April 17, 2003 at 7:27 am
I think I understod the ironi in the ending
I liked it very much , in fact I was curius about
the ending after that writer guy told him how to write a script.
Varga Gabor from Hungary
Lalo said,
September 20, 2003 at 4:26 am
The movie doesn’t just unravel it, it vaporizes the moment Meryl Streep breaks character to plan the murder of Kaufman. The script then unloads every cheap plot device (drugs, guns, car crashes) that Kaufman said he didn’t want to resort to in the beginning. Note how solemnly the writing guru begs Charlie not to rely on the deux ex machina, so of course we get two or three, four? I lost count somewhere after the alligator, the car crash and so on. But the film is truly amazing until it starts taking a piss on the audience with deliberately shoddy writing. Just because the filmakers know it’s bad is no excuse. It’s a shame because the viewer’s who get the film the most will also be the most disappointed. No doubt Kaufman and Jonze are brilliant engineers, but hopefully they won’t crash the train next time. Incidently, I don’t think the Donald character is not so much Charlie Kaufman’s alter ego as he is a means for illustrating Kaufmans’ collaboration with Spike Jonze.