Anyone else seen it yet? I thought it was amazing, but I'm still having some difficulty trying to figure out what the message of the film was... anyone have any thoughts?
not sure about the message either. But i loved the irony about it. The movie becomes exactly what he doesnt want it to become when he injects himself into it.
What I want to know is why the hell doesn't it have a wide release yet. Is Columbia purposely trying to hide their best pictures so the world can't see them?
Quote from: bonanzatazWhat I want to know is why the hell doesn't it have a wide release yet. Is Columbia purposely trying to hide their best pictures so the world can't see them?
I think it goes wide this Friday.
i loved it... most fun i've had at the movies all year. and hello to anyone who might care that i'm here... good stuff mike.
great, great stuff. you could watch the movie over and over again trying to pinpoint where the switch happens...
Quote from: sphinxgreat, great stuff. you could watch the movie over and over again trying to pinpoint where the switch happens...
I'd say it's right after he shows the script to Donald
yeah, that's what i initially thought. but then i pondered to myself that donald seems like a person that donald himself would create, so donald helped rewrite the entire screenplay while putting himself in it at the same time. there are a number of things scattered throughout the movie to suggest a multi-personality dealy going on with charlie kaufman, not to suggest that the events in the story are actually involving only one person, but it would be very ironic, especially considering that donald wrote a screenplay very similar to that. the point is that donald could be both a separate and identical entity.
Greeeaaat movie. Sphinx, I'm not sure what to think about your theories... I was pretty dumbfounded while watching the movie (This could be the next Mulholland Drive thread.)... but I am wondering what the real Susan Orlean thinks about how her "character" turned out in the end.
This was my favorite movie of the year, sadly edging out PDL. I think the switch happened when he read the script and found the rest of the movie completley hilarious. The car crashes were so real. My favorite part is when Susan goes "then I will have to kill him"
Quote from: JeremyBlackmanI am wondering what the real Susan Orlean thinks about how her "character" turned out in the end.
How did you like her performance?
SUSAN ORLEAN: Oh, it's fabulous. I love it, I really love it. I've seen the movie three times. The first time it was hard for me, I was just nervous watching and then it was too weird to kind of experience it. Then the second time I was able to begin seeing the movie. I saw it last night for the third time and I thought, "This is great. This is great." Some of my favorite moments are tiny, tiny actor-ly moments of hers that are so brilliant. So I really enjoyed it [and] I think it's terrific. I also think it's absolutely authentic, you believe her as a writer. I think it can be really hard for actors to play people in a job in movies, a lot of times you don't believe millionaires that they would ever do that job. I thought she was great.
Rest of the interview:
http://romanticmovies.about.com/library/weekly/aaadaptationintc.htm
Quote from: Duck SauceThis was my favorite movie of the year, sadly edging out PDL. I think the switch happened when he read the script and found the rest of the movie completley hilarious. The car crashes were so real. My favorite part is when Susan goes "then I will have to kill him"
the first car crash looked very real, however the second was very action movie-ish (with donald shooting through the window and whatnot). there, i believe, is evidence of the change.
Hate this limited release shit. Dying to see this one and it won't come here, one of the many things that sucks about living in South Carolina.
This is what messed up PDL...
Not that this positive opinion needs any more weighing down, but I loved it too.
I love the name of Donald's script "The Three"... that's just awesome.
Nice little info from God Damn Im Da Man you might want to know...... Any trailer that has a fat sweaty nic cage doing pelvic thrusts to a queen song is okay with me!
Quote from: cbrad4dHate this limited release shit. Dying to see this one and it won't come here, one of the many things that sucks about living in South Carolina.
I understand, living in a small town in Northeast Mississippi. I'm still waiting to see so many great movies that aren't coming here yet. We did get 'Punch-Drunk Love' though, to my utter shock! It didn't do to well here except for me taking friends to see it. Where in SC are you located?
Live on Hilton Head Island. Just found out that Adaptation is now playing in Savannah GA, which is about 45 min. away. Finally! Off to see a matinee tomorrow, and cannot wait!!
I love the TV spots for the film, very nifty.
Quote from: sphinxgreat, great stuff. you could watch the movie over and over again trying to pinpoint where the switch happens...
i just saw the movie tonight....it's fresh in my mind...
the first time laroche is in front of his computer, and starts talking about his porn site, is when i sort of felt like the story was changing, it was funny, but i found it a little odd, and (up to that point) out of character. plus the timing of the scene (or something i'm not really sure what) made it seem like a switch took place. the camera is sort of normally framing laroche, and orlean talking on the phone, then out of nowhere laroche mentions the porn, and the camera seemed to swing over (in a not completely un-pta like way) to reveal he was working on porn. because the computer came out oof nowhere too. if i rememer correctly they showed footage of him in that same room, and there was no computer. and then all of a sudden there it was. maybe he bought it, in between the time frame of scenes (i understood the timeline as a whole, but in my mind i can't really keep track of when certain scenes took place)
BUT! i haven't read the book, that could actually be part of the original story, and i will look like a fool. but i thought about it and that's where it felt like the switch came in .
buut yeah, this film was brilliant, best of the year. i was almost sad to bump pdl down a notch, but that's the way it goes.
Anybody read the Orchid Thief, does Laroche do the porn thing in that?
EXTREME SPOILERS AHEAD!
I just saw the film as it came out in a theater close to me today. I can't say I hated it, but as a whole, I definitely didn't love it. I thought it was pure genius and was loving every second of it right up until the point where Orlean says, "We're going to have to kill him." I loved the line, but assumed it was just part of her drug induced crazy-talk and Laroche would say, "Hey, no we can't." Then they start to go through with trying to kill him and I'm like, "is this really happening or is this some big joke." I kept waiting for Charlie to wake up or something. Up until when this happens, it's all about life and frustration and the characters were starting to grow and it was wonderful. It's like, Jonze had everything going on a track, there were a few twists and turns on the track, but as a whole the story was pretty much a straight line. Then we have this thing happening and the track totally veers off course, leaving MANY people in the theater confused (Thanks to Columbia's beautiful release schedule (which worked so well for PDL) and due to the fact that the ending is so out of tune witht the rest of the film, this movie is going to fail at the box office). Double parentheses, how exciting! Anyway, after that weird thing happens, the track veers right back to the straight line again and it finishes very nicely.
Back when Being John Malkovich was released, I loved it, I thought it was great. I went online to read the original script and the ending was totally different. It was so weird and so out of place and I was so happy they changed it or the whole film would have been ruined. I felt the same way while WATCHING Adaptation, only this time I didn't have the alternate version with the good ending. The whole thing is about screenwriting so I was so let down when the ending was a cop-out. It was like, I don't know how to end this picture, so let's just have bizarre weirdness, just for the sake of bizarre weirdness, even if it doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie. So, as a whole, I didn't really like it. Everything before the last 20 minutes, excellent.
Also, why in the world would Orlean let Larouche post her on the porn site if she's such a revered journalist that's so protective of her reputation AND she (as far as I know) mentions the site in her book?! Especially when the Kaufmans were going to follow her to Florida ANYWAY to find out that she was having an affair with Larouche! That's just me being picky though.
Sorry for the length of this post.
bonanzataz: what you have to understand is that ending is meant to be a cop-out, it's meant to disappoint you and make you pissed off that it was a hollywood ending, but there is an explanation. just earlier in the thread we were discussing the actual moment the change occurs. see, the ending isn't what actually happened in the storyline, it's what donald rewrote, or helped rewrite the script to be---the whole chase sequence just reeks of donald. as soon as donald comes to new york to help charlie with the script, the movie switches to donald's rewrite. it's supposed to be ironic and paradoxical, which is what makes it even better than if they had simply ended it on a straight non-fiction track. it does completely the opposite and exactly what charlie wanted at the same time...do you get what i'm saying?
MORE EXTREME SPOILERS
I get it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Wait, I kind of do like it, very clever. But for me, as a spectator, sitting in the audience and thinking, "this is just a script written by Charlie because there is no Donald in real life," it was frustrating. At the same time it's like, how am I supposed to make the connection that Donald wrote some of it? Like some big inside joke that you don't get until your friend turns to you and explains it.
Nevertheless, haha, funny joke. I can't wait to explain it to my friends who shared the same feelings I did.
Unfortunately, Bonanzataz's opinion of the film is what a lot of people thought.
I thought it was pretty damn obvious that the ending was one hundred percent intentionally bad, but I've spoken to quite a few people who seem to have missed it as well.
bonzatonaoztnoanta: acutally, know that i think of it, i can relate to you a lot in how irritating that section was in retrospective, but over my two viewings of the film, it's become washed over by the fantastic writing and i see it as an essential part of the film. jonze/kaufman haven't succeeded in making a fully satisfying, entertaining film, but that's because they succeeded in what they were trying to do, which makes it entertaining and satisfying, kind of. they sort of win a lot and lose just a little bit all at the same time.
Quote from: RegularKarateUnfortunately, Bonanzataz's opinion of the film is what a lot of people thought.
I thought it was pretty damn obvious that the ending was one hundred percent intentionally bad, but I've spoken to quite a few people who seem to have missed it as well.
RK, not an attack or anything, but I really don't appreciate when people say shit like that. Trying to make me feel like a shithead because I didn't get it and implying that my opinion is bull and passing me off as an idiot. The board is a community, treat everybody with respect. We don't want to be like the AICN boards, I don't think.
That having been said, ROCK ON FOR GOLDFISH! Best snack food ever!
And for anyone who cares, I still think it didn't really work, even knowing this now. The more I think about it, the more I think the whole movie is about Kaufman masturbating.
Not to rub it in, but I got what was happening as soon as things started going off track, but others in my group didnt. I think this movie was genius. You mention that you couldnt really get it because you knew there is no Donald in real life and its just Charlie Kaufman writing a screenplay. Could you explain this bonanzataz? I mean dont you have to kind of forget reality while watching a movie to enjoy it sometimes? If not, you would just be picking apart every movie because you know that its not real. Im not attacking you so dont pull that "i dont appreciate...." shit, I just want to know. All in good heart.
i really liked this film. i remember first seeing the trailer for ADAPTATION before PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (i just had to mention PTA) and thinking it was something that didn't appeal to me. then i saw it was directed by spike jonze then not knowing what to think. i just couldn't get anything from the trailer. so for about 2 and half months, i was debating if i should go see it or not. then i saw it... and WOW! what a weird lil' film this is! i loved it! the whole time watching it, i felt lost but after each scene i figured out what this film was about and what it was going for; until the end when i realized that this was something great. it unfolded really well and spike jonze totally executed the balance between interest and scope. WOW! i'm still trying to get my head around this film.
ps.
i really love the end with the quote from THE 3 and the donald kaufman tribute! genuine class.
i truly don't want to make anyone feel bad, but it's upsetting (not really) to hear people think the plot approach, and ending didn't work. because the more i think about it, the more perfect i reallly think it was. one of the best 'plot twist' films
it was the perfect middle road between the usual -- painfully predictable and obvious, or fucking ridiculously sublte and esoteric.
even once the ball got rolling and you could tell where it was going, it stayed completely entertaining and engaging (i think i stole that from a rreview)...
they didn't beat you over the head orr spell it out for you (like wtih some voice over explanation, ---that would be lazy--- :) )...but it all made sense, and was hinted at through the whole film.
it didn't feel uneven at all! just incredibly well written, and thought out.
and i thought it was much less of a cop-out story than the "it was all a dream' films....even though i enjoy some of those quite a bit!
but the ending didn't just pop up out of nowhere. (if the timeline in my head is correct) charlie had already admitted that he had written himself in to the screenplay. and about 3/4's in to the film beore the big ending story change, he was dictating the films opening lines (not verbatim) in to his recorder. they even prepared you for what would happen at the end through the whole film with his masturbation fantasies (which were really there for comedic effect, but i think they acheived that goal too). plus there were hints. like donald mentions to charlie how felini's 8 1/2 was the last film to create anew genre, the mockumentary, which is sort of what adaptation is. i dunno, i can't really write it out and have it make sense, buut i think that's what great about it! it's all there though.
i dunno, i'm sorry, this is long. i'll shut up.
Quote from: bonanzatazThe more I think about it, the more I think the whole movie is about Kaufman masturbating.
NOT TO APPEAR LIKE A FREE THINKING INDIVIDUAL LIKE WE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ON THE OLD BOARDS BUT.....the more I read your opinions the more I think you're an idiot.
NO OFFENCE! JAJAJAAAA
Quote from: Duck SauceNot to rub it in, but I got what was happening as soon as things started going off track, .
Exactly, it was pretty obvious and that was the whole joke of the last act.
The last "Turning Point" would be Charlie attending the Mckee seminar in desperation.
I also thought it was excellent. Gets better the more you think about it and see the intentions Kaufman had. Did anyone notice that Meryl Streep's "husband" (not sure if it's her husband or a guy friend or whatnot) is director Curtis Hanson? Another man at the table where they were eating dinner looked familiar also.
Quote from: DirkAnother man at the table where they were eating dinner looked familiar also.
David O. Russell
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: DirkAnother man at the table where they were eating dinner looked familiar also.
David O. Russell
Ah, thanks dude.
Man oh man oh man. Just saw it yesterday, and I can't remember ever having so much fun in a movie theater. Amazing amazing amazing!
Could go on and on but any praise I write still wouldn't do justice to the film.
Yeah, the turning point for me was when he goes to the screenwriting seminar, and McKee says "you need to go back and put drama in to it, etc." then everything starts to happen...
-Love when Meryl is all high and there is a beat with her thinking, tears, then all of a sudden "Okay we got to kill him."
-Love the shampoo line "I just washed it this morning"
-Loved Chris Cooper's performance, thought he was hysterical "Fuck fish/This van is a piece of shit/my beautiful wife, we're divorced, fucking bitch"
-Thought Nicholas Cage was outstanding, fucking blew me away.
-LOVED the part when Meryl is on the phone w/ Chris, and they do the dial tone "Okay that's fucking amazing"
God damn man, what a fucking great, smart, amazing movie. At the very end when the music comes up and the flowers slowly grow at the bottom of the frame, I got chills. And when he talks about the voice over stuff- Hits home. Every screenwriting professor I have had has given the "voice-over sucks" lecture.
I really want to see it again, b/c there is so much stuff in the movie, so many funny lines you forget about. At one point I wanted to take out a pen and some paper and write some of them down.
TV Guide on the film said "one of the best movies Hollywood has ever made about itself." I think it's one of the best movies made in a long long time.
I really don't see how anyone who considers themselves a movie buff or is into movies could not like this movie.
Quote from: mogwaiCurtis Hanson was in Hard Eight.
Whereabouts?
I like when directors put other directors in their movies.
I have a script about a restaurant, and there is a scene with a gay hair dresser. If I ever get to make it, I'm going to ask Oliver Stone to do it.
I REALLY ENJOYED THIS MOVIE SO STOP GETTING ON MY CASE! If I had a top 10 list forthe year it would probably be, like, 7 or 8 or something.
I'll see it again to please you all and maybe I'll like it more then.
Oh yeah, and about my masturbation comment, it was meant as harmless fun, not as a slight to the movie. They put so much emphasis in the film that Kaufman masturbates too much and then he ends the movie like that. Of course it's masturbation, regardless of whether it's good or bad.
This movie really reminded me of a Dutch masterpiece that I saw at an internat'l film fest, The Sea That Thinks (http://www.dezeediedenkt.nl/), probably one of my favorite movies ever. Right now it's only available in PAL, and there's no way it's ever going to pick up distribution. It's obscure and incredibly strange.
The main character is writing a screenplay, and strange things start happening around him... and it's hard to tell whether he is writing things as they happen, or if things are happening because he writes them. Reeaaallly weird & beautiful.. maybe it's on Netflix or something.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dezeediedenkt.nl%2Fpix%2Fdz027.jpg&hash=32154a17488032302f43abd92121665757a47476)
That's a really cool shot.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
The main character is writing a screenplay, and strange things start happening around him... and it's hard to tell whether he is writing things as they happen, or if things are happening because he writes them. Reeaaallly weird & beautiful..
Sounds familiar
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.imdb.com%2Fmedia%2Fimdb%2F01%2FI%2F54%2F91%2F70m.jpg&hash=78683365dd00f3fe041ec0a7500b2a3c8b35930c)
Quote from: RegularKarateSounds familiar
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.imdb.com%2Fmedia%2Fimdb%2F01%2FI%2F54%2F91%2F70m.jpg&hash=78683365dd00f3fe041ec0a7500b2a3c8b35930c)
jajaja.
Seriously though, that kind of self-reference story is also told in Epidemic by Lars Von Trier, where he stars as the dude making a film and writing a script about a disease and it comes true in the end.
Yeah, but I think this is more surreal and less obvious, less of a comedy.
Delerious sounds like a ripoff of Stay Tuned. Oh wait..
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThis movie really reminded me of a Dutch masterpiece that I saw at an internat'l film fest, The Sea That Thinks (http://www.dezeediedenkt.nl/), probably one of my favorite movies ever. Right now it's only available in PAL, and there's no way it's ever going to pick up distribution. It's obscure and incredibly strange.
Wow, the site is really cool and very strange. I didn't do much except for the intro because I haven't seen the film yet but I would very much like to see it. It looks very intruiging. Maybe you should recommend it to Jon Mulvaney (http://www.criterionco.com/asp/ask_form.asp) as a possible Criterion title in the future.
This is a great movie, for reasons a lot of people have spoken about but another for the way they showed the absurd ending in a serious way and that it could be believable to be a not very good ending if we were not given so many ideas that the switch was going to happen. This reminded me so much of Fellini's great 8 1/2 and I loved how it followed that movie in the way it never gave you really all the answers but blurred reality and fantasy in such a creative way that you were smiling while wondering where not only the reality of the storyline ended in the movie but where the character of Donald himself existed in actual fiction because it was the twin brother to Charlie, and the question could have been of if Kaufman was trying to say something about his own conflicts? Also, just to wonder if the character Charlie holds up to the real Charlie in such a way or not? I don't think this will really be Muholland Drive again because its pretty apparent who's story the ending follows and where he comes in, so I will say its more for just curiosity that could never be answered. Ambiguilty.
But glad I finally got to see it and will for sure take a place in my final top ten list of 2002 when I can actually see all the movies, which will be a while.
~rougerum
The trailer was perfect and it made me expect too much from this movie. Just because the ending was intentionally bad doesn't mean that it was genius. I think that it didn't help that I was with a quiet audience when I saw this movie. I just wanted to laugh when Charlie and Donald have their "deep" talk in the swamp but the whole theater seemed to be taking it too seriously. I still thought it was a fantastic movie, but I expected way too much from it.
it almost sounds like a sort of andy kaufman-ish ploy to execute...
I just saw Adaptation last night... Now that I've seen Adaptation, this edges out, About Shmidt, as my favorite movie for 2002. I loved how the ending was everything that Charlie did not want it to be.
What was the message everyone got from the movie?
I got a couple diff mixed ones, but Im not really sure if it has 1 clearly defined overall message....
chris
Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo
What was the message everyone got from the movie?
I got a couple diff mixed ones, but Im not really sure if it has 1 clearly defined overall message....
Yeah, I had trouble finding a message too. Maybe it's just to find and go after something that you have a passion in. We got Charlie who has a passion for writing, Laroche's passions ranging from fossils to fish to orchids, and Susan trying to find something to be passionate about.
Quote from: BonBon85The trailer was perfect and it made me expect too much from this movie. Just because the ending was intentionally bad doesn't mean that it was genius. I think that it didn't help that I was with a quiet audience when I saw this movie. I just wanted to laugh when Charlie and Donald have their "deep" talk in the swamp but the whole theater seemed to be taking it too seriously. I still thought it was a fantastic movie, but I expected way too much from it.
I for one got annoyed by the trailer after the first time seeing it. I expected less and got more. I remember during the switching to donald, I started laughing, and I was the only one. Everybody else was soo serious about where it was going.
I think the main message of the movie is trying to show the difference between a convential movie and an art one and how bad a convential movie would handle a story with themes that are a little deeper and more honest. Movies have always had a forumulated feeling to them and comedies have been most aware of it and the best to poke fun at it and the movie sets itself as something of black humor but also serious when it really is a comedy at heart in trying to show the faults of the convential movie rules.
But the great thing is the movie is so many different things all at once.
~rougerum
Here is an interesting (negative) review of Adaptation that I read before seeing the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I am starting to agree with it:
---------------------------------------
By Stanley Kauffmann
In 1999 Charlie Kaufman wrote Being John Malkovich, in which a mildly funny twelve-minute revue sketch was distended into a feature film. The poverty of the material was partially disguised by the busyness of all the participants, behaving as if the picture were marvelously clever. Charlie Kaufman's new screenplay, Adaptation (Columbia), makes disguise impossible. It declares bankruptcy right at the start, then proves it.
The bluntness of that declaration is meant to be the picture's safeguard, its very meaning. We are asked to follow Kaufman's writing mind as he attempts to build a wisp of a premise into a script. But all the elements are so dull that it is hard to be grateful to him for letting us watch the struggle. Kaufman has put himself into the film, as played by Nicolas Cage (and that wretched actor does not exactly shift matters into high gear). Cage-Kaufman wants to adapt a book called The Orchid Thief, wants to make a film about the lives and beings of flowers. This ambition, meant to distinguish Kaufman from the run of Hollywood journeymen, is the beginning of the disaster. Who would care if such a film was made? Or not made? Kaufman's ambition makes him not an exceptionally sensitive soul but an aberration.
Many kinds of trickery and embroidery are laid on as Kaufman pursues his objective. Flashbacks splutter. (One of them goes back four billion years in Hollywood as the first creatures emerge from the slime. Get it?) He goes to New York to consult the author of the book, Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep, wasted). He visits the Florida swamp where the orchids grow. Girlfriends wend in and out. Then the Ur-Kaufman, the one who wrote the film, not Cage-Kaufman, had an inspiration, alas. He gave the Charlie in the film a twin brother, Donald. (Film databases tell us that Donald is fictional.) This twin must of course be played by the same actor, so the picture has to suffer a double dose of Cage.
Worse, Donald wants to be a screenwriter, too, and he apparently represents the Kaufman who could easily write Hollywood hits but who is aspiring. While Charlie is struggling with his poetic concept, Donald bats out an utterly conventional script about a serial killer. Charlie's agent, who has been trying to knock some sense into Charlie's ethereal project, loves Donald's script. The brothers are very fond of each other, but Donald's swift success doesn't help.
The most impressive aspect of Adaptation is technical--the numerous joint appearances of the two brothers played by the same actor. The director Spike Jonze and staff have handled these scenes so smoothly, so casually, that our wonder at them disappears. Little would be helped by detailing other matters in the picture, like Susan Orlean's personal involvement with the Florida orchid specialist. Virtually everything that happens in Adaptation is almost juvenile showing off-- daring to make a film that is in search of a script.
The herniated novelty of the enterprise is crushed with a big mistake at the end. Earlier in the picture Charlie has been advised to get a strong finish for his script. At the last he is smitten with an idea. He will finish his script with the truth of his trouble about finding a finish. This idea, faint though the echo is, reminds us of the ending of Fellini's 81/2, which closes with the writer-director's realization that his self and being are the material that he has been looking for. The reminder of Fellini is hard on Kaufman. 81/2 is a masterwork about the difficulties of making art in our time. It is directed and acted and shot and scored with genius. Kaufman's film, in every detail except the wasted Streep, is an account of Nibelungs moiling away underground, mistaking pyrites for gold.
~rougerum
If we're searching for a message, one of Donald's last lines struck me:
"We are what we love, not what loves us"
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetHere is an interesting (negative) review of Adaptation that I read before seeing the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I am starting to agree with it:
---------------------------------------
By Stanley Kauffmann
In 1999 Charlie Kaufman wrote Being John Malkovich, in which a mildly funny twelve-minute revue sketch was distended into a feature film. The poverty of the material was partially disguised by the busyness of all the participants, behaving as if the picture were marvelously clever. Charlie Kaufman's new screenplay, Adaptation (Columbia), makes disguise impossible. It declares bankruptcy right at the start, then proves it.
The bluntness of that declaration is meant to be the picture's safeguard, its very meaning. We are asked to follow Kaufman's writing mind as he attempts to build a wisp of a premise into a script. But all the elements are so dull that it is hard to be grateful to him for letting us watch the struggle. Kaufman has put himself into the film, as played by Nicolas Cage (and that wretched actor does not exactly shift matters into high gear). Cage-Kaufman wants to adapt a book called The Orchid Thief, wants to make a film about the lives and beings of flowers. This ambition, meant to distinguish Kaufman from the run of Hollywood journeymen, is the beginning of the disaster. Who would care if such a film was made? Or not made? Kaufman's ambition makes him not an exceptionally sensitive soul but an aberration.
Many kinds of trickery and embroidery are laid on as Kaufman pursues his objective. Flashbacks splutter. (One of them goes back four billion years in Hollywood as the first creatures emerge from the slime. Get it?) He goes to New York to consult the author of the book, Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep, wasted). He visits the Florida swamp where the orchids grow. Girlfriends wend in and out. Then the Ur-Kaufman, the one who wrote the film, not Cage-Kaufman, had an inspiration, alas. He gave the Charlie in the film a twin brother, Donald. (Film databases tell us that Donald is fictional.) This twin must of course be played by the same actor, so the picture has to suffer a double dose of Cage.
Worse, Donald wants to be a screenwriter, too, and he apparently represents the Kaufman who could easily write Hollywood hits but who is aspiring. While Charlie is struggling with his poetic concept, Donald bats out an utterly conventional script about a serial killer. Charlie's agent, who has been trying to knock some sense into Charlie's ethereal project, loves Donald's script. The brothers are very fond of each other, but Donald's swift success doesn't help.
The most impressive aspect of Adaptation is technical--the numerous joint appearances of the two brothers played by the same actor. The director Spike Jonze and staff have handled these scenes so smoothly, so casually, that our wonder at them disappears. Little would be helped by detailing other matters in the picture, like Susan Orlean's personal involvement with the Florida orchid specialist. Virtually everything that happens in Adaptation is almost juvenile showing off-- daring to make a film that is in search of a script.
The herniated novelty of the enterprise is crushed with a big mistake at the end. Earlier in the picture Charlie has been advised to get a strong finish for his script. At the last he is smitten with an idea. He will finish his script with the truth of his trouble about finding a finish. This idea, faint though the echo is, reminds us of the ending of Fellini's 81/2, which closes with the writer-director's realization that his self and being are the material that he has been looking for. The reminder of Fellini is hard on Kaufman. 81/2 is a masterwork about the difficulties of making art in our time. It is directed and acted and shot and scored with genius. Kaufman's film, in every detail except the wasted Streep, is an account of Nibelungs moiling away underground, mistaking pyrites for gold.
~rougerum
i couldn't disagree more with this review
just got an original, double sided adaptation poster in the mail today. god, it kicks ass
Quote from: xerxesQuote from: The Gold TrumpetHere is an interesting (negative) review of Adaptation that I read before seeing the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I am starting to agree with it:
---------------------------------------
By Stanley Kauffmann
In 1999 Charlie Kaufman wrote Being John Malkovich, in which a mildly funny twelve-minute revue sketch was distended into a feature film. The poverty of the material was partially disguised by the busyness of all the participants, behaving as if the picture were marvelously clever. Charlie Kaufman's new screenplay, Adaptation (Columbia), makes disguise impossible. It declares bankruptcy right at the start, then proves it.
The bluntness of that declaration is meant to be the picture's safeguard, its very meaning. We are asked to follow Kaufman's writing mind as he attempts to build a wisp of a premise into a script. But all the elements are so dull that it is hard to be grateful to him for letting us watch the struggle. Kaufman has put himself into the film, as played by Nicolas Cage (and that wretched actor does not exactly shift matters into high gear). Cage-Kaufman wants to adapt a book called The Orchid Thief, wants to make a film about the lives and beings of flowers. This ambition, meant to distinguish Kaufman from the run of Hollywood journeymen, is the beginning of the disaster. Who would care if such a film was made? Or not made? Kaufman's ambition makes him not an exceptionally sensitive soul but an aberration.
Many kinds of trickery and embroidery are laid on as Kaufman pursues his objective. Flashbacks splutter. (One of them goes back four billion years in Hollywood as the first creatures emerge from the slime. Get it?) He goes to New York to consult the author of the book, Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep, wasted). He visits the Florida swamp where the orchids grow. Girlfriends wend in and out. Then the Ur-Kaufman, the one who wrote the film, not Cage-Kaufman, had an inspiration, alas. He gave the Charlie in the film a twin brother, Donald. (Film databases tell us that Donald is fictional.) This twin must of course be played by the same actor, so the picture has to suffer a double dose of Cage.
Worse, Donald wants to be a screenwriter, too, and he apparently represents the Kaufman who could easily write Hollywood hits but who is aspiring. While Charlie is struggling with his poetic concept, Donald bats out an utterly conventional script about a serial killer. Charlie's agent, who has been trying to knock some sense into Charlie's ethereal project, loves Donald's script. The brothers are very fond of each other, but Donald's swift success doesn't help.
The most impressive aspect of Adaptation is technical--the numerous joint appearances of the two brothers played by the same actor. The director Spike Jonze and staff have handled these scenes so smoothly, so casually, that our wonder at them disappears. Little would be helped by detailing other matters in the picture, like Susan Orlean's personal involvement with the Florida orchid specialist. Virtually everything that happens in Adaptation is almost juvenile showing off-- daring to make a film that is in search of a script.
The herniated novelty of the enterprise is crushed with a big mistake at the end. Earlier in the picture Charlie has been advised to get a strong finish for his script. At the last he is smitten with an idea. He will finish his script with the truth of his trouble about finding a finish. This idea, faint though the echo is, reminds us of the ending of Fellini's 81/2, which closes with the writer-director's realization that his self and being are the material that he has been looking for. The reminder of Fellini is hard on Kaufman. 81/2 is a masterwork about the difficulties of making art in our time. It is directed and acted and shot and scored with genius. Kaufman's film, in every detail except the wasted Streep, is an account of Nibelungs moiling away underground, mistaking pyrites for gold.
~rougerum
i couldn't disagree more with this review
I also completely disagree with this erratic review. He praises most of the film, until the end. People who don't get the end really don't get the movie. Streep wasted? Hogwash! She was fantastic, her best performance in a while.
This guy seems to think that if you have a big star in your movie, not having them in every single scene is not using them.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetHere is an interesting (negative) review of Adaptation that I read before seeing the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I am starting to agree with it:
The more you say things like that, the more I think you can't form your own opinion.
Quote from: cbrad4dStreep wasted? Hogwash! She was fantastic, her best performance in a while.
big, sweaty SPOIILERThe "we have to kill him" scene was one of the most memorable moments in any movie last year.
I very much enjoyed the "dial tone" scene. Streep's performance was fucking amazing.
It really is a great performance, and I love how she played it like a drama.
Nicole Kidman better be really good in The Hours. Meryl Streep deserves everything she can get for this ... I should really see the movie again...
Quote from: RegularKarate
The more you say things like that, the more I think you can't form your own opinion.
ahem...
...this post, however, is to say that i love your avatar. much better than arnold.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIt really is a great performance, and I love how she played it like a drama.
Nicole Kidman better be really good in The Hours. Meryl Streep deserves everything she can get for this ... I should really see the movie again...
Isnt Meryl Streep a supporting actress though?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: cbrad4dStreep wasted? Hogwash! She was fantastic, her best performance in a while.
big, sweaty SPOIILER
The "we have to kill him" scene was one of the most memorable moments in any movie last year.
Yes yes yes. Dial tone scene was rad.
In reference to Gold T, you shouldn't let a review (bad one at that) sway your opinion of a film that much after already seeing it and forming your own conclusions.
I don't think it is a bad review myself, but I haven't really changed my opinion because I do think it is a great movie. I understand though what the reviewer is saying and I agree with him because is mainly saying that through out the film, the meanings of the movie is obvious and it does nothing to really go beyond anything that is of deeper narrative. For most of the movie, I agree that the movie plays itself out in an obvious fashion, but thing is, so does 8 1/2. The thing that it doesn't do, like 8 1/2, is conform all the movie to the obvious and finds deeper threads that cannot be explained or answered through riddles. So, that is where I disagree with the reviewer. But a funny thing about this critic, is that a lot of people really don't know who he is, but he is likely the best critic in America today and maybe ever, even if not agreed upon by the people who read him. He's the critic Roger Ebert looks up to. The thing is, I don't agree with this guy a lot, but he always a reasonable side opinion to an argument of a film that makes you look beyond the normal criticisms. I think thats what makes him that valuable.
~rougerum
critics schmitics
There is no such thing as "the best critic" that's just stupid.
There can be critics that you agree with the most or seem to sell out the least, but "the best critic in America"? No. No such thing.
true dat
You're right RK, and given the abstract nature of trying to ask such a question, I think all questions to the best film director or actor should seriously be looked down upon. But really, my opinion. Not yours.
~rougerum
I thought this (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Kaufman,%20Donald) was funny.
Yeah... I remember looking that up the minute I heard that he was using two screenwriting names, but what I hadn't ever seen was that person that wanted to start a Donald Kaufman fan club.
Is he going to continue to write movies using both names perhaps?
Quote from: Duck SauceIs he going to continue to write movies using both names perhaps?
SPOILERDonald is dead.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI thought this (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Kaufman,%20Donald) was funny.
i have reliable information that the first post in this (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0442134/board/nest/465820) thread was made by someone from the main adaptation crew.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Duck SauceIs he going to continue to write movies using both names perhaps?
SPOILER
Donald is dead.
Or is he?
no, he's definetly dead. donald would probably write himself back from the dead if he could, though
Quote from: Duck SauceQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Duck SauceIs he going to continue to write movies using both names perhaps?
SPOILER
Donald is dead.
Or is he?
Or isn't he?
No, yeah, he is.
i finally saw this. i'm not totally sure how i feel about it.
someone tell me what the boom mic coming into the top of the shot a few times was supposed to mean?
Quote from: bigideassomeone tell me what the boom mic coming into the top of the shot a few times was supposed to mean?
That means the projectionist in your theater needs to be fired.
that's true. i could never read any of the subtitles. i hope there wasn't any important info given through subtitles. the opening sequence of the film had the bottom portion of the frame above it, so someone went and told the projector..........so the boom mic wasn't meant to be seen? i thought it was part of the film seriously.
this happened to me during both ranson and hannibal. most projectionists have no love for film. they even treat them like... shit.
Speaking as a projectionnist, I can tell you we're not all like that. I, personally, am always careful to get the best framing possible. I have been known to treat trailers poorly, though.
Yeah, I was the head projectionist for two years at my theater back home and while I was there, I ran a pretty tight ship.
I think that a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that most major chain theaters are now making the managers the projectionists. These are people who don't spend time with the film and the equipment. Also, now they're pulling the green bands off the trailers and that's the best time to frame a film when you start it.
I'm actually volunteering at SXSW this year on the film revision crew... I'll have to build up and break down films again... I haven't done it in a couple of years... Hope I still have the stuff.
I finally saw this movie last night. Here are my thoughts.
I really, really liked it. But I liked it when it had it's own voice--before it deviated into the conventional movie. Once it did that, I fucking hated it. I mean looooathed it. I got it. I got what it was trying to do--what it was saying--but that doesn't mean I liked it (yes, yes, I know it was the contrast between conventional and artistic or original. I know it was showing the evolution being forced upon it and you weren't even supposed to like it.). But that still doesn't mean the point was made the best way it could have been.
As for the message: the world forces it's inhabitants to adapt to their environments. And in order to experience life, one must change--usually not for the best (as the movie showed). But everyone owes it to themselves to be a dynamic character rather than living their life as a static one.
Was in WHSmith today and was reading a kick ass indepth article on Adaptation. I didn't have my credit card so I couldn't buy it, but will sometime soon. I'm trying to remember everything- it was set up kind of like a diary of how Charlie Kauffman wrote the script.
- Much of what is in the movie really happened (no shit)- i.e. him in the restaurant talking about adapting the book. Some funny stuff though, comments from the real Susan Orlean on how she felt when she read the script and found out that she was in it- she said the script was fascinating, but she was a little reluctant at first to let them use her name. Eventually she gave in, and she thought it was funny/weird that Charlie jacks off to her picture in it
- Charlie Kauffman wanted to return the advance money he was given to adapt The Orchid Theif because he couldn't think of anything.
- Jonathen Demme let Spike direct after he saw Being John Malcovich.
- Demme and the producers were a little confused when they got the first draft from Charlie because they had no idea who Donald Kauffman was. It wasn't until they read it when they found out 'the truth.'
-It took Spike Jonze 18 months to edit it! That's the second longest editing job in Columbia movie history! (I forgot the first one, it wasn't a movie I was familiar with) He said that because of the non-linear structure he was exploring a number of different possibilites in the editing room. He also said that the first cut was 4 hours long and incredibly bad, he stressed the word "awful."
There was a lot more cool stuff about it, but I can't remember exactly. I'll try to by the mag this weekend and will type it all up and post.
Quote from: RegularKarateYeah, I was the head projectionist for two years at my theater back home and while I was there, I ran a pretty tight ship.
I think that a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that most major chain theaters are now making the managers the projectionists. These are people who don't spend time with the film and the equipment. Also, now they're pulling the green bands off the trailers and that's the best time to frame a film when you start it.
I'm actually volunteering at SXSW this year on the film revision crew... I'll have to build up and break down films again... I haven't done it in a couple of years... Hope I still have the stuff.
Yeah, I work at one of those chain theatres, but they let supervisors do it, so we take it a bit more seriously. We're up there all the time and it's all we have to do. That's what's bad with having managers do it, they just thread the films and go back to work, doing something else. Tsk Tsk.
Yeah... we had walkie talkies and were constantly making the rounds to make sure nothing was starting to wrap and everything was still framed.
In fact, only projectionists were even allowed up there, unless there was something important that needed to be said. We even occasionally kicked Managers out of the booth.
you never know what to expect from kaufman / jonze so, seeing the boom mic, i began to run all these theories about the movie was a movie being filmed while it was written
...or something like that
I loved this movie. Tied with PDL I think.
Anyway, it reminded me of Barton Fink in many ways, writers in self-imposed hells, apocalyptic endings.
Theory: Donald's script, The Three, featured three people who were all one person. If you think about it, the three main characters in Adaptation, Charlie, Laroche, and Susan, were all one person in their desire for something to love, something to obsess about. I don't know what the significance of that is, but it's something. :(
Things I loved about Adaptation:
The opening, which caused us to giggle uncontrollably.
Meryl Streep growling 'You fat fuck!' - unforgettable.
Nicholas Cage - totally managed to make me forget he was the same actor, specially in the heart to heart.
I didn't like the movie as much as the screenplay though. I was just conscious all the time of how great the writing was and how the actual film didn't quite match up. I don't know why. Same with Being John Malkovich in a way. That movie leaves me cold for some reason, even though I admire the concept. I enjoyed Adaptation much more though, and as a screenplay at least it's much stronger than PDL, though the comparison is pointless.
I agree that comparing Adaptation and Punch Drunk Love is pointless. One thing I thoroughly enjoyed was Brian Cox's Robert McKee monologue on stage. the other very memorable parts would be anything that came out of Chris Cooper's mouth (the lines.. not the teeth) and the unforgettable climax. Whatta film.
Although I love the movie, with reference to the final shot I have to ask: does anyone else get reminded too much of the ending of The Player to find it TOTALLY amazing...?
Finally saw it. actually today also saw Far From Heaven which was great. But this one totally blew me away, I just couldn't take my eyes off it, it was a marvelous script, astonishing performances ... everything great.
Kaufman is simply a genous, as some poster mentioned I couldn't see ever what was coming next and was so curious about how in the hell he was going to ended it, the film (IMO) is perfect.
Favourite moments:
- While in the writers seminar or whatever, the voice over of Kaufman saying he just hit bottom by attending.
- Phone conversation between Orlean (when she was high) and Laroche.
- Catherine Keener is in my house?
Cage really outdid himself, he was just a knock out, the personalities were beyond perfection.
Anyway, amazing film on every aspect.
Just one question because I totally missed it, why the waitress reacted that way when he asked to come to the exhibition?
Changing the subject finally onlate april PDL will arrive, can't wait.
i think it's because she was being nice as a waiter, and he took it to mean that she was attracted to him.
Quote from: bigideasi think it's because she was being nice as a waiter, and he took it to mean that she was attracted to him.
I asked the same question and got the exact same answer. It's still not perfectly clear to me when I see it. It seems like there's a piece of dialogue missing or something, like where she would say "Oh, I'm sorry...I'm busy" or something like that. I don't get how the conversation just stops all of a sudden. She doesn't really shoot him down...but he reacts like she does.
I don't know. I love the movie. I don't know what I'm talking about.
sometimes conversations are awkward
So did we figure out when the "switch" happens? (when it becomes Donald's movie) .... I think it's as soon as Donald reads the script. He immediately sounds more intelligent, and they start fulfilling Donald's strange cliche ideas.. like dancing to that one song, and spying on Susan Orlean... there are more details that I can't remember, but yeah, that's when it happens, right?
Donald's "the three" is making fun of Phillip K. Dick's 'A Scanner Darkly.' A book which charlie himself was asked to adapt and whose script was rejected by the producers.
SPOLIER STUFF
In an early draft of the script, like early early 99, the ending was a bit more fantastical. Donald and charlie run through the swamp and find a small plane. they start flying away and orlean is shooting her gun out the passenger side window of laroche's van and the plane explodes in a ball of fire and they land in a lake. charlie is attacked by an alligator and donald grabs a broken shard of the planes window or something and stabs the alligator. They break free and wash up on shore where donald dies, i forget how, either shot, or injured by the explosion. Charlie is then chased by laroche and orlean until the final sequence where, and i'm not joking, a giant bigfootesque swamp ape, mildly referred to earlier in the script, leaps out of the swamp, presumably all CG and attacks laroche and the ranger from the beginning of the movie arresting laroche. it kills the ranger and leaves. laroche is just about to kill charlie when donald comes out of nowhere and kills laroche. donald's dying words "at least now you have a great third act."
i can see why they toned it down, but isn't that fuckin hilarious?
nic cage's best line in the whole movie, when charlie invites donald to new york...
"Oh my God, yes!"
it's perfectly pronounced and emphasizes Donald's longing for a relationship with his brother.
this film is now on the dollar theater circuit. it's playing here. if it's anything like PDL, i'd better catch it this week.
actually, i remember Adaptation stayed at our theater about 3 or 4 weeks. i think 25th Hour came here the same week and only lasted a week.
to be honest, i didn't put two and two together either.
there were interferences though.
for one, the film was projected wrong (i couldn't read any of the titles)
for two, there was a couple talking annoyingly.
i remember getting real bored at some point in the film, but i want to see it again.
hopefully i'll catch it for 3 bucks this week.
Quote from: bigideashopefully i'll catch it for 3 bucks this week.
Or save that cash and pick up the DVD on the 20th.
yeah, but it doesn't seem like a film that i would watch over and over......and the dvd is bare bones, right?
today is the 20th, everyone go out and buy adaptation.
$16.99 at Best Buy for the Superbit version.
Can anyone beat that?
Gee willikers, I haven't seen this yet, and even though I think I've read lots of spoilers on this board, I still really want to see it but I'm really low on cash so I'm going to read that Stealing DVD thread now
Got mine today for $29.99 CDN, which is about $22 US.
damnit! I just bought mine at stupid blockbuster for $26!!!!!!!!
cbrad=sucker
its a delicious dvd though.
Best Buy is the only way to go. if you bring an add where something is cheaper, they'll give it to you for that price.
just bought adaptation and 25th hour for $35.
godbless 'em
Quote from: cbrad4ddamnit! I just bought mine at stupid blockbuster for $26!!!!!!!!
cbrad=sucker
its a delicious dvd though.
shit, me too
It seems that the first week a new title is out, Best Buy sells them for 15.99, Adaptation was 16.99, and then a next week it goes back up to 19.99. Best buy is the way to go, or deepdiscountdvd.com
I find it so funny that Brian Cox's character says NOT TO USE VOICE OVER and in 25th hour, the movie ends with his character's voice over
Is Adaptation expecting a future release with bonus materials?
i watched it for the first time on Tuesday night, watched it again last night...more amazing than i ever could've thought.
I just got it yesterday for 25.99 (CDN), and while I was at the store I picked up High Fidelity for only 11.99! That's a great price and it even has better features than Adaptation!! Quite honestly I don't give a shit about superbit....
perhaps some of you already found the easter egg on the dvd...
go to the 'play movie' option, press up on your remote and select the phone....the number is a real answering machine that will let you leave an actual message that just might be listened to by someone!
o, cool- i'll try that.
Another weird thing on the DVD is that in Donald Kaufman's filmography he's credited to writing The 3 (2004). Is this actually going to be a movie, or is it just a sick joke?....
well, theres nothing about it up on imdb....
Must be a sick joke. Besides, they'd have to use a lot of trick photography to film it.
ha ha ha
Did anyone get that little piece of paper on the inside of the case about 'wanting the DVD to have no clips on the case' ??
Quote from: Derek237Is this actually going to be a movie, or is it just a sick joke?....
a sick joke that obviously took you for a ride... :)
i got no insert at all in mine, scan yours
Quote from: auroraDid anyone get that little piece of paper on the inside of the case about 'wanting the DVD to have no clips on the case' ??
Yea, I got that thing.
Quote from: auroraDid anyone get that little piece of paper on the inside of the case about 'wanting the DVD to have no clips on the case' ??
yeah i got that too. got my copy used for 5$ so i figured it was a promotional copy or something.
it's on columbia tristar home entertainment stationary and it reads...
***from the desk of robert stephenson
clair... please use a dvd case without these clips. we don't have anything to clip in. can you find out about pricing and a time frame for this? thanks, bob***
yeah that was weird when i opened the dvd but still very amusing.
yeah, that was good stuff
Quote from: Duck SauceQuote from: Derek237Is this actually going to be a movie, or is it just a sick joke?....
a sick joke that obviously took you for a ride... :)
I knew it would be fake I just wanted to make sure ;)
Yeah same here. It's not as if when I saw it I jumped up screaming "OMG! THE 3'S GONNA BE A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" :lol:
I rented a DVD copy and then just copied it on to VHS, so now I own my own VHS copy of it. I'm cool
Quote from: bigideasyeah, but it doesn't seem like a film that i would watch over and over......and the dvd is bare bones, right?
Yes.. but its a great piece of cinema...
I guess its kindof funny that Charlie actually couldn't adapt the book so he came up with this "script".
Now, not to say that I don't like it.. thats not true, I love it to bits.. its really really goddamnned good... But.. I just wish I knew how the fuck he wrote this, when he came up with the idea of his twin brother and such.. Charlie thinking WAY outside of the box.
And I guess I can't in my brain think of the end of the movie being something that donald "wrote" because obviously Charlie wrote it all.. but I look at it as the begining was the actual struggle of Charlie and when Donald states that its "missing something" thats still Charlie writing but its just his way of finishing the script since there isn't anything interesting about the struggle of Charlie adapting this book.....
And I accept that its just a big masturbatory joke and I laugh because I know it is, but in reality.. thats whats really great about it because he is showing how "successful" movies do cheat and use things like a deus ex machina...
I had quite the movie going experience when I watched this because I had already loved charlie's work in 'Being J.M.' and didn't truthfully know that he didn't have a twin brother untill the ending of the movie I assumed he never really existed.
Wow.. that was really random.
Cage was sooooooo good in this. He was really something as two of my favourite characters of the year. Kaufman twins: one a depressed nuerotic who looks like he's in pain all the time, the other is laid back, cheery and confident.
I felt so sorry for Charlie in much of the film e.g. the scene where he's standing around on the set of 'Malkovich' and waves to Cusack, who kinda snubs him. Then the same to Keener, who barely notices him. The he looks over at Donald whose easily chatting up the makeup girl. I saw a younger me in Charlie, right there.
Quick question: Am I the only one who didn't feel any sympathy for Streep's character? I personally just didn't like her in it. Everyone seems to love her in it.
Quote from: oakmanc234
Quick question: Am I the only one who didn't feel any sympathy for Streep's character? I personally just didn't like her in it. Everyone seems to love her in it.
I actually did, until the "this is Donald's script in action" part, where she's not meant to be a "real" character. Why didn't you like her? I think when we saw her feeling trapped and then disappointed with her idea of escape, she was quite sympathetic; in addition, she really represented almost a controlling metaphor for the film as far as the "reality" of her character was intact.
i luuuuuuuuv miss streep. especially when she goes "oh I want to be an ant. they're so shiny!"
On a second watching I realised how bored I was getting in the scenes with Streep in. It's not that they're badly written or acted or directed, it's just that the story didn't interest me as much as Charlie's, and his parallels with it.
However: I did feel sympathy with her in her final scene, where she says something like, "I want to be new. I want to go back to before it all got fucked up. I want to be a baby." I thought that was a beautiful line.
Quote from: children with angelsOn a second watching I realised how bored I was getting in the scenes with Streep in. It's not that they're badly written or acted or directed, it's just that the story didn't interest me as much as Charlie's, and his parallels with it.
However: I did feel sympathy with her in her final scene, where she says something like, "I want to be new. I want to go back to before it all got fucked up. I want to be a baby." I thought that was a beautiful line.
Given that it takes place in the unreal/symbolic "Donald-written" section of the film, I thought that line, in addition to really being a beautiful thing, spoke to the frustration of the screenwriter at no longer being at the beginning of a project, not having that blank sheet and all the optimism it represents.
That's a cool reading: I really like that...
since that posting, i did see it again at the dollar theater. i enjoyed the film a whole lot more that time. i think part of it was because i actually started writing a screenplay since the first time i watched it.
did anyone get the dvd? i just wondered if this "superbit" is all it's cracked up to be.......and a general review of the disc itself. is there any word of a special edition? i can't remember if BJM was released in more than one version
oh....if you like Kaufman, rent Human Nature. this film got generally bad reviews, but i love it. i really gained a new respect for Tim Robbins. he's so great in all the various dinner scenes........i love the all white death room! and the blood dripping from his head
being john malkovich only got one region 1 dvd release. it had a few extras on it, but nothing big. i like kaufman and really didnt like human nature. saw it opening night. extremely disappointed. seemed like a good idea, but just not executed correctly. seemed too preachy.
Quote from: bigideasdid anyone get the dvd? i just wondered if this "superbit" is all it's cracked up to be.......and a general review of the disc itself.
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1704
Quote from: themodernage02being john malkovich only got one region 1 dvd release. it had a few extras on it, but nothing big. i like kaufman and really didnt like human nature. saw it opening night. extremely disappointed. seemed like a good idea, but just not executed correctly. seemed too preachy.
I rented
Human Nature and was pleasantly surprised. I guess the bar had been lowered 'cos I'd heard so many, many negative things about it, but... I liked it. I thought it was too light to be preachy, really. I thought the rats were cute. This was before
Royal Tenenbaums with its dalmation mice... wasn't it? Not exactly the same thing, but similar enough. For my mind to free-associate them.
I love Human Nature. Some days I wake up and it's my favorite Kaufman movie.
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: SalIs Adaptation expecting a future release with bonus materials?
Yes. Don't know when that edition will be released.
is there an article about this with details about extras, etc?
columbia/tri-star is expected to release a special edition of the film
sedated extras are being gathered as we speak (they ran away before they could be packaged into the initial release)
no words on when
there is no page i can cite, nor can i tell you about any of the extras because we just don't know what's going to be included.
Quote from: CollinBullockI rented a DVD copy and then just copied it on to VHS, so now I own my own VHS copy of it. I'm cool
You'd THINK that, wouldn't you?
But yeah, this movie rocked and I think "The 3" would only be cool for monetary value (like Freddy Vs. Jason). I'd see it to say "I saw the 3!"
How many other Charlie Kaufman movies are there?
4.
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Kaufman,+Charlie
did anyone ever call the number?
i just bought it at Blockbuster for 6.99 and it's like new. no telling when the SE will come out, so this will tide me over.
oh, unfortunately the piece of paper asking for no clips in the DVD case wasn't in there
QuoteI rented a DVD copy and then just copied it on to VHS, so now I own my own VHS copy of it. I'm cool
.... :? .... i thought that this couldn't be done ???.......you can't hook up a vcr and a dvd player and record from the dvd to a tape.....can you?
Quote from: NEON MERCURYQuoteI rented a DVD copy and then just copied it on to VHS, so now I own my own VHS copy of it. I'm cool
.... :? .... i thought that this couldn't be done ???.......you can't hook up a vcr and a dvd player and record from the dvd to a tape.....can you?
A little box can be used to defeat Macrovision. Not every DVD has copy protection (MGM doesn't use it), and some releases from studios that normally use it might not have it. Older VCRs often don't recognize the Macrovision so it doesn't cause weird artifacts when copying.
Reviving a really old thread because, well, who knows? This forum should be busier. That's all I know.
Quote from: In the 77th Annual Academy Awards thread, CinephileQuote from: ono mo cuishleHere's the thing about Eternal Sunshine. Kaufman is a great writer. We all know that. However, both Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. suffered greatly in the third act. Still, people embraced them, especially outside the mainstream.
the genius is that it becomes Donald's movie --but that can be discussed further in the Adaptation thread (that new forum needs some attention as it is).
I realize that, but here's the paradox - once the film becomes Donald's film, it becomes a bad film. That's not really genius, that's a gimmick. It's a cute gimmick, but still a gimmick that leaves the viewer really unsatisfied. All you can do is sit back and say, "hm, that's cute." But there's really nothing much more to it. It becomes empty.
The fact that Kaufman was able to solve these problems and say something with Eternal Sunshine makes his accolades all the sweeter.
See also: http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=31059#31059
I think when you first realize where the third act is going its "cute," and then you realized the ridiculous levels Kaufman is taking this idea to and it becomes hilarious and pretty genius.
The third act becomes even worse when its realized how directly it was ripped from Fellini's 8 1/2. Fellini gives into his fantasy and Kaufman gives into my assumption he had nowhere to go. Even the rest of the film before it was fluff material about the artist's struggle. I remember the most striking thing about the entire movie it was the first to accomplish the problem of having the same actor play two characters and habit the same scene.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI remember the most striking thing about the entire movie it was the first to accomplish the problem of having the same actor play two characters and habit the same scene.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00004U0MI.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=6925caf9fc21484516aafeb40cca487553a6404f)
the third act reminds me more of Sullivans Travels, where, the movie changes because it has to. the brilliant thing about it though is the first time you watch the film you dont realize when it starts to change. you are drawn into the intrigue and mystery that starts to develop long before you realize you are in donalds movie. i dont think its gimmicky, it ends where it has to.
Robert McKee: I'll tell you a secret. The last act makes the film. Wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. You can have flaws, problems, but wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. Find an ending, but don't cheat, and don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina. Your characters must change, and the change must come from them. Do that, and you'll be fine.
I attended a screening of Adaptation in Boston today, where afterward Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Susan Orlean, and Charlie Kaufman went on stage to have an hour long panel discussion about the film.
First of all, people can ask REALLY stupid questions at panel discussions. Too many people begin their questions with "Thank you for taking the time to come", and "I really love your work/this film." Why Why WHY do people do this! We can get more out of the discussion if these things are avoided. Also, a guy embarrassed himself by saying that he loved the film except when they go to Florida (the last 1/4 of the film) and Donald finishes the script." Charlie responds that actually it was Charlie that finished the script, since Donald doesn't exist. Later, a "writer" began is question by saying "By the way, I have 500 films in my netflix queue, only because that's all they allow me to have" prompting groans throughout the room. Again, people, PLEASE think before you waste a beautiful opportunity to get in-depth, RARE, insightful information from truly genius people.
Anyway, some tidbits that I remember:
- the real John Laroche (played in the film by Chris Cooper) took the money they paid him to use him in the film, and got himself some brand new teeth (this information courtesy of Susan Orlean). This was the first that Streep had ever heard of this, and she was QUITE upset.
- a guy gave Meryl a blueberry scone, and then asked who keeps her from thinking she is as godly as her hype has allowed her to. She said her husband and 4 kids.
- Kaufman gave a summary and analysis of the Sandler film "50 First Dates" and capped off the summary with "How Fucked up is that!"
- The real life Robert McKee made Kaufman revise his screenplay because he didn't like his portrayal in the film. He also really doesn't believe in voiceovers as a good element to put into a screenplay, but, according to Kaufman, qualifies his reasons well.
- New Line had to license the rights to every character in the film, except Kaufman. This turned messy, when New LIne then started to believe that they actuall owned Charlie Kaufman's name, and told him he could never use it again, leading to a legal battle that Kaufman won (that's so fucked even though I don't understand how that works).
- someone asked how they did Cooper's teeth. He had some pressings made, waited a month, and on the day of the first shoot, the day that Cooper meets Streep for the first time in his life, they decide the teeth are the wrong color, and they have to redo them. Cooper said he was unimaginably embarrassed and ashamed.
- Adaptation took 11 months to edit. During these 11 months, Nicholas Cage constantly had to come in to redo his voiceovers because they changed the order of the film so often.
cool. i'm really surprised they had something like this for this film since it's been out so long.
who put it all together?
did kaufman talk about his next project(s)? supposedly a horror film sorta.
ya tickets to this sold out way earlier than i expected so I didn't go. It was apart of a two-day thing for Mery Streep, and they'll be screening the new Altman film, no?
Yes?
The screening for A Prairie Home Companion was the night before the Adaptation deal. I really liked it, really funny, good music, good performances from everyone except Madsen. The sold out audience really liked it too, it was mostly an older crowd, most seemed to be familiar with the show, with everyone around me laughing at things that I could only imagine being funny because of references to inside jokes. Not being familiar with the real show didn't bring the film down at all though. I think everyone here is really going to like it.
I'm watching this currently and I just wanted to ask couple questions.
A few people on this board, have mentioned dislike for the third act among other various critiques.
I just want to understand a continuity issue: The third act begins when donald comes to new york ( not quite sure) however the Indian man who meets Susie Q in the 1st act is fascinated with her hair, and Susie Q & Laroche concede that it was because he was high off of the ghost Orchid.
Oh holy shit. I just typed this and realized maybe donald is not actually real, sort of like in his script the 3 script as he explained, that the 2 people are actually one person. at first when donald pitches it to charles replies by says something along the lines of "Have you considered how to shoot this or whatever, and Donald says, "trick photography." I always sort of assumed that although donald doesn't exist in real life, I felt that he was simply a catalyst in taking over the 3rd act because his "genre is thriller."
Does this make any sense, am just an idiot for now noticing this, or am way off?
Post script: I'm pretty out of my element, so i do apologize if this assemblage of words does not make any sense.
I think you're getting it neil...but i just wanted to say
Quote from: P on February 28, 2005, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI remember the most striking thing about the entire movie it was the first to accomplish the problem of having the same actor play two characters and habit the same scene.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00004U0MI.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=6925caf9fc21484516aafeb40cca487553a6404f)
When i was a kid and i saw this at the video store i assumed that there were twin actors out there, one named Jean Claude and another named Van Damme