Adaptation

[sphinx]

it almost sounds like a sort of andy kaufman-ish ploy to execute...

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

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

[Dirk]

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.

[Duck Sauce]

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.

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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

[Gold Trumpet]

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

[Jeremy Blackman]

If we're searching for a message, one of Donald's last lines struck me:

"We are what we love, not what loves us"

[xerxes]

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

i couldn't disagree more with this review

[sphinx]

just got an original, double sided adaptation poster in the mail today.  god, it kicks ass

[©brad]

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

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.

[Duck Sauce]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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:

The more you say things like that, the more I think you can't form your own opinion.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Streep 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.

[bonanzataz]

I very much enjoyed the "dial tone" scene. Streep's performance was fucking amazing.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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...