Adaptation is a film about itself. Its concept is really ingenious if you think about it. You have no idea what to talk about, so you just talk about not knowing what to talk about. This struggle to say something becomes the subject of your conversation, story, movie, or in my case, blog. Adaptation is compelling to watch because anybody who has ever sat behind a desk to write can relate to Charlie Kaufman's struggles with writer's block in the movie. What makes this movie so absurd and so brilliant is that he turns the writer's block against itself and writes a movie about it. Not only is Charlie the protagonist of his own story, but he himself dictates what happens next. It's kind of like one of those paradoxical time travel scenarios where you get to watch him write his own story, except that there would be no way for us to watch him write his story if he didn't already write it. Trippy, huh?
The film opens on the set of Being John Malkovich (which I have not seen but am now very interested in), where its writer Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) overlooks the production. He is nervous, pathetic, sweaty, balding, fat, and disgusting. We don't have to make any presumptions about these characteristics because he admits them himself in a self loathing voice over. Kaufman has written this script to make fun of himself and to the writing process itself by breaking all the conventional rules. He's inserted himself into his own screenplay, self indulgence and narcissism be damned. He uses extensive voice overs, a tool saved for lazy and sloppy writers. There isn't even a coherent structure to his plot, he's not sure if he wants to write about himself or about the book he is supposed to be adapting, which is kind of the point.
Charlie is given the task of adapting the book The Orchard Thief into a screenplay. The only problem (for Charlie at least) is that the book isn't really about anything. There is no structure, no real drama or plot, just the inner musings of its author. The book is about the author's encounters and impression of John Laroche, a man who was caught stealing rare orchids. The actual crime itself isn't what makes the book compelling. The real drawing point is the personal insights of the author, Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep), but how do you make a movie about someone's thoughts? Charlie manages to do exactly that, for not only Susan but himself as well.
The film isn't entirely self-referential, he actually does the task of telling Susan's story as well, whose narrative can best be described by her quote, "I suppose I do have one unembarrassed passion. I want to know what it feels like to care about something passionately." This comes from her dealings with Laroche (Chris Cooper) who, on the surface, looks and talks completely insane, but has an incredible passion and understanding of plants that Susan has never felt or known about anything in her life. I am reminded by a little scene in the movie Searching for Bobby Fischer where the father says of his chess prodigy son, "He's better at this than I've ever been at anything in my life. He's better at this than you'll ever be at anything." It is truly a humbling feeling to be in the presence of such passion, insight, genius, greatness, etc that you never knew existed, especially not within yourself.
What does it mean to adapt? The film is literally about Charlie's attempt to adapt Susan's book into a movie, but what it is really about is how people adapt, how they change. Charlie goes through much of the movie thinking nothing ever happens in life. He wants to represent Susan's book authentically without sex or drugs or intrigue, where nobody has any life changing epiphanies. To him, the book, the world, himself, is about disappointment. But in order to actually write this screenplay he must adapt his own beliefs and outlook. Susan says of her own adaptation, "What I came to understand is that change is not a choice. Not for a species of plant, and not for me." John Laroche's whole life is a series of adaptations. He goes from loving turtles to loving fish and then out of the blue, dropping fish altogether to move on to the next thing, plants. He was once married and able to divorce and move on. He had a nursery destroyed by a hurricane and is able to recover and move on. He never dwells or reflects, he just adapts.
The movie itself adapts as well and reflects Charlie's own transformation. It does whatever it needs to do to tell a compelling story and makes fun of the whole process. Charlie breaks all his own rules in this movie. He turns himself into the protagonist of someone else's story, uses voice overs to convey his thoughts and derides himself for doing so at the same time. While originally intending to make an authentic and faithful screenplay to the book, he openly cops out and takes all the advice he can get and does everything he said he wouldn't do.
Charlie: The book has no story. There's no story.
Marty: Alright. Make one up.
This of course leads to the discussion of Adaptation's third act which is just bizarre. The film goes from being a smart and thoughtful comedy-drama loosely based on true events to a complete Hollywood farce. Despite telling his fictitious twin brother that he doesn't "do that kind of writing" he does exactly that and makes a completely unpredictable and exciting ending. How you feel about this movie will probably be decided by its sudden shift in tone, which if you really think about it, makes the film a lot worse. It doesn't really make any sense and is the sloppy and lazy writing that Kaufman wanted to avoid, yet it fits in perfectly with its own theme of self-irony and actually makes for a fitting ending. Even if you dislike the direction of the third act, the first two are so strong that it would be hard to ignore how brilliant Adaptation is.
Grade: A
No comments:
Post a Comment