 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
| Adaptation
Directed By: Spike
Jonze Plot
Summary - Review 1 - Review
2 - CURRENT REVIEWS
|
|
| An account of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's (Cage) attempt to adapt Susan Orlean's (Streep) non-fiction book The Orchid Thief, which is the story of John Laroche (Cooper), a plant dealer who clones rare orchids then sells them to collectors. We see the action of the book as we see Kaufman struggle to adapt it into a movie. This is presumably a somewhat true story, as Charlie Kaufman is the real life screenwriter of Adaptation. [TRAILER] The appropriate review of “Adaptation” would be one in which I discuss writing a movie review. For you see, “Adaptation” is just as much about watching a movie as it is a movie in its own right. If that sounds confusing, well, we’re just getting started. “Adaptation” is written by screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, the same brilliant writer who worked on “Human Nature,” recently released on video, and “Being John Malkovich,” which was nominated for best picture in 1999. He is perhaps the most creative screenwriter working today, not only wandering off the beaten path but changing the very rules of cinema in the process. “Adaptation,” humorously enough, is about a screenwriter named Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage), attempting to produce a screenplay for the novel “The Orchid Thief,” about the obsession some have over the rare and precious flowers. He has encountered a fair amount of writer’s block, unable to find his inspiration, and goes looking for the novel’s attractive author, whom Kaufman has started fantasizing about, to break through his block. Kaufman is sick of traditional Hollywood movies. He wants to make something without guns, sex, or miraculous self-revelations; something that speaks to people with honesty and sincerity. Contrary to his purist ideals, Kaufman’s brother Donald (also played by Cage), is learning to write the most basic and formulaic scripts possible. His first success concerns a serial killer with multiple personalities. And so “Adaptation” goes along, making comments about filmmaking and writing, searching for inspiration everywhere and anywhere. But there is also something deeper behind all the jokes and silliness. “Being John Malkovich” was about a strange doorway in a random building. Walking through that door sent an individual into the mind of the actor John Malkovich, and gave them control over Malkovich’s mind and body. Yes, this was funny, but it also said something about individuality and personal freedom. And when Malkovich himself entered that room, the film took a turn towards the absurd. “Adaptation” is very much a similar film. It may be about screenwriting, writer’s block and orchid thieves, but it is also saying something about movies in general. True, Kaufman does not want his film to seem fake, but as he pursues the author of the novel, his adventure starts to include the very violence, gunfights, and self discovery he loathed. Subtly, beneath the surface, “Adaptation” adapts, becoming exactly what we expect from a traditional film. Only in the end is it obvious that the most hilarious joke has been pulled on us, the audience. We have watched the film, convinced we were leaving the shallowness of Hollywood behind us, only to be duped by a script that twists back on itself. It is hilarious because it takes the clichés of normal films, exposes them, criticizes them and then has the gall to reiterate them. “Adaptation” and the real Charlie Kaufman have toyed with our heads and leave us laughing at ourselves as much as the Kaufmans on the screen. Director Spike Jonze (“Three Kings”), who also collaborated with Kaufman on “Malkovich,” excels in accentuating “Adaptation’s” uniqueness. The film opens with Kaufman saying he wants to be unique, wants to avoid all clichés, but he then asks the biggest cliché of all: “How did I get here?” Jonze counters this question with a montage detailing the history of human civilization, from a world of magma to the first fish to crawl out of the water to Kaufman’s birth. Later, when the fictional Kaufman conceives of the very same sequence for his screenplay, “Adaptation” abandons all logic. Is this an original film or a film about a film? Is Kaufman a fictional character, or does the story parallel the writer’s block of the real Kaufman? Is “Adaptation” a film about the “The Orchid Thief,” or about the adaptation of “The Orchid Thief?” And while I believe “Adaptation” lacks the depth of “Malkovich,” and loses some of its power amid its self-reflexive humor, it is still fascinating to watch. It is one of the few films ever made that causes us to consciously reexamine how we are viewing it, and what expectations we bring to the table. Take a standard film review. You expect me to talk about the plot, the acting, and the bigger questions a film raises. You demand a rating. But what if I started talking about the review itself? What if my review became about my review? What if I told you about the paragraphs I had to cut concerning editing and Nicholas Cage playing two characters simultaneously? Or maybe I could talk about the uncomfortable seat I had at the screening and the bad coffee I drank… In “Adaptation’s” world, the line between fiction and reality is, at the very least, hilariously non-existent.  
Check out Reviews, Commentary, and More at Zertinet.com |
LINKS
TO REVIEWS |
| Movies
@ Zertinet | Oscars @ Zertinet
| Main Site Best Viewed
at 800 X 600 or greater |
|
