← Back to Reviews
in
#527 - Adaptation
Spike Jonze, 2002
A neurotic screenwriter struggles with his latest project, which is an adaptation of a non-fiction book about a rogue horticulturist.
For the creative team of director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, following up their highly acclaimed initial collaboration Being John Malkovich wasn't going to be easy. Fortunately, the struggle to produce something just as fresh and inventive as that bizarre little fantasy film ended up being the ideal inspiration for a follow-up film, though it is one that tests the audience's tolerance for suspension of disbelief and authorial self-indulgence. The film follows screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (played in-universe by Nicolas Cage) as he gets to work on his follow-up to Being John Malkovich, which is an adaptation of the non-fiction book The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean (played in-universe by Meryl Streep). The book covers Orlean's investigation of a white horticulturist (Chris Cooper) whose legal troubles over obtaining rare and environmentally protected orchids form the basis for Orlean's book as she follows him around and observes his process. The incredibly self-conscious Charlie hits writer's block as he works to figure out how to work Orlean's interesting but fairly straightforward and anti-climatic book into a captivating yet sufficiently unconventional screenplay. His difficult situation is only exacerbated by the presence of his happy-go-lucky twin brother Donald (Cage again), who is Charlie's opposite in just about everything except physical appearance. This is especially true of Donald's own forays into screenwriting, which are trite, nonsensical, and naturally received much more warmly than Charlie's more challenging and complex work.
Adaptation does feature a lot of the usual hand-biting humour that accompanies virtually every film associated with Hollywood culture, but that well-trod ground isn't given as much priority as Kaufman's own self-deprecating depiction of not only his writer's block but also his day-to-day existence. This extends to a very unflattering self-portrait where Charlie is constantly obsessing over his personal flaws and making virtually every instance of him talking to other people extremely awkward (especially when it comes to women that he finds attractive). Cage not only sells Charlie's nervousness very well, but he also manages to play the incredibly excitable and silly Donald to the hilt as well. This role could have been extremely annoying (which is arguably the intention, at least initially) but Cage channels his usual manic energy into this character and makes him oddly charming even as he spouts all kinds of tiresome think-positive platitudes, resulting in what might possibly be Cage's greatest performance. Streep brings a cultured dignity to her role as a New Yorker journalist, which makes for a great balance against Cooper's Oscar-winning turn as the colourful, fast-talking Orchid Thief himself. The rest of the film is peppered with some decent enough characters played by recognisable faces; the most memorable one is definitely Brian Cox as screenwriting lecturer Robert McKee, who manages to make the most of his brief amount of screen-time with an expletive-laden rant about the point of writing. (Side-note: I did a course on screenwriting several years ago - during one session, the lecturer actually screened the scene in question in a self-reflexive act that would definitely be in keeping with the film's tongue-in-cheek attitude.)
On a technical level, Jonze brings his usual quasi-experimental style to the proceedings in order to lend some impressive illumination to Charlie's muddled attempts at writing and also the story himself. Fast cuts, stock footage, and of course trick photography are all employed to not only tell the story of The Orchid Thief but also Charlie's own story, especially when the two divergent plots eventually start to intertwine as his writing process starts to seriously break down under mounting pressure. The third act...well, without giving too much away it is ultimately designed to break away from the standards set by the first two acts, but whether or not the conscious decision to do so actually benefits the film or damages it will probably vary from viewer to viewer. At the very least, while I can accept why it had to happen and the fact that even I can't think of how the film should have ended, there's still something about it that doesn't work all that well. Even so, that's a minor complaint against a very quirky little film that does a great job of illustrating the mind-bending problems that can come with translating one artwork into another. The performances are great and work off a good script, which is all shot through with a largely unobtrusive music-video style. I may be due for re-watches of Being John Malkovich and Where the Wild Things Are, but until then I'm more than happy to cite Adaptation as my favourite Jonze film. I'm not sure if it's my favourite Kaufman script (again, more re-watches are in order), but I like that it offers a fairly fresh spin on what could have been another tiresome Hollywood satire.
Spike Jonze, 2002
A neurotic screenwriter struggles with his latest project, which is an adaptation of a non-fiction book about a rogue horticulturist.
For the creative team of director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, following up their highly acclaimed initial collaboration Being John Malkovich wasn't going to be easy. Fortunately, the struggle to produce something just as fresh and inventive as that bizarre little fantasy film ended up being the ideal inspiration for a follow-up film, though it is one that tests the audience's tolerance for suspension of disbelief and authorial self-indulgence. The film follows screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (played in-universe by Nicolas Cage) as he gets to work on his follow-up to Being John Malkovich, which is an adaptation of the non-fiction book The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean (played in-universe by Meryl Streep). The book covers Orlean's investigation of a white horticulturist (Chris Cooper) whose legal troubles over obtaining rare and environmentally protected orchids form the basis for Orlean's book as she follows him around and observes his process. The incredibly self-conscious Charlie hits writer's block as he works to figure out how to work Orlean's interesting but fairly straightforward and anti-climatic book into a captivating yet sufficiently unconventional screenplay. His difficult situation is only exacerbated by the presence of his happy-go-lucky twin brother Donald (Cage again), who is Charlie's opposite in just about everything except physical appearance. This is especially true of Donald's own forays into screenwriting, which are trite, nonsensical, and naturally received much more warmly than Charlie's more challenging and complex work.
Adaptation does feature a lot of the usual hand-biting humour that accompanies virtually every film associated with Hollywood culture, but that well-trod ground isn't given as much priority as Kaufman's own self-deprecating depiction of not only his writer's block but also his day-to-day existence. This extends to a very unflattering self-portrait where Charlie is constantly obsessing over his personal flaws and making virtually every instance of him talking to other people extremely awkward (especially when it comes to women that he finds attractive). Cage not only sells Charlie's nervousness very well, but he also manages to play the incredibly excitable and silly Donald to the hilt as well. This role could have been extremely annoying (which is arguably the intention, at least initially) but Cage channels his usual manic energy into this character and makes him oddly charming even as he spouts all kinds of tiresome think-positive platitudes, resulting in what might possibly be Cage's greatest performance. Streep brings a cultured dignity to her role as a New Yorker journalist, which makes for a great balance against Cooper's Oscar-winning turn as the colourful, fast-talking Orchid Thief himself. The rest of the film is peppered with some decent enough characters played by recognisable faces; the most memorable one is definitely Brian Cox as screenwriting lecturer Robert McKee, who manages to make the most of his brief amount of screen-time with an expletive-laden rant about the point of writing. (Side-note: I did a course on screenwriting several years ago - during one session, the lecturer actually screened the scene in question in a self-reflexive act that would definitely be in keeping with the film's tongue-in-cheek attitude.)
On a technical level, Jonze brings his usual quasi-experimental style to the proceedings in order to lend some impressive illumination to Charlie's muddled attempts at writing and also the story himself. Fast cuts, stock footage, and of course trick photography are all employed to not only tell the story of The Orchid Thief but also Charlie's own story, especially when the two divergent plots eventually start to intertwine as his writing process starts to seriously break down under mounting pressure. The third act...well, without giving too much away it is ultimately designed to break away from the standards set by the first two acts, but whether or not the conscious decision to do so actually benefits the film or damages it will probably vary from viewer to viewer. At the very least, while I can accept why it had to happen and the fact that even I can't think of how the film should have ended, there's still something about it that doesn't work all that well. Even so, that's a minor complaint against a very quirky little film that does a great job of illustrating the mind-bending problems that can come with translating one artwork into another. The performances are great and work off a good script, which is all shot through with a largely unobtrusive music-video style. I may be due for re-watches of Being John Malkovich and Where the Wild Things Are, but until then I'm more than happy to cite Adaptation as my favourite Jonze film. I'm not sure if it's my favourite Kaufman script (again, more re-watches are in order), but I like that it offers a fairly fresh spin on what could have been another tiresome Hollywood satire.