Know Thyself, and Write What You Know
Published December 05, 2002
Adaptation, the latest from the people who brought you Being John Malkovich, is chock full of hilarious moments. Lines fly fast and furiously as Nicholas Cage plays two roles: screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (who wrote both this film and Malkovich), and his twin brother Dave (who does not exist, no matter that he gets actual credit not only in the film but on all the ads and billboards).
The story, if there is one, concerns Kaufman's struggle to write a screenplay for The Orchid Thief, an Oprah Book Club selection which was written by Susan Orlean (here played by Meryl Streep) and was a best seller a few months ago. It is a real book, Ms. Orlean is a real writer (for the New Yorker), and the main character of Ms. Orlean's book, John LaRoche (played by Chris Cooper), is a real human being (an orchid smuggler, hence the name of the book).
The audacity Kaufman has in presenting real people in fake situations, just like in Malkovich, is the engine that carries the film. This story in particular, is a hilarious moment-by-writers'-blocked moment account of how painfully difficult it is to write a screenplay.
The movie flashes back and forth between Kaufman's (Cage) struggle at the typewriter in his lonely apartment, Susan Orlean's struggle to find meaning in her Upper Westside numbed existance as she writes her book several years earlier, and the actual smuggling incidents of LaRoche in Florida that set the whole thing in motion (plus a few side trips to Hollywood at A Million Years BC).
A highlight for me: the moment that the movie Kaufman is writing on screen catches up to the movie we are watching. I paraphrase badly, but at some point, Cage picks up a tape recorder to make notes, and says "Ok, Kaufman picks up a tape recorder and says, 'Ok, Kaufman picks up a tape recorder and says..." It's hilarious.
Add to this Kaufman's twin (also Cage) who decides he can easily write a Psycho Killer Screenplay, and does, and sells it for a million five, while flirting with every woman in Hollywood, including an uncredited Catherine Keener as Malkovich star Catherine Keener (joined by John Malkovich and John Cusack as Malkovich stars John Malkovich and John Cusack, respectively), and the continuity, logic and progession becomes so looney and obviously non-linear, that you wonder aloud if Kaufman ever took a screen writing class in his life.
- Know Thyself, and Write What You Know
- Published: December 05, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Books: Nonfiction, Video: Comedy
- Writer: skippy
- skippy's BC Writer page
- skippy's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
A movie about the Shaggs?!? Now, I'd definitely go see that!
I would too as long as there is no music in it, or at least none by them.
The third act did happen that way for a reason. The third act descended into hackery at the exact moment that Donald Kaufmann was asked to collaborate.
Also regarding how it was pitched, the basic plot of Kaufmann being unable to adapt the book and writing instead of his trouble in doing so is true. The screenplay was (I believe) written before Malkovich was even going to be produced so it was modified to reflect the reality that Kaufmann did have a movie in production.
A couple of things.
There were no meetings with execs - Kaufman turned this script in with no feedback from the studio - they were unaware that he'd written it as he had. He couldn't figure out how to adapt the book, and wrote this instead.
The script was written as Malkovich was in production, as in the film. He was also writing Confessions of a Dangerous Mind at that time, which is not reflected in Adaptation.
You've missed the point on the third act. As Daniel has pointed out, in part it happens because that's when Donald comes onto the project. Additionally, it happens because the film is, in many ways, about what audiences want, and whether or not it's the writer's job to give it to them, or if its better to force one's own mindset on the audience.
Also, since Donald does not exist, he is Charlie, or a fractured side of him. So that's an extension of the 'what do I give the audience' dialogue, and an attempt to confront his own approach to writing. The third act is entirely successful, and really the only way to conclude this film.
Initiallly I did not care for the way the film ended as well. But after watching it a second time, and then a third, I think I understand why the movie ended the way it did. Firstly, there is no clear-cut answer to where the screenplay and movie become one(if that makes sense). But the turning point, where the film becomes ridiculous, happens when Donald arrives in New York and reads Charlie's script. At that point the movie/screenplay becomes a Donald AND Charlie collaboration(mainly Donald) and how would the writer of "The 3" end this screenplay to the movie we've been watching so far? That's why, I believe, it turns into a Hollywood schlock thriller with sex,drugs,violence and probably every screenwriting "principle" Donald learnes in McKee's class. After this realization, the film, to me, is a work of sheer genius.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/2129)
I'm not a screenwriter, either, but I'm wondering -- great* review, by the way! -- how these movies should have concluded.
I agree that the rationale to BJM seemed like a wrong turn. But, I think I felt I had already got my money's worth by that point. How does one end a lunatic concept?
Perhaps, insterad of trying to re-ravel (yarn, not Maurice) the ball, it should have been allowed to unravel completely -- which it did with the scene in which JM enters JM, and all heck breaks loose.
They say all good plots turns on upheaval in the protagonist, the puppeteer. I think the movie did that, without the Boys from Brazil sequence.
In which case the need is not for an ending, but a middle ...
... or a whole new standard, the 50-minute feature film (add a Merry Melodies cartoon to pad out the matinee)?
No matter what, I love this guy just for thinkin' so very different (Jonzz, not you, skippy -- although I do like you).
It's kind of like how I remember being stoned -- you go not for the coherent entity as a whole, but for the skull-quaking effect of a few key moments.