Know Thyself, and Write What You Know
Published December 05, 2002
And, lo and behold, right after you wonder that, Cage's character, who heretofor chides Robert McKee's story structure class, winds up attending Robert McKee's story structure class (McKee is deftly played by Brian Cox, a high point in the film).
Since Orlean inserted her own life into her book, it only makes sense for Kaufman to do the same in his screeplay adaptation of that book. Brilliant? Unconventional? Nutty? Hilarious? Yes.
Does it work?
No.
Too bad. So sad. And who am I to say that Kaufman's two movie scripts break down at exactly the same point? No one, except a guy who came away from both mildly disappointed.
This guy can't write a third act to save himself. I loved the conceit of Being John Malkovich. It was brave and original and brilliant and funny. And then, suddenly, in the last half-hour, it lost the courage of its own convictions. Suddenly, it became a bad sci-fi channel movie (every 78 years we must find a new vessel to achieve immortality). I mean, who cares why the door lead to the Malkovich's brain, the fact that somebody bothered to write it, and get Malkovich to play it, was brilliant! We don' need no stinkin' explanation! If you're going to be Out There, don't hedge your bets by keeping one foot Back In Here.
And the same thing happed in Adaptation SPOILER HERE Searching for a third act, Kaufman/Cage and his brother Kaufman/Cage follow Orlean/Streep to Florida and spy on her in a pecadillo with LaRoche/Cooper. They catch Kaufman spying on them while they have sex and snort orchid essence powder. And so, Susan Orlean, writer for the New Yorker, established married woman and national figure, says, "We've got to kill him."
The movie degenerates into a chase film, which is exactly what Kaufman told the movie execs that he didn't want to write at the beginning of this story.
It's funny on paper, it's highly ironic, and must have been a hoot at the meetings Kaufman took with the Studio Execs. But it made no sense in reality, and the film, while having a structure that makes Pulp Fiction look like See Spot Run, was played very very realistically.
- 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.