*** Official "ADAPTATION" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Adaptation". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "Adaptation" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy

 

[Michael Reuben]

Dana, you and I probably passed each other in the hall. I saw the noon show at the AMC, which was in one of the big auditoriums.

My problem with the film begins with Charlie's trip to Florida. As the credits rolled, my wife and I agreed that the film from that point played out like one of Donald's scripts. I know we're not alone, because the NYTimes critic said the same thing (though he was much less bothered by it).

I'll probably give it a second viewing on DVD, just to see whether there's something I missed.

M.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Mike, you were there earlier than me; I caught the 5:30 show.
I know exactly what you're saying now, but I disagree it was distracting (ok, it wasn't distracting *for me* ). At the beginning, he expressly stated he didn't want to have the book adapted in a Hollywood fashion ("Guns, car chases..."), but when he started taking his brother's advice, that's exactly what ended up happening. Because the themes about adaptation given by Orlean (and expressed aloud by Charlie) were kept through much of that last third act, I had no problem with it.
It still worked out for Charlie -- the ending I thought fit perfectly with how it started, and felt natural.
I definitely need to give this one a second look!

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I've read similar complaints about the third act, but I think it fits perfectly with everything preceding it, not to mention that it is foreshadowed. I'd go into more detail, but David Poland starts to spell things out especially well in his Hot Button column. (Read today's for a breakdown of the first act, but avoid at all costs if you haven't seen the film.)

 

[Michael Reuben]

I didn't find the third act distracting, just dull -- all the more so because it was so literally "foreshadowed". But I'm happy that the film has fans and defenders, because anything this experimental is going to need them.

M.

 

[Quentin]

I think the problem with the "third act" (and, it must not be a huge problem...because I really like the film) is not that it feels like it's being made by different filmmakers, but that it ISN'T.

Allow me to clarify (spoilers follow): The third act is absolutely supposed to have been written by "Donald". Charlie couldn't do it, and as soon as he asks Donald to come to NY I would suggest everything is imaginary and "written" by Donald.

However, in reality it is still Spike making this film and, despite all his talent, he is not a "Hollywood" director. The result is an uneven and poorly edited fake Hollywood ending. If it had truly been done by Donald it would have looked slicker and moved MUCH faster...literally sprinting for the end. That way, the referential jokes would have punched harder and snapped by. Jonze DOES nail the scene with Charlie on the cop car in the blanket...VERY funny...but, the rest of the third act has problems.

 

[Michael Reuben]

VERY interesting observations, Quentin. You've actually made me look forward to a second viewing.
M.

 

[Kevin Porter]

So how is the sexual content? I mean on a scale from 1-10 or whatever.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Kevin, what on earth are you talking about?

 

[Ryan Peter]

What a cool, creative movie! Spike Jonze is so good with this film. Very interesting. I love how they tie it in with BJM, with all the cameos and such. A more in-depth review later maybe, but for now I give it 3.5/4.

 

[Kevin Porter]

I'm just saying if you wanted to take a kid to see it would it be appropriate.

 

[Kristian]

I'm just saying if you wanted to take a kid to see it would it be appropriate.

This is definitely not a movie to take a kid to see. There is a good deal of sexual content, language and even some violence. Plus the plot and dialog would just be too confusing for a kid, even if it didn't have all that.

 

[Ryan Peter]

If the kid was really intelligent then I'd take him/her. Otherwise, nah. Go see something else.

There is a little nudity, not much, and some sexual content, not what I consider "a good deal".

It irks me that parents are more worried about sexual content than violence though.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Allow me to clarify (spoilers follow): The third act is absolutely supposed to have been written by "Donald". Charlie couldn't do it, and as soon as he asks Donald to come to NY I would suggest everything is imaginary and "written" by Donald.
However, in reality it is still Spike making this film and, despite all his talent, he is not a "Hollywood" director. The result is an uneven and poorly edited fake Hollywood ending. If it had truly been done by Donald it would have looked slicker and moved MUCH faster...literally sprinting for the end. That way, the referential jokes would have punched harder and snapped by. Jonze DOES nail the scene with Charlie on the cop car in the blanket...VERY funny...but, the rest of the third act has problems.

But just as Donald is supposed to have written it, Spike still directs it. He can't be expected to have the 3rd act pumped out like a Jerry Bruckheimer film because he's not Jerry Bruckheimer. Donald just writes it, he doesn't direct it, so when you say "if it had truly been done by Donald", I'm not sure what you mean. Donald is only credited as a screen writer, not director.
And personally I thought he did nail the 3rd half. It's only the middle section that I think lingers a little too long on Charlie's angst.
BTW: has anyone read The Orchid Thief? For some reason I feel like getting it now.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Kevin, I'd never think of taking a kid to this, not merely because of content but also because it's far too complex of a film for a kid to understand.

 

[Quentin]

That is exactly what I mean, Ryan. Sorry for being so confusing. Jonze is no Bruckheimer (thank God).

And, I don't think he does nail the third act. Which is exactly why I think so many critics and fans have a problem with this part of the film. Had it been edited faster, a little more tongue-in-cheek/over-the-top, it would have played funnier and tighter.

But, this is a minor quibble for me...the difference between a very good film and a nearly perfect one.

 

[Ryan Peter]

It still amazes me how BJM in terms of just visiting the set is tied into the movie. Using Charlie Kaufman along with the Susan Orleans, Larouche, and all the real life cameos That has to be one of the most original movies I've ever seen, and coming from Spike Jonze, I could expect no less.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I finally saw this tonight and I can't help but feel that most of the audience didn't get it at all.
These thoughts are spoiler-filled.
From the moment that Charlie asks Donald to tell him what "The Great Donald" would do with his script, the film goes exactly where Charlie said earlier in the film that he didn't want it to go. For example, Charlie said that he wants to keep the film about orchids so that it doesn't turn into a story about poppies and hence a story about drug trafficking. Exactly this happens in the last section of the film when the preposterous "orchid dust" derivative of the Ghost Orchid is revealed to be an addicition of the Native Americans and Susan Orlean (and perhaps Laroche, although I'm not sure he's shown ingesting it - he just raises the Ghost Orchids).
We also get numerous other elements that were strictly forbidden, such as the "profound life experience": Charlie & Donald confiding in the swamp leading to Charlie crying and saying "thank you" (which led to Charlie calling his mother, Charlie reconciling with Amelia, etc.). While Charlie specifically noted that he didn't want anything to "happen," much happens, and all of it is unfaithful to the source material (another requirement of Charlie's). The film even violates McKee's rule against deus ex machina: the car crashing into the truck, the alligator attacking Laroche. The film basically, on purpose, becomes the worst possible adapted screenplay.
It is also at this point that the greatest deviation from reality (and therefore Orlean's book) occurs. Although the whole Charlie/Donald thing was already fabricated, and small fabrications with regard to Orlean had occurred (e.g., Orlean and Charlie in the elevator), the dramatization of the Orlean/Laroche excapades were reasonably authentic until that point. However, when Donald takes over, it goes completely off the deep end. Suddenly we find out that Orlean did in fact see a blooming Ghost Orchid on her final day in the Fakatchee Strand (in direct opposition to the end of her book) and that this led to a drug-incuded extramarital affair. Interestingly, although Orlean and her husband did in reality break up on the day that The Orchid Thief was published, the film keeps them together to make the affair even more forbidden. And for any fans of Orlean's book, the notion that not only did Orlean get to see a blooming Ghost Orchid but that Laroche was finally able to capture and cultivate Ghost Orchids is particularly funny; this eviscerates much of the meaning of the book.
Anyway, I found it to be quite enjoyable. Not quite up to the level of Being John Malkovich, but certainly an effectively humorous exercise. My heart goes out to Orlean (who looks almost nothing like Meryl Streep - although Orlean happened to be an extra on The Deer Hunter). She bravely sacrificed herself (and her work's "sprawling New Yorker bullshit" style) for Kaufman's enterprise.
DJ

 

[Ryan Peter]

Great analysis Damin.
I was laughing hard throughout this movie, and pretty much the only one in the theater doing so. Now this was a matinee on the opening day, although the theater wasn't packed, I figured the few inside would be diehard Jonze fans and would "get" the humor. I figured wrong.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I was laughing hard throughout this movie, and pretty much the only one in the theater doing so. Now this was a matinee on the opening day, although the theater wasn't packed, I figured the few inside would be diehard Jonze fans and would "get" the humor. I figured wrong.

I saw an 8pm showing, and theater was packed, and I was about the only person laughing. Now, usually I feel that saying that "they just didn't get it" is a poor excuse to cover up for bad humor. But, if they all "got" this movie, I figure that someone else would've been laughing. Instead, the audience seemed to take it all at face value, even completely overboard moments like a tear running down Charlie's face in the swamp. Oh well. Who cares what they thought? I dug it.
Still, I do wonder what they thought of me laughing at moments like Donald's death, the reconciliation with Amelia, Charlie calling his mother, etc. And thanks for your compliment, Ryan.
DJ