Cynthia Fuchs

Careens between fiction and confession, repetition and revelation.


Director: Spike Jonze
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda Swinton, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Brian Cox
MPAA rating: R
Studio: Columbia
First date: 2002
US DVD Release Date: 2003-05-20
I believe in, I deceive in bottom weaving.
I can breathe in, make a wish in flower fishing.
-- Tricky, "Excess"

Done with fish.
-- John Laroche (Chris Cooper), Adaptation

"Do I have an original thought in my head?" The question plagues poor Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage). Flush with the success of scripting Being John Malkovich and tormented by his sincere belief that he's unable to write another worthy word, Charlie is hired to write a screenplay based on New Yorker writer Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief. As he wrestles with a series of related concepts -- adapting someone else's book, making that adaptation original, making his story comprehensible and significant at the same time, not to mention vaguely marketable -- he frets. A lot. Indeed, he frets himself right into the movie you're watching.

It's a sweet trick. And it only gets more complicated. The screenplay for Adaptation, now out on DVD from Columbia, is credited to Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman -- a made-up externalization of the "positive-thinking" self Charlie both covets and reviles. Evoking The Orchid Thief without exactly adapting it, the movie includes scenes inspired by Orlean's meetings with John Laroche (Chris Cooper). Set in and around the Florida Everglades where he's tracking and stealing rare orchids -- in particular, the "ghost orchid" -- these interviews initially suggest that Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) is simultaneously awed by and condescending to her subject -- he's so unlike anyone she's ever met, she can't figure how to read or write him.

Breathless and flushed, she's pitched about in the cab of John's pickup truck, scribbling notes about his "delusions of grandeur." But she soon finds herself drawn to him, his toothless grin and his fervent, absurd, seemingly serial, commitments -- to turtles when he was a child, to fossils, to fish, and now, to orchids. Consumed and all consuming, John is impatient and compassionate, missing his front teeth, a shaggy-haired, self-educated expert on the vast world of orchids. What better object of adoration could a woman have?

At least, this is the way Charlie reads Susan's story. His adaptation, also consuming, imposes itself on whatever narrative the original book may have had, itself an adaptation, a recollection, of Susan's conversations with John. While Charlie wrestles with his assignment, his obsessions and insecurities blend into these reimagined flashbacks. Charlie's version has Susan withdrawing from her literary friends and even her husband back in Manhattan, moved increasingly by her friendship with John to reconsider her own priorities, to imagine herself reflected in him. In him, she sees (or more precisely, Charlie sees her seeing) the passion she believes she lacks. At the same time, Charlie sees in her (in his mind's eye) the passion and confidence he believes he lacks.

Resplendently self-referential, Adaptation careens between fiction and confession, repetition and revelation. The second collaboration for director Spike Jonze and Kaufman, the film zips and zaps between scenes and realities. At one point Charlie, grasping for a "first scene," reels his mind back to the beginning of time, and the screen fills with time-lapsey digital-whoosh magic -- watery swirls, crawling fishies, lumbering dinosaurs, rising monkeys, and all varieties of flowers and plants. Speedy and thrilling, it all leads to Charlie, the conjurer, sweating and panting, unable to think how to get from A to B.

As Charlie lurches about in his funky panic, Donald is nursing his achy back. His self-devised therapy: to lie flat on the hard wood floors in the home he shares with Charlie, which means he tends to appear quite literally underfoot. Though Charlie can barely control his anxiety, Donald pushes on blithely, asking for advice on his latest script, something about a serial killer with a gimmicky M.O. Munching his hero sandwich, crumbs dropping on his chest, Donald boasts that mom called his script "Silence of the Lambs meets Psycho." Arrgh: exactly the commercial pitch type of thinking that Charlie can't abide.

Still, Charlie has responsibilities. His agent is annoyed. And though his studio contact (Tilda Swinton) is friendly, even complimentary, he's sure she thinks his ideas are contemptible, that he sucks. And to top it off, Charlie must endure yet another sleepless night while Donald makes noisy love with his girlfriend (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a makeup artist he met on the set of Being John Malkovich. (The flashbacks to this set are neat little in-jokes, including a moment where Malkovich, in the restaurant full of actors in John Malkovich masks, adopts an especially imperious pose, demanding that the shot run smoothly because those masks are hot. He should know.) Everywhere he turns, Charlie feels pressure. Pressure to perform and produce, to make art. To adapt.

Charlie's moves, essentially in and out of himself, become increasingly clever and twisty. He starts to admire Donald's resilience, his ability to fit in. Donald uses given structures to achieve an end -- not only does he complete his screenplay, he sells it and impresses Charlie's agent. "We all write in a genre," Donald smiles blandly, his girl beaming beside him. "Mine's thriller. What's yours?" He's as comfortable in his bromides as he is in his bulky body, content (even proud) to suck up and rehash someone else's ideas, including the formula for screenplay writing proffered by notorious script instructor Robert McKee (Brian Cox).

Charlie hates it. He's horrified by the idea that scripts must conform to formula and genre, rather than life. In life, he insists, people are sad, they don't change, nothing happens. He's condescending and judgmental, the arty smart guy that he imagines himself to be, and that he imagines Susan might appreciate. But then he realizes, she's falling for John, brilliant yes, but exceeding strange. And so, Charlie refocuses. The screenplay is not about flowers per se. It's about flowering, about fishing, about searching. And so, Charlie comes to realize that, even as he resists Donald's allegiance to "principles" and high concepts, he envies his ability to adapt.

Charlie's movie changes into Donald's. At this point, the script careens into another genre, less heady, more thrilling a formulaic climax that Donald would write, complete with car chase and sentimental disclosure. It's easy to read this turn as a descent, an abandonment of its giddy, self-congratulatory Malkovichian warps and spins, or to see it as a condescending dismissal of the sort of formula that Charlie's been deriding all along, as in cahoots with Charlie as it appears to be all along. But there's (at least) another possibility. While it scrutinizes the combination of self-hate and arrogance that typifies the Neurotic Artist, Adaptation is also thinking about something else.

On one level, the film persists in taking Charlie's view -- his alarm at the predictable shape his script takes. But then, Charlie comes to appreciate his brother's difference (that he once took to be mere uninspired sameness), even admire his generosity of spirit and hulking grace. And then the movie steps back. Donald does look sincerely different, precisely because he's so corny. Believing fervently in his ordinary dreams, he's extraordinarily generous, as nonjudgmental as Charlie is caustic and critical. But Adaptation isn't about to reward sentimentality or formula. It seeks originality. It seeks not to suck, but more than that, it seeks to survive sucking. Adaptation, the film argues, is less a matter of change than it is survival.

Columbia's Superbit DVD is gorgeous -- the imagery is crisp and saturated, the soundtrack exquisite. Sadly, the DVD includes only brief, typed "filmographies" for the principals (lists of films available anywhere), and a trailer for the film. More than any other film to come out on DVD this year, Adaptation would merit a commentary track; anyone's might be fascinating. While it's to be expected that Kaufman wouldn't participate in such a self-exposing project (even after writing this seemingly self-exposing film), how amazing it would have been to hear Jonze or Cage or Streep talk about their experiences. Then again, the lingering mystery is probably just as appropriate.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.