|
ASM Quick Facts |
|
Title: Adaptation. |
When 1999's Being John Malkovich was released, many didn't know what to make of it. People were enjoying it, but for many different reasons. Some appreciated the sublime absurdity; others lauded it as a great post-modern comedy. Now writer Charlie Kaufman and director Spike Jonze have brought us Adaptation. and again, the duo have created a gem that defies labels. While not as eccentric as Malkovich, the casual moviegoer will see Adaptation. as just another movie with a rather disappointing ending; the observant will appreciate the many levels it operates on and how funny the entire last quarter or so is meant to be. Certainly, what this new movie lacks in Malkovich's bizarre content, it makes up for in the wonderful game it plays.
The movie introduces us to Charlie Kaufman: A slouching, meek screenwriter who, as a follow-up to his movie Being John Malkovich, intends to write a screenplay based on a book entitled The Orchid Thief by New Yorker columnist Susan Orlean. The problem, as detailed throughout the course of the movie, is that Charlie i both intimidated and inspired by the material. He doesn't want to compromise it in any manner, and this artistic dilemma eats at him, his myriad attempts tossed into the trash because they somehow don't "capture" the book. He doesn't understand why he can't just write a script about orchids and not the usual Hollywood movie.
Charlie can't sleep; he becomes obsessed with the book's plot, themes, and Orlean herself. To add insult to injury, his twin brother Donald (whom he lives with) is taking a screenwriting course by acclaimed Hollywood insider Robert McKee, played ferociously by Brian Cox (25th Hour, The Ring). With the "secrets" revealed in the course, Donald quickly scribes a highly contrived, cliché-riddled story. Of course, Charlie's agent loves it and makes Donald an offer. Charlie's brother is outgoing, confrontational, and dating a make-up girl from the set of Being John Malkovich. He's a living antithesis, and you can sense Charlie's slight resentment at it all.
All of this adds unneeded pressure to Charlie's life. As he scours over The Orchid Thief looking for something, anything that could support a movie, his obsession with the task grows. His pocket tape recorder becomes an invaluable aid: He begins shouting ideas into it the moment they enter his head (always remembering to turn the playback off when Donald enters his bedroom uninvited). The frenzy reaches a boiling point until he approaches the most daring solution, which is to turn the movie itself into a story about his own personal struggle with the project. His adaptation of the book, or lack thereof becomes the focal point not only of the movie you're watching, but also of the movie Charlie's writing... which you are watching. The line between Charlie Kaufman the movie character and Charlie Kaufman the screenwriter is instantly blurred; 1991's Delirious could only dream of taking the "character takes control of the movie" plot device to this subversive a level.
To understand where Spike Jonze is coming from, you need to look at his work in music videos, the field he more or less calls home. He has a sense of skewed reality about him; this certainly isn't at the level of, say, Rod Serling or any given episode of The X-Files, but through his work -- be it Weezer performing in Happy Days' Arnold's restaurant or Christopher Walken dancing through an empty hotel to the tune of Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice" -- you can tell that his perception of the world is piloted by a subtle kind of genius that has a permanent smirk on its face. His approach to this film isn't all that different from his work on Malkovich: he finds the utterly strange in the script, pulls it out, lets you watch him play with it, and puts it back in the egg like it was nothing at all.
Nicholas Cage, playing both Charlie and Donald Kaufman, manages to pull through the dual performance with near flawless results; the meek and confidant twin are distinguishable in nearly every manner. It's one thing for the script to call for such subtle but important differences: it's another to actually have an actor pull it off. A scene that best exemplifies the stark difference between the two is when Charlie visits New York to interview Orlean. He's intimidated by the very notion, freezing when chance puts him in the same elevator as her in the New Yorker's building. With his brother also in town, he sends Donald to Orlean after his failed attempt at talking to her. Charlie insists, however, that Donald not ruin his "reputation." That means no jokes, no charm, no anything during the interview. It should be pointed out that Nicholas Cage talking to Nicholas Cage was pulled off rather smoothly. Special effects are best used transparently, and this is certainly no exception.
Meryl Streep's Susan Orlean really comes through, unfortunately, when her character is merely doing voiceover duties (a no-no according to McKee). There are several instances where she is narrating from the The Orchid Thief in which she does a fantastic job. That's not to say that her on-screen duties faltered: it's really just that her chemistry with Chris Cooper's orchid thief John Laroche wasn't there and most of her on-screen time was with the actor. Mind, both of them are excellent in their respective roles; Cooper's Laroche was by no means a likeable character, but Cooper was able to make Laroche's broken past come through to the present.
Adaptation. ultimately shines in its execution. The acting (for the most part) is superb, and no other director could have seen this movie through. The key to it all is playing the game with the movie. It hands you the responsibility of keeping up with the cinematic slight-of-hand and to let go for one second kills the thrill of the ride. The revelation that Charlie wrote himself and his struggle into the movie is given away early on; separating the individual components -- movie from real, Kaufman from Kaufman (from Kaufman) becomes the goal. Adaptation. isn't a movie you just watch, it's a movie that can be liked on a basic level, but the enjoyment rises exponentially as you slowly focus in on the constant battle for control of the movie's progress and distill fact from the usual "artistic license" that comes with a movie script. That very aspect, the best part, really, is the movie's secret. It's a process that you need to see unfold visually to truly appreciate.
Adaptation. is rated R for language, nudity (some of it male, in case the ladies in the crowd were curious), and mild drug use. It runs for 114 minutes, but you honestly won't feel it at all. And as if some poetic force came down from the heavens, this review was very hard to write. I thought about just ranting about the guy in back of me in the theater distracting me, or perhaps detailing the events surrounding the review, but that would've been predictable, and I'm no Donald Kaufman.