After seeing 8 1/2... I feel robbed for wasting my time with this rubbish.
For those who really want to see a film about film making and the creative process, blending reality with fiction... GO SEE THIS MASTERPIECE.
Adaptation is for screenwriters what 8 1/2 is for directors.
My Vote History: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5479050
Kaufman's script was (obviously) brilliant. It blew me away. And Cage was perfect in the role.
sharethat's cool, assuming that this comes from the guy who is talking about the dog from "Beginners".
Straight Edge is the only way to be free.
Rachel Weisz FOR Catwoman!
If you thought this was basic and you're mad about it, it means that you didn't get the film.
The second half of the film was supposed to descend into basic tropes and cliches. That was the point of the film. Once Donald and Robert McKee got involved with Charlie's writing, it got progressively worse and less truthful, and it got progressively more absurdly sentimental about everything, leading to cliche-after-cliche in the last 10 minutes of the film. It's genius.
The point, and this is just my own interpretation, was that writing doesn't have rules and doesn't even have principles. As long as you are truthful to the content and to yourself (and are intelligent/competent), the script will create itself when it is ready, and it will be a masterpiece.
Looking at the film without having any meta-value, the script is garbage and it seems like it switched writers halfway through. Looking outside in, however, allows us to see that this was all part of the plan.
Really though? Genius? It seemed like basic film making to me. I didn't have a single moment where it was hard to understand this film. I think sometimes when a movie goes off the rails of convention just a bit people think it is genius and so artsy and deep, leading to a tendency to HIGHLY overrate simple and even boring movies. Just IMO
Movie news and reviews to make you laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/wewatchedamovie
"It seemed like basic film making to me. I didn't have a single moment where it was hard to understand this film."
That is unquestionably a GOOD thing. Clarity is one of the most important things a film can have. Calling a film basic and lacking depth is one thing (and I would disagree with you about that as well), but saying having trouble understanding something is a sign of quality is wrongheaded.
"It seemed like basic film making to me. I didn't have a single moment where it was hard to understand this film."
I question whether the maker of that statement really did understand the film and its meta-referencing. I wonder if he's seen any other Charlie Kaufman movies. Was Synecdoche, NY just as simple for him to understand?
Synecdoche, NY was one of the most impossible-to-understand movies I saw this past decade, outside of Mulholland Drive, Donnie Darko and Primer. I haven't seen Adaptation but from what I've heard, it would be a pretty strong contender.
shareTo be fair, the first time I saw Adaptation (over 10 years ago) I thought it was pretty "deep" due to all the self-referential stuff going on. However, upon re-watching it tonight, I have a hard time seeing it as complex at all. Everything is pretty clearly spelled out.
It's probably 60% that I've seen it before, and 40% that I'm older and wiser and have seen a few truly baffling movies.
I wouldn't put Adaptation in the same league as Primer, which is still the craziest time travel movie I've seen to date. Even after re-watching.
I also watched Being John Malkovich tonight, and unlike Adaptation, I think I got more out of it with the 2nd viewing. Mostly because of the older/wiser thing. I think it's actually got more layers of understanding than Adaptation. Opposite conclusion of the first time I watched both movies.
"I also watched Being John Malkovich tonight, and unlike Adaptation, I think I got more out of it with the 2nd viewing. Mostly because of the older/wiser thing. I think it's actually got more layers of understanding than Adaptation. Opposite conclusion of the first time I watched both movies."
Same here.
"The second half of the film was supposed to descend into basic tropes and cliches. That was the point of the film. Once Donald and Robert McKee got involved with Charlie's writing, it got progressively worse and less truthful, and it got progressively more absurdly sentimental about everything, leading to cliche-after-cliche in the last 10 minutes of the film. It's genius. "
Now... I don't know how to phrase this, because the movie wasn't particularly bad, and from time to time it was on the verge of being somewhat clever with all this irony and what-not, but...
The movie goes on and on about how you shouldn't do cliches and in the end it does all the cliches it says it wouldn't do, well look at the irony! Isn't that funny ha-ha-ha.
Brilliant? Ingenious? Well, it is kinda funny, I'll admit that much. But it was funny already when the Simpsons started doing the exact same thing 10 years before the movie was out. It wasn't particularly, shall we say, original in the truest meaning of the word.
Now, don't get me wrong, I liked the darned thing. You are getting me wrong, aren't you? You think I didn't get it and now I'm trying to avoid feeling stupid so I'm badmouthing the movie here instead? Well, we can't all be as clever as the rest of you are, for example it is very difficult for me to be like the people on Merryl Streep's dinner party where they have a good laugh making fun of a stupid hillbilly who, instead of being ironic, tries to find meaning to his life and actually, well, do something. (Yes, the irony was also directed towards clever people who think they know how clever they are when they are making fun of less clever people who don't get irony quite as well as they do, well wasn't that clever, ha-ha-ha!)
But seriously. Seriously. Making fun of cliches and structures. What is the best adjective to describe this? Ingenious? Brilliant? Original? Nah. The word "hipster" comes to my mind. Hipsters have been doing it for god-knows-how-long. I betcha that most of the people who liked this movie wear thick glasses and listen to indie rock music. There's nothing wrong with it, don't get me wrong! Being just a little bit hipsterish is trendy and whatnot. And even though this sort of irony is trendy nowdays - and was already in 2003 - still, movies have used it surprisingly little compared to, say, books or television shows. Movies have relied on structures quite heavily, haven't they? Darn all those Donald Kaufmans of the world! So yes, in that sense the movie was bold, yes, at least it was bold.
Now, as for trying to get rid of all the limits of storytelling, oh yes... But in the end isn't that just another limit to your stotytelling. Because if you don't find new limits to replace the old ones - what can you do except be ironic? Irony is the ultimate state of being limitless. (Well, showing all sorts of random crap in random order might be even more limitless, but irony is closest we have of being limitless and still having something to say) So there is a certain anarchy-factor to irony in that sense. But freedom and anarchy are not really quite the same thing. Now, as for using structures - well, look at Chaplin's City Lights, or Sunset Boulevard, or Dr. Strangelove, or One flew over the cockoo's nest, or Amadeus, or - these movies all use irony to make a point or two within strucutres, well that's a bit out-dated now isn't it? But still they are ingenious more or less, at least they have their flashes of great moments and insights. Using irony in a meta-fictional way instead of trying to find those insightful moments - instead of using it like those grumpy old geezers like Chaplin or Milos Forman - ha-ha-ha, well I guess it's kinda funny too. Kinda.
You know what touched me most in the movie? When Merryl Streep gets all sad and whatnot listening to all the ironic jokes around the table, why, she even laughs along with those people before going to the bathroom feelin sad.
This movie wasn't good because of the irony. This movie was good because it dared to say that making a movie like this is not ingenious. It is sad. We are a sad generation.
What are we going to do about it?
Laugh about it, I guess. Ha-ha-ha.
[deleted]
Hey Rizzyay, as a guy who once lectured me on how Citizen Kane is such a masterpiece that shouldn't just be considered good because we don't know any better, but rather for its many nuances and attention to detail, I really wonder why you dislike Adaptation this much. This movie has so many things to say about screenwriting, the industry, living life obsessing about what others think of you and the burden of trying to make quality content etc.,that it's almost impossible to explain. I suggest you rewatch it because I noticed and appreciated a LOT more things on my second viewing.
And even if the things you said were true, how would saying this hollywood formula is ridiculous and sad make for a 5/10 movie when you admit it's done quite well? Is this movie really unoriginal in any way when the entire perspective of a screenwriter who actually DOES try to make something good has never been shown before on the matter? I don't get your opinion about this at all, and the second half of your comment is some incoherent ramblings about structures and irony that fail to make any point about THIS movie.
The entire story is a character study of Charlie Kaufman himself, both the real and the fake one. Look at this film on a more personal level with the (real) characters instead of seeing it as a cynical thesis on how much Hollywood sucks. It's fascinating that this movie could actually be made and exist, not sad. Just rewatch it because you seem like a smart person and it's way too difficult for me to put into words, especially in a foreign language.
Also, calling a movie "hipster" and "well wasn't that clever" is not constructive criticism, in fact it's little more than empty namecalling and quite frankly pretty childish.
And don't say you like a movie when you rated it a 5/10, that's not liking it. That's considering it average at best.
I don't really remember anymore why I gave the movie 5/10. I suppose it might've deserved a 6, because I somewhat liked the idea, altough - for reasons already stated above - I didn't get too excited about how the concept was delivered. Still, it had things in it that I liked. The sadness, which I mentioned, was a good thing for me! I really liked it that the moviemakers realized that there is an inherent sadness to ironic way of life. That view, to me, seemed more original than the use of irony itself. Meryl Streep's character portrayed this view quite respectably in the film.
the second half of your comment is some incoherent ramblings about structures and irony that fail to make any point about THIS movie.
The entire story is a character study of Charlie Kaufman himself, both the real and the fake one. Look at this film on a more personal level with the (real) characters instead of seeing it as a cynical thesis on how much Hollywood sucks.
I don't think this movie was meant to be sad at all. It's only ironic because of what happens, it doesn't hate on writers like Donald Kaufman but just innocently makes fun of them. Meryl Streep was supposed to be a sad character, but since The Orchid Thief was a very unconvential book and a movie Charlie found too difficult to write, she became a drug addicted sadist degenerate instead. Do the movie makers really consider the fact that this isn't a serious, boring art movie about flowers a bad thing? I think it's more of a celebration of how wrongly these kind of bad movies portray life and its people, since The Orchid Thief was based on a true story but almost nobody could ever properly adapt it and it ended up being this ridiculous ironic mess of a movie that you see it as. I think it's an original approach and a funny movie, with a main character that needed to be so much that Kaufman effectively split him in 2 to give his own sad boring life and the lives of people who write crazy wacky hollywood BS, yet generally get the same paycheck and credit and are just happier about their life and job in general, a funny contrast.
I also consider it a character study because a lot of it is about how trying to be a proper writer with such high standards affects Charlie Kaufman (the real one) as a person. It gets better movies done but that's the only good thing about it, in every other way it makes everyone hate him and makes him hate himself and feel ridiculously insecure about everything he writes or does.
Ask yourself this: is Charlie a better person than Donald? Which one would you rather meet? There's your answer on how "cynical" this movie is. It really isn't. If anything it makes fun of people like Charlie and McKee who cynically tear everything Donald writes to shreds and are so obsessed with doing things "the right and only legitimate way" that they almost become the villain. It's a commentary on harsh criticism (sometimes on people like Donald, with obviously good intentions but no talent and who just don't know any better) and the uncomfortable result being constantly cynical has on your life, just as much as it is on really bad screenplays. And it enjoys every minute of it, with a message that in the end pretty much tells you to do whatever the f@k you want no matter how bad other, smarter people think it is. In the end, Charlie becomes a lot more like Donald as we can see in the way he acts, the fact that Donald dies (real Charlie doesn't need him anymore) and because the movie he wrote is badly written crap as Donald would write it.
Real Charlie Kaufman was just able to write something really bad and found that it was incredibly liberating and that breaking every rule of his ideals felt really good. This IS completely original because it's a true story in more ways than one and it's definitely never been done before.
The reason it's genius is because of how terrible is and the fact that its awfulness benefitted everything and everyone, except the real Susan Orlean who must have felt exactly like Charlie did when hearing about the first draft of Donalds script.
So yeah, go rewatch it, I'll rewatch Citizen Kane then.
I've come to notice that Americans in general have a tin ear when it comes to wit and are tone deaf when it comes to satire. Adaptation is not just a satire. It's a satire of itself. And from a writer's perspective, that is incredibly difficult to pull off. But Kaufman succeeds brilliantly, and the witty dialogue is the icing on the cake.
shareWhy can't there be genius in simplicity?
share