Charlie Kaufman is nothing if not an original. Love them or hate them, his screenplays have made their way into the cult consciousness(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovich) . Whether his weirdness is brilliance or just, well, weirdness, is up to the audience I suppose. The Spike Jonze-directed Adaptation is perhaps the definition of self-indulgence. Faced with the task of adapting Susan Orlean's non-fiction book, "The Orchid Thief," Kaufman found himself with a case of profound writer's block. So naturally, he wrote a screenplay about his writer's block, inserting himself into the story (along with a fictional twin brother) along with a fictionalized version of Orlean played by Meryl Streep.
First off, I just love that somehow Jonze and Kaufman were able to get this movie made. It takes balls for a screenwriter to write a screenplay about screenwriting and confront its difficulties by inserting a real-life book and person into a story about the lack of story that exists in the source material while commenting on the contrived gimmicks screenwriters use to get attention while having your film climax in all of those gimmicks and cliches.
Does that summation make sense?
I recently re-watched Adaptation for the first time since seeing it five years ago. On my first viewing, I was unsure of how to respond. I was unfamiliar with Kaufman and Jonze for the most part, so the abrupt tonal changes and multiple layers of reflexivity threw me off. Upon watching it again, i was struck by how magnificently this seemingly impossible idea was pulled off. Kaufman confronts all of his own neuroses by bearing them for his audience through Nicholas Cage's performance. Yet the film never feels to self-congratulatory. It's about the difficulties of storytelling, and the messiness of the story told within that premise is kind of the whole wonderfully self-deprecating bent of this insane movie. In short, it blew my mind.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Revisiting Adaptation.
Charlie Kaufman is nothing if not an original. Love them or hate them, his screenplays have made their way into the cult consciousness(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovich) . Whether his weirdness is brilliance or just, well, weirdness, is up to the audience I suppose. The Spike Jonze-directed Adaptation is perhaps the definition of self-indulgence. Faced with the task of adapting Susan Orlean's non-fiction book, "The Orchid Thief," Kaufman found himself with a case of profound writer's block. So naturally, he wrote a screenplay about his writer's block, inserting himself into the story (along with a fictional twin brother) along with a fictionalized version of Orlean played by Meryl Streep.
First off, I just love that somehow Jonze and Kaufman were able to get this movie made. It takes balls for a screenwriter to write a screenplay about screenwriting and confront its difficulties by inserting a real-life book and person into a story about the lack of story that exists in the source material while commenting on the contrived gimmicks screenwriters use to get attention while having your film climax in all of those gimmicks and cliches.
Does that summation make sense?
I recently re-watched Adaptation for the first time since seeing it five years ago. On my first viewing, I was unsure of how to respond. I was unfamiliar with Kaufman and Jonze for the most part, so the abrupt tonal changes and multiple layers of reflexivity threw me off. Upon watching it again, i was struck by how magnificently this seemingly impossible idea was pulled off. Kaufman confronts all of his own neuroses by bearing them for his audience through Nicholas Cage's performance. Yet the film never feels to self-congratulatory. It's about the difficulties of storytelling, and the messiness of the story told within that premise is kind of the whole wonderfully self-deprecating bent of this insane movie. In short, it blew my mind.
First off, I just love that somehow Jonze and Kaufman were able to get this movie made. It takes balls for a screenwriter to write a screenplay about screenwriting and confront its difficulties by inserting a real-life book and person into a story about the lack of story that exists in the source material while commenting on the contrived gimmicks screenwriters use to get attention while having your film climax in all of those gimmicks and cliches.
Does that summation make sense?
I recently re-watched Adaptation for the first time since seeing it five years ago. On my first viewing, I was unsure of how to respond. I was unfamiliar with Kaufman and Jonze for the most part, so the abrupt tonal changes and multiple layers of reflexivity threw me off. Upon watching it again, i was struck by how magnificently this seemingly impossible idea was pulled off. Kaufman confronts all of his own neuroses by bearing them for his audience through Nicholas Cage's performance. Yet the film never feels to self-congratulatory. It's about the difficulties of storytelling, and the messiness of the story told within that premise is kind of the whole wonderfully self-deprecating bent of this insane movie. In short, it blew my mind.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Some youtube love to get us started.
I'm not ashamed to admit that, like 90% of the population, I loved Christopher Nolan's "Inception."
Yes, it was flawed. Yes, I'm still not clear on what a "kick" is and how it works. And yes, I'm still trying to get a hold of one of those smashingly Bond-ish three-piece suits that Joseph Gordon Levitt wears in the film.
Tailored goods aside, Inception was a thoroughly intriguing and exciting movie-going experience. While many may still complain about the ambiguities in the plot, for most of us, suspension of disbelief was more than enough.
The guys behind "How It Should Have Ended" have been at it for a few years now. Their animated parodies propose conclusions that often comment on plot holes and inconsistencies as well as tossing in some wonderfully broad humor. Their take on "Inception" is no exception.
Part of what is so intriguing about Youtube creations like this is how much they reflect the shared experience of our culture. When high-profile films come out nowadays, internet buzz can make or break them at the box-office. The resulting wave of discussion after a film like Inception premieres is incredibly dense. To illustrate, I offer you another Inception parody from the guys at Collegehumor:
Yes, it was flawed. Yes, I'm still not clear on what a "kick" is and how it works. And yes, I'm still trying to get a hold of one of those smashingly Bond-ish three-piece suits that Joseph Gordon Levitt wears in the film.
Tailored goods aside, Inception was a thoroughly intriguing and exciting movie-going experience. While many may still complain about the ambiguities in the plot, for most of us, suspension of disbelief was more than enough.
The guys behind "How It Should Have Ended" have been at it for a few years now. Their animated parodies propose conclusions that often comment on plot holes and inconsistencies as well as tossing in some wonderfully broad humor. Their take on "Inception" is no exception.
Part of what is so intriguing about Youtube creations like this is how much they reflect the shared experience of our culture. When high-profile films come out nowadays, internet buzz can make or break them at the box-office. The resulting wave of discussion after a film like Inception premieres is incredibly dense. To illustrate, I offer you another Inception parody from the guys at Collegehumor:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)