"Being John Malkovich" gave me the impression its ideal form was a short story. Whether or not I'm right about that, Charlie Kaufman's screenplay, wherein all the film's virtue resided, was was let down by Spike Jonze's utterly uninspired direction. At the very least the film was based on an excellent idea and didn't quite make it.
"Adaptation", also written by Charlie Kaufman and also, alas, directed by Spike Jonze, is certainly let down by not being particularly well made, but the surprise is it's also not particularly well written, and far from not being based on a good idea isn't based on any idea at all. Someone charged with the task of making a film has made a film about his inability to make said film. This kind of dodge, I feel sure, can only result in a good film just once - at MOST - in the entire history of cinema. Some people think Fellini's "Eight and a Half" is that film. It may be; I haven't seen it; I wouldn't know. But the successful I-can't-make-a-film film is certainly not "Adaptation".
My partner commented afterwards that she remembered writing this kind of story in high school and thinking to herself: "Wow! This is SO much easier than writing a real story!" Not only was she right; who hasn't had this experience? And who hasn't had the spurious feeling of liberation - hopefully also as a teenager - that comes with the idea that simply showing an awareness of one's own stylistic defects is enough to negate them? This film is a self-indulgent, narcissistic w**k; Kaufman's no idiot (perhaps the most courageous thing he's done with this film is to convince his prospective employers that he's all intelligence and no talent), so in writing himself into his screenplay he simply makes himself SAY that he's being a self-indulgent and narcissistic w***er, which somehow makes it okay. The first-person voice-over IS a bad device, and Kaufman's particular voice-over IS a paticularly flabby and lazy one; so he has a scene in which his voice-over is shouted down by some sceenwriting guru talking about how flabby and lazy voice-overs are. The guru is right. Kaufman knows the guru is right. He wants us to know that he knows. Is the joke on us, on Kaufman, or on the guru? That, nobody knows, and to be frank I couldn't care less.
In any event I feel like sending the whole thing back to the studio and ask that this time it be worked on by a director with the gift of making scenes, characters, or ideas - notice I said "or", although "and" would be even nicer - come to life. An wispy project like this needs at least that much.
"Adaptation", also written by Charlie Kaufman and also, alas, directed by Spike Jonze, is certainly let down by not being particularly well made, but the surprise is it's also not particularly well written, and far from not being based on a good idea isn't based on any idea at all. Someone charged with the task of making a film has made a film about his inability to make said film. This kind of dodge, I feel sure, can only result in a good film just once - at MOST - in the entire history of cinema. Some people think Fellini's "Eight and a Half" is that film. It may be; I haven't seen it; I wouldn't know. But the successful I-can't-make-a-film film is certainly not "Adaptation".
My partner commented afterwards that she remembered writing this kind of story in high school and thinking to herself: "Wow! This is SO much easier than writing a real story!" Not only was she right; who hasn't had this experience? And who hasn't had the spurious feeling of liberation - hopefully also as a teenager - that comes with the idea that simply showing an awareness of one's own stylistic defects is enough to negate them? This film is a self-indulgent, narcissistic w**k; Kaufman's no idiot (perhaps the most courageous thing he's done with this film is to convince his prospective employers that he's all intelligence and no talent), so in writing himself into his screenplay he simply makes himself SAY that he's being a self-indulgent and narcissistic w***er, which somehow makes it okay. The first-person voice-over IS a bad device, and Kaufman's particular voice-over IS a paticularly flabby and lazy one; so he has a scene in which his voice-over is shouted down by some sceenwriting guru talking about how flabby and lazy voice-overs are. The guru is right. Kaufman knows the guru is right. He wants us to know that he knows. Is the joke on us, on Kaufman, or on the guru? That, nobody knows, and to be frank I couldn't care less.
In any event I feel like sending the whole thing back to the studio and ask that this time it be worked on by a director with the gift of making scenes, characters, or ideas - notice I said "or", although "and" would be even nicer - come to life. An wispy project like this needs at least that much.