Adaptation

It has been discussed, that the Cage twin, the rube brother, was the foil to the seriousness and the symbolism of the film: those in the quest for perfection, even if it is for a fleeting moment, as in, finding the rare orchid, or in the case of the serious Cage twin, writing the perfect screenplay, or the Streep character living her high powered New York life as a writer, are the least able to adapt.

The cad brother, in the end, turns out to be the most adaptable of them all-- his casual and go-lightly caddish manner has the kind of American Dream optimism, the "can-do" attitude that compensates for his lack of artistic sensibility, his total lack of interest in nuance or preoccupation with the past.

He's a happy guy, in the moment, unlike the Chris Cooper character who has the memory of his wife dying in the car he drove. Or, the Meryl Streep character who is distracted and bored with her life and eventually seeks the escape of sex and drugs.

Cad twin gets his screenplay optioned, he has no problems getting the ladies ( the scene where he gyrates his hips and pronounces his wanting to get laid in front of his girlfriend by saying "push, push in the bush" was brilliant ) and in the end, he is a true hero, by taking the bullet instead of his brother, a risk-taker, he is the the character who does not try to escape reality, he is in it.

With that said, I thought the film was difficult to watch for the same reasons you have listed. I too was distracted by the use of Cage as both brothers. I don't know how old you are, but when I was growing up and they did this trick with Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched it was pleasant and cool, then again I was just a young kid who was easily impressed.

I was disappointed with the film for what I considered it's haughty and unsuccessful attempt to credibly mix the New York literary world with the swamps of Florida. For me, and it appears for you as well, that this was too much of a leap.

I found the juxtaposition of the New York literary world with the swamp life jarring and not believable as well. I don't think it was the fault of the script as much as the director and the editing. The performances didn't seem quite in tune either -- I would have rather seen another actor play the brother. The screenwriter has gone on to write an even better script with "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and won the Oscar last night.

I found this film to be utterly disturbing but quite well done.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was an interesting movie for its truthful, unvarnished view of the messiness of relationships.

The director, however, underestimated the intelligence of its audience. The movie edged between artfully weaving, looping and relooping the story but fell short, at the expense of the depth of the story, for the special effects. Did it bite off more than it could chew? Witness how many times we hear how "impulsive" the Kate Winslett character is. Or how intentionally edgy they made her by making her hair blue. Does the audience really need to be told she's impulsive when her actions show this?

I didn't pick up on much chemistry between Kate Winslett and Jim Carrey. They were just big box office draws. In real life, a woman who dresses and acts as counterculture as Kate Winslett was supposed to be would not go for a straight arrow bore like Jim Carrey.

In addition, the Kirsten Dunst love for the doctor was a stretch. It wasn't consistent that she remained working in the office after she had her memory of him erased. If the doctor was so egomaniacal that he wanted her to fall for him again, then that was a subplot that needed to be developed. I thought her being scorned was a convenient wrinkle to drive the plot toward her sending back the tapes to the former patients.

The Mark Ruffalo character was a stereotype as well. Weird, big hair, groovy glasses, kind of reckless and brilliant at the same time. His character went nowhere. The scene where he and Kirsten Dunst danced on the bed while Jim Carrey was being treated was a kind of cynical take, in my opinion, on the scene in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World." There was no joy in their dancing, no depth, just a kind of cool oblivion.

Interesting commentary, Cliff, about Adaptation. I'd never really considered the signifigance of the title to their adaptability. By your esplanation I see what the film was trying to get at, but it fell short, way short.

I saw Eternal Sunshine and had a difficult time watching it because Jim Carrey is so annoying. I agree, I wish they'd cast less well-known actors in the roles.

Gala, I was a semiotics major with a minor in film. After you study that stuff you see it everywhere, and unfortunately, at times, it takes the joy out of viewing because I'm minding the intentions of either the director or the writer.

That would not be helpful in enjoying "Eternal Sunshine." I did feel the chemistry between Carrey and Winslet and I've observed even stranger relationships in my lifetime even with Dunst and the doctor. Did not have reservations you have over the script or the motivation of the characters. I guess one might have had to live in Hollywood (or maybe even NYC) to be exposed to some of the strangest relationships one could possible have the opportunity to try and analize. I thought the storyline beared a lot of relationship itself to the Shakespearean comedies, particularly "As You Like It."

(I also thought the special effects were seemlessly worked into the "dream" sequences, perhaps the most successful depiction of that imagery to date).

Personally, I think Adaptation is brilliant.

Mind you, that's not what I thought when I walked out of the theater. It took me a while to sort out what had happened.

First, Nicholas Cage's performance of an obsessive, anxious writer was spot-on.

Second, the screenwriter pulled himself, and us, into the story.

Meanwhile, he managed to do everything that he said he wasn't going to do: he made it about drugs, he made it an action flick, he put in betrayals, he made someone die, he made someone have life-changing revelations.

Fabulous.

I don't think there was anything strange about the Kirsten Dunst character being attracted to the doctor. My objection is with her staying at the clinic if her desire was to erase the painful memory of her love for the doctor.

I live in NYC, by the way, so I'm not cut off from the beat of counter culture. I would argue also, that even in smaller places and towns unlikely couplings take place, and this is not a phenomenon that is restricted to progressive or cosmopolitan places. The incidences of odd couplings may be less in those small cities and towns, nonetheless, they occur.

The movie is somewhat of a reference to "As You Like It" but with less of the daring. Kate Winslett's strength is in her appearance, her womanly, somewhat defiant, somewhat over used manner of dress to resemble some kind of rebellion. I'm not sure what her contribution was as a "strong" female character with exception of her beauty. I suppose I can give her credit for going out on the frozen lake in the dead of winter, but really, that kind of daring seemed like something we all went through in adolescence.

Drewdad, I think part of the problem I had with the movie was I'd read the book. I wasn't expecting the Meryl Streep character to become involved with the person she was writing about. And, Nicholas Cage's obsession with her seemed off. I read literary nonfiction because I want the writer to be objective about their subject while still having the freedom to interpret their actions within the parameters of the genre. By adding all that action and mayhem to the film it muddied the plot making it convoluted and not too believable. For me, anyway. I simply wasn't convinced. But I'm always glad to hear varying opinions, especially when someone gets excited about a movie. I know there are plenty of movies I've thought were amazing when others were simply lukewarm about the same film.

I also have a difficult time watching Nicholas Cage acting in almost all his films. He's a bit too goofy. Although I did think he was quite good in "Birdy".

"Adaptation" is one film where cinematic devices were used and reading the book isn't going to be supportive. I have reservations about the way it was carried out but I did enjoy the film for the performances. I'm not sure I could perceive Cage as goofy but he does take roles where he is a wild eccentric. Even in "Peggy Sue Got Married," his wild-haired rocker was rather charming. I found the rather pedestrian brother in "Adaptation" to be somewhat of a wink link. A movie sometimes is judged by its weakest link.

I don't know, even if I hadn't read the book I still wouldn't have been too thrilled about the movie. In the book I had difficulties with the glamorous Susan Orlean ( and she is glamorous in real life ) writing about the redneck guy in Florida.

It was not a great read, more like a so-so read. Neither cinematic devices and actual screenplay, the writing, were supportive.

When you say the pedestrain brother is the weak link and that a movie is sometimes judged by the weakest link, are agreeing with Cliff?

To an extent I was agreeing with Cliff and I don't remember how the brother was written in the book.

The Nicholas Cage character along with his brother are inventions for the movie. They are not in the book.

I thought it was fabulous. I just loved it.

I think Nicholas Cage is very talented--and the screenplay was daring and risky--but it worked wonderfully for me. I believed Streep and the Swamp Guy. EASY! Do you know how many "prim and proper" women get tired of the safe, well-groomed, well-read men--and go for a wild, hot fling with a man from a different strata?

A lot. Its the Construction Worker Phenom. Excuse me while I write the book....

Thanks for jogging my memory, Gala -- I did not remember any such characters mentioned in the book but I haven't read anything by a synopsis of same.

WARNING - Spoiliers Ahead

Although I can believe the relationship with Chris Cooper who was the actor, in my opinion, who walked away with the movie, I found it difficult to comprehend the segue that Streep (Susan Orlean) would take up living in the swamp, take up on drugs and plotting murder. I respect Cage as an actor and this isn't the only movie where he's stretched out into the unknown and pulled it off (except for the innocuous brother which isn't his kind of role). The relationship with his brother in this film may be a bit overwritten while the character of the recessive brother may be underwritten? Not a great film but a puzzling one that would deserve multiple viewings (I had the same problems with "Eyes Wide Shut," which I eventually warmed up to after seeing it four times). I may change my mind and rank it up from good to great but that remains to be seen.

I wouldn't classify Meryl Streep as prim and proper in the film. Her character was hip and cool and painfully conscious of her presence. I think you may be talking about the bodice ripper mentality- Although, a lot of upper middle class woman are bored with their lives and do seek something on the side.

I'd like to add to what Lightwizard has said regarding the Cooper and Streep characters, and to be more direct about my previous post. I have been refraining from spewing, but here goes...

I would be thrilled, absolutely thrilled for someone to show me an example of a New York City woman, who is at the pinnacle of Hipness and success to fall for a sweaty, chain-smoking, front-toothless semi-tragic guy from Florida who chases rare and unseen orchids for a living.

As I read this book, I was too aware of the differences between the writer and the subject matter: Orlean is lovely, gorgeous even. Her subject, the Chris Cooper character was not. In her writing there is an undercurrent of this being a job, that she will return to her cool, terminally hip life and have the book and it's subject matter as a kind of freak show display.