Adaptation

I also have respect for Meryl as an actor, especially her recent outstanding performances in "Angels in America," but here I'm not so sure she brought the character to its fruition and it may not be a fault of the script. In adding characters and juggling them around in what appears to be a completely different way, something does seem to be lost in translation (not a plug for that movie although I did enjoy it also). I'm afraid I'm going to end up chalking off this Streep performance as not one of her best. Is this a case of not being able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Maybe it was made into a look alike nylon purse?

Super Duper Spoiler!!!!


The Streep character wasn't interested in physical appearance. This is not always the attraction--though, I guess, our society would have us think that.

When she was interviewing him--and this is probably the whole point of the movie (within the movie...oh hell, Kaufman!!!)--if there was a point--is that she was desperately trying to feel what the Cooper character felt.

She was under the impression he had found something to "be passionate" about. She'd never experienced "a passion", and was drawn to him--in her really vital attempt to "experience an passionate life". She couldn't relate to him allowing himself to be jailed over his "undying quest for the rare orchid..."

This is why it was quite a revelation when she dicovered what his passion really was...

People can be attracted to all types for so many different reasons.

I didn't have reservations about the Streep and Cooper character beginning a relationship based on what you've written, Lash, and it had my head spinning as the events flashed across the screen on my first viewing in a theater. Maybe a second viewing let me down as I started to see the seams that were showing. The dialogue in the script was ****, the plotline went somewhat out-of-control for me and deserves maybe **1/2. This could easily be Streep's curiously detached performance up until she makes the final decision in the film. I think I'd shelve this on for a few years and return to it. I've had this happen so many times with movies and it may curtail me from renting a DVD too soon after I've seen a movie in the theater. I guess I was curious as to explanations in the character's motivation.

Yeah. I'm glad we talked about it--I haven't seen it for a while. Think I'll set aside an evening for another viewing.

Lash, you've just given a synopsis of the movie and I understand why you are doing this, but it reinforces the point I am making. I was not convinced by the Streep character not having a passion. It would be one thing if she were a bored housewife, but she was portrayed as a successful, published writer. If you work for a place like the New Yorker you may be full of ****, but you are still passionate in your full-of-shitness.

I have to agree with Cliff here -- somehow the Streep character also seems underwritten in the beginning of the script. I think many were enthralled with the great dialogue and forgot to check whether the had story worked itself out satisfactorily. The bravura ending on the second viewing became rather artificial for me. Like a silk orchid instead of a real orchid.

Um-- guys. You don't have to believe my take on Streep's character--but she did SAY it.

Let's talk again after another viewing...?

I loved this movie! In fact, it's one of my favorites...and I'm pretty picky.

I was funnier than most good comedies, was more exciting than most action movies, and more emotional than most dramas.

Usually, I would say that a movie should try to do 1 thing and do it will...because there's no way that any movie can do everything. But it really does seem like a top drama...and a top comedy (okay, not a top action).

Rarely have I seen a movie where the characters had such dimension. Usually it seems a character has 1 face...but in this movie, each character was capable of so many things...that it seemed like they were really real people to me.

I thought this movie was very clever in the directing and the script. Everything seemed to fit together into a puzzle that made the movie.

Would you mind giving your opinion on some points in Adaptation?

Why was Streep's character attracted to the Orchid Hunter?

Or, was she actually attracted to him?


Thanks--

I loved it, too.

This alone, her wanting to find out his passion, is sound enough, and somewhere along the way she broke the tenet of journalistic objectivity and she got involved.

But why did she fall for him? I mean, really, why did she fall for him? We know nothing about her motivations but the superficial details: She's a famous writer, the Orchid Thief told her his tragic story, she cried over the phone, she entertained her stuffy friends in NYC, we saw her in her kickass office overlooking the city. However, there was no evidence of what made the Streep character miserable. She isn't chained to her life, she's a famous writer who is portrayed as a vulnerable flower herself, soaking up all the sensations of her travels to the marsh as if she were seeing the world for the first time, blah, blah, blah, and then this delicate vulnerability leads to a horrifying conclusion, drugs, infidelity, insanity, Murder! With a capital M.

The movie ended up being a compendium of big name stars, which seemed to be driving the project, as the script did not deliver much but a self-congratulatory, convoluted, over-dramatized, often whiny plot.

Another viewing? Arrrgh. It was difficult enough the first time. I may have to, just so I can return to this forum and hope to say, "You know, maybe I see your point".

Ah! You've besmirched Charlie Kaufman!!! I'll buy you a drink, agree with you, and then kill you in the parking lot!!!

<a little dramatic, I know...>

<winks at cliff>

<It WAS self-congratulatory!!!>

Don't bother. It seems that movie critics are always forgetting the simple fact that movies are made to entertain. Critics may try to come up with objective conclusions about the quality of a movie...but it is not so easy to pin down the factors that make us enjoy a movie. It's controversial, and so the opinions on both sides are naturally going to be stronger...but we don't all have to be on the same side! I thought the plot was great.

I didn't dislike the film as much as Cliff but it's not one of my favorites because its preposterous story left me only momentarily entertained and I felt the writer kept jump starting the plot. The waning moments did not entertain. I'm not sure I want to plow through it a third time and it would be convincing if anyone could show me that all the notes were in the right place.

"Eternal Sunshine" is a different case as well as "Being John Malkovitch." I could watch those two again and again. Here's Charlie Kaufmann's writing filmography. He started out as a TV scripter:

Writer - filmography
(In Production) (2000s) (1990s)

Untitled Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman Project (2005) (announced) (written by)


Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) (screenplay) (story)
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) (screenplay)
... aka Confessions d'un homme dangereux (Canada: French title)
Adaptation. (2002) (screenplay)
Human Nature (2001) (written by)
... aka Human Nature (France) (USA)


Being John Malkovich (1999) (written by)
"The Dana Carvey Show" (1996) TV Series (writer)
... aka The Mug Root Beer Dana Carvey Show (USA)
... aka The Taco Bell Dana Carvey Show (USA)
"Ned and Stacey" (1995) TV Series (writer)
"The Trouble with Larry" (1993) TV Series (writer)
"The Edge" (1992) TV Series (writer)
"Get a Life" (1990) TV Series