The film is very unusual, trying to define the genre of which I seriously thought. With too prosaic description of "drama, comedy" I strongly disagree. This is clearly something multi-layered and not template: here and from fiction something, something from comedy and adventure, something from biography (albeit fictional), while the whole mixture looks quite experimental.
From the very beginning of the film, the narrative appears nonlinear with parallel stories and is therefore not entirely clear. The strange character of Nicolas Cage (of whom there are two) with his game is a little frightening and at first it is not clear at all, it was him in the film went crazy or me. The fact that the main character still has mental problems is no doubt, the intrigue of the first third of the film is how serious they are.
As a result, the strangeness of the hero then comes to the fore, then retreats, allowing the plot to slowly develop so that you can even get a little bored, when suddenly at the end suddenly begins a crazy house, which is not expected at all.
An outstanding script about himself from the author of "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Pure Mind", which received an Oscar nomination. If you’ve seen these movies, you know that Charlie Kaufman’s fantasy is definitely special, it’s interesting to watch.
Also, these are Oscar nominations for Meryl Streep (she can do better) and Nicholas Cage (and he, it turns out, can – I did not even suspect) and Oscar for best supporting role for Chris Cooper (my uncle is good, but I did not understand the Oscar here).
Judging by the number of ratings on Kinopoisk, the film did not receive due attention and remained underrated by the local audience. I suggest we correct it.
Charles Kaufman arrives stratified with his own world. He's successful, but he doesn't need it. Constant hints from the fair sex are perceived by them as the ground for a new reflection. Charles is recognized in the industry, but his masculine core is clamped down by personality complexes and smeared with an endless stream of depressive thoughts. Charles Kaufman continues to create.
Life and its ups. Charles Kaufman. The life of a writer in his yearning for the world around him. This could be called a doctoral dissertation on the analysis of Charles’ infantilism. I can tell you that this is a very strange film. I got to see the writer from the outside. It seems to me that anyone, including myself, who chose to write, somehow experienced problems in relationships with others. Look at the writer, he has everything, but he does not know what he wants. Kaufman’s world is a barochamber with constant suspicion and monstrous reflection. And you can also sympathize with him, because when his world comes on its heels, hinting at happiness that is close, Charles runs the other way, reflecting with double recoil, and as a result, blocking the air to himself. Monstrous author's masturbation. I ask all comedy lovers to be disappointed, for this is the drama of life. Its message in the problem of human perception, Kaufman is in fact the blacksmith of his problems. And they are ridiculous, and his reaction to them is very childish, which can be wrapped in metaphor, but it is not necessary, because the cinema is everyday.
I don't know what to say, very ambiguous. I mean, I kind of understood the message, the tragicomedy of the inflamed mind, and questions about the world and the role of myself in it. But it seems to me, imho, that this long and very high-quality film is an excursion into the problem of creative crisis. Surprisingly, Nicholas does not muzzle his face, but very subtly copes with the role, sorry, with roles. Surgical act-outs of a successful guy that tells himself - ' I'm a loser', a moral masochist from the film industry. Perhaps it was not as comical as I expected, because two Cages are a sort of wine, but it is everyday and not even pathetic. Culture respected, admiration for actor achieved, question solved, credits?
The third Kaufman movie I saw. One of the most intriguing, since I heard that the writer was nominated for a bunch of awards for him. I guess the movie has a lot of fans, but I didn’t get it.
It was very boring. I think this is the feeling that the viewer should experience according to the author’s idea. We too participate in the performance and our emotions are part of the artistic statement. And everything is thought out to the smallest detail: first we are bored and painful, then the action begins, then the pacifying ending. The film itself is wildly interestingly composed, very masterfully and ironically. Especially, I think it was fun to watch him hot on the trail of people who came to the film adaptation of this damn book about flowers. I imagine their surprise, their outrage, maybe even their delight. I also know where all these awards come from. But the fact that 3/4 of the entire timekeeping was boring and uncomfortable is clearly not going to make this movie good for me as a viewer.
It should be placed somewhere in the museum, as a rare and unusual orchid, so that amateurs and connoisseurs admire and analyze. But it seems to me that the film created only for amateurs and connoisseurs is not very viable. Museum specimen, not for home breeding.
Unfortunately, there is no duplication of the film into Russian, and the voiceover translation is made so that the film, consisting entirely of dialogues and monologues, is completely incomprehensible.
How can you add color and interest to a book that doesn’t really have a story, drama or enough characters? Right, think out the missing elements yourself, or maybe even add yourself to the script, and write about how you write an adaptation of this book.
Screenwriter Charlie Kaufmann coped with the extremely difficult task of writing a script adaptation of such a book, preserving the atmosphere, adding drama, humor and even action. I haven’t read the book, but according to the movie, the atmosphere was supposed to be like that. The writer also showed the links between heroes and events.
Okay. In this paragraph, I refer to Charlie Kaufman as a real person, then under Charlie Kaufman I will refer to the character on the screen. Kaufman was extremely vividly able to convey his emotional state during the writing of the script and show the problems of the screenwriter as a whole, creative searches in an attempt to create a masterpiece of cinema.
In general, the characters are cool. Bright and interesting John LaRoche with an interesting personal history and worldview. Unusually revealed Donald Kaufman, first shown through the comedic prism of Charlie, and then directly to us, the more he reveals himself, the more he becomes more human and pleasant to the viewer. And of course, Charlie is an already withdrawn and inert person shown in times of depression and creative crisis. About the character of Susan, I can’t say anything specific, I don’t even know who to blame for it – myself, the film, or maybe no one is to blame.
The plot of the picture is quite difficult to judge, since most of the things are done in order to show the emotional state of the main character, to reveal all his problems and complexes. It is also divided into 2 branches, and the events do not unfold in parallel, and the second branch is dependent on the first. The result is an extremely interesting narrative structure.
But despite all the charms of the plot, some moments frankly tired me. Because of this, I was able to fully understand the character of Susan, when the main character reads this book, I tried to listen and even something I remembered and understood, but in some moments all my concentration was knocked down by John LaRoche, an extremely bright character (although there was a lot of it just about John). Because of the contrast with Laroche, Susan just didn't work out properly. Yes, she has scenes cut off from him, but this is definitely not enough.
Also in the final act begins some bacchanalia. But I tend to think that this is a kind of thin banter, because the film gives grounds to think so.
I also didn’t like the post-production of the film. Separately in a vacuum, it's not bad, just good post-processing. But when you're dealing with such a complex narrative structure, it's not enough. I got a brilliant and complex script (first of all, it is complex, brilliant things can be combined with ordinary ones), but other parts of the film must also correspond. Different components should complement each other, interact.
Young Tilda Swinton is so charming here! And Cage is so convincingly playing a creative person. And on his way home, he meets who would you think? The second Cage, who plays exactly the same well-floated on the floor cheerful
The main Cage is experiencing difficulties in overcoming the barrier in communicating with a girl. And he still does not give an interesting and full start adaptation of the script. Both feelings are familiar to me, all my life I have been shy when dealing with girls, and I know what a creative crisis is when writing something. So it's easy for me to relate myself and the main character.
He wrote a book about orchid abduction. And in parallel, we're shown how the writer created it by collecting information and communicating with real poachers. When she first interviewed the chief botanist, she stressed only the information that would be useful for the article, without noticing his true love for the flower. When he talked about it, she recorded that his van smelled.
And we, unlike her, immediately admired how much he loves his hobbies. And so they began to understand perfectly well how the writer studying it came out such an exquisite book. So amazing that we realize why she took a sleepless screenwriter who was impressed by the responsibility he had. And at the same time, we are not even surprised that his brother begins to succeed against his background.
Adaptation is prosperity; and who better to flower? While the head gardener refuses to do so; pay attention to the history of the loss of his teeth and the reason he does not want to restore them. But the last words of his partner said that she wants to adapt, but of course there were plot reasons.
Many people scold the beginning of the film for boredom and inaction and praise the ending, but think about what I will say about it: Agree, the film is amazing in that it is not typical. As the main character wanted his script not to have fights, drama, chases, murders. But no matter how shockingly atypical it seems to us what we are looking at, there will still appear Hollywood, putting the picture under the same comb as other products. For 'Industry' minus two points:
For any writer, there is nothing worse than falling into a creative crisis and disrupting the production deadlines on which the future of the entire project depends. Moreover, both venerable authors and beginners who have not yet had time to test their own imagination can drive themselves into a trap. Once faced with similar problems and now revered writer Charlie Kaufman, best known for his work on the enchanting fantastic tragicomedy “Being John Malkovich”. In the mid-90s, being a promising, but not the most famous screenwriter, Kaufman received a tempting offer from the director of “The Silence of the Lambs” Jonathan Demme and Columbia Pictures studio to develop a detailed full-length synopsis, built on the basis of a somewhat specific, but nevertheless remarkable book by Susan Orleans “The Thief of Orchids”. Not having the right to refuse the real gift of fate, Kaufman set to work, but only beginning to write dialogues and situations, the author suddenly realized that he would not be able to move beyond a couple of dubious sketches. Faced with apathy, self-doubt and a lack of understanding of what producers and the studio wanted from him, Kaufman failed miserably. Nevertheless, he did not intend to throw the ill-fated “The Thief of Orchids” into a long box, since he realized that on the basis of his creative throws you can create an original script and show how there is the torment of the work of the unfortunate writer who faced the most important enemy living in his own head. Having prepared all the necessary materials for a spectacular demonstration, Kaufman interested them not Jonathan Demme, but Spike Jonza, with whom they had just planned the shooting of “Being John Malkovich”. And after the tape with the participation of John Cusack successfully rolled around the world box office and received a number of absolutely deserved awards, Kaufman and Jonz returned to “The Thief of Orchids” and were able to enlist the support of influential producers who agreed to skip “Adaptation” on the big screens. Thus, from a frankly critical situation, Charlie Kaufman unexpectedly came out the winner for everyone, becoming one of the creators of an incredibly eccentric, but at the same time fascinating, touching and a little crazy film, which became a classic almost immediately after the release.
So, the plot of the film is based on the biography of some until the time of the unknown pomologist John LaRoche (Chris Cooper). Interested in growing orchids, John and his wife organize an extensive nursery in Florida with their favorite plants, but his personal happiness did not last long. In a car accident, close relatives of Laroche die, and his wife after regaining consciousness files for divorce. But the biggest blow awaited the pomologist a little later and caused him devastating injuries. Hurricane Andrew, which is not a joke, destroys the greenhouse of LaRoche, from which the work of his whole imagination turns into unnecessary debris. Not having the strength to start with a clean slate, the hero nevertheless falls into the eyes of the Indians growing orchids in order to obtain narcotic substances, and he has no choice but to move to the reservation and continue his labors both for the benefit of himself and for the dubious benefit of unexpected patrons. And although over time, the specific activities of Laroche came under the scrutiny of law enforcement, his story was interested in the writer Susan Orleans (Meryl Streep), who decided to write based on the events of his most famous novel “The Thief of Orchids”, once reached the book shelves. And where there were excellent sales, Hollywood producers immediately appeared, who bought the rights to the film adaptation and entrusted the writing of the script to the same Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage), who began his ascent to the heights of fame, but faced with the notorious creative crisis.
Not understanding how to create an adequate basis for shooting a promising film with celebrities of the highest echelon from “The Thief of Orchids”, Kaufman fails time after time, since good ideas completely refuse to come to his head, and the follies living around pure consciousness increasingly obsessively remind themselves and lead to fresh mistakes, of which there are already unacceptably many. And just at this time to Charlie in Los Angeles arrives his negligent twin brother Donald (Nicholas Cage), decided in the image and likeness of his brother to storm the Dream Factory as a playwright. Attending all sorts of creative seminars and at the same time sketching out notes for a future psychological thriller, Donald eventually achieves his goal and sends into production an absolutely talentless, but nevertheless attractive scenario, thereby causing Charlie to be in a state of complete bewilderment. Nevertheless, our hero is not going to give up. In any situation, he tries to emphasize something important for himself, allowing him to move from a dead point. But in order to get the job done, Charlie must meet Susan Orléans and get to know John LaRoche. And this meeting promises to be truly unforgettable for the writer.
After working together on Being John Malkovich, Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonz understood each other’s creative style perfectly, and in a similarly extraordinary manner produced The Adaptation. As you would expect, the creative throwing of the on-screen image of Kaufan was full of unexpected and catchy plot twists, the story now and then rushes between genres, absorbing the features of comedy, drama, phantasmagoria, thriller and detective. Observing what happens to the long-suffering screenwriter, one inevitably begins to believe in the irresistible power of creative despair, filling the head with irritating slur, but at the same time “Adaptation” has a saving black humor that allows you to push aside the voluminous eccentricities of the creators and still set the story on the right path. Of course, the stylistic and atmospheric games of Kaufman and Jones will not seem appropriate to all viewers, from which the vicissitudes of the plot of “Adaptations” can be perceived as an artificial drama, maximally divorced from reality, but through such specific tools, the creators in all colors were able to show what sometimes happens in the mind of the author and what they have to go through to finally hand over the cherished script to the directors.
Charlie Kaufman’s guide from his own disorders to the audience was Nicholas Cage, who played two key roles in the adaptation. Cage’s infectious passion for work was a key reason for him to be invited to Adaptation, and he did not let his benefactors down by giving them all his strength and skills to accurately convey creative throwing, akin to a nightmare mental illness. The opportunity to play two roles at once allowed Cage to fully realize his well-known potential and develop both characters to the extent that Charlie and Donald became completely self-sufficient and lively characters, each of whom made a serious dramatic competition to his brother. And Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep charmingly complemented the story of the throes of creativity, giving it an exquisite gloss as always a great game.
10 out of 10
Introspection into the life of the famous Hollywood screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage), tormented like Kashtanka script about orchid hunters according to the book of a journalist and writer. Charlie is complex and unsure of himself, because the work goes a little tight, and personal life does not add up - the forces go to the torment of creativity.
Charlie has a twin brother - he's a freak and a freeloader, but much more confident - but also writing, but unlike his brother frank boulevard and not about orchids, but about murder.
Finally, there is the same writer (Meryl Streep), who writes about flowers and about their miner – a kind of semi-harmless pirate of the American jungle (Chris Cooper).
Interesting? Until then, not so much... But neither Kaufman nor Jones are trying to make an entertaining movie, as if mocking the audience. First they let him know that he is an idiot, because he is drawn to yawning over what can be called art. And then they throw a very dynamic, but satirical handout in the final, where the adventurous denouement pays off a good hour and a half of self-reflection by Charlie Kaufman and attempts to play interest in orchids by Meryl Streep.
But in general, like other films based on Kaufman’s scripts, this is an attempt to break down a person’s consciousness on shelves and collect it on bones. Kaufman's split is what Charlie would like to be and what he really is. And this is the whole point of postmodernity, which allows these two halves to connect. After all, every nerd wants to be successful if not with women, then at least with one of them, to have fame and be the center of attention. But Charlie himself will still be mostly focused on himself, even with the happy ending in the script and in his personal life.
I read all the reviews of this film, but found that none of the reviewers ever understood it, so my thoughts:
There are no twin brothers in the film, Charlie and Donald are the same person. Charlie symbolizes the inner essence, real experiences, needs, desires, and Donald symbolizes in this person what is shown to the public to achieve certain goals, what is approved by the public (the scene at the party - Charlie really wants to go home, but Donald can not afford it).
Next. Charlie-Donald isn’t writing the script for Susan’s book, he’s actually trying to understand ALL women from Susan and her story.
The story of Susan and LaRoche.
Susan here symbolizes all women, and LaRoche of all men and the essence is this:
Susan really wants to understand what it's like to want something, she's looking for it, she's almost ready for it. She meets LaRoche.
LaRoche gives himself to orchids (which in the film symbolize women), but does not find the ghostly one he is looking for, and becomes increasingly frustrated and broken.
Susan develops a passion for LaRoche, with whom he leads his search and she has feelings for him, she thinks that very soon she will find what she is looking for. (the scene in the film where they go through the swamp in search of an orchid, i.e. her), but after finding this orchid, Susan is disappointed because she sees just a flower. And John sees just a flower. They're having a fight.
After that, Susan learns that drugs are made of orchids, she acquires them and is pumped up (this must be understood as the fact that she recognizes herself and falls in love with herself - a scene in the bathroom where she brushes her teeth and finds herself with surprise, then admires her feet in the bedroom).
An updated Susan calls LaRoche and says, Look how I can and sings "mmm" to him, offering to support her because she can't do it alone. John picks up and she says, "This is it!" (meaning, this is what I was looking for). And LaRoche says, I've waited so long for someone to love me, just me.
T. The point is that until a woman truly loves herself, she will not be able to give anything to a man, she will only take away and they will not be able to be satisfied.
Then we see the scene where Susan and LaRoche are having a great time, but here comes Charlie-Donald, who still doesn’t understand all women, but wants to. Susan is frightened because in our society it is customary to be modest, chaste and reserved. She is so afraid that someone finds out about her openness and “debauchery” that she decides to kill the witness Charlie-donald.
The chase begins, Charlie-Donald hides behind a log, we are shown a dialogue of the brothers about a girl from the past who mocked one of them, but in fact there is an inner realization of Charlie-donald that when you really love a woman who did not love herself, you will definitely be laughed at.
Next, Sue and LaRoche overtake Charlie-Donald in the swamp, where a tempting snake appears, who kills LaRoche. Sue cries and screams that she did not want it to be so, that she wants to be little again. (Speech about the fact that the guilt imposed by the covenant on women (the woman who seduced Adam with an apple) makes a woman infantile, not independent, insignificant, one that a woman inside herself simply cannot love.)
Well, in the end, one of the Charlie-Donald brothers dies, and in fact the opposite happens, Charlie-Donald reunites with himself, having figured out everything.
I’ve always wondered what it’s like to be a writer. Be the founder of a story. After all, each of us has a lot of interesting stories and situations that he would like to share and tell all the small nuances that led to the finale. Correctly placing all the accents – you will get your vision of the characters, their disclosure according to the plan and all this should be crowned with a beautiful grand finale. But everyone has their own, right?
Watching the twin brothers, played by Nicholas Cage, pull the blanket over each of them is very pleasant and touching. (Cage is certainly adorable.) All these stories in the hunt for rare orchids are diluted by the beautiful: Tilda Swinton, the brilliant Meryl Streep, the geek Chris Cooper and the psychopath Brian Cox. Each is revealed in its own way, has its own chips and incredible feints at the end.
It is this "Adaptation" - a kind and unlike anything drama with meaning. Adapt the non-adaptable! Everyone will see their own personal, which will hook. After all, we all know that you do not have to rush something ... it will come into your hands, unless of course a gun is put in these hands!
I'm happy! Recommended for viewing!
I would be happy to watch, and not to be deceived. . .
What you will not read in the reviews of this film! One retells the plot: “scriptwriter Kaufman writes the script from the book, blah blah blah ...”, another admires the lines, the third believes that Kaufman, after traveling into the brain of John Malkovich, decided to launch viewers into his brain and show how Hollywood scripts are created. That's bullshit! This film is a mockery of the audience, well, maybe a mockery is too evil: to mock Kaufman would rather be at the reviewers and critics, who, for the most part, can not consider this film more than they expect to see, Kaufman rather laughs at the audience. He is like a magician who shows his simple numbers in front of a crowd of children. Distracting the attention of the public who opened their mouths, flapping a bright handkerchief or a magical pass, he suddenly pulls out an object from behind his ear and invariably receives a standing ovation, because the public wants to be deceived.
How easy it is to write a script for such an audience! The audience craves a focus, in extreme cases, is ready to put up with some kind of madness. Perhaps: the writer gives you both, while leaving all ' the secrets of the prestigitator' in plain sight, because he is sure that no one will see them anyway simply because does not want to see. What, the viewer, is bored with the flower story? Well, then one of the heroes will be eaten by a crocodile, right? Yes, there, a UFO could also fly, although Kaufman here subtly senses the edge beyond which the growing farce would facilitate the unravelling of the message sent to the audience. But the focus is easy to unravel, all the “tips” lie right there and are not disguised. Do not watch the hands, not the distracting swings of the hands, but just try to see the magician perform his magic trick! Enjoy how the writer, director, and cameraman hold your attention. Do not look – it is useless: there is no ball under any thimble! Just watch the magician and the audience at the same time, while remaining slightly on the sidelines. Watch how the audience laughs or cries, it is only necessary for the author to “flapp” another plot twist. The way the author freely manipulates the attention of the public, how he gives them the characters they vaguely expect to see, while not believing that this is possible. If you want to see a screenwriter, here you go! Tired of an intellectual journalist from a New York snob magazine? Turn her into a killer drug addict. You eat everything, my deceitful friend! Well, in the end, let’s snot in sugar about the fact that “you are what you love, not the one who loves you” and cockle the brother of the main character, who can not help laughing at these “unexpected plot twists.”
So what? A Kaufman movie? Hollywood? Movie? Of course not (and certainly not!) it is about the audience, about these eternal children who sit in front of screens, waiting for them to be deceived, when “uncle will show a trick”. Oh, sorry, this is not about you, this is about those who go to “Transformers”, and you are intellectuals.
10 out of 10
What is it like to love something passionately? It doesn’t have to be a person, but it can also be an object or hobby. It happens that by finding our main path, we can admire the passion of someone else, help him to find the same feeling or even the same object of fiery love. However, it happens that a person who is passionately in love with something may not be what you expect to get to know him better. In my opinion, this idea was put in the basis of the tragicomedy “Adaptation”.
Synopsis Screenwriter Charlie Kauffman is experiencing a creative crisis that sadly affects his life. To find meaning again, Charlie agrees to adapt a book by journalist Susan Orléans about her trip to Florida, where she met an interesting man named John LaRoche. Reading the book, Charlie seems to plunge into the world of the main character, begins to feel the same way she felt when communicating with Larosh. Deciding that this is the only way he can return to normal life, Charlie decides to meet the writer in person.
"Adaptation" is distinguished by a bright cast, where quite famous actors managed to appear in a small cameo. But of course, I will try to say a few words about the actors who played the main roles. First of all, I would like to note the play of Nicholas Cage, who in fact had to play two roles at once - Charlie Kauffman and his twin brother Donald. If Charlie has come before us as a confident pessimist, Donald represents his opposite – an optimist with faith and hope for the best. I would also single out Chris Cooper, who played John LaRoche, who is passionate about flowers, especially orchids, and also has his own philosophy of life.
I think it was the director Spike Jones tried to show how a creative crisis can have a profound effect on the lives of a person who is unable to work, communicate, or love. To give the film a certain highlight, the director resorted to the use of documentary filming, which complemented the picture of Charlie Kauffman’s view of the world. So, for example, trying to understand how Charlie got into this world, he imagines the origin of the planet and then life on Earth, which emphasizes that it was so easy to happen. It is also worth noting that Spike Jones mixed several genres in the film at once, including even an action-packed thriller, which appeared during the unexpected denouement. In general, we can say that for the director “Adaptation” was an experiment, where he managed to mix everything possible.
The script of the film can be divided into several storylines, since the film itself develops nonlinearly. As mentioned above, the main character Charlie is experiencing a severe creative crisis, which does not allow him to communicate with people, confess love to a girl he likes, and just believe in hope. And so his agent instructs him to adapt a book by Susan Orleans, reading which, Charlie realizes that Susan falls in love with John, about whom he writes. And to better reflect Susan in his script, Charlie decides to get to know her better. However, the acquaintance turns into an unexpected discovery, in which Susan appears not as she seemed in the book. All these and subsequent events help Charlie find himself, love and meaning in life.
“Adaptation” is a very specific film, but it cannot be judged unequivocally, since the film contains several ideas and meanings at once. The main character, despite the disappointment in his idol, still comes to the realization that a person can correct himself only by himself, and not with anyone's help. In my opinion, this is reflected in the film with success.
I'm starting to write a review. How can I write it? I haven't written anything here in a while. I've never had much talent. But I want to write something. This is a great movie about adaptation. Yeah, right. You should write about adaptation. How we all adapt to this world. How we live. How do we accept the rules that are already laid out for us before we come into this world? Yes, there are rules. You must first go to school, then to college, then fall in love, then you can and get married, then you need to find some work, you need to eat, sometimes dance. You have to get used to this world or something. Be part of society. You could write that. You can start writing a review like that. I don't know what happens. Maybe something unrelated to the movie or something worse. Should we add some pathos? Or not. It is better to get rid of pathos as quickly as possible. It ruins everything. It is better to write in simple words, understandable language. So everyone understands. Oh, what was it? The rule of how to write reviews. There was an author. Very famous. I don't remember a name. Like him. Maybe someone will remember. Yeah, enough! What nonsense did you write? Come on, write about the movie. Like him. Tell me about the story. Who is it about? About some writer? Who is he? Charlie Kaufman? Who knows Charlie Kaufman? No, no, no. You're in my way. Same review. There must be something interesting. You should write so that people read it, then say that it is a useful review. That after her, they decided to immediately watch the movie "Adaptation". That's how I want to write. What are you asking me to do? Who are you? You realize you're already down. You're already writing God knows what and you don't even notice it. You can't adapt your review for the Kinopoisk site. Your review is nothing but a piece of rotten meat wrapped in some cheap newspaper. Okay, stop writing. Or write so that everyone will understand what you mean.
People want to understand!
Well, when are you gonna realize that? You have to have some connection to the world. You just can't do it. It's beyond your power. You just suck. You can't even write that stupid review. You have doubts. You think no one's gonna know what you mean. You think everyone's gonna laugh at you. You've already written a lot of bad reviews. You want another one. Come on, stop it. Close the page with a cross and get out of your business. You're not working. Don't submit a review. Don't hit send. That would be a mistake. How do you finish the review? Maybe you could just press the cross. But if someone is reading this now, then I didn’t. So I sent her anyway. How is she? Come on, what I'm saying. I ask a question in the review to anyone who reads it. How is that even possible? After all, I have to write about the film and I have already written about everything except the film.
So, this movie is about Charlie Kaufman. He's a writer. He worked on the film Being John Malkovich. Jom Malkovich played John Malkovich. So he has to write a new script (not Malkovich, but Kaufman) and he wants the script to be beautiful. But he doesn't know how. He has a twin brother. Yes, Kaufman was perfectly played by Nicholas Cage in this film. One of his best roles. Maybe it's better than "Leaving Las Vegas." I don't think so. In a word. Should I watch Adaptation? Yeah, I advise everyone. Smart, not smart, people with a sense of humor or suicidal tendencies.
That's it. I wrote everything I wanted to write. I think so, but I don't think it worked out as well as I wanted. Oh, come on. It's always like that in the world. If everything were as we wanted, the world would not exist at all. We have to adapt. Sometimes. We should end with the word "End." Here we go.
The end. Oh, and the score will be visible. We'll finish them.
10 out of 10
I'll start from afar. In my opinion, the role in this film is the best that was in the career of Nicolas Cage. No, not really. The role in this film is the best that was in the career of Nicolas Cage. In Adaptation, Cage plays two twin brothers and screenwriters, one of whom is the prototype of the real writer of this film. I know it's not clear, but it's Spike Jones. He wouldn’t be himself if everything was simple and straightforward. That's why they love him.
The film is very original. This he catches from the first minutes and does not let go to the end. Of course, all this is thanks to the brilliant script of Charlie Kaufman, which, in fact, plays Cage. Simply put, Kaufman wrote the script to himself, but the opposite is one of the ideas of “Adaptation”: look at the brothers of the writers and never do like them.
Okay, I'm not gonna talk about the hard stuff anymore. In addition to the script and directing, it is worth noting the excellent cast: in addition to the aforementioned Cage, here and Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper, and Tilda Swinton.
In general, “Adaptation” is a very complex multi-level picture with an excellent script, excellent directing, amazing cast and with a share of proprietary “Spike” humor. You have to watch it.
I've never seen a picture like this before. The most talented screenwriter of zero Charlie Kaufman wrote a plot built on the basis of his own preparation for the film and used the image of himself. In fact, he made a film about himself, about the creative process of creating the script. Directed by Spike Jonze. In case you don't know, these two, at one time, put on "Being John Malkovich" which critics were delighted with.
To begin with, when creating “Adaptation” Kaufman was in a creative crisis, the work on the film was too difficult for him and the fear of not coping with his task as a screenwriter prompted to create something that could show the entire creative process of creating the film. He did not even change the name of the main character, his name is the same, but he did not stop there. Kaufman came up with a fictitious brother named Donald and eventually gave him a film. In other words, "Adaptation" is a tribute to all creators of high art.
The plot tells us about "John Larsche (Chris Cooper)". He's setting up a plant nursery. Due to his deep knowledge of growing orchids, he is hired by Indians to create drugs. A few years later he was detained. This case, and in particular John Larsch himself, attract the attention of journalist Susan Orleans (Meryl Streep). It seems unusual to her that Larsch loves plants, and she wants to write a book about him. Passion breaks out between them and it grows into love. The book written by Susan is being filmed. Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) is tasked with developing a screenplay for the movie. The situation is complicated by the fact that he is in a creative crisis and the work seems to him a living hell. He is visited by a brother (also performed by Cage) named Donald, he also wants to become a screenwriter and is even working on his own project. Charlie talks about his problem and his brother helps him, Donald even meets Susan for him. He lets Charlie use his thoughts for his script.
The idea of “Adaptation” appeared long before the picture saw the light. The structure of the plot and the unusual manner of narration made the film a real treat for moviegoers. This has not been removed until now, the use of self-reference is not such an easy thing for filmmakers. But Jonz and Kaufman took a risk and ended up with something still unique. In my review, I mostly write about the writer, forgetting about the director. The fact is that “Adaptation” is a picture that focuses all attention on the plot construction and difficult perception of the film. As such, the director’s work is not visible here, this film seems to be shot without his participation. A very important idea that the creators are trying to convey to us is that sometimes films in which the viewer is looking for some deep meaning are actually empty, thereby creating an illusion of deep meaning for the viewer. Beyond that, we see the protagonist’s creative search and overcoming depression. The only drawback of the picture is the lack of action in the first part of the film, the first 40 minutes will be quite difficult for the viewer, but closer to the second half, the film is gaining momentum and does not let go until the very end.
I was struck by the acting of Nicolas Cage, at the beginning of his career good and high-quality roles for him were not uncommon, in "Adaptation" he plays two people at once, or rather brothers. You’ve never seen such a Cage, absolutely not a typical role for him, the only association arises with his role in Leaving Las Vegas. Another heavy image fell on the lot of Chris Cooper, his character is very, very unusual, that in his head I did not fully understand. For this role, he was awarded the "Oscar". The main female image went to Meryl Streep, I did not like her character, there was too much falsity and insincerity in her, but the performance of Streep is still at a high level.
"Adaptation" is one of the most unusual films, with a great script and high-quality implementation. If you appreciate the plot in the first place, then you can not find a better film.
9 out of 10
Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman is a Hollywood eccentric known for his unconventional approach to cinema. His first successful work was a film in which he invited anyone to get inside the head of John Malkovich. Not metaphorically, but literally. This experimental film lobotomy was well received by critics and was nominated for both a Golden Globe and an Oscar for Best Screenplay. Three years later, Kaufman decided to go further and got into his own head. For the new film, a dream team was picked up: Spike Jonz, who worked with Kaufman on the film Being John Malkovich, directed, and the main roles went to Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper. Even in episodic roles, actors with big names were involved: Tilda Swinton, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Catherine Keener and John Malkovich. The only controversial point in the casting was the choice of Nicolas Cage to play Kaufman himself. However, he was justified - Cage played almost the best role in his career.
So what's in Charlie Kaufman's head? "Believe me, there's nothing interesting there," he warns at the very beginning of the film, and it turns out he's not flirting. The first half of the film shows his inner world, in which constant creative anguish, painful self-doubt, romantic experiences and irritation at the stupid but more successful brother: indeed, everything is too vital to be exciting. Kaufman’s worries are compounded by his failure to come up with an adapted script for the American bestseller Orchid Thief. This weighty volume, written by journalist Susan Orlin, describes her conversations with poacher John Laroche that alternate with her own musings on life. Orlin and LaRoche, real-life people, also become the heroes of the film, and their story goes parallel to the story of Kaufman. Interestingly, the writer and screenwriter in a sense reflect each other: their lives, which seem quiet and calm, inside filled with dreams from the category of “if only...” LaRoche is their antipode - he is a charismatic adventurer who spits on laws and other people's opinions, and is only interested in orchids. If at the beginning of the film, Orlin looked at Laroche with the squeamishness of an excellent student, who was planted in one desk with a double student, then over time his figure is shrouded in a romantic halo, and the irrational and incomprehensible passion for flowers causes the writer to envy. At some point, she wanted to stop being an outsider and finally understand what the fuss was about. What is it about these colors that makes people do desperate things, sacrifice freedom, health, and even life? "I want to see a ghost orchid!" she can't stand, and Laroche takes her to the swamp. After spending several tedious hours in the water, Orlin finally finds an orchid and concludes disappointedly, “It’s just a flower.”
In this beautiful story there is no sharp conflict, no love story, no instructive morality. Only a charming thought in its simplicity is that an idea is often more attractive than its content. It was this simplicity that became a stumbling block for Kaufman. Writing the script for “The Orchid Thief” turned out to be as difficult as writing the script for your everyday life: there is a lot of everything and nothing at the same time.
In such a situation, there are two solutions: the story can be left as it is, to show its calm, sometimes even boring flow, or adapt it to a Hollywood movie, filling with unreal, but spectacular clichés. And Kaufman chooses both options at once.
The first half of the picture is almost uneventful: it consists mainly of Orlin’s reasoning and Kaufman’s experiences. Orlin's line ends in disappointment, and Charlie's line ends in complete despair. He goes to a lecture by Robert McKee, a writer and creative antagonist. McKee advises him to fill the story with drama, show how the characters change and end everything with a bright ending. Charlie realizes that he cannot cope with such a task alone and calls for the help of his brother Donald, the only fictional character of this film. Donald probably embodies the alter ego of the real Kaufman. That part of it, which is unfamiliar with the torments of creativity and which always goes the easy way: writes template plots, steals other people's ideas and is not tormented by remorse. This is the kind of Donald Kaufman needs to come up with another Hollywood version of his script. With the advent of Donald, Charlie’s internal monologues, which accompanied the first part of the film, disappear and they are replaced by quick dialogue. The footage becomes sharp, and the action begins to develop rapidly: Orlin and Laroche are lovers and drug addicts, chases, shooting and even death appear in the plot. Charlie loses his brother, but rethinks everything. He kisses a girl against the backdrop of a beautiful landscape, then drives in the car, smiles and realizes that he knows how the script will end. "McKi would approve," he thinks.
Susan Orlin's book was supposed to be about a passion for flowers, but it turned out to be a sad story about disappointment. Charlie Kaufman’s script was supposed to describe the slow course of life, and as a result touched upon the problems of modern cinema, which pretends to be real life, being in fact a set of stereotypes, beckons to itself like a ghost orchid, but turns out to be only a beautiful idea. “Adaptation” provides no conclusions, no teachings of a successful screenwriter, no recipe for how to make films. But it gives a huge source of inspiration, stimulating creativity, in which there is no place for fear of either worn cliches or daring experiments.
We get used to patterns and routine. No one would think to admire coffee in the morning, drinking it in the morning in the kitchen (unless he is a very optimistic person). But if the coffee will be in a cup of unusual shape, for example, in the shape of a pyramid and the sugar will not be sand, and cubes, then it is capable, then it is able to surprise us. But if you think about it, it will be the same coffee that we drank every morning.
So this film is an approach to the narrative and the script itself is non-standard and original, but the main thing is what the film is about, its content. It seemed to me that in a laudable effort to move as far as possible from the usual filmmakers spent too little time to reveal their main ideas. There are a lot of backsliding and sometimes it makes the movie seem a bit long. You can also notice inconsistencies in what was going to shoot the film (we learn this in the film itself) and in what he eventually came out.
Cage was pleasantly surprised by the game - he was on top. Of course, his character is unpleasant, but if you remove some hypertrophy in his behavior, we can see ourselves in those moments when we are not sure and can not make the right decision, show will and character.
Bottom Line: This film can be seen because of its original idea, but don’t expect anything supernatural from it and be prepared for what it might seem like.
This film, in my opinion, is a simple conversation with the audience. There is no familiar concept of the film, there is no intrigue (up to a certain point), and the one that is hardly intrigue. So it should be treated accordingly.
He'll be intrigued by his openness. Slow narrative, light prosaic subtext and beautiful script. This aspect of cinema plays a key role here. You can tell him the movie is about him.
In parallel with this, we reveal the characters. About Nicolas Cage as Kaufman - hitting 10. He feels the role perfectly, drawing on his old towerless works like Leaving Las Vegas. Plus, the completely opposite image of a twin brother makes 2 things clear. The contrast of the film and the versatility of Cage's talent.
Meryl Streep is already an actress with a capital letter. No one doubts her talent to convey a thought to the viewer. Here, she did what was not required, she blocked Cage, but at the same time made her believe in her character.
Who's great and wonderful is Chris Cooper. He definitely deserves his Oscar. He had a very charismatic and at the same time vulnerable, sensitive character.
But I liked John Malkovich the most in the beginning. Oh yes! He's divine.
Directing is competent, without sharp transitions and any obsessive motives. Spike John has long been a recognized master of his craft.
In the end, a beautiful philosophical film came out. With light and sometimes deep subtext, depending on the viewer.
9 out of 10
Everything secret sooner or later becomes apparent. .
In the filmography of Nicolas Cage found the film – “Adaptation” in 2002, which collected many awards and nominations at various film festivals, therefore, you need to see for the tick. The plot can be divided into two halves.
1) We are shown the drama of one brilliant screenwriter Charles Kaufman (N.K.) trying to adapt the book “The Orchid Thief” journalist Susan Orleans (Maryl Streep). He does not get much, there is no inspiration, at night he dreams strangely, shyness interferes with building a personal life with women, poorly dressed, suffers from a mental disorder, in parallel with him lives his twin brother Donald, who on the contrary everything is positive, later Donald begins to help him in everything.
2) The last twenty-five minutes of adventures with crime, there is a car chase, shooting, bloody death, there is a long-awaited ending.
Cons: The first 90 minutes of boring chatter, contain no action, want to rewind. I did not like the construction of the storyline, no, to show everything in a simple way, where the duration of the film will last 40 minutes, but everything is terribly long, we decided to insert the experiences of a real screenwriter.
Plus: I am grateful to the actors, they are on top, Nick Cage perfectly plays “dumb”, I will note Chris Cooper, who received an Oscar for best supporting actor, because of them and did not turn off the movie.
So many people, so many different opinions about this work, and I did not discover anything new for myself, I experienced a slight feeling of disappointment from what I saw.
Who wants to stand all the practice at the wall, thoughtfully looking at everyone, feeling a half-folded subway ticket in his pocket, scrolling through the memory of the single of the day, which can be inserted at the post-production stage, placing the main characters in cells that in no case can not be crossed out or enter another symbol? It is strange that it is in this case that a novice writer is born the idea of a new work, intertwined with the seen obviousness and financed promotion, the cover of an unprinted novel is signed, a pencil is sharpened or a rod in a pen is changed, leaf after leaf is thrown out, personal life is destroyed for non-personal interests. And under such circumstances, how few people will understand what he or she is setting up, maybe they will cooperate together or write on an argument? Ink poison pours into the master's blood and freezes for a moment - he released motivated shots, he released the primitive to the wild, he became hungry and faded, because no one fed him or gave him food until the last sign at the end of the sentence was put. And if there was no wall that did not allow him to sit down, if there was no colleague who replaced him sitting, if there were no flowers given after the flowerbed was cleared, if there were no domestic criticism and young people who discourage the desire to surrender the material - thoughts come.
The last working day is approaching, and nothing has yet been filmed, a check-up is looming, and nothing has yet been prepared, the official premiere is approaching, and the posters have not yet been hung. For any process, the course of actions under which they will be observed and performed is important, all the nuances of picky props are important, communication and agreement between a person with a pleasant appearance and a person with a dissected lip, called the producer, is important, and then it will not be in vain. It begins progressively, when only the writer has all the trump cards up his sleeve.
This is one of the most accurate trump cards in the fruitful box of Spike Jones was again Charlie Kaufman, who continued to think further, during preparations and orders for the year. In this film, he, in fact, gave the curious viewer his secretive face with a pleasant appearance, with which all the important conversations were conducted and on which he hoped most, besides ridiculous difficulties and delays. In fact, he in the autobiographical plan conveyed on the place of the director what he experiences himself when he types the text and checks for semantic errors, when no one gets it, no one interferes in his boot stage of searching for the plot, when only he can answer for what he created and what was only in thinking. It was as if he was making a movie about himself, letting Jones (whose style remains one of my favorites among the world’s most popular directors, and let him work in the same direction) rest in a soft chair until he gets along with the actors and surrenders everything in shifts. In this picture, I learned his tragedy from the height of an ordinary man who also has his own adaptation company of disasters, who also has his second self, his close friend who boasts of his small success. The second great joint campaign of Spike Jones and Charlie Kaufman, to which I personally had no objections.
For himself, a screenwriter, divided into two mutually opposed film lovers, it was Bulgakov’s “Master”, as I would like to call it, depicted by the talented static Nicholas Cage, that would deserve the most pleasant existence that could be offered to him. But for some reason it so happened that he is unlucky in love, the cardinal essence disappears, there is no basis from which a great treasure of cinema is digging, comrades bypass, when they meet, they happily wave their hand or transfer “hello” to the phone of a celebrity, to whom he “fit” his hands and gave voices. Cage in the guise of Kaufman was something else like the poet Block or the dreamy Oscar Wilde, trying to get close to his character as professionally as he can, worrying, falling into turmoil, torturing himself and running away, recording everything at a slight click on a small record player. Starting from the thoughts of ideological brothers, he successfully joined both Charlie and Donald, who were connected by appearance, but separated by goals. Touched me and charming Meryl Streep, who proved once again how she likes to experiment in the choice of roles, how beautiful she can show herself and make mad from this others, this magnificent actress poured into this picture a variety of mix of genre - from light melodrama to sad drama, and was remembered as a busy writer Susan, who is interested in how the film adaptation of her books will be displayed, and who will deal with these first. Furiously and "smuggled" into this environment and florist Chris Cooper, who had the courage to not only give out his true story of a rare find, but also to fence off from all enemies and rushers, sticking his nose in his "dirty underwear" secrets - struck, to be honest, struck. Small spots pleased the eye accomplice of “Kaufman’s progress” agent Tilda Swinton, surprised the youthful gesture of a beautiful waitress, a lover of flora Judy Greer, led to unpredictable results, hitting the cheek with the palm of the hand hot and swearing in the presence of an audience critic Brian Cox, miraculously smiled and attracted the attention of Maggie Gyllenhaal, flashed resourcefully in episodes Catherine Kinner, John Cusack and John Malkovich.
And everything had been so tart and indistinct from the beginning, rising up to the outward windows, that the flaming light quickly began to go out, not because it was extinguished by praise, but because it burned what was not. That is, I wanted to say that in Jones’ film there was nothing to burn and burn, everything was not to be destroyed, as well as Kaufman’s wonderful script. I was very impressed by the musical accompaniment under the auspices of Carter Burwell, especially the final song "Happy Together" and the graphics playing to this song.
The words "for thought": "This movie is not about me, this movie is not about my jacket, not about the chair that hurts me to sit on, not about flowers ... this line will not be included in the film, no matter how playful and brilliant it was ... and I can not voice the dates of its announcement, just keep silent..." It's time to comb my hair, but I don't have a gold scallop yet. There you go. The end of rightness doesn't force you to give up. It leads to a rough beginning in order to feel pleasure again. What kind of stupidity? Not yet for "reflection."."
I like movies that have original and well-thought-out scenarios, where the outcome of events and the outcome are always unexpected and you can never guess how it will end. That’s all I can say about this movie. “Adaptation” is an unusual and twisted drama that I really liked, and this movie has its own exclusivity and purity, because the film is completely unlike anything, and it was shot interestingly and qualitatively. When you start watching this movie, you do not expect to see this unexpected and well-thought-out story with two bottoms. I love films with two bottoms, they have what is alluring and intriguing, so “Adaptation” turned out to be a decent and high-quality drama with elements of both crime and comedy.
We see a screenwriter who has to write a script for a film based on one mysterious and famous book, and in the course of the work the main character understands that this work was much more difficult than he thought, and he suddenly began to experience a spiritual, creative dead end, but the main character does not stop there and responsibly approaches his work and falls into a series of incredible events and disclosure of secrets about which he should not have known, so the consequences and outcome of events will be dramatic and tragic.
The cast in this film was brilliant, which is why the movie turned out so good and worthy of attention. I never really liked Nicolas Cage, but in this film he has a complex and difficult role, there are two of them, and plays a great talent, and this film with his participation is one of my favorites. Meryl Streep was beautiful and enigmatic in this drama, and her character captivated me and I wanted to know all the secrets she kept. Chris Cooper is also a strong and worthy actor, and in this film he played very talented. In a small, episodic role, it was nice to see Tilda Swinton. I like this actress: she is an interesting actress with an unusual appearance.
“Adaptation” is an original film with an original script and a complex, original story, and therefore the film undoubtedly deserves the attention of viewers and positive feedback. This drama is about what unexpected conclusions we come to in our philosophical judgments and what they lead to, about what people keep who wear masks and pretend that everything is in order and lead an ordinary, ordinary life, but in fact everything inside them is boiling, and about what is important in life, and that you do not need to complicate everything, and in this life everything is much simpler than we think. The movie impressed and intrigued me, and for me it is one of the most noticeable and worthy films of 2002.
9 out of 10
Adaptation is meaningless unless you know who Charlie Kaufman is. And if you know that this is a very pretentious, surreal fantasist who wrote the script for this film, then it would not be superfluous to know his previous project with Spike Jonze called Being John Malkovich. Oh, have you seen this movie? Well, good. Then you have nothing to worry about. In Adaptation, all Kaufman surprises will not pass you by.
So, after the first collaboration with Jonz and the success that followed him, Kaufman sets out to write a new script for a second collaboration. Taking on the adaptation of journalist Susan Orleans' book The Orchid Thief, Kaufman sits in a puddle. The new script doesn't work. Fresh ideas with the former level of originality in the imagination are desperately lacking. And to do something banal does not allow conscience. Kaufman is experiencing a creative crisis, nervously scratching his thick hair and frantically looking for solutions. And then it dawns on him. There is no evil without good, he thinks.
Cunning Kaufman turns what hinders him into what will help him. He writes straight to the forehead, without changing names, a script about how he, Charlie Kaufman, experiences a creative crisis when adapting Susan Orleans' book The Orchid Thief.
All in the best traditions of never aging postmodernism.
The only freedom that has no confirmation in real life, which Kaufman allowed himself, was to come up with a twin brother Donald, who in the film personifies his own, unrealizable Charlie: cheerful, carefree, popular among women and coming up with banal, but successful scenarios that are bought up by film studios.
In addition, citizen Kaufman entertains the viewer with intertextual references to the past project “Being John Malkovich”, constantly self-ironizing, joking, making blunders, and then he himself points to them, in advance reinsuring himself from criticism from outsiders. I, say, guys, I understand that the voiceover is banal, but I still want to use it. Yes, the farce ending with a criminal sensuality is frankly inappropriate and implausible, but I myself through the mouth of Robert McKee (this character also exists in the real world) said that you need something to surprise the viewer in the end. So I guess I was surprised.
Kaufman intensely pretends to be a wreck and an original, but in fact he is a real crook and hack, who made the original force of his own fantasy helplessness. And most paradoxically, Kaufman threw dust in his eyes with exceptional skill and taste. You can't praise it.