J. Alfred Rockpaw's Film Analyses

Ideological Issues

Philip French’s (2003) critique of Adaptation discusses the film’s ideological meanings regarding obsession and theft. However, French ignores the film’s ideas about sex in modern society, and the current conflict between nature and technology. Indeed, “few scripts toss more challenging balls in the air” (Travers, 2002). Further cultural studies of Adaptation are needed to analyze the mutual influence between the film and the culture in which it was made. Jonze and Kaufman present multiple viewpoints on complex questions about mankind’s animalistic origins –namely regarding the evolutionary urge for sex –leaving us to draw our own interpretations. The film challenges modern North American values by exposing the irony of society’s simultaneous desire for industrial progress and attachment to natural roots.

French notes that Adaptation is a comment on the contemporary American tendency to hoard possessions. Focusing on “theft, expropriation, passion and obsession,” the film implies that people in this culture are possessive of that which they love, and exclude others from sharing in this love just as they exclude other potential objects of passion (French, 2003). Donald’s monologue captures this idea when he reminisces about an unrequited love, musing, “I loved Sarah….It was mine, that love. I owned it” (Adaptation). Like Laroche, who “surrender[s] himself so single-mindedly to each successive passionate pursuit,” people act as serial monogamists not only with other people, but with many things to which they devote attention. French compares Charlie’s desire to “preserve the integrity of Orlean's work” to the difficulty in letting go of something precious. Nonetheless, by holding on to something too firmly, one becomes “tempted to distort and cheapen it” just as Charlie does with The Orchid Thief. One tends to mistakenly believe in his exclusive ability to protect what he loves; Laroche insists that he is protecting the orchids by stealing them, proclaiming, “I’m a hero, the flowers are saved” (Adaptation). Indeed, French explores some of the complex layers of the film’s ideological meanings.

French’s critique, however, overlooks themes in Adaptation relating to the value society currently places on evolutionary human drives. The film is “a furious act of rebellion,” questioning whether drives that were adaptive in prehistoric times –specifically the purely physical desire for sex –are still adaptive (Denby, 2002). For example, Susan has a loving and intellectually stimulating husband. However, she is physically drawn to Laroche despite her disdain for certain aspects of his personality. She fights her sexual urges, but although this appears to be in order to adapt to modernity, have humans truly moved beyond these desires? Laroche discusses the beauty of blindly obeying one’s sexual impulses, saying:

There's a certain orchid that looks exactly like a certain insect so that this insect is drawn to this flower… and wants nothing more than to make love to it….And neither the flower, nor the insect, will ever understand the significance of their lovemaking….By simply doing what they're designed to do, something large and magnificent happens. (Adaptation)

As adamantly as Charlie tries to exclude sex from his screenplay, its inclusion is inevitable. His own nonexistent sex life is maladaptive. He is depressed that he cannot regenerate his genes, and therefore feels he must generate great art to leave something after his death. Perhaps it is society that still values animalistic sexuality while claiming not to; perhaps society has failed to adapt to itself. The film consistently alludes to this ouroboros. For example, Donald mentions that his girlfriend “has this great tattoo of a snake swallowing its tail,” and Charlie replies, “Ouroboros….I’m ouroboros” (Adaptation). Using references to “Charles Darwin, evolution guy” (in Laroche’s words), Adaptation challenges the belief that natural selection currently favours intellectualism over base sexuality (Adaptation).

As French fails to mention, the film also compares modern society’s naturalism in certain realms (such as sexuality) to its disregard for nature in others. The battle between nature and technology is frequently illustrated. The characters exhibit ambivalence –even torment –in their appreciation for nature. Charlie, Susan and Laroche question whether flowers are truly worthy of admiration. Susan seeks to analyze the mysterious power of orchids over people. She isn’t particularly fond of orchids, but wants “to see this thing that people [are] drawn to in such a singular and powerful way” (Adaptation). Charlie wants to “show people how amazing flowers are,” but admits that he isn’t sure whether they are so (Adaptation). Laroche, frustrated by his failed search for the ghost orchid, says he loves computers because they aren’t “like a living thing that’s going to leave or die” (Adaptation). His flashback demonstrates that the two most devastating events of his life exemplify the power of technology and nature respectively: his mother is killed by a car, and his plant nursery is demolished by a hurricane. There is a scene in Donald’s screenplay in which “the killer flees on horseback…. The cop is after them on a motorcycle. It's like a battle between motors and horses, like technology versus horse” (Adaptation).

The final shot of the film comments ironically on this battle. Traffic and buildings initially occupy the screen, but the camera tilts downward to reveal a cluster of flowers in the foreground. The cars speed along, but the film’s fast motion techniques allow the flowers to grow just as rapidly. The camera continues to move until the flowers seem to rise up to meet the traffic, and the song “So Happy Together” plays.

Ultimately, nature prevails over machines. Laroche and Susan hunt the Kaufmans with guns, but cannot catch them; their guns are outdone by an alligator, which devours Laroche. Adaptation seems to imply that despite mankind’s addiction to industrial progress and neglect of the environment, nature is a more influential force than we realize. Many reviews of the film note its comments on obsession, passion and possession. Others discuss its ideas about social conformity, as well as the commercialization of filmmaking. However, these critics fail to discuss Adaptation’s complex ideological notions regarding animalistic sexuality and its part in society’s attitude towards nature.

Bibliography

Adaptation. Dir. Spike Jonze. Beverly Detroit, 2002.

Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film. New York: W. W. Norton

& Company, Inc. (2007).

Denby, David. “Hothouse.” The New Yorker (9 December 2002)

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/12/09/021209crci_cinema.

French, Philip. “The Towering Twins.” The Observer (2 March 2003)

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2003/mar/02/philipfrench>.

Hays, Matthew. “Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman Re-team to Make Another

Brilliant and Strangely Funny Opus, Adaptation.” Montreal Mirror.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/121902/film1_cover.html.

Orlean, Susan. The Orchid Thief: A True Story of Beauty and Obsession. New York:

Random House (1998).

Travers, Peter. “Adaptation.” Rolling Stone (28 November 2002)

<http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5948559/review/5948560/adaptation>.

Aesthetic Components’ Contribution to Narrative

Spike Jonze’s 2002 comedy Adaptation is one of the director’s collaborations with screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. A box office success, the film garnered critical acclaim as well as a bevy of awards and nominations. The success of Adaptation is due in part to the creative and meticulous design of its aesthetic components. The film exemplifies the true goal of film as a medium: it wrings out every drop of possible utility from elements of film such as acting, mise-en-scène and editing to enhance our understanding of Kaufman’s narrative.

Adaptation is, indeed, a loose adaptation of Susan Orlean’s non-fiction book The Orchid Thief (1998). Kaufman experiments with narrative structure by presenting a non-sequential plot in which the point of view changes frequently and characters’ fantasies and realities are at times indistinguishable. The film, set in contemporary Hollywood and New York, portrays Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage), a screenwriter hired to adapt The Orchid Thief. Simultaneously comedy, drama and nonfiction, Adaptation is a conscious example of genre hybridization. The protagonist, Charlie, agonizes over the pressure to conform to a genre, and resolves not to resort to a deus ex machina or to “cram in sex or guns or car chases or characters…learning profound life lessons or growing…or overcoming obstacles” (Adaptation). He shudders when his conformist brother Donald (an aspiring screenwriter, also played by Cage) states, “We have to realize that we all write in a genre” (Adaptation). The plot alternates between Charlie’s story and flashbacks of Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) writing about orchid poacher John Laroche (Chris Cooper). Plagued by writer’s block, Charlie begrudgingly enlists Donald’s help. They begin to spy on Susan, only to find her and Laroche indulging in illegal drugs and adulterous sex; Susan and Laroche’s resulting attempt to eliminate the Kaufmans is foiled when Laroche is miraculously devoured by a deus ex alligator. Charlie –the only major character alive and content by the end of the film –has ultimately written a script which succumbs to every convention he dreaded, and against his better judgment has learned profound life lessons and –he would balk at this –overcome obstacles.

The naturalistic performances in Adaptation allow the viewer to accept Kaufman’s extreme plot. The four major roles –Charlie, Donald, Susan and Laroche –are each characterized with attention to subtle physicality and inherent emotionality and thoughtfulness. Cage plays two roles: the distraught, obsessive, intellectual loner Charlie, and his brother who is carefree, outgoing and simple-minded. Without unique costumes, makeup or hairstyles to differentiate them, Cage’s body language and vocal inflections make it clear which twin is which. It is not merely from Charlie’s dialogue that the audience learns that he is awkward and anxious, but from his hunched shoulders, nervous blinking and hesitant laugh. Method actor Cage explains, “I studied Charlie closely. I wanted to go on a fishing trip or move in with him” (Hays). Donald’s easy-going nature is portrayed by his grand gestures, lazy posture and booming, jovial voice. Streep illustrates levels of Susan’s emotions that are not overtly presented in the script. She is airily confident on the surface, yet in many scenes she momentarily retreats into reflection, and fear is evident in her eyes. This contrast expresses Susan’s internal battle between the obligation to obey social conventions, and the desire for change and freedom. She wonders whether “adapting is almost shameful, it’s like running away” (Adaptation). Susan’s gestures and body movements are small, quick and ever-changing; this embodies her tendency to spread herself over multiple projects, unable to commit completely to “one unembarrassed passion” (Adaptation). Although Susan changes dramatically –from a sophisticated journalist in a mundane marriage, to a criminal heaving a gun through a swamp –Streep’s performance exemplifies wholeness and unity, thus maintaining the audience’s understanding of Susan and her motivations.

Just as the actors’ choices influence us, whether consciously or subconsciously, the interpretation of the mise-en-scène in Adaptation contributes to our comprehension of the characters and themes. The décor, props, colour palette and costumes are rife with symbolism. For example, the characters’ respective apartments express their attitudes towards society, passion and obsession. Charlie’s room is dark and grey, and almost completely empty, reflecting his loneliness and lack of inspiration. Laroche’s house defies society. It is dirty and lived-in, implying his animalistic naturalism. At the peak of his orchid obsession, his wall is covered in pictures of the flower; however, “Laroche’s finishes [are] downright and absolute” and when the object of his passion switches to pornography, all images of orchids are replaced with photos of naked women (Adaptation). Susan’s apartment is as cluttered as her mind, and the interior design is conventionally stylish. Her living space indicates that she conforms to social norms, and that she has no all-encompassing passion. She hosts a dinner party for an assortment of New York intellectual clichés, all in glasses and dark clothing. Susan seems to belong to this group until she retreats to the bathroom to look in the mirror, and is surrounded by dark, empty walls instead of people. Jonze even comments self-reflexively on such uses of mise-en-scène to show emotions. When Donald boasts that for his screenplay he has “chosen a motif of broken mirrors to show the protagonist’s fragmented self,” Charlie’s face is reflected in a mirror behind him (Adaptation). Further, the compositions of the shots in Adaptation help communicate one of the film’s themes: the battle between nature and nurture (the natural world versus society and technology). In each scene that occurs in a natural setting, long shots or extreme long shots are employed, and the shot is framed such that foliage occupies far more space than do human figures. These shots give power to plants, not to modern society. The final shot of the film uses the rule of thirds to reiterate this idea; flowers occupy the entire foreground, and traffic and buildings can only be seen in the top third of the screen.

This attention to detail is not only evident in individual shots, but in their relations to each other, formed by creative and discontinuous editing. The film contains flashbacks, and flashbacks within flashbacks. The audience is challenged to keep track of which parts of Susan’s story are real flashbacks and which are products of Charlie’s imagination. This echoes Charlie’s difficulty with separating fantasy from reality, his screenplay from his life. A fast rhythm and deliberate disorientation of the audience allow us to feel as the characters do: lost and confused in a fast-paced modern world, and unable to slow the inevitability of change. As Susan says, “Change is not a choice” (Adaptation). Fast motion is frequently used to show mankind’s helplessness in such moments as when Laroche crashes his car; when Charlie desperately tries to capture his racing thoughts; in the opening montage of events leading up to this film; and in the final shot of flowers growing despite all of the technology towering before them. Eisenstein’s theory of collisions is also employed to give new meaning to individual shots. For example, Susan’s inner conflict is expressed when a shot of her looking at Laroche in admiration cuts to her mocking him with her friends. Later, Charlie’s being told to “find that one thing that [he cares] passionately about” is followed by a shot in which he talks about Susan, the audience thus inferring that he cares passionately about her (Adaptation). Editing is also used to liken flowers to women. In one scene, Charlie’s voice-over describing different orchids is paired with images of orchids. As he continues to speak, the flower shots are replaced with imagess of various women. Indeed, careful observation of Adaptation provides evidence that the film’s detailed acting, mise-en-scène and editing contribute greatly to the communication of Kaufman’s narrative.

References: