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:
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>.
No comments:
Post a Comment