"Adaptation" - Part 2, the ideology

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>.