catapult magazine

I can now chime in on this movie. I was very disappointed. It’s way too self-indulgent. I don’t care if the screenwriter knows he’s being self-indulgent, it’s still “shame on him” for being so.

The message of Adaptation is very similar to that of Signs, in my opinion. It seems like Hollywood people are so hung-up these days on finding personal meaning in life, as if that is the great end for mankind. What matters for Charlie Kaufman is that he has discovered himself in what he loves and it doesn’t matter who loves or doesn’t love him. And this is the great conclusion to his two hour struggle?

I also have a problem with the film’s perspective concerning what films are good for. Blah, I need to get the taste of this one out of my mouth!

I didn’t think you’d like it. Much too overt and over the top. In many ways, the ending leaves me in the same manner as American Beauty, although Adaptation was more knowingly self-delusional instead of mistakenly self-delusional.

I still think In A Lonely Place offers a fantastic counter-point to Adaptation. It doesn’t finish happily, but I think it’s much more forthright and honest. Or maybe I just love Bogart.

Finding personal meaning is something only “hollywood people” are hung up with? The film resonates in part because it’s hollywood responding to themes and beliefs that run deep in our culture. Like it or not, people everywhere are looking for personal meaning and fulfillment, and a good film talks to people where they’re at. Sure the answers given are simplistic, but I don’t think the film intended to give brilliant answers to deep existential questions. It’s about the process of writing and the struggles of a neurotic writer. And I don’t mind that it’s self-indulgent if Charlie Kaufman is doing the indulging.

well put dan. i must say that i most enjoy a movie when i am so intruiged by the performances, script and storyline that it renders me unable to use my brain analytically and allows me to appreciate the film as it unfolds. i am drawn in and this heightens the experience for me. every situation, wether it be humorous or tragic or both, is a joy. when a movie can do that for me i can’t much say i care how it ends. all i know is that i don’t want it to.

p.s. i cannot believe you (grant) would have the cajones to compare this fine film with “signs”. mel gibson was in “signs”. MEL GIBSON! perhaps there could be some basic thematic comparison made, but crap and chocolate are the same color and i’m sure not going to confuse the two. shame on you mr. elgersma.

But here is my thing about the movie. I get that the end of the movie is supposed to be a kind of postmodern irony in which the very things that Kaufman said he didn’t want to include in the movie (car chase, drug sub plot, situation in which the main character learns an important life lesson) become the basis for the end of the movie — but it felt to me like it was, at best, a betrayal. At worst, a kind of sell out. What is the point here, that this guy needs to get over his desire to say something and instead just have fun with the script. Or is the point that our culture is laughable for doing just that all the time — and aren’t we smart for knowing better?

The best we can do is laugh at our own stupidity? Nah, give me Fargo instead. That seemed to be saying that there is some kind of moral bottom line.

And hey, Gibson did okay as Hamlet.

It bothers me that the merits of this self-indulgent film would be defended just because it’s Charlie Kaufman being self-indulgent. That’s my point exactly. Spike Jonze’s exploration of our obsession with the inner lives of Hollywood people in Being John Malkovich was disturbing and caused us to think twice, but Adaptation seems to be ok with it all in the end and tells us not to think too much about it. What the *&#%?

By being about Charlie Kaufman the writer, Adaptation validates this freakish solipsistic way of doing movies. Forgive me if I’m allowing the analytic spot in my brain to fire, but I figured it would be ok, since Adaptation itself presents one analytical dilemma after another in the mind of Kaufman himself. It’s the end of the movie that I disagree with, though, the part of the film that says I shouldn’t think about it and should just watch the flowers grow. The end.

And here’s my problem with the theory that films, like all art, are merely meant to reflect the spirits of the age. Though that’s what film and art does, it must not be an end purpose in and of itself. I understand that Adaptation reflects a very common way of thinking in society today, but that’s what I’m arguing with, this dead-ended way of thinking! It’s a way of thinking that starts and stops with me and myself, who, all being told, is heading only for death in the end, so…what’s the point?

And what better place to argue with this point than within film itself, where the inner-world of our conscious and unconscious lives can be explored with more accuracy than with any other artistic medium! Thanks in part to the dominance of a certain kind of film-making, we are all becoming Hollywood people who think our inner-lives are the most important worlds in which to dwell (I’m not pulling this out of my analytic ass, this message can be found embedded in the very fabric of Being John Malkovich). Adaptation seems to give in to this evolution, which seems as hopeless to Christians today as the theory of evolution seemed to Christian believers in Darwin’s time.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen it now, but I do remember that I very much enjoyed the movie—especially the connection between the evolution of the story and the references to adaptation in the physical world.

I remember being a little disappointed at the ending, but the journey to get there was worth it. I certainly wouldn’t say that I agree with all the philosophies and ideas presented, but it was a great movie.

Grant, do you only like movies that present ideas that you agree with completely?

Lately, I’ve been more and more concerned that we don’t just say something’s a good movie if it was excellently put together. That seems like a ridiculous, even devilish notion. I’m guessing that thinking that way about art must come from a post-Scientific culture where we only appreciate the skill it took to put something together. It’s also reflective of just how technologistic we’ve become when we think that only the practical operations of the movie count for scrutiny and that the author’s ideas and perspective should be excluded from criticism.

I’ve hated the notion that excellent art equals Christian art for a long time now (I’m sorry, but no matter how excellent Wagner’s music is, it’s not of a Christian spirit), but as I grow in my tastes, I’ve become more and more critical, or crotchety, depending on how you look at it. It’s gotten to the point where lately I’ve been thinking that much of the art we’ve called “Great” in Western Civilization (due in part to the myth of “artistic genius” in Western Society) can be tossed if it doesn’t promote the one true Kingdom that counts in the end. But I’m still working on this. I don’t know if I’m still too attached to the reverence and respect I’m supposed to give the artists canonized in our art history or if I should see this kind of art as idolatry to be smashed, or merely chaff that will be blown away without my own doing. I hope that maybe Christians could save such works as DaVinci’s Mona Lisa and Michaelangelo’s David just by learning how to look at such works Christianly, but we’re a long ways away yet.

And to answer your question more personally. I had alot of fun watching Adaptation. I love movies of all kinds and take joy in the diversity of perspectives in art, but I become greatly disappointed when a skilled craftsman squanders his/her talents on a story that promotes the kingdom of death rather than the kingdom that will endure forever through the victory of Christ.

The Taliban liked smashing art too. Who might smash all the great art of the world? What kind of society are you envisioning, grant?

Exactly right. This is a major problem. Which is why I’m still working through this issue. How do we shift the value in our society away from venerating these works of artistic genius without becoming reactionary and fearful of them, as is the case with societies of fundamentalist Islam. Clearly, the motivation for fundamentalist Muslims to smash art is quite different than the reasons I’m suggesting for devaluing the “great works”—Islam holds to an Old Testament-like code about not using images while I feel so strongly about the value of images that I want them to live up to their power and significance in human life.

If the end result is the smashing of ‘idols’ then there isn’t much difference in my mind. I like the fact that artist have the freedom to express what they feel to be true without someone telling them their perspective is wrong. There’s lots of art that, in my opinion, tells a lie, but I’m not going to go smash it.