ADAPTATION (****)
How often have we complained that Hollywood studio pictures have become formulaic? Predictable? Cliché? Even insulting? Well, here comes ADAPTATION, and it is a work of pure inspiration. Never before have I seen a screenplay that pulsates with such imagination, intelligence, and trickery. It comes from the creators of the highly original BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. If you enjoyed that film, you’re sure to enjoy this one, for ADAPTATION is in every respect, a better film.
The movie starts off on the very heels of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH showing shots of John Malkovich, John Cusack, Catherine Keener, and the director Spike Jonze behind the scenes. We are then shown Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage), MALKOVICH’s screenwriter watching intently on the sidelines as his work comes to life. After MALKOVICH becomes a success, he is asked by his producer Valerie (Tilda Swinton) to make a film adaptation of THE ORCHID THIEF, a book written by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep), who writes for New Yorker Magazine.
As Charlie reviews the book, we see him envisioning THE ORCHID THIEF’s characters and situations. We see Susan Orlean’s meetings with John Laroche (Chris Cooper), who can only be described as a flower-wrangler. He comes from a long line of men who wish to exploit orchids for profit (I didn’t know that they were THAT desired). He thinks he has discovered a way to pluck these flora from their protective reserve without legal worry, and at one point, dares a ranger to arrest him while citing court-decisions that favor his moves.
We can see Charlie’s deep appreciation for Susan’s insights from flowers and their collector Laroche. But he soon realizes his dilemma: the book has a lot of them, but hardly any narrative arc. This provides him with an all-to-real case of writer’s block. The book may be insightful, but is it movie-material? To complicate matters, Charlie has to deal with his twin brother Donald (also Cage), who also wants to be a screenwriter. Despite their identical appearances, Donald lacks Charlie’s intelligence and values (but both share the same charm). While Charlie is sweating out his troubles, Donald keeps asking for further advice after attending screenwriting seminars held by Robert McKee (Brian Cox), who lectures his students on film formulas.
To make things worse, Charlie’s admiration of Susan Orlean turns into a fixation. He goes to New York to meet her, but cannot bring himself to speak. In the meantime his brother gets a million-dollar signing offer for his multi-formulaic flick. Charlie becomes despondent, resorting to attend McKee’s seminar, a man he used to believe a fraud. How will his adaptation turn out?
The several intertwining storylines in ADAPTATION each could have been their own movie. Yet Jonze is ambitious (and equally capable) of tackling all of them to fit his picture. This is essentially the same feat he and Charlie Kaufman (the film’s screenwriter) pulled off with their previous BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But these two impresarios add an extra treat: they deceive us. How so? You have to see it to appreciate it.
In addition to its marvelous balancing act, ADAPTATION is a lot of other things. For one thing, it showcases one of the most accurate portrayals of writer’s block I’ve ever seen. I laughed heartily after seeing Charlie (Cage’s version) mull whether he should have his muffin before or after writing a page. It contains poignant metaphors and musings of flowers and human nature. It has insights on screenplays, Hollywood formulas, and the need for passion in life. It also has one of the most courageous changes of technique in recent memory. The movie maintains a humorous and light feel through the majority of its span, and then takes a diabolical turn down the stretch. After making us care for the Kaufmans through laughs, we care even more for their safety near the end.
Jonze manages to trick us into believing what shouldn’t be believed, and doubting what should be taken seriously, by mixing up his methods. At times he uses real people playing themselves (e.g. himself, Cusack, Keener, & Malkovich), real people being played by actors (e.g. Orlean, McKee, Laroche), and even fictional people (I’ll leave you to figure that out). He uses both fictional and non-fictional happenings that occur in THE ORCHID THIEF and out of it. Events become so inexplicably complex yet somehow remain entirely comprehensible (believe me it does).
The story also contains a powerhouse cast, all of whom are used valuably. Brian Cox (most recently seen in X2) gives a short yet powerful impression as Robert McKee, a professor wise enough to give even Charlie Kaufman lessons on writing. Meryl Streep gives her usual immersed character improvisation in Susan Orlean, a woman who is intrigued by her subject, because he is so genuine, and so passionate of his subjects. Chris Cooper (OCTOBER SKY) is a great actor who finally gets his due (he won this year’s Best Supporting Actor) with a rich and colorful performance as John Laroche, a man who loves orchids to a fault, but is able to let go. He uses drugs, smokes through his absent front teeth, and has an ardor for all things natural, which compensates for a great loss in his past. All of these actors have been so very good and so consistent for so long, that their performances are an afterthought.
And Nicolas Cage? He is magnificent. Without prosthetics, special effects, or any significant makeup, he is able to embody both Charlie and Donald Kaufman distinctly with uncanny skill. It’s a performance that not only demonstrates his talents, but also reveals his joy in acting (don’t forget that he did win a much deserved Best Actor Oscar for LEAVING LAS VEGAS). There is a certain gleeful but dark flamboyance in which he embodies these twins. You can tell which twin is which without much trouble. Credit Mr. Cage for that.
The real star of the movie though is its screenplay (I cannot emphasize that enough). Films like THE USUAL SUSPECTS, THE OTHERS, and THE SIXTH SENSE had wonderful twists at the end to delight their audiences. ADAPTATION has one too, but it works on several layers instead of two. It forces you to double-back into the story not once, not twice, but many many times (like VANILLA SKY). It’s the kind of film that can get away with being serious and self-mocking oh so very slyly. Donald Kaufman would have been proud. Wink wink.
Posted by FLIPCRITIC at June 25, 2003 12:00 AM