I saw The Adaptation last night. I've beein thinking about it all morning and suspect I will be for quite some time. Bio-collectors and fans of Robert Smithson and Vito Acconci might well enjoy this movie. Here's the rottentomatoes page. (some of the reviews give away much of the plot.)
I liked the movie's portrait of the brilliant redneck John Laroche, and--up to the point where it starts to get silly--his romance with the New Yorker writer. Laroche the character is so much more interesting than Charlie Kaufman the character. Chris Cooper deserves the Oscar. He is amazing in the role.
When the film gets silly is where it get's interesting, simultaneously lampooning and poignant. Also, secondary charactors are often "more interesting" than the protagonist. That's just one of the conventions of good drama.
*SPOILERS*
Where it gets silly, for me, is when Meryl Streep says "I guess we'll have to kill him." I just felt the "tacked on Hollywood ending" critique was already done, and much better, in The Player.
I didn't think Laroche was a secondary character, I thought he was the main character, and that Kaufman created a really good, moving, non-pomo portrait of him, and adding Streep as a love interest was weirdly moving, too. Unfortunately that would have only been a 45 minute film, so Kaufman padded it out with all the theory and Woody Allen stuff about being a bald, sweaty blocked writer.
I know I'm being snotty. I'm like Jim Louis--I don't want any more brainy postmodernism, I want to be told a story (even though I don't follow that advice on my page).
And being from the South (well, Texas) I admit to having an affection for stories about southern intellectuals who manage to thrive and be visionaries without moving to the Northeast or California. Laroche is the real deal, while Kaufman is merely clever. I couldn't help but feel the movie was Kaufman's unconscious revenge on a character he envied. He created this beautiful sketch and then buried it in narcissistic ugliness.
That's just my (admittedly extreme) take.
It sometimes takes me a whole week to read all the comments at dmtree (and comments are what I read first, my connection speed is way too slow for me to do much linking). And I have my graphics turned off so I can only selectively right click pictures. Lucky I got to see your free-mouse Pamela pic (impressive) before you deleted (which brings to mind the subject matter of several other posts this week, like Dave's multiple linkings to new copyright issues, and Jim and Pamela and Tom's thread discussing why an artist might want to limit access to their work).
So I just got to this one where Tom is clearly in the spirit of what it means to hang yourself way out there in the blogoshpere--to speak your mind and let your thoughts run free. But to go so far as to admit to being like Jim Louis is clearly a warning sign. A sign warning what I don't know, but their must be medication or free counseling and I recommend you seek these out forthwith.
Anyway, that was kind of scary to see oneself being compared to in print, I'm over it now. And that's accurate enough I guess. I mean, to the extent I even understand what postmodernism is, I would say I am not fond of much of it. Yeah, tell me a story. Keep it simple.
I haven't been out the house much lately so haven't seen the movie, but its on the list.
And in music news, last night I also did not leave the house so did not see 90-year old bluesman "Pinetop" Perkins at the Maple Leaf. I'm such a pussy. But that's a whole 'nother thread.
|
- steve 1-07-2003 6:31 pm
I liked the movie's portrait of the brilliant redneck John Laroche, and--up to the point where it starts to get silly--his romance with the New Yorker writer. Laroche the character is so much more interesting than Charlie Kaufman the character. Chris Cooper deserves the Oscar. He is amazing in the role.
- tom moody 1-07-2003 6:44 pm [add a comment]
When the film gets silly is where it get's interesting, simultaneously lampooning and poignant. Also, secondary charactors are often "more interesting" than the protagonist. That's just one of the conventions of good drama.
- steve 1-10-2003 8:49 pm [add a comment]
*SPOILERS*
Where it gets silly, for me, is when Meryl Streep says "I guess we'll have to kill him." I just felt the "tacked on Hollywood ending" critique was already done, and much better, in The Player.
I didn't think Laroche was a secondary character, I thought he was the main character, and that Kaufman created a really good, moving, non-pomo portrait of him, and adding Streep as a love interest was weirdly moving, too. Unfortunately that would have only been a 45 minute film, so Kaufman padded it out with all the theory and Woody Allen stuff about being a bald, sweaty blocked writer.
I know I'm being snotty. I'm like Jim Louis--I don't want any more brainy postmodernism, I want to be told a story (even though I don't follow that advice on my page).
And being from the South (well, Texas) I admit to having an affection for stories about southern intellectuals who manage to thrive and be visionaries without moving to the Northeast or California. Laroche is the real deal, while Kaufman is merely clever. I couldn't help but feel the movie was Kaufman's unconscious revenge on a character he envied. He created this beautiful sketch and then buried it in narcissistic ugliness.
That's just my (admittedly extreme) take.
- tom moody 1-13-2003 1:44 am [add a comment]
It sometimes takes me a whole week to read all the comments at dmtree (and comments are what I read first, my connection speed is way too slow for me to do much linking). And I have my graphics turned off so I can only selectively right click pictures. Lucky I got to see your free-mouse Pamela pic (impressive) before you deleted (which brings to mind the subject matter of several other posts this week, like Dave's multiple linkings to new copyright issues, and Jim and Pamela and Tom's thread discussing why an artist might want to limit access to their work).
So I just got to this one where Tom is clearly in the spirit of what it means to hang yourself way out there in the blogoshpere--to speak your mind and let your thoughts run free. But to go so far as to admit to being like Jim Louis is clearly a warning sign. A sign warning what I don't know, but their must be medication or free counseling and I recommend you seek these out forthwith.
Anyway, that was kind of scary to see oneself being compared to in print, I'm over it now. And that's accurate enough I guess. I mean, to the extent I even understand what postmodernism is, I would say I am not fond of much of it. Yeah, tell me a story. Keep it simple.
I haven't been out the house much lately so haven't seen the movie, but its on the list.
And in music news, last night I also did not leave the house so did not see 90-year old bluesman "Pinetop" Perkins at the Maple Leaf. I'm such a pussy. But that's a whole 'nother thread.
- jimlouis 1-18-2003 6:46 pm [add a comment]
I missed the thread but heard about it. I didn't realize it was Pamela until very early this am when I was surfing the site and suddenly she was gone. So the tree gets it's first real pruning. Ouch. I was slow to warm up to her and I'm missing her today.
- steve 1-19-2003 1:31 am [add a comment]
Oh, I didn't get it that way, Pamela's gone? I thought it was just the pic she objected to. Where'yat Pamela? Don't go.
- jimlouis 1-19-2003 4:11 am [add a comment]
Well sure nuff, she gone.
- jimlouis 1-19-2003 4:18 am [add a comment]