| The
Review: |
We begin with a theater, dark, the
screen ablaze with the images of Spike Jonze's "Adaptation,"
the follow-up feature to his acclaimed film "Being John Malkovich."
We see the many rows of faces of the attendees viewing this
celluloid entertainment, among them David Litton, an aspiring
movie critic who believes in his writing enough to press on
with his dream of one day making it at a successful career
in the field. He watches the images onscreen, his face intensely
interested, or intensely bored, one of the two; moments, hours
pass by, and thunderstruck by what he has seen onscreen, he
returns home to begin writing his review, which he attempts
to structure in the same manner as that of the film itself:
by making himself the subject. ***
"There's a point in 'Adaptation,'"
Litton writes, "in which one of the characters makes the comment,
'You write a screenplay without conflict or crisis, and you'll
bore your audience to tears.'" Fascinated by the very meaning
of this statement, Litton continues: "The very essence of
what that character is saying is completely negated by Jonze's
film, which contains countless character crises and conflicts,
but was unable for one instant to move me beyond a ceaseless
flow of said tears of boredom." ***
Okay, now let's step back into reality:
I can't go any further with that little experiment, and having
said that, it was sheer agony making it completely through
"Adaptation." This has to be one of the most overrated, ridiculously
undeserving-of-its-praise movie of the year, a sorry mishmash
of oddly-constructed plot elements and character motivations
that goes nowhere with a premise that didn't seem to have
much fire to it in the first place. The plot is a risk-taker
in every sense of the term, crafted by screenwriter Charlie
Kaufman in such a way that it mirrors his own reality as he
wrote the actual screenplay. Centering on a ficticious concept
of a twin brother, Donald Kaufman (both are played by Nicolas
Cage), and the exploits of a real-life orchid hunter (Chris
Cooper) and the equally real writer (Meryl Streep) who becomes
infatuated with his passion for "something passionate," the
concept of reality and fiction melding together as one has
the potential to go places no movie has ever gone before.
***
Two things happen: 1) the material
explores untold regions of moviemaking, and 2) it does so
in such a way that I was completely turned off by the overall
experience. Sure, the idea of portraying screenwriting in
a new and inventive manner is interesting, but not here. Much
like Kaufman (the character, not the writer- or maybe it's
supposed to be both), I'm stumped as to what I should say
here. ***
I'll start off by saying that the
material is in no way as clever as it believes itself to be.
Think about this: the filmmakers want us to believe that this
is in some way connected to Kaufman's own reality, and by
extension a much larger picture of those who undertake the
struggle of writing a screenplay, or any work for that matter.
But what would the gifted writer of "Being John Malkovich"
be doing trying to adapt a book like "The Orchid Thief" for
a film treatment? How believable it that? Is that reality,
or a facsimile as the movie suggests? Does it mean anything,
or nothing at all? It seems to me that in their attempts to
be innovative and creative with their premise, Kaufman and
Jonze have merely succeeded in distancing the audience from
the very underlying subtext that they are trying to expose.
***
And I guess had I liked the characters
I would have something more to say about the acting other
than "Ugh!" I'm sure in some alternate universe these performances
have some appeal, but for me they lacked any sense of passion
or grasp of the material. All I kept staring at was Chris
Cooper's missing teeth, or Nicolas Cage's prosthetic balding
scalp and enlarged tummy. Attention-grabbers, yes, but in
all the wrong ways. And God, if I didn't want to smack the
living shitake mushrooms out of Meryl Streep's bookish twit
of a writer, who ranks as the film's most annoying character
for reasons I cannot recall (my mind has built an emotional
block against this painful memory, so please forgive any lack
of further story details). ***
In the end, I know my comments
aren't going to change anyone's thinking about the movie who
already has a specific opinion about it. I haven't really
said much, honestly, and to be even more blunt, I don't know
what else to say. I don't remember enough of the movie to
really break it down bit by everlasting bit, and the bad aftertaste
is such that I cannot in good conscience merit the film a
second viewing; I don't believe for an instant that it would
change a thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that at
the very least, "Being John Malkovich" had something to say
for itself, whereas "Adaptation" feels like a free-for-all,
a smorgasbord of absurdity that lingers like the stench of
a rotten corpse, which the film has plenty of.
|
| Image
and Sound |
A not-quite-flawless
transfer makes this one of Columbia's fair Superbit titles.
The 1.85:1 anamorphic image looks pretty good here, with a
vivid array of well-saturated colors that don't bleed or smear,
and remain accurate throughout. Contrast is generally pleasing,
but there are some moments where some artifacts are noticeable,
and shadow detail is wanting in some cases. Edges are sharp
throughout with some minute but visible enhancement halos,
while the source print looks free of scratches or dirt. Good,
but not the greatest. ***
The audio
is much more pleasing, even if it is confined mostly to things
like score and dialogue. Both the DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1
tracks exhibit a terrific use of the soundfield, with Carter
Burwell's score filling out nicely in the surrounds, and some
of the more aggressive moments making a statement in the low
end with some nice .1 LFE bass. Dialogue sounds natural throughout,
and the balance between the high and low ends is distinct.
The DTS option is as expected the better way to go, but only
just barely here.
|
