ADAPTATION

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Dangerous Mind

    Sweet, sweet cookies make my teeth hurt.

    But I love juicy, juicy beef.

    I also love reading great scripts.

    Still waiting for the contest.

    *drums fingers, whistling, looking around the room*

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Dangerous Mind

      Email me. Then never mention beef again.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Dangerous Mind

        Good to see this at the top again. I've been eyeing my copy of ADAPTATION on my shelf lately, anxiously awaiting the filmed version.

        If it was possible to frame a script and still be able to read it, that's what I'd do. Charlie rules my world, not that you could tell from my writing...

        Comment


        • #34
          adaptation

          While a big fan of the script I do have a couple reservations about it. Curious:
          to those who have read this do you feel it's an unqualified masterpiece? ie you don't have a single solitary reservation about it? I'm curious if people think it's so brilliant b/c of what it addresses, how it does so, or both?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: adaptation

            anyone?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: adaptation

              I'll read it this weekend.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: adaptation

                blappiep -- in my book, yes, it's a masterpiece. Entertaining enough for the masses, yet with a subversiveness that industry folk will understand. It's the type of script that invigorates me to write like no amount of caffeine ever could.

                But you gotta take it on its own terms, and I can see that many people won't be ready and willing to do so. The way Kaufman presents this script for consumption reminds me of a line attributed to Shostakovich before the premiere of one of his works: Answering questions about whether Russian audiences were ready for and would accept his composition, Shostakovich is said to have replied, "Let them eat it."

                Kaufman lets you eat it.

                And, yes, it's flawed. But all the more brilliant for those flaws, which were engineered with malice of forethought. Not something just any writer can manage.

                What, in general, are your issues? Reviews of the script being available on the Internet, I'm sure we wouldn't be giving away any info not currently readily available if we spoke in broad terms.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: adaptation

                  ***SPOILERS******

                  I remember when I was reading it and a couple days thereafter I was struck by how clever the script was. There was much to admire in it of course (particularly as a struggling screenwriter) but I couldn't shake the feeling that kaufman - by including his neuroses about how he was writing the script itself - gave himself an out. Hey, this script might not work, no problem just have your character voice that. All very clever...Anyways, it didn't ruin the script for me but it was something that stuck out.

                  However, as time went on I found myself reflecting on the script quite a bit and I keep coming to the same conclusion: it's pretty effing great. c.kaufman somehow manages to pull off a contradiction:

                  if you feel the last act is entertaining and 'good' then he's proved mckee's point (that the last act is everything) and, in essence, written the perfectly structured Hollywood script.

                  if you feel that the last act falls apart, then kaufman has refuted mckee and written an original movie that defies not only mckee but the structure of lame ass hollywood movies.

                  Either way, he wins. It's pretty remarkable if you think about it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    ***SPOILERS A-GO-GO!***

                    Repeat: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--> ***SPOILERS A-GO-GO!***<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

                    <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> I couldn't shake the feeling that kaufman - by including his neuroses about how he was writing the script itself - gave himself an out. Hey, this script might not work, no problem just have your character voice that.<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

                    blap - from my viewpoint, this is all part of the subterfuge.

                    The Kaufman CHARACTER is 40s, balding, fat, loathes himself, really doesn't believe in his abilities.

                    Kaufman the REAL PERSON is 30s, hazza head fulla hair, is slim - and is self-confident enough to pull off the ballsiness of Adaptation.

                    Subterfuge. Already, critics who've read the script are worried about Kaufman's self-image. Score, Kaufman.

                    Much in the same manner as Kaufman presents himself as having a twin (who scores the Lotto jackpot in writing a script as per McKee's instructions, is killed off, and is "memorialized" in a closing, title-card insert at flick's end).

                    Uh-huh.

                    <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> if you feel that the last act falls apart, then kaufman has refuted mckee and written an original movie that defies not only mckee but the structure of lame ass hollywood movies.<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

                    Bullseye. The third act succeeds in the way it fails. Likely, most movie-goers won't even notice this. Such are my bets, anyhoo.

                    Plus, you gotta love the way he lampoons McKee -- on the surface, McKee's portrayed as sympathetic, all about helping Kaufman. But only a micro-layer below the surface, McKee is presented as, at best, Devil's advocate. Or, izzat Kaufman's role?

                    Luvvit!

                    In any case:

                    McKee has no basis for lawsuit, despite the harsh lampoon (because, really, look at how so very much harsher Kaufman is on himself, while portraying McKee in such an avuncular manner), and;

                    One will note that there are several celebrities appearing as themselves in the flick -- McKee and Kaufman conspicuously absent among them.

                    Oh, yes....!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      adaptation

                      great pts. wordybird. I get what you're saying about the subterfuge and all that and I know kaufman in real life isn't bald an fat. That was my whole pt. about the cleverness factor. anyways, moot pt.

                      On another pt. I didn't really feel that mckee is presented as avuncularly as you. in fact he's kind of a @#%$, until they go for drinks. Now the question is this: is kaufman ultimately calling mckee full of @#%$ or is he ultimately embracing him as some warped genius. Answering that question depends on how you feel about the ending and whether the third act succeeds or fails.

                      btw, which celebrities appear as themselves in the film?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: adaptation

                        <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> btw, which celebrities appear as themselves in the film?<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

                        us.imdb.com/Title?0268126

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I know copies of the screenplay are to be found. Anyone want to steer me in the right direction, please?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: ramblings on ADAPTATION

                            Just finished reading it 10 minutes ago, and am still figuratively chewing it through--with a wry smile on my face at the audacity of it all. This will be one of the films of the decade I'm quite convinced, or at least it should be.

                            I'm sure many will wax lyrical about the deconstructionism and all the rest, and what the essential truth of the piece is, and if it is a masterpeice? The bar isn't set that high in screenwriting for it not to stand out as something special--i'd reserve the acolade of masterpice though and it say it is clever, astute and constructed the way a conjourer performs a trick--drawing attention to the left hand while the right is doing the business--all the while explaining how the trick is performed with a running narrative, and making the finale a surprise that you knew was coming.

                            Will this be up for best original or adapted screenplay at the oscars? It probably desrves both, maybe they need a new category.

                            Nic Cage--whose idea was that? I can see the financial consideration influencing that choice, I don't think he can play down his performance enough to bring the character off. In fact, he'll make a performance of trying to play down the performance.

                            Essential viewing nonetheless.

                            Thanks again BP.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X