9.5 DISCUSSION - ADAPTATION (2002) Elements of Narrative

 

9.5 DISCUSSION - Elements of Narrative

Reread the end of Chapter 4 and the study of how the text analyzed Stagecoach (6th ed) in terms of the topic discussed in the chapter. Apply your understanding of point of view, narration, narrative structure, story, suspense, the conventions of the classical paradigm etc. to Adaptation. Give examples to bolster your analysis.

Discussion topics should include, but are not limited to:

1)A discussion of plot as it relates to Adaptation.

2)A discussion of the narrator as it relates to Adaptation.

3)A discussion of duration - screen, plot and story.

4)How, when and why does the form change?

5)Other elements you noted in utilizing the skeletal outline for Adaptation.

 

TIPS:

In a discussion of, "at least three points", in the case of the possible topics listed above, keep in mind that a thorough discussion of one  genre convention as it is depicted in the film and in a number of genres could yield three points.

Remember you must also respond to at least two other posts (responding to my response/questions count) by Sunday at midnight. Your initial post should be at least 200 words in length. Apply the course content to answer the questions. Quotes from the text will strengthen your discussion, although they are not required. Be sure to write formally and cite all sources.

My Post 10-26-21:
 

It was difficult for me to tease out the difference between story and plot. The text says from the filmmaker’s perspective, the story exists as a precondition for the plot. Understanding the story, the filmmaker chooses their plot, their form of presenting the events and the order. “Through plot, screenwriters and directors can give structure to stories and guide (if not control) viewers’ emotional responses.” (Monahan 132)

The official plot summary of Adaptation (Spike Jonze, 2002) in Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) is, “A lovelorn screenwriter becomes desperate as he tries and fails to adapt 'The Orchid Thief' by Susan Orlean for the screen.” source (Links to an external site.)

A plot summary which I like better from Letterboxd is, “From the creator of Being John Malkovich, comes the story about the creator of being John Malkovich.” source (Links to an external site.)

I believe the IMDB description is a brief description of the story. Letterboxd gives important plot information about the screenwriter which is the key to how this film is different from any other film and its form. My combination of the two to one plot is that this is a film of Charles Kaufman (IMDB left out saying it was Kaufman), trying to convert an uninteresting story, ‘The Orchid Thief' by Susan Orlean into a screenplay and his frustration and self-doubt with writer’s block.

The film is a dramatic narrative with some comedy and autobiographical elements. The plot points are delivered through fascinating use of narration. Mainly the diegetic use of first-person voice over. In the narration we can see that his manner is similar to that of how Woody Allen portrays himself in film. He is a genius yet insecure, paranoid, self-doubting and uneasy with women.  

In another Woody Allen plot similarity, in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), Woody Allen is a genius unknown independent screenwriter and Cliff his brother-in-law is laughably vain and unintelligent yet widely successful in the industry.  In Adaptation Charles is struggling with writer’s block while his unintellectual brother takes a seminar gets great success.

The narration shifts at another plot point where Charles finds himself enamored by Orlean and starts talking to her picture on the book jacket and she starts talking back. I’d call this first-person to first-person yet restricted information to the knowledge of only Charles. Although it really did seem like there was another person there comforting him. This film does include the genre of romance but not between Charles and Orlean but Orlean and Laroche.

It is hard to answer story duration when the film jumps back to Hollywood 4 billion years and 40 years ago when Charles asks himself, what am I doing here on this planet, how did I get here?  Although we do see the creation of the world and Charles birth, I’ll say that’s an overdramatic imaginary flashback and not included in the story duration. Story duration is defined as “the amount of time that the implied story takes to occur.” (Monahan 136) As I’ve said the story is about Charles’ struggle with writer’s block over The Orchid Thief. The story started before we began watching the film as he has already been given the screenplay project and is late with it when the film begins. So, the story time is from the time he got The Orchid Thief to the time he finishes writing it, perhaps one year.

The plot duration is shorter. “Plot duration is the elapsed time of those events within the story that the film explicitly presents (in other words, the elapsed time of the plot).” (Monahan 137) By the time Charles is in New York talking to McKee he says he is too far in the writing to start over. I believe the plot duration is the last four months that Charles wrote the screenplay.

The screen duration is 1:54:56, despite the film description of 114 min. beside the title.

Teacher Anna's reply to my post:
Story and plot can be hard to untangle but you seem to have a handle on it. Both contain the explicit events depicted. Plot is how the story is told, the order of events as well as non-diegetic material. What non-diegetic material was present and important to understanding the story?

My response to other students: 

Hello Robert, 

I enjoyed your analysis especially the comparisons with Casablanca. In studying flat and round characters it does seem that when Charlie at his neurotic self,  is flat and unchanging.  Similar to Rick who "doesn't stick his neck out for anyone" certainly does at the end. They do both become rounded characters through pure honest love. 

It made me think about most of Woody Allen's characters. They are flat as they continue to be neurotic to the end of the film, except in a few cases like Crimes and Misdemeanors where I think he is going to have a baby with someone. 

It did occur to me that when McKee said Casablanca  the greatest screenplay ever written, was written by twins, that perhaps that is why he decided to write his screenplay as twins. As an homage or maybe as good luck to have the greatest screenplay. Or maybe I'm looking too deeply into it. 

Another student's response to my post on Robert's post:

Ida:

I too found noteworthy how McKee (represented as an authority on the subject) stated that the greatest screenplay ever written was penned by twins.  I thought of the meta-ness of Kaufman having twins somewhat helping (saving?) each other in a very yingyang sort of way.  Of course, that brought me to the question of whether or not when Donald was killed, did this mean that Charlie's growth was complete and Donald was no longer needed?

My second student response:

Hello Joe,

Absolutely great insights. I have never differentiated one opening Columbia (or other film company) from another and will be more careful to do that from now on. Thank you for making the playback available. I see your point about this change being significant in showing the importance of his self-talk voiceovers.

I would sure like to know the official answer on the story duration. Anna posed it in a very interesting question above, 

"Is "400 and 40 billion years earlier" part of the story duration  - the implied amount of time taken by the entire narrative arc of a movies's story - whether or not explicitly presented on screen?"

Just as you pose the question, "But does that comical throwback to Hollywood at the dawn of time count?" I don't think it does. I called it an 'imaginary flash black.' 

I found the scene extremely comical and wrote notes on the McKee seminar. When Kaufman is in his head with voice over narration and finally McKee's words break through saying, and "God help you if you use voice over narration in your work, my friends. God help you. It’s flacid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write voice over narration to explain the thoughts of the character. " 

There probably is a rule like that. I'm glad he breaks those rules and wrote a story in the plot form he did - breaking that rule. You're right - that moment was very meta, I loved it.