# data[].attributes.body
The movie, Adaption, is very connecting toward writers of all kinds, but distinctly between two main types: focused, and unfocused. Throughout the movie, we see Nick Cage’s character, Charlie Kaufman, constantly being occupied with subjective thoughts rather than objective thoughts, making him unfocused. The movie then swaps minds between the characters with Meryl Streep’s character, Susan Orlean, who is a focused and fluent writer. It sparked a lot of emotion in me as I felt Kaufman’s frustration in trying to create a work outside of the ordinary and also his happiness when he was finally able to add his own vision into Orchid Fever. The message of the movie that I see now, especially after reading the article, Film: The “I” Cure for Writer’s Block, is that the true vision of the movie is usually overlooked or shot past by the entertainment elements of the movie such as violence, sex, and drama. To me, it seems that the message of a work means nothing unless it is expressed by a character themselves to make the point known.

I understand that the feeling of writer’s block is very frustrating for writers and even worse when there is a set deadline on things. Truthfully, I believe that writer’s block is both good and bad, as it blocks a person from advancing, but allows them to stay in the moment and brainstorm on how to progress. Personally, I’ve been affected by this from time and time again, as I’ve been trying to write my short stories to no prevail or advance because there are too many ideas swirling in my head that I end up juggling between each stories. As of now, I’m trying to only write down those ideas and work on what I know what work I can primarily focus on.

# data[].attributes.body
Watching movies with my family is always a struggle because we can never agree on a single movie.  My brother and dad always want to watch something with action while my mom wants something heart-felt and I just want to watch something where I do not have to think.  Movies that require little to no thought have always been my favorite.  Though some may find them boring, I have always loved the mindlessness of watching these types of movies.  However, after learning more about film theory this week from our readings and watching the interview, I think I may have to reconsider the types of movies I want to watch.

Taking this into consideration while watching Adaptation, I really focused on the details and meaning of the movie.  Something I loved right off the bat was the stream of consciousness monologue right in the beginning of the movie.  It was almost like being in the narrator’s head and what it was like to live in his brain and hear his thoughts, one after the other.  This approach  is one I have not seen in a movie before, though I have seen movies use monologues, I have not seen one (that I can remember) use this type of stream of consciousness.  This particular aspect of the movie seemed to be carried over from “Orchid Fever” as, when I first started reading, it seemed to be, not exactly a stream of consciousness, but a type of list as the reader is taken through Laroche’s physical appearance and background.

Something else I noticed while watching Adaptations was, toward the beginning, when Donald attempts to start writing and starts thinking about anything else.  For example, he says he is hungry and that he should get a snack, but he cannot get a snack until he starts writing in order to reward himself and so on.  Hearing him say this made me feel like I was looking in a mirror as this is something I always do when I cannot think of what to write or am trying to avoid an assignment.  My roommate and I both do this and usually come to an agreement on the weekends where we can go to Frederick Coffee Company but not until after all or nearly all of our homework is finished.  I also could relate to Donald as when he started writing and only got about a sentence finished, he said he needed a break.  I feel like this is something I also do often, especially when trying to do an assignment I have been avoiding.  Adaptations really shows how easy it is to get distracted by anything and everything when having writer’s block or (to relate it to my own life) avoiding an assignment.

Out of all of our material this week, I really loved the “FILM: The “I” Cure for Writer’s Block” article.  It was so interesting to read about why Charlie Kaufman chose to write the screenplay the way he did.  It seemed as if every choice was made to make a statement and, in turn, created a highly engaging movie about his own experience with writer’s block. I found this week’s literary approach to be interesting as well as it is one that is so different from the rest we have learned about!  Unlike the other theories, film theory seems to stand on its own a bit and therefore makes it all the more engaging.

# data[].attributes.body
"Adaptation" really made me feel like I wasn't the only one. Often times I have ideas I just can not put together fluently in my own writings. Getting that initial spark is one of the more difficult things to do. The inner writer in me was very excited to see Kaufman find success in adding his own flare to "Orchid Fever" while writing. One little thing I took away from that was that Kaufman prevailed by being himself, which is more important than anything. I thought that was a subtle message in the film that may go overlooked. Kaufman stayed within himself while honoring Orleans original words.

We saw a writer go through his troubles and his hopelessness in attempting to write a movie about orchids, this story got told. It got told in such a playful, unique way. By introducing new characters and involving them in scenes with gore and horniness we are treated to stories within stories. I feel like without adding that stuff it, a story just about writers block would be boring and vanilla. For example in that scene where Kaufman fantasizes about Susan and rubs one out to his imagination, it's entertaining. Adding something like that gives the movie realness. The man was horny, and I appreciate the movie showing us that. Then it gets even better when he meets Susan and gets all shy. Those emotions are so real. Yes, it strays away from the main moral of the story but its a good thing it does. Those minor things make any film that much better. It becomes relatable while keeping you invested in the story. Nicholas Cage never reveals anything to the audience, he is fully committed to the success story that is "Adaptation."

# data[].attributes.body
This week was interesting for me because the jump from Susan Orleans's article, “Orchid Fever”, to the film version, Adaptation, was a big one. By that I mean, the article is very matter-of-fact in the way it describes John Laroche’s life, his vast knowledge on plants and orchids, and his interest in the loopholes in the laws on endangered species and plants, while Adaptation had new characters introduced (like Charlie and his twin, Donald) and it included drama, gore, and sex that was generally not in the article. Prior to reading the other article, “Film: the “I” cure for writers block”, and watching the video with Dr. Orloff, I assumed that the movie intentionally added the drama, gore, and sex – very typical elements of any blockbuster movie – to highlight how film adaptations of books and novels can totally ignore the true content and message of the book. I also thought this was why the film was called “Adaptation” - because it was making a statement about the process of adapting a book into a movie. So when I read the Zalewski article, I was shocked to find out that Charlie Kaufman is a real person, and that this was essentially a screenplay about a screenplay.

After reading and watching everything, I now understand why Charlie took the path he did in terms of writing the movie. Like the director Jonze said, “there was not really a story there” (Zalewski), and so creating a screenplay of it while staying completely true to the book would have been nearly impossible. Although from Orlean’s original article, the descriptions of plant mutation as “’a great little hobby’” (Orlean) were a little more interesting to me because it reminded me of Dr. Rappaccini in “Rappaccini’s Daughter”. But still, I can appreciate the struggle Charlie went through as he was trying to stay true to the story while also staying true to his writing style, all while trying to create something original and not cliche – which I’m sure for any screenwriter is a balancing act in and of itself.

# data[].attributes.body
The struggle depicted in Adaptation seemed familiar; as the movie follows our screenwriter through his doubts and lack of inspiration while he attempts to put together his script, I was reminded of sitting in front of my own writing. Be it an essay for class or a fiction project started for leisure, it is often difficult knowing where to begin, or how to word things, or what comes next. Furthermore, when I learned from the New York Times article that the film is based on the actual experience of a true screenwriter (Charlie Kaufman), I thought of how stressful it would be to battle such extreme writer’s block with deadlines looming and your own career depending on getting something on the page.
On the contrary, Kaufman points out that “If you know where you’re going when you start, then writing is just an exercise, and it’s not interesting” (New York Times, pgph.14). Certainly, the screenplay he produced was an interesting portrayal of Susan Orlean’s Orchid Fever. With his parallel storylines intertwined together, he found solutions to the lack of conflict in the original narrative and dealt with the inability to insert personal thoughts and botanical details— key components of Orlean’s story— into the script, by straying from the original piece and incorporating a new perspective.
I think that is what makes Adaptation so compelling. In film, postmodernism is described as a sort of revolt against traditional views and concepts in our culture. This innovation is what captures the audience’s attention and piques their interest; they cannot predict the end, they are dazzled by the visuals and layers of plot and emotion in the film, and they may have never seen in the waking world the kind of themes and scenes that define the film in question.
As Professor Orloff mentioned, “Different media have different relationships with the audience.” I think movies and films are one of the most impactful forms of media to the one who engages with it. After watching a horror movie, I may be haunted by the violent or chilling scenes for days afterwards. After perusing a Disney movie, I might be humming the upbeat songs for weeks. Films always leave a lasting impression on me, maybe because of how many different elements come together to create something unique and intriguing: lighting, music, camera angles, sound effects, dialogue, and the plot itself. And, it is always neat to see how a book has been converted into film, noticing what has stayed constant between the two formats and what characters or settings I envisioned differently than the producers.
I think that, nowadays, screenwriters, authors, journalists— and really any type of artist— have their work cut out for them in avoiding clichés and overused storylines or ideas. But still, many works of literature and film productions continue to surprise me, and I would guess I have postmodernism to thank for that.

# data[].attributes.body
It was such a delight to see the way in which Charlie Kaufman adapted Susan Orlean’s book, The Orchid Thief, into a screenplay. Having read the original article in the New Yorker, I was sorely tempted to figure out how I would approach such an undertaking. What came to mind was something—forgive the informal terminology---trippy and very experimental.

I imagined blurred and oddly framed images of flowers, perhaps so close up that they become abstracted, blended and overlayed with shots of women who take on Susan Orlean’s persona. I imagine something like A Secret Garden—on drugs. I can’t find a better way to express it. Like the way Kauffman gave himself a doppelganger, I might do this for Orlean—representing different parts of her psyche, even casting a young version of herself, and showing how the flowers make her reach back into her childhood for a pure version of herself (it seemed like this was hinted at in some of Orlean’s words.) I think it would be interesting to mix some silent movie era-esque text, to give a sort of sense that this is Orlean’s diary, along with voiceover and dialogue. I think the whole thing could be akin to an impressionistic painting, leaving you with an impression rather than something very solid. I think the success of my version would be measured by its ability to move emotionally. Music would play a greater role in my version--it would be symbolic and characters would have their own music. Laroche would take on a guide archetype—something similar to the poet Virgil in Dante’s Inferno, bringing Orlean deep into a magical realm that turns reality upside down. I don’t know if I would want religion to play a role, but of course thoughts of Adam and Eve in Eden come to mind—how Orlean is locked out of Eden psychologically, a place Laroche has access to, like Peter Pan in Neverland. She can never possess Laroche romantically, because he belongs to another plane of existence. More than Laroche, she wants access to Eden, and he does not want to fall in love with a woman who is actually in love with her own return to innocence….

I digress. What I really loved (you may have already guessed) about, “Adaptation,” is that it is one version of the countless routes this story could have taken. Kauffman himself acknowledges that there are many ways this could have gone—in the end he seems to take McKee’s advice and stick to tried and true methods—plot, climax, falling action, character arc...while my version does away with plot (potentially losing audience members). When I first watched “Adaptation” many years ago, the end lost me—it felt cheap. Having re-watched it, I appreciate it more because I see it was done with a lot of self-awareness. It is a beautiful form that this story took, but I think it would be so interesting to see response-screenplays (like the response poems we worked on in Intermediate poetry). I think Adaptation is nearly begging for it—Kauffman is asking for it—being so vocal about his struggle, it seemed like for him this story had to take a particular shape. What could it be in the hands of other writers? Kauffman didn’t write the story he set out to write, instead writing the story he had inside him. I think others should try with “The Orchid Thief” and make it a celebration of different viewpoints. Heck, if I have time, I might take a stab at it.

# data[].attributes.body
I think adaptation of a book to a film can be quite difficult. With the Adaptation, the goal of the film was to write about flowers, based on the book. I think what most screenwriters would have done with such a story is approach it from a documentary style of a film; however, because the screenwriter approached it from his own perspective as to not have drama, he introduced drama.
I understand that the screenwriter was writing about his own perspective and writers block, but because of his perspective he wrote more about his issues with lust and a bit about drama with a dramatic death at the end of the film. I'm assuming the point was to discuss the plot of the book getting away from screenwriters where they add their own personal flare, but with this approach it comes off as him trying something new and still creating all the aspects he was trying to avoid, with sex scenes and gore.
It's hard to get past the original content of what we read and what was shown, to be frank the movie comes off highly hypocritical, and maybe that's the point. However, that doesn't make adaptation good, seeing back to back scenes about lust and some random added twin character doesn't add much to the film. (I understand that it's to demonstrate his brother succeeding and his failures, but it didn't feel needed and felt like an excuse to get away with the brother posing as himself to talk to the author and only as one plot device). I may be hyper critical, but despite understanding what the screenwriter was trying to do, he didn't demonstrate it well through his work, the speech feels artificial, the scenes depicting horniness feel unnecessary, and if it stuck to the writers block and brothers relationship with feelings of self-doubt it could have been much better.