catapult magazine

I can now chime in on this movie. I was very disappointed. It’s way too self-indulgent. I don’t care if the screenwriter knows he’s being self-indulgent, it’s still “shame on him” for being so.

The message of Adaptation is very similar to that of Signs, in my opinion. It seems like Hollywood people are so hung-up these days on finding personal meaning in life, as if that is the great end for mankind. What matters for Charlie Kaufman is that he has discovered himself in what he loves and it doesn’t matter who loves or doesn’t love him. And this is the great conclusion to his two hour struggle?

I also have a problem with the film’s perspective concerning what films are good for. Blah, I need to get the taste of this one out of my mouth!

The question we’re raising though is "WHAT is being spoken in the artwork when it “speaks” to people?" That’s the whole issue with Adapation. I disagree with its message and think people ought to be able to make a judgment of value based on the fact that it’s message leaves much to be desired.

If I agree with you that the best we can say about art is that it “speaks to people”, then I’m just replacing the “good art is excellent art” statement with “good art speaks to people” statement. And that seems like more of a “lowest common denominator” thing to say about art (a statement we can all agree on) rather than asking art to be more, which it can be, and often is.

Of course art speaks to people, but so what! How can any judgment of value be made on that? If something speaks, then it’s good? Lots of people and things communicate messages. But what is the bloody thing saying? That’s what matters!

Ok I wasn’t clear. Of course that art speaks is not enough. People must feel that what it says is true. Or they hope it’s true. Or they fear it’s true. You feel Adaptation is false. Lots of people feel it’s true. I think Chocolat is false or simply predictable and boring. Others find it fascinating and hope that such fairy tales are really out there. I hope God is not condemning people for having different life experiences, psychological makeup, and tastes.

It would sound arrogant for me to say that my judgment of Adaptation is God’s judgment in the kind of thought pattern you’re in, dan. Yet Paul does seem to suggest that God’s people, with the help of the Holy Spirit, should now be equipped to tell right from wrong, good from bad. Paul’s message is supposed to be a comfort to a world where no one seems to know their right hand from their left. But today’s world has turned it into a dangerous statement. And it certainly does seem dangerous when put through the multiculturalism filter that dominates our world today.

What’s happening here, dan, is that you are attaching the authenticity ideas of our cultural context to my argument. I do not seek to thrust my personal opinion, an opinion that belongs to me and mine, on other people who are unlike myself. I’m arguing for a better way of judging that is devoid of personal possession. There seems to be no future in saying “everyone has their own opinion” because, first of all, how is it possible to own an opinion? and second, who’s to say anything about anything if we have to respect and revere other people’s opinions just because those opinions are “their” opinions. If you could accept, just for a moment, the possibility that this argument I’m presenting is not just “my” opinion, you might be able to understand it. But that requires a step of faith.

The society which has emerged from modernism is one of unprecidented freedom of expression, tolerance, and opportunity. I like the way most things are in democratic countries. When you talk about injecting your idea of God’s scale into public life, removing bad art and bad ideas on the basis of divine right—I get visions of Taliban, Crusades, Iran… Democracy is not so bad really. So what if it’s based on Greek ideas and enlightenment rationalism?

In terms of opinions, I think most people believe that an individual is the possessor of his/her opinions. Whether they are mistaken or not, I don’t know. We can still argue about ideas and about good/bad while still respecting the different backgrounds and personalities of others.

For example, a concentration camp survivor will respond in a completely different way to “Life is Beautiful” than I would. A 16 year old girl in China seeing “Titanic” for the first time will experience it differently than you would, grant. God’s scale gets pretty complicated when you include factors like that.

Am I revering the 16 year old chinese girl’s opinion? No. But we can explain why she might find Titanic so fantastic without saying that she is being disobedient to God. There’s enough room in the world for art of all sorts isn’t there? And enough room for people who enjoy the sort of art that doesn’t rank high on the God-o-meter.

Grant, are you suggesting that we should be able to come up with a universal scale which we can place different pieces of art on the appropriate slot?

I think the beauty of art is that, as Dan points out, different people will respond to it differently and will have different opinions on its quality (and I would add, whether the viewers are Christians or not—just because two people are Christians doesn’t mean the same piece of art will be “good” to both of them). I don’t think we need to try to find a way to quantify it or reduce it to a mathematical formula (it did this, this, and this, and the artist was a Christian, so God says it is VERY GOOD).

I do agree though, that the themes and statements art makes are important. I think it’s more important to watch for them and examine how they relate to the piece (and sometimes, to the artist) than it is to use them in a way intended to put labels on the art—which too often leave art labeled and not looked at, or read, or listened to.

OK, I see. There seems to be an assumption that finding a Christian way of viewing and doing art will negate diversity. I disagree with that notion. Christian artists offer a variety of diverse interests and styles (though you wouldn’t know it if all you ever heard of Christian music was CCM or of Christian literature was Max Lucado-type stuff). If anything, I get bored with seeing and hearing the same postmodernist or multiculturalist perspective over and over again in contemporary art. That’s part of my criticism of Adaptation. It gives in to the same old-same old way of thinking that has become so common today.

And I still will fight many of the post-Enlightenment ideas because it’s a lie that all cultures can be preserved and maintained side by side. It’s a nice dream, but it’s not the best way because it’s based on a sort of self-centered way of thinking. The welcoming of all nations to the Lord’s table which Christ proclaims—and which is prophesied in the Book of Revelation— is much more hopeful than a diversity based on an individualized self-possession of one’s own cultural heritage. The kind of egalitarianism (equality-ism) promoted by this latter perspective already proves itself to be false. Christianity itself is marginalized by such an idea, so Christians are the first to know the lie of equal rights for people of all cultures and faiths.

I’m quite happy to be living in a society which attempts to treat people equally regardless of their culture and religion. What kind of society are you promoting grant?

A society that treats other people with kindness and compassion as people who are loved by the God who created them. There’s a difference between this view of society and the egalitarian ideal. Contrary to the hopes of egalitarianism, all people in this world ARE NOT placed in equal circumstances, do not have equal opportunities. Some are born slaves, some are born free. But in God’s eyes, they have equal value.

People should be valued because they are valued by God not because equality is to be valued. This is the question I’m dealing with for this topic. It’s a question of value. Artwork that plays a destructive role in the lives of human beings is to be condemned. Michelangelo’s sculpture sets up a symmetrical ideal of human beauty that promotes an arrogance that is bad for human life in the long run. Art that seeks to glorify God will not choose to display the Greek ideal for human perfection, as Michelangelo does. Good art will instead uplift the diversity of human forms, the playful curves and bulges of the buttocks, the God-praising lumpiness of the flesh—all this speaks volumes about the wonders of God and His valuable creation.

Sadly, Adaptation closes the doors to God and His world by focusing on the inescapable trap of being human. Even the witnessing of flowers opening and closing day by day at the end of the movie seems like a sad, deterministic dance, a display of the unstoppable changes of nature rather than a celebration of the color and movement of the things in God’s world (a celebration that is hinted at in many of Tarkovsky’s films and is most glorious in Van Gogh’s paintings).

maybe ya’ll have done this and i didn’t read it closer earlier, but my question is what exactly didn’y you (plural) not like about adaptation. i hear what you say about post-modern etc, but i would like specifics please. i liked the movie a lot. the reason that i liked it is how it showed how we all struggle with our lives. not only with adapting a book that maybe shouldn’t be adapted, but putting up with a brother that produces crap, realizing that you/i can’t get the job done. i view this movie as showing the struggle that we all go through. we struggle with “adapting” the word of God to our own lives, and sometimes we are lost, just like charlie kaufman in adaptation, lost in this sea of words and the intangible infront of us—that good work that is just out of reach. i see adaptation as a failure. charlie kaufman gives in to his brother, donald, and lets him finish the script. i’m not sure how to view donald exactly, in the real world, but i see him as a real character in the movie, not necessarily sub-concious or anything. when donald goes to the hotel room to visit charlie and he asks him how he’d end the script then donald does finish the script, with all his car chases and drug runners, and aligators.

this movie strikes me as how we act when we realize that we cannot live up to God’s standards. we try and try and try and try, but we just cannot do it. and sometimes we just give up and follow the crowd, a sad day. this is what charlie did, he gave in to donald (real or not) who was the crowd, and just finished the movie.

i found the end extremely funny. i realized (what i thought was intended) and found all the drugs and sex and chases and aligators (!) really funny, because it was so crazy silly unbelievable. the journey that we go through for this movie is worth it. we are able to see ourselves, others, and see what happens when we just give in to the crowd/popular culture.

i’m hoping this all made sense. if not, i can try again to explain my interpretation of the movie.