Adaptation presents multiple forms of adaptation and evolution in all of their ugly, violent, bodily glory. The stream of consciousness voice over from Charlie Kaufman shows his distraction from the task at hand, usually thinking about muffins, sex or feeling bad about himself instead of writing. In some ways, this illustrates all of the small, practical things that go into producing a work of art, be it a film or a novel. When one only sees the finished product, especially a high production film, it's easy to forget the random events that lead to the final product. Adaptation aptly compares this process to natural selection, showing the viewer how a final script is the random “evolution” of any number of ideas.
The film also makes a convincing argument against fidelity in adaptation. Kaufman is presented with, ostensibly, an “unadaptable” text. This mirrors some of the assumptions about adaptation as a form that we have discussed in Leitch's article, namely, that works of art are tied to their medium and can't be translated into new symbolic forms. The film presents a solution to this “problem:” adaptations are not derivative works, but artistic expressions of their own. Just like natural selection, the process of adaptation inevitably creates something new, perhaps better suited to its environment. As Susan Orlean says in the movie, “change is not a choice.” Adaptation as a process will always create a new product, no matter how faithful it is to the original text.
Adaptation also muddles up the boundaries of textual adaptation. Charlie and Donald discover that Orlean's book is also a partial fabrication rather than a faithful reproduction of real events. Orlean is shown to “adapt” her experiences in Florida into a marketable best seller that portrays Laroche as a lovable freak, while glossing over her relationship with him. Furthermore, we see Charlie trying to adapt his own experience adapting Orlean's book into a film script, blurring the lines between product and production even further. Ultimately, the film seems to suggest that adaptation—literary and evolutionary—is simply unavoidable and continually recreates the world around us.
i like this analysis–i had forgotten about susan orlean's own "adaptation" of her actual experiences in order to create a book that would make sales (and save her own "survival" by hiding an affair that would kill her marriage and her professional career).
ReplyDeletewhile all of this makes so much sense, though, i still keep going back to the idea of this instinctive dislike of adaptation, even though i think we've shown several times over in our classes and in our readings that we all do it, that it's a natural process. why is it also 'natural' then to be wary of adaptation?