Is it just me, or does the last 30 minutes of ADAPTATION suck ass?

Oh, you’re right, and you did it so much better than I ever could! Good job! I’ll just take my illiterate self and sit over here, while you smart fellers talk about it. I’m obviously way out of your league.

Sadly, this means you missed the whole point of what I said. I accept other people’s opinion. I do not accept the attitude that if you didn’t feel the ending was this cleverly written, you simply didn’t get the idea. That’s elitism. That’s what you’re not grasping here. You want to like this film? Fine. You want to think it was one of the best of the year? Fine again. You want to denigrate me because I didn’t? Not so fine.

Are you suggesting this could never happen? Aren’t we the cockeyed optimist! It’s perfectly plausible for a screenwriter to end a movie with a chase or other cop-out when he has nothing else to say. I’m sure you, being all literate and all, must know for sure what was meant here.

For you. In your opinion. I do hope you understand that. You’re griping about me not being respecful of other opinions, and yet you seem reluctant to admit there are others.

I’m glad the movie worked for you. Really, I am. Drop the elitist attitude, and you’ll be okay in my book.

Oops, spoke too soon. You had me going with your literacy, and then you sling an insult as if you forgot which forum you were in.
I don’t know about DVD releases, but I’ve read a couple of interviews with Jonze & Kaufman where they’ve said they want to present the movie in the same manner as a poem, that is, don’t try to explain it and let the audience get whatever they want to from it. So if you think it was a failed adaptation, or a movie that ran out of ideas, or an elaborate joke on how cheesy and cliched most movies are, or an elaborate joke at how audiences will watch anything, or pompous self-referential humor, or an analysis of the creative process, or an ingenious study about passion and inhibition – it’s all the same to them. **
[/QUOTE]

No. You despise pepperoni. You’re more of a fried anchovies kinda guy. With onions and basil.

And I poorly coded my last post, forgetting about that bit at the bottom that I was quoting.

I understand that Jonze and Kaufman would like us to take it whichever way we want to. I don’t think they’re trying to force us to think a certain way. I just don’t think it came off particularly well, and I guess I don’t understand why people have to have this elitist “if you didn’t get it, it’s your fault” attitude.

No offense intended to anyone, especially Sol Grundy.

No. And let me repeat again for the benefit of clarity, no.

This is one of the most common accusations levied against those who defend difficult artistic material, whether it be film (Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, Malick’s Thin Red Line, and some other filmmaker whose name ends in “ick”) or literature (Joyce, Rushdie, Hoban) or music or sculpture or whatever. Somebody says, “I didn’t like it.” The defender responds, “You didn’t get it.” And the first person says, “What, are you calling me stupid?” And then the battle lines are drawn for an unproductive discussion.

But here’s the thing: Just because you didn’t get something does not mean you’re stupid. It just means you didn’t get it.

Listen. I consider myself a knowledgeable and perceptive movie person. Click on the red house at the bottom of my post to visit my website and read my film reviews. I’m confident in my ability to “read” a film from top to bottom, differentiating between the contributions of the script, the acting, the editing, the cinematography, and so on, and using this knowledge to make a judgement about the film’s intended ambitions. And if a film doesn’t seem to work, I feel secure in my ability to point out exactly why. Look at A.I. Artificial Intelligence, for example, a movie I believe doesn’t really work as intended but that contains a lot more interesting material than people give it credit for. In my review on my site, and further in writing on this board, I believe I was able to tease apart the threads of its construction enough to show the way it was intended to work, and to illustrate that it had the potential to be a masterpiece — but that the filmmakers made a number of miscalculations and as a result the movie doesn’t really hold together as it was conceived. In general, I wouldn’t be writing my reviews if I didn’t feel confidence in my perspicacity, and I think my writing speaks for itself.

And yet: There are some movies I just don’t “get.” Take, as probably the best example, Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal. Cinema cognoscenti regard it as one of the top, say, twenty or thirty movie masterpieces of all time. Regularly comes up in the Sight and Sound polls. Towering accomplishment. Work of genius. Filmed with God’s own camera. Blah blah blah.

Does nothing at all for me.

I’ve watched it a couple of times, in different settings, trying to see what everybody else sees. Originally, I found it mildly irritating that I don’t get out of it what my fellow film geeks do, which is why I’ve subjected myself to it on more than one occasion. I can see the symbolism, I understand the thematic architecture, and all of that, and it still leaves me cold and vaguely bored.

But at a certain point, I’m content to leave it alone, and here’s why: It’s not me. It’s not the film. It’s the interface between me and the film.

All art is subjective. Everybody perceives things differently. The same work can thrill one person and bore another to tears. This says nothing about the objective value of the work, because there is no objective value of the work. It’s all about whether or not, and specifically how, the work connects with the individual viewer.

I know movies, and feel that my ability to dissect and evaluate a film is in the ninety-eighth percentile of cinematic literacy, insofar as such a subjective discpline can be measured at all. At the same time, The Seventh Seal has to have acquired its reputation somewhere. And yet, it doesn’t connect with me. Its message doesn’t reach me. I sit here, and the movie sits over there on the other side of an experiential canyon. I can read its message, sure, but at a distance, as though through binoculars; it neither thrills my mind nor touches my heart. And I’ve decided that this will not bother me. I am not personally insulted by my failure to recognize and internalize the greatness of an acknowledged masterpiece of the cinematic form.

It just happens sometimes. I shrug and move on.

So to those who are calling Adaptation stupid and worthless: You’re wrong.

And to everyone who labels those detractors illiterate and dense for not understanding Adaptation: You’re also wrong.

All o’ y’all need to take a step back, I think. This is an argument neither side can win, because it is inherently unwinnable.

Sorry, having an opinion isn’t wrong. Facts are wrong. If I feel a movie is stupid and worthless, than it most certainly is so - to me.

No offense taken here. And I’d assumed it would be obvious that my “You little man” comment was nothing more than a joke, since I’d just gone on about not being “uppity.” But if that wasn’t clear, then that’s my fault.

But I do need to point out that words are getting put in my mouth that I never said. I never said that anybody who didn’t like the movie didn’t “get it.” I hate when people do that. All I said was that this is what I got out of the movie, and I made it clear that that was my opinion of it, and that it was valid. Live and let live. No worries, right?

The problem is saying that we’re “overanalyzing a piece of shit.” And “crap is just crap” and that the only reason anyone could like the movie was because BJM was good so this movie must be good too. That’s not acceptable, and that’s what I was reacting to. If the movie didn’t work for you, fine. But that doesn’t mean that the things we got from the movie just aren’t there. I thought it was brilliant, I understand the ending, I believe that it works on multiple levels and it all works for me. That’s not “elitist,” and that’s not “uppity.”

You can’t say that everyone is wasting his time trying to appreciate stuff that just isn’t there, and then turn around and martyr yourself by saying “I’m entitled to my opinion and you’re all just treating me like I’m stupid!” You can’t say this:

and then say that everybody’s entitled to his opinion and you don’t understand why people would get personal.

Actually, I didn’t say “anyone,” I said “some.” At no point was I directing my comments to everyone who liked the movie, even those who rave about it. At least I don’t think I did.

Oh, bother. I finally finished watching the movie last night, and the first thing I thought of was this thread, which at that point I hadn’t read. I did think I’d see a few people agreeing with the OP, but I also saw people railing against those who didn’t like it, and to me, some carried the tone of a sneer.

I guess it’s all part of the stigma, real or imagined, of not being in on a joke - or thinking one isn’t, or worse, other people claiming one isn’t.

I do agree it was inventive and new in the way the movie was presented, but I’m just not sold on the premise or the movie as a whole.

I couldn’t agree more. “Not getting it” is another way of saying “it didn’t resonate with me and I didn’t care.” It has nothing to do with whether or not someone understood what was going on or what the movie was trying to do.

Which is precisely what Cervaise just said. Clearly, you didn’t get his post.

I guess you didn’t, either. He said

And I say that having an opinion is not wrong, even if it’s thinking the movie is “stupid and worthless.” People are not wrong in thinking this, because it’s their opinion. Or are you telling me one is not allowed to have that opinion.

Facts can be wrong or right. Opinions cannot.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Jesus, can we get Count Alfred Korzybski in here to sort this mess out?

Dan, you must be able to see the difference between making a declarative statement about the actual properties of something that has its own objective existence, and making a declarative statement about your subjective experience of it.

Are black olives really repellent to the point of being inedible, or do they just seem that way to me?

Hm. Missed the point, and yet quoted you directly. Or did I misquote?

Tell you what. Why don’t you deign to explain it to me in simple terms as if I were a single-celled organism. Ok, perhaps you don’t feel you’d have to pretend you’re talking to a single-celled organism.

Larry, what has its own objective existence? It might be helpful if you provided examples of what you mean so the wildly obtuse people like myself can understand more perfectly.

Well, dan, it helps if you read the whole post and not just the one sentence. Notice that the very next sentence in Cervaise’s post is:

Point being, something can be very good, and you still won’t like it because it’s not to your taste. It doesn’t mean that the movie is crap, but it also doesn’t mean you’re a moron for not liking it. In other words, it’s all subjective.

I don’t disagree with that in the tiniest. If that was the point, then I’m sorry I missed it, and I’m ashamed.

Well, if it is indeed all subjective, then surely your first sentences could just as easily read:

“Point being, something can be pretty awful, and you’ll still like it because it is to your taste. It doesn’t mean that the movie is good, but it also doesn’t mean you’re a moron for liking it.”

The point i’m trying to make is that arguing for pure subjectivity on the one hand, and then calling something objectively “good” or “bad” on the other, are inconsistent positions.

Are there some qualities that make a movie objectively good, no matter what some people might think of it? And are there some drawbacks that make a movie objectively bad, no matter what some people might think of it?

While some in this thread have been arguing that Adaptation is good, and that people not liking it doesn’t change that fact, it is just as reasonable, in the absence of objective criteria, to argue that the movie is bad, and some people liking it doesn’t change that fact.