I feel like this interpretation seems to not want to acknowledge the importance of a change in audience. Book readers and film goers are not the exact same crowd. People who like Charlie Kaufman movies aren't the same people deep enough in the literature scene to run across this book. You have to have dedicated a lot of your time to either hobby to get deep enough into its tropes and structure and general language in how it tells story to enjoy either in its merit. The point of adaptation isn't to recreate a story, it's to engage a new audience with a similar intention and use of that story. Faithful adaptation is always a failure...because a book worth adapting only worked because it took advantage of the medium it was in. A movie that was a success only succeeded because it took full advantage of its medium, so adaptation requires readaptation into a new medium for the story that means moving on from and paying off moments with new stimulus. So I think, in this regard, saying Charlie Kaufman was making a bunch of references was distracting from the book is missing the part where the audience the MOVIE was intended for would know these references or at least understand the context of the conversation to know what was going on whether you changed the subject or not. They know how people talk about plays and movies and visual media and how it is critique'd, etc. So when these happens they aren't an issue for the intended audience. The ending was similar, getting lost when you see dancing or you see someone on stage isn't an issue for a group of people who are used to visual symbolism and how it works on screen. For me, the dance sequence was deeply obvious and a visual struggle of the character coming to terms internally about the messages he receives from media about love and how they've alienated him from actually being able to love someone, to take a risk, and to be real. His romanticism left him alone and killed the person he could have been. The artifice of the final sequence was intended to be brutally obvious to show that the media we take in is artificial in how it manipulates how we perceive ourselves and the narrative of our lives. How we delude ourselves with the media we take in and become isolated because of how it changes our self narrative without our input seems to be the core message of the movie and its no more obviously displayed in the final sequence. This idolization of life experience, the hero-ification of life and the escalation of life through media undermines the power and beauty of our own lived experience...leaving us imagining worlds we could have while we sit alone and miserable. Left in the memories of our youth and lost chances. And the problem of the core character is that because of this media they were never able to feel the moment to take these steps to better themselves and move on from the fantasies of the life they should have had, they couldn't stop resenting themselves for not being the people in their media and being happy like the faces on the advertisements.
Your argument is excellent, actually this was my first video in the channel and looking back there's many things I would modify, specifically I would like to delve more into both the book and film, maybe it's a subject I'll retake in the near future as both works give a lot to talk about. My main issue with the film (and I love Kaufman's work) is that all his inclusions, everything that's in the movie mainly because HE adapted and directed it, felt forced and didn't help much the already excellent and deeply disturbing story in the book, although I have to accept that the direction and atmosphere in the film are truly excellent and memorable so the movie can't go without it's fair share of praise. Regarding the ending, SPOILER ALERT, one of my main issues with it is that it was unnecessarily complicated and confusing, while I was doing research for this video I noticed that most people that watched the movie didn't get the ending, or at least parts of it and were really turned off by the whole experience, so I wanted to explore why this happened and, if possible, how it could be "fixed". Almost no one, at least the people I talked with, understood that everything had happened in the mind of the Janitor and that he died at the end. Anyway, thank you for watching and I appreciate the thorough feedback, also I would like to invite you to watch any of my other videos, I cover a big range of works, subjects and genres, hope you find more of them interesting too!
I also think Kaufman made a mistake with this movie. But I still like his unique vision. Congrats on the channel!
Thank you! Glad you like it!
Great video essay! great analysis and comparison between book and movie. Subscribed
Thank you! 200,000 videos are ready, with a million more well on the way!
I didn't know it was a book, but certainly Charlie Kaufman is a great screenwriter
He usually is, just not this time :I
Muy buen análisis, no he visto la pelo o leído el libro. Muy padre canal, espero los siguientes
Muchas gracias! Me da gusto escucharlo!
Great video, bro, keep'em coming
:D
más videos así!!!
Gracias por visitar, habrá mucho más contenido!
Didn't like the film but this channel looks very cool. Great analysis.
Thank you! Glad you like it!
I feel like this interpretation seems to not want to acknowledge the importance of a change in audience.
Book readers and film goers are not the exact same crowd. People who like Charlie Kaufman movies aren't the same people deep enough in the literature scene to run across this book. You have to have dedicated a lot of your time to either hobby to get deep enough into its tropes and structure and general language in how it tells story to enjoy either in its merit. The point of adaptation isn't to recreate a story, it's to engage a new audience with a similar intention and use of that story. Faithful adaptation is always a failure...because a book worth adapting only worked because it took advantage of the medium it was in. A movie that was a success only succeeded because it took full advantage of its medium, so adaptation requires readaptation into a new medium for the story that means moving on from and paying off moments with new stimulus.
So I think, in this regard, saying Charlie Kaufman was making a bunch of references was distracting from the book is missing the part where the audience the MOVIE was intended for would know these references or at least understand the context of the conversation to know what was going on whether you changed the subject or not. They know how people talk about plays and movies and visual media and how it is critique'd, etc. So when these happens they aren't an issue for the intended audience.
The ending was similar, getting lost when you see dancing or you see someone on stage isn't an issue for a group of people who are used to visual symbolism and how it works on screen. For me, the dance sequence was deeply obvious and a visual struggle of the character coming to terms internally about the messages he receives from media about love and how they've alienated him from actually being able to love someone, to take a risk, and to be real. His romanticism left him alone and killed the person he could have been. The artifice of the final sequence was intended to be brutally obvious to show that the media we take in is artificial in how it manipulates how we perceive ourselves and the narrative of our lives. How we delude ourselves with the media we take in and become isolated because of how it changes our self narrative without our input seems to be the core message of the movie and its no more obviously displayed in the final sequence. This idolization of life experience, the hero-ification of life and the escalation of life through media undermines the power and beauty of our own lived experience...leaving us imagining worlds we could have while we sit alone and miserable. Left in the memories of our youth and lost chances.
And the problem of the core character is that because of this media they were never able to feel the moment to take these steps to better themselves and move on from the fantasies of the life they should have had, they couldn't stop resenting themselves for not being the people in their media and being happy like the faces on the advertisements.
Your argument is excellent, actually this was my first video in the channel and looking back there's many things I would modify, specifically I would like to delve more into both the book and film, maybe it's a subject I'll retake in the near future as both works give a lot to talk about.
My main issue with the film (and I love Kaufman's work) is that all his inclusions, everything that's in the movie mainly because HE adapted and directed it, felt forced and didn't help much the already excellent and deeply disturbing story in the book, although I have to accept that the direction and atmosphere in the film are truly excellent and memorable so the movie can't go without it's fair share of praise.
Regarding the ending, SPOILER ALERT, one of my main issues with it is that it was unnecessarily complicated and confusing, while I was doing research for this video I noticed that most people that watched the movie didn't get the ending, or at least parts of it and were really turned off by the whole experience, so I wanted to explore why this happened and, if possible, how it could be "fixed". Almost no one, at least the people I talked with, understood that everything had happened in the mind of the Janitor and that he died at the end.
Anyway, thank you for watching and I appreciate the thorough feedback, also I would like to invite you to watch any of my other videos, I cover a big range of works, subjects and genres, hope you find more of them interesting too!