August 7, 2025 • 51 mins
In this episode, we take a closer look at Spike Jonze’s Adaptation, exploring its unique narrative structure and the standout performances by Nicolas Cage, Chris Coooper, and Meryl Streep. We delve into the film's themes of creativity and identity, offering insights that both fans and newcomers will appreciate. Join us for a thoughtful conversation about this intriguing film and what makes it a significant work in contemporary cinema.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to Houselights, the podcast that tried to review a
movie about a book about flowers, and somewhere along the
way things got weird. There were dreams, sex swamps, screenwriting gurus,
and one very sweaty Nick Cage. I'm Tristan Riddell, your host,
currently caught in an endless loop of rewriting this intro
(00:42):
while spiraling into self loathing, sugar binges, and the haunting
echo of Bob McKee yelling God help you if you
use voiceover. And Next in our neurotic writer's room, Who's smart, sincere,
and possibly on the verge of falling for an orchid
poacher John Mills and complete being our trio is someone
who recently confessed he might leave everything behind to chase
(01:05):
orchids in the Florida Swamp Darren Moser. Today we're unraveling
adaptation the two thousand and two film where Nick Cage
plays twin screenwriters. Meryl Streep gets high and maybe falls
in love with a toothless orchid thief and the movie
you thought you were watching takes a hard left into drugs, murder,
and an alligator. This podcast is dedicated to my twin brother,
(01:26):
Hank Radell. Rest in peace, Brother, Rest in peace. All right,
So I have seen this movie many times. I did
not see this in theaters. I was too young at
the time, I think, but I did buy it buy one,
get one free at Blockbuster previously viewed movies. And so
I've had this on DVD for a very long time.
(01:47):
When was the first time you guys saw this.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
I don't think I saw this in theaters. I know
I saw it on home video, but I'm pretty sure
that's the first time I saw it. I haven't watched
it in a very long time since. But it's definitely
a movie where, even if you've only seen it once
and it's on home video, somebody says adaptation, you're like, oh, yeah,
I know that one. Like this movie sticks with you
(02:10):
regardless of whether you loved it or hated it, like
it definitely carves out a little little segment in your
brain where you're like, oh, yeah, the Nicholas Cage plays
his own twin sort of thing, Darren, how about you today?
Speaker 4 (02:23):
This was my first time watching it. The cover of
the potted plant that's cracked. It makes a lot more
sense now because I remember looking at it, you know,
on a blockbuster shelf and being like adaptation, what okay,
it's it's his head that doesn't make any sense, And
then I kind of never thought about it again. We
probably were supposed to watch this in review for one
(02:46):
of my film classes in college. It feels like the
kind of movie that we was on a list and
I somehow dodged it, not in a negative way, but
just never never came across it. So it was fun
watching this app after John Malkovich, same writer. I mean,
there's shots of John Malkovich being made in this. It's
(03:07):
very meta, but not meta. It's it's it's something that's
for sure.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
That's a way to put it.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Feel How did you feel about the being John Malkovich stuff?
Like were you did you think it was fun? Did
you think it was cheap?
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Like?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
What did you like when you first responded to it?
What was that response?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Well, honestly, usually I never try to look at a
Wikipedia article if I have not seen the movie at all,
because it's very quickly will give away spoilers and things.
But when I saw that, I did have to pause
and looked up the writer's Wikipedia page, and it was like,
did he write John Malkovich. Yes, okay confirmed? Does he
(03:49):
have a twin?
Speaker 3 (03:51):
No?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Okay, because I I think rightfully so the movie was
throwing what is reality at me right off the bat,
and I was already treading water, which I it is great,
Like how movie giving that visceral reaction? So yeah, because
it's like hiding the lies in truth? Was he the
writer of John Malkovich? Yes, and then you start to
(04:14):
believe like, well, does that mean that that's how we
acted on set?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Well?
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I don't know now because I know part of what
you told me is true?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
So is the rest true?
Speaker 4 (04:23):
And that's kind of the whole movie.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
It is it is. I think one of the challenging
things for this movie is I think it is actually
and this is gonna sound insane the way I say it.
I think that this is less accessible to non film
fans than Malkovich. Malkovich is one where it's like, if
you sit down with somebody and they're not like a
(04:46):
diehard film fan, you can be like, listen, this is
just weird. Just get just go with it, and they'll
go with it, and then you sit down with them
to watch this. This is gonna be one where you're
going to lose half of the audience by the closing
credits because they're gonna be like, what the hell is
even happening right now? And I think that this is
I think that if anything, there is a like this
(05:06):
is because Darren, you said this when we were talking
about John Malkovich where it was not You said, Hollywood
loves a movie that's about movies, and I would say
that process right, and I would say that this movie
feels like it's made for those people who felt that
being John Malkovich wasn't enough that you know, like they
(05:27):
were like, you know what, we could take it up
to eleven, Let's go ahead and amp this one up.
So I think that's the biggest challenge with this movie
is it really climbs into itself after a certain point
and you're either going to choose to go with it
or you're just gonna say, okay whatever and disconnect. Like
(05:48):
I could very easily see sitting down with my wife
and about thirty minutes in, she'd be like, well, why
am I even watching this? You know, walks out.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
I mean, I will say, on a positive note, I
think it's trying to work at two levels where it's
telling us a story as an audience, but obviously it
is also having a conversation looking off to the left
at writers that are going to react in a very
different way of Oh my gosh, I've been in my
head saying I'm stupid when I'm trying to write page
(06:19):
five of the draft. Oh so, like there's a relatability
in that because he's getting so meta on his own
writing of his own piece, and then he's also talking
to himself as his brother like it. Yeah, I think
there's kind of two movies going on. Both are a
bit wacky, but they're I mean, I have to give
(06:42):
it that.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Let's talk about the dual protagonists. Well, I mean, I
guess they're not really both the protagonists, but like, let's
talk about the dual performance of Cage. What did you think, like, John,
what did you think about his performances as both brothers,
and what did you think about the effectiveness of having
that within the movie.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I think it's very effective, specifically because I think Nicholas
Cage is one of a handful of actors that can
pull this off without me call him buless at the
very beginning, like he has that energy, like I'm not
saying anything anybody else wouldn't say. I'm not like terribly
insightful here, but like Nicholas Cage comes on and you
see this sort of premise start playing out and you're like, yeah, okay,
(07:21):
this Nicholas Cage movie, Sure that makes sense, and it's
I think it's because Nicholas Cage is arguably the most
fearless actor that we have in the modern day, and like,
I would struggle to think of this movie working with
anybody but him. I don't think it does. And I
think it's I think that the premise is high brow
(07:42):
enough that if you don't cast the right actor in
this role, you're all is lost. So kudos to them
forgetting a Cage to play these roles, because I don't
think it works without him. I mean, are there other
actors where it could have happened. Yes, But I would
have to sit here and spend the entire hour with
you guys being like, well, who else could pull this off?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
You know? That's the That's the beauty of it, though,
is that he's not the first person to come to mind,
and you probably would take a very long time to
think of Nick Cage when like when you're developing this movie,
but then after you mention it, or even after you
see it, you're like, I, who else could you know?
Who else but Cage? And that that's that's a really
(08:23):
interesting and very narrow niche Uh, Darren, what what did
you think about I I want to ask you specifically
about the screenwriting process that they both went through. Obviously,
there are two sides of the spectrum where you know,
like they're they're showing extremes, you know, where they have Charlie,
who is the uh he sees himself as an artist
(08:47):
and he wants to do something unique and different and
you know, like inaccessible. And then you have you have
Donald who's just like I want to have I want
to have. I want car chases, I want cops and
guns and horses and everything like that. Darren, what did
you think about the screenwriting aspect between the two of them?
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (09:06):
It, I mean, first off, like you very quickly buy
this as two people, Like there's no suspension right away.
You're like, okay, these are they're they're different enough. You
don't feel like, oh, he just pitched his voice down
a little and now he's Donald. It's like no, this
feels like a different person, and yeah, it takes a
(09:27):
because that's the arc we go through is with Charlie.
Like when he's bouting off some of his ideals, I'm like, dude,
like good luck because and then he kind of gets
it shoved in his face with the lecture and it's like, yeah,
you're what do you like? I want to write a
movie with no conflict, Like it makes me think back
(09:49):
of Gene Roddenberry, you know, laying down the well. We
have to have these characters, but they can't actually have
interpersonal conflicts and it's like welcome to Star Trek Deep
Space nine, and we're gonna show you why how we
can do that. But no, I think the highest compliment
could be by the end, I cared about both characters.
I saw them as people. I cared about what happened
(10:11):
to them. I mean it was in the fourth act
because you know, it takes some turns at the end.
But no, I think as writers, it it did straddle
that line of a movie about writers that's also being
written like it's very meta, but it doesn't come across
(10:33):
as like he never broke the fourth wall. He's never
looking at me the audience, And I think that would
have broken it, but it straddled that line, but it
didn't go over.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I like that. That's interesting. I never really thought of
it that way before. But that would have been a
very easy thing to do. I particularly like it when
the fourth wall is broken. But you're right, this wouldn't
have worked like this would have been off putting.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
It's all ready deep enough where he's he's talking about
the movie that he's right, like he catches up to
the self moment in his writing. It's like we put
in the VHS tape for Spaceballs and we're now the.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
First thing that I thought of that. I'm so glad
that you mentioned that.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
So it but it works because it's like it's just
that moment, I guess. I will say he does kind
of break the fourth wall right at that moment where
he says, Oh, I shouldn't use voiceover. Ah, what the heck,
I'm gonna use it anyway, Like, because he's caught up
to now there you feel the wall break a tiny bit,
but he's not talking to us, but he is because
(11:39):
it's now it's but it works. I will say, it
does work.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
You know. I got to interject really quick though, because
you know we're talking about breaking the fourth wall, Nicholas
Cage's performance, what the movie's about, and everything like that. Uh,
what does Susan Orlean, who wrote The Orchid Thief feel
without this movie? Like that? That's what I can't that's
a kick it out, you know.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I looked it up. I looked it up because I
knew this question was coming, because my first instinct was, oh, man,
I bet she thought this was awesome, you know, like
seeing herself like, you know, like running around in the
swamp with a gun trying to kill it. First, but
then I really then I sobered up, and then I
(12:22):
was just like, wait, Like, this is somebody who's in
the public eye who understands that audiences sometimes aren't very
smart and thinks movies are real. And that was her
first instinct was people are going to think that I'm
like this. People are going to think that that third
act actually happened. And so she initially said no when
(12:45):
they pitched it to her. She's like, no, you can't
portray me this way. But then basically everybody else around
her said yes. And then she started realizing like the
craziness of the script and how over the top it
was and how Nick Cage was going to play Charlie
Coff and she's like, okay, and now she actually does
love the movie, like once it got made, she actually
does love it. But there are morons out there who
(13:07):
believe that Kaufman has a brother and that he died
tragically because the movie.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Was dedicated on the Titanic.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
I saw it, you know.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
But that's the thing though, that this movie was dedicated
to his brother, and it was co written by his brother.
He's the only fictional character in history to win an
Oscar or at least be nominated for one. And it's
and I remember, like when this was going out, like
I was listening to the radio and I heard a
movie critic talking about his Charlie Kaufman's brother, like he
(13:40):
was a real person and that it was tragic how
he passed, and like how it was cool that the
movie was was dedicated to him. And I was like,
oh my god, people are actually believing this.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Yeah, But at the same time, like what we've touched
on this with Stone covering the Doors or JFK or
Spike Lee talking about Malcolm X and stuff like that,
It's like people go in and I think people, you know,
we all know very well. Yeah, it's very easy to condemn.
But people go in with a very trusting nature like
they you know, it doesn't matter how many disclaimers you
(14:13):
put on. There are saying, you know, the events in
this picture are fictional. Everybody you see is fictional. This
is all a work of drama. Everybody's going to sit
there and say, oh, well, this must be true. But
I would flip that around and I would say that
at a base level, it's sort of a tribute to
Nick Cage because to Darren's point, you're invested enough in
(14:37):
both of these characters by the end that it is
the ultimate emotional trick. It's like a magic trick where
you believe that the girl got sawn in half or
something like that. You know it's not true, but there's
a part of your brain that's like, well, that's what
I saw, that's that's what's true. So I'll be looking
a little bit of a break on that.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
If I saw that he had a brother, I would
not have been surprised. It was that it makes you question,
it makes you and I did not know that both
Charlie and Donald were because already one of them is
a real person. But that is you know, that blows
me away that both names were on the nomination list
(15:16):
and what is not even a real person?
Speaker 3 (15:19):
I mean, which you would think that the Academy would
have some sort of rule where they would say no, guys,
you can't do or WGA would be like, no, you
can't have.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
A rule is put into effect only real people may
be nominated for Academy Awards.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Right, I mean it feels like the ultimate thumb in
the eye to the Writer's Guild and the Academy to
be like, oh, look your rules, I found the loophole. Right,
you allow allow, you allow Alan Smithy and other things
like that, I'm just going to make up a name
and this person doesn't even exist. Like it almost feels
like a prank that the South Park writers would make,
(15:55):
you know.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
So all right, there's a there's a lot of great
people in this movie. There's a lot of great performances.
And since we were talking about awards, Chris Cooper won
the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance. You know, Darren,
do you think that was deserved?
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
I mean, you say, then there are a lot of
people in this movie, but there's really three, Like it
is such a small micro cast of and again obviously
they interact with you know, Tilda Swinston and many other characters.
But yeah, he transformed in this movie. Although I do
(16:36):
want to ask you guys with the roach, I feel
like it's a little different watching adaptation in a post
Tiger King world, because that's what I immediately thought of
of that kind of like off the wall, like it
felt like that's the person, but obviously that didn't exist
(16:57):
back you know two so did did either of you
on this rewatch? Did it even cross your mind until
I just said it, I didn't think of Tiger King.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
Now that you say it, it's almost like Tristan's thing,
where it's like, well, once you say Nicholas Cage, you're like,
of course this is the only guy. I think that's
really insightful. That's yeah. I can get that sort of
vibe where it's like a guy who's invested so much
of his identity in this to hide from some pain. Like,
if anything, it allows you. I think what was beautiful
(17:28):
about the way the character is written, in the way
that Cooper performs it is that there is I think
it allows you a specific channel of empathy for somebody
who you might look at as a dismissable person if
you were to meet them where you can go. You
know what, maybe this person is so committed to this
(17:48):
bit because they're so hurt that it's their shell, it's
their protection. And like, I think that's in a large
way a beautiful thing. I like what you said here
because it really is helping me look at this character
in that sense of you know, and it is there
in the text of the film. This is a guy
who has built this whole self as a way to
(18:11):
protect himself from being hurt again. But then at the
end of the movie that's what winds up hurting him.
And so there's there's this beautiful, cyclical sort of idea
about it. And so you feel sympathy. Even though he's
he's doing illegal things, exploiting a loophole and doing terrible stuff,
you still feel sorry for him. At the end, you
(18:33):
feel a sadness for him instead of an anger. I think,
I think, I think Tiger King is a great way
to to draw that out.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Yeah, I always love Chris Cooper in a movie.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
I think he's one of those actors that it's easy
to say, like, oh, Chris Cooper's in this it's probably
gonna be good, or at least his performance is going
to be good. And that's how I felt about Jim
Beaver too, even though he's only in one scene, Like
when as the as the ranger a pull up and
you see Jim Bieber's face, You're just like, ah, Jim Bieber, okay,
all right, right, cool cool, cool, cool, solid performance coming.
(19:07):
And apparently Stephen Tobolowski was also a ranger and he
got completely cut from the from the movie.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
That's a damn shame. I know, I love Tobolowski, He's
so great.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
And also I mean, like, you know, like we even
you know, we haven't even got to Meryl Streep yet,
who's obviously is a highlight. But you know, like you
have Kara Seymour in this who I can't think, I
can't help but think of American Psycho, you know, when
when she pops up, and we have Gregory Eitzen, who
(19:39):
like we basically see like the side of his head
and he's a prosecutor. And we also have Peter Jason
as the defense attorney. Like they get almost no lines
at all. But yet these are really good actors all throughout,
and so Meryl Streep's performance. Like, John, I know that
you have a mural of Meryl Streep on your wall.
I do, and she's she's one of your favorite actresses
(20:03):
of all time.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I have a think full Streep tattoo on my back
in fact, and a full back tattoo.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Are feeling like she hasn't gotten enough nominations.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
I honestly know she hasn't gotten enough recognition through time.
I mean, talk about an overlooked actress who hasn't gotten
the claim that's well, do her.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
She'll breakthrough. I was hoping it was this, but you.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Know, at some point, at some point, she will stop
being the Susan Lucci of big budget films, and she
will in fact get recognized.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
So for all of you who don't know, we're being
extremely tongue in cheek. Yes, John, That's why I'm asking
you this question, as someone who is not an automatic
Streep fan. What did you think about her performance in
this movie? Was it just Meryl Streep being male Streep
or did you actually connect with his character.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
I did not connect with the character until the ending,
but I credit a lot of that with how the
ending is put together editorially. I listen, I have nothing
against miss Streep. I don't. I have nothing against her
as a person. I get why everybody loves her as
an actress, but I can't see characters beyond her. And
(21:14):
if I have to jump on this grenade and be like,
it's a John problem, Okay, that's fine, that's fine, it's
a John problem. That's fine. But during the uh, you know,
the first three quarters of the movie, I'm just like, look,
there's Meryl Streep doing the thing and that. But then
at the end, like the very end, I think that
there is the way that it's put together. I'm able
(21:37):
to forget that it's Streep, and so I will. Actually,
I guess it's kind of backhanded compliment where it's like,
you know, the they they help me get past my
Meryl Streep issues in the ending.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
That's not an unfair nothing to say, because I mean, sure,
she's surrounded by Nick Cage doing two performances that are
very anti Nick Cage and Chris Cooper, who you never
like it. He completely like the closest that you could
see Chris Cooper doing this is way back with great expectations,
and even then it's completely different. And so she's surrounded
(22:15):
by people who are doing something radically different and she's
in her Niche like, this is a very Meryl Street
performance in a very Meryl Street movie. That's her. So
I completely understand where you're coming from, John, But the
thing is is that you I think what I really
liked of her performance is the subtlety of her face acting.
(22:37):
Like her facial expression I thought was superb in this.
I think like when she was listening to Laroche in
the van, and when she was kind of hiding in
the bathroom from her friends, and then at the very
end when she decides that they need to kill Kaufman,
just like that everybody's taken a beat and letting Orlean
(22:57):
have her moment, and like seeing that journey that she
takes in her mind. I think that was the standout
performance for not stand up performance like that was the
standout aspect of her performance for me. Was just like
the subtlety of her facial acting. But it's it's easy
to get overlooked with Cooper and Cage right next to you.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
Yeah, I'm I'm in the same I'm very similar to John.
Where like Chris Cooper and Nick Cage vanished into the
roles very very very quickly, and but Meryl Streep and
I'm not, like not a Meryl Street fan, but I
it just she's a great actress, Like I recognize her,
but I'm not putting her on a pedestal. Which but
(23:40):
I'm looking now with La Roach like I it looks
like they were very close to doing John Taturou, which
that would have been I could see him doing it.
Nothing against Chris Cooper, but h and then but one
of the other supporting cast names you hadn't gotten around
to you at Tristan was Brian Cox, who.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Just nailed that.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
Now I cannot watch Brian Cox unfortunately in anything and
not think of X two, like I.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Just well, this is this was this was Brian Cox
playing Brian Cox. Basically, yeah, this.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
Is McKee is a real person too, Like that's there's
so much blurring in this movie.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
But unfair that the X two Like, yes, he's great
next too, but come on, man, you're killing me here
at least go with like you't play Cannibal or something.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Come on, man, John killing in South Park earlier? Do
you remember that bit where they said that, like Steven
Spielberg's Coming Town known for such movies as as a
nineteen forty two and and always Yes, yeah, yeah, that's
that's Darren saying Brian Cox from Next two all.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Right, sorry, it's ingrained in my brain. I think you
did an amazing job in that.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Not he did. I don't see. That's the funniest thing
is I don't discount that, like like Tristan, you're mentioning.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Patrick never greater than Charles Xavier in his wheelchair.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
No, but like you put Brian Cox in a movie
and I'm like, on board, Okay, I'll watch it just
to see whatever scenes he's in, because he is that good,
Like he's my Meryl Streep. Where if you put Brian
Cox in a movie and I'm like that kid say that.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
When Maryl's in the movie, it doesn't it doesn't translate.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I can't. But it's no, like Brian Cox, I think,
is so he's so fun Like.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Well that is on stage, Yes, Like that scene when
he's on stage is genuinely like probably one of the
biggest takeaways from the movie for me. Like when I
think about adaptation, I think about Brian Cox screaming at
him saying what, like why would I want to go
see your movie? Why would I want to give you
two hours of my life if you think nothing happens
(25:59):
in the world, and I think that's a it's it's
such a great microcosm of I think an issue that
a lot of people have where and a lot of
writers have it too, where you're constantly told we'll write
what you know. Okay, fine, But I feel like there's
a lot of issues that people have where because it
(26:19):
didn't happen to them, they think it doesn't happen. So
because Kaufman has had an uneventful life, he thinks that
that's what life is. It's uneventful, and so he projects
that onto other people. But you know, McKee's character and
the real McKee, you know, says like, you know, it
gave all these examples about like another like every day
(26:40):
a human being decides to destroy another one, you know,
chooses a woman over his brother, you know, and everything
like that, just like all these very like none of
these examples that he gave were outrageous, and it just
lands and I just I absolutely love Cage's performance and goes, okay, thanks, yeah,
sects down.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
I know, you know, it's this might be an outsized comparison,
but do you think that Brian Cox It's not a
one to one, not by any stretch. But I feel
like we're in a post Magnolia world where Brian Cox
sees this as his sort of Tom Cruise on stage
(27:21):
self help guru moment where he comes in and he
knows his entire and what I mean by that is
he knows in this scene his entire job is to
punch the audience in the mouth, to just unsettle us
to the point where we're like, what is even happening
right now? Like, do you think that's an apt comparison?
Do you think that that's a good good way to
(27:41):
look at it?
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Yeah, I can, I can see that. I was gonna
say I hadn't watched the trailer for this movie, but
it's one of those movies where if they had just
shown a large chunk of the Brian Cox scene and
maybe a little bit of dialogue from Nick k and
that's the entire trailer, I think I would have been hooked.
(28:03):
Like movies very rarely do that where they show you
a tenant. You know a few others have done that,
where they've given you a large chunk of the movie
or a scene and it's and they leave you hanging
wanting more, and I think the Brian Cox scene could
have delivered that.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Yeah, yeah, I don't recall the trailer, but I agree
with you. If I had seen the Brian Cox scene
even in two thousand and two, I probably would have
made a real effort to see this in the movie theater.
I think it also probably would have helped audiences. Again,
I don't know if the trailer was that, no doubt,
but that would have helped audiences understand what they were
(28:44):
getting into for the movie and probably would have drawn
more people into it because I think that this movie
is again getting back to like sort of what we've
been talking about since the beginning. It's like there's a
there's a barrier here, and I think if you were
to lead with the Brian Cox thing, that would at
least inform the audience of the potential audience of what
(29:07):
they can expect this movie to be about, because that's
what a trailer was supposed to tell you, is like,
what is this movie about? What am I expected to
understand or glean from the characters going through this movie?
And that really is a thing where for all of
the other stuff, Cox is the right actor because he's
I think He's just one of the best actors that
(29:28):
I've ever seen on screen. But that scene distills the
entire why of the movie because it's all about how
do I tell a story, how do I convey an idea,
how do I, you know, make it interesting for somebody?
And I think it's so fascinating because the movie is
(29:50):
on a certain level. We just did all of the
screen movies, and it's so meta, but in such a
different way from the scream movies from you know, like
it's meta, but not in that wink and a smile
sort of way, in that very deep sort of way
that you expect when somebody says that something is meta.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
So yeah, I mean, John, I think that what is
this movie about?
Speaker 3 (30:17):
I think this movie is honestly about the difficulty of
trying to relate because you have Orlean trying to relate
to the Orca Thief, you have the Orca thief trying
to relate to the world. You have the writer trying
to relate to himself and trying to relate to everybody
around him in terms of how do I communicate things?
(30:40):
So I get I guess probably if I were to
say one word, I would say this movie is about communication.
How do I communicate? But basically that scene where they're
both sitting in the swamp, something I do not recommend
in the Florida Everglades. Just going to put that out there,
where you know, Charlie and Donald are talking to each
other and they're sitting there talking and it's about they
(31:04):
suddenly realize that their whole problem has been trying to communicate,
trying to understand each other, and I mean, that's what
I think the movie is about.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Well, and in that scene, it they finally break down
their assumptions of each other. I mean, and I think
it's very subtle, but when they're talking about like the
past as brothers do, like you feel that feels like
a brother conversation where he's like, oh, you were rejected
by this girl and and I thought you didn't you
know they were laughing at you and you didn't know.
(31:35):
And then he's like, you choose what you do with
your love and that's that's it. No one can change that.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
So yeah, I love that line, oh right, where he
said like that was her problem, not mine.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
I think that that conversation is one of the best
conversations ever committed to film, And I think that that
whole thing is absolutely gorgeous, Like it's if you walk
away with nothing else from this film, like I could,
I would show just that scene to like a teenager,
(32:08):
to be like, look like it's the ultimate it's gonna
be okay scene, you know, like you have to make
a decision not to let the world tell you how
to feel about things. You will decide how you feel
about things. I think that scene is so gorgeous. Thank
you for calling it out, Darren, because that's that's exactly.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Right, Darren. What did you think about the third act?
And what did you think about the scene here? Okay,
here's I'm gonna give you a John question here where
all right?
Speaker 3 (32:37):
So he's gonna be two minutes long, and Tristan's gonna say,
what are you even asking me? So just so the
on his understands.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Yeah, So we have the scene in the hotel room
with the two brothers, and Charlie is obviously anxious and
he's frustrated, and he's also jealous that Donald has written
a screenplay. People like, get Catherine Keener, is that his house?
(33:04):
You know, Like he's like he's supposed to be the artist,
he's supposed to be the genius writer and his brother,
who he sees is now a Hollywood hack, is getting success,
and so he says, how would you end it? What
would you do? From that moment on, we get a
completely different movie. We get Donald's movie.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
What did you make? The hand off?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
The protagonistness? And it shifts, Yeah, it too, even though
it focuses on Charlie. Still you're getting a shift in
perspective on how the story is told. So what did
you think about that? What does the third act work
for you? Because you know Brian Cox him said himself
said you may have issues, but nail the third act
and you'll be fine. Yeah, did this third act? Did
(33:45):
they nail the third act in your eyes? Or was
it weird? Was it too different from the previous two? No?
Speaker 3 (33:49):
I think they did.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
I mean I almost call it the fourth act. It's
so late in the game that it feels that removed.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
But now it does.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
It's it's so amazing how it lands, because, like you
just said, they telegraphed it with Brian Cox saying, you
nail the third act, like again, semi meta because we
still need to nail the third act and the third
act feels very different. I will say that the protagonist
miss shifts because if you think about it, Donald starts
(34:20):
driving the story, his decisions of go, where they go,
who they do, who they're spying on. Like, I will
fully say that it shifts between the two characters. But yeah,
I mean it caught me off guard as well, because,
you know, to be honest, like getting up to there,
I'm still kind of grasping and I'm trying to get
(34:41):
a bead on this movie, and it's kind of slogging
along and then it's like a click and you're like, oh,
I'm now invested. But I needed all those other acts
to get there. You couldn't have dropped me in right here.
I would add no idea what who any of these
characters are, But I have to admit it got me there,
(35:02):
It got me where. I'm now caring about the characters.
I'm caring what happens to them. You're throwing crazy stuff
at them. Man, you know cars, you never know what
cars are going to do in this movie. But yeah,
I will say it very much succeeds in the third act,
and like they telegraph you kind of then, don't scrutinize
(35:24):
the other two acts as much as hard because at
the end of the day, they did their job. Were
they amazing? Was I fully invested by the first five minutes? No,
not even clothes, but it got me there.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
John Lance Accord photographed this movie, and he's the one
who did being John Malkovich as well. I have a
two part question for you. Did you feel like this
was the same cinematographer that he was doing the same thing.
Do you feel like this was an evolution of a
photographer of a cinematographer? And how do you feel he
filmed the twin scenes? Did that land for you?
Speaker 3 (36:00):
I am going to answer in reverse order. The twin
scenes I think were absolutely nailed. I have a deep
and abiding hatred of split screen, like all the way
up to and including Star Trek six, where like The
Blue the split screen doesn't line up as well as
(36:21):
it should and it just it. I have an unreasoning
hatred of it as a tactic because I think that
rarely does it work well, and I think it's always
better in concept than execution, Whereas in this case, I
think that the split screen works freakin' perfectly. I will
sing its praises to my dying day because I think
(36:43):
that it does everything exactly right, including balancing the exact
right amount of one shot and two shot, so that
I accept that they're in the same space, but I
don't rely on it, and I don't have it long
enough to stare at it and say I can see
where the line is, sort of like just to throw
(37:05):
it under the bus. Another Star Trek movie, the overuse
of diopter in Star Trek the motion picture, which fills
me with rage every time I watch it. Anyway, so
I love the split screen use. I think that Lance
Chord deserves a lot of praise. I think that additionally,
Nicholas Cage deserves a lot of praise because I feel
that both of those performances inhabit the scene that it's in,
(37:29):
and like there's a logical part of my brain that
understands that they are not actually there at the same time,
but I feel like they are there at the same time,
and so that is to heap all of the praise
on that. Do I think this looks like the same
person that shot being John Malkovich. I think I wouldn't
necessarily call it an evolution. That feels like a weird
(37:51):
word to use. I'm not throwing that at you as
like an insult sort of thing. But I think that
this is in an adaptation. See what I did of
the shooting style of Malkovich where I think that the
I think I look at this and visually I can
see a stamp where it's very similar. I can tell
(38:13):
it's the same people put this movie together. But while
I wouldn't necessarily say it's an evolution, it reads as
the same people put it together but understood the sensibilities
they needed for this story. They adapted for the type
of story they were going to tell. I don't know
(38:34):
if that makes sense, but that's that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
Darren, going completely opposite direction, different direction. Did you recognize
Doug Jones in this movie?
Speaker 4 (38:46):
I did not. I just saw him in the credit
list and I'm trying to place him.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
John John, do you do you know where he is
in the movie.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
No, I don't.
Speaker 4 (38:57):
I mean, he's so tall. I'm trying to think when
he would have.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
He was the orchid thief who was dying of dysentery.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Oh oh my gosh. Okay, okay, okay, okay, Well, like
Nicholas Cage's casting, it makes perfect sense once you say it.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Okay, God's right. Not crazy, Darren. Uh. I hate to
give you this question, but I'm going to give it
to you anyway.
Speaker 4 (39:21):
We're talking about Spike Jones.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
We're talking about you know, we haven't talked about Spike
Jones yet. We're going to end with him. Okay, okay,
But Carter Burwell did the score for this, as he
did for being John Malkovich. Was this a memorable score
to you? Was it just a score? You know?
Speaker 3 (39:36):
How did?
Speaker 2 (39:36):
How did you feel?
Speaker 3 (39:38):
I feel it was.
Speaker 4 (39:39):
A good score, but it I mean, I feel like
this is my broken record of I'm a theme guy.
Like if you give me a theme for a character
or a person or a place or whatever, I'm going
to remember it. And this wasn't a theme type score,
which isn't bad. I don't think it should have been
a theme type score. I don't think that it's would
(40:00):
have worked so memorable. I couldn't hum you a single bar.
But did it ever distract me or take me out
of it or you know, jar me? No? And I
think in that regard, it did what a score should
do and under underscore, uh, the performances, because the performances
were what I was paying attention to.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
What's really weird. And this is weird for me to
even think this because I'm very much a fan of directors.
Obviously we all are, because this is a director focused podcast.
But when when I think adaptation, I don't think Spike Jones.
I don't think, Wow, that was a really well directed movie,
even though he's the one who put all the pieces together.
(40:43):
You know, he's the one who got the performances out
of these great actors. He's the one who, you know, like,
worked with the editor to put it together, who worked
with the cinematographer to get the shots. It's one of
those things where there's like almost so much going on
and so many good things that you forget that somebody
was at the helm. Am I alone in thinking that?
(41:04):
Or how do you feel about that?
Speaker 4 (41:06):
Would you say this feels like a Charlie Kaufman movie.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
I think that's the thing is that they did such
a good job at making this all about the writing
process that you forget that this is a movie that
was directed by someone and shot by someone and edited
by someone.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
I'll jump in, Darren, I completely agree this is I
lose Jones in this, and it is because of all
those other aspects that you're talking about specifically the writing.
I think of this as a Charlie Kaufman movie. Is
that a tribute to Jones that he brought the writer's
intent so perfectly to screen that I forget that I
(41:46):
lose him. That it's an unintended side effect that I
think of being John Malkovich, and that I think of adaptation,
And then I think of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,
which is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Just so you guys know, I adore that movie on
a level that I cannot even comprehend. I didn't know that,
(42:07):
Oh my god, I get like Eternal Sunshine of the
Spotless Mind. I think is one of the few perfect
films ever made in the history of humanity. And although
in the history of film, because you know, humanity has
been around a little bit longer than film arguably just
an depends on your philosophy, who knows, But I think that, yeah,
(42:29):
I think it's an unintended consequence of this film that
Spike Jones is lost. I think that I know that
he's the reason it comes together the way that it does.
But I think that it is you know what, I'll
go back to making my bos Lherman reference. Mulan Ruse
(42:52):
comes together and everybody forgets that boz Luhrman was the
reason that it did.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
That's what I was thinking too. And also like with
being John Malkovich being nominated for Best Picture but he
wasn't nominated for Best Director, It's like, how do you
think this movie got together?
Speaker 3 (43:06):
Exactly? Yeah, there was a ghost in the chair.
Speaker 4 (43:10):
No, I really jive with that, John, because it I
don't think any of us mean it in a negative way.
It's not at all like I think you look at
I think if I wasn't doing this as a podcast,
I just watch adaptation, I would look up the director
and once I see that he and Charlie collaborated on
(43:32):
their previous movie, it all would click and I'd be like, oh,
that makes total sense. Like they worked together, they made
John Malkovich, and then they have that trust and that
rapport and yeah, this movie is one hundred and ten
percent right focused. But it only happens because they already
have that. If it had been like Charlie's like, hey
(43:54):
I need a director, anyone want to come direct? This
not going to work? It had to be that pair
and that trust but yeah, he does kind of fade
into the production background, as it were, but that in
a way only allows the writing level to you know,
(44:15):
I mean, I mean you think of other movies like
The Artist or I mean or Again we've said, there's
a coffity of movies that are about the movie making process,
and this one is one of the top as far
as writing, like it has to be on that list,
on that short.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
List, John, do you think this movie is rewatchable? And
if so, why.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
I think it is rewatchable if it works for you.
And this is one of those movies where I if
somebody were to come to me and say I hated adaptation,
I would look at them and I would say, I
understand and respect why you said that. Being John Malkovich,
I might defend even even a little bit and say no, no, no, no, no, no,
(45:01):
you've got to give it another shake. This one. If
somebody comes to me and says that, I'm simply going
to say, I understand you. I get it. This is
very much a movie that is rewatchable if and only
if you enjoy it, which I mean is true of
any movie. So I can rephrase it.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
You mean, if it clicks with you yeah.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
And you're going to know if it's rewatchable within the
first thirty minutes of the film. If you don't, if
you don't go along with it by that point, just leave.
Just you're done. It's okay. We can all leave as friends.
There's no hard feelings.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
Darren. I have a question for you, and it's my
last question because I'm hosting today and I make you
go first every single time. I need to hear your
final thoughts on the film. And how many script revisions
are you giving it? Out of five?
Speaker 4 (45:58):
It's so many script revisions. No, yeah, this movie. I
mean like they telegraphed it. It nailed it in the
third act. I didn't think it was gonna get there.
Like I was along for the ride, but I was like,
what what is this about? Like my goodness, some of
the moments with Nick Cage and Charlie, like my skin
(46:20):
is crawling. I'm like, he's so socially awkward and in
his head and self deprecating, where I'm just like, h like,
I don't know if I can take a whole movie
of this guy and it. But again, I've said it before.
You know you're making me care about the character and
you and you express which character I should care about, Like, like,
(46:43):
this movie does a lot of things right in that
regard whether or not it's your favorite or not, that
doesn't matter in this case. It you know, pulls the
story together, has a wicked fourth act. I will say
it's a fourth act no matter what, because it is
so so late in game. But and it makes you
(47:03):
doubt in a way, what is real? What is biography?
Speaker 3 (47:08):
What is you know?
Speaker 4 (47:09):
Because there's a lot of I mean, like I feel
like I'm repeating what I've said before. But when you
hide the little lies within the truth, which this movie does,
of real people, real stories, real books, real writers, it
starts to bleed or blur the line between. So I'm
(47:29):
I'm gonna give it a four. This movie, I will say,
I kind of disagree with John as far as I
think if you're hooked in the first ten minutes, you know,
if it's rewatchable where I say, it really comes down
to the ending, like if you can make it through
the Like, yeah, you might get turned off in the
(47:50):
first ten minutes, but I think you have to get
this movie a whole watch through shake because it is
such a ending movie, you know, I can't think of
another example of an ending movie, but we all know
they exist. So yeah, I'm going to give it a four.
I will I rewatch it, probably not just because it
(48:13):
is it my favorite source material. Will I watch it
with a film friend who is interested in something like
that or hasn't seen it and I get to introduce
it to him. Absolutely, I would rewatch it in those circumstances,
but not as a casual viewing. So for four rewrites,
I'm almost done with the script. Guys, just give me
(48:34):
three four weeks.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
John, how many Nick Cage masturbation scenes out of five
are you giving this movie?
Speaker 4 (48:43):
What?
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Why?
Speaker 3 (48:44):
Why? Why are you going to do that to me?
Speaker 2 (48:46):
I saved that one for you. I had that idea
before we even started podcasting.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
You know, and I feel like it was very much
tailored and I hate you for it, but I will
say that. Okay, Darren, forgive me. I disagree to me.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
He's going to have to tell you why you're wrong
before he can give his rating. I could feel it.
I could feel it. No, no, no, no, no, it's
not about wrong.
Speaker 3 (49:14):
It's it's about the fact that any movie where you're
going to say, oh no, you just have to go
to the end. It's a very tough sell, man, It's
a very tough cell. I will say that.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
That's like when you watch a TV like, you recommend
a TV show like once you pass the first three
seasons when it really.
Speaker 4 (49:33):
Like, hey, guys, give and shake, but you gotta.
Speaker 3 (49:36):
Yeah Inoor season Indoor season two, just skip the first
six episodes, but the best seasons.
Speaker 4 (49:42):
You've ever sew Yes, I know you're not wrong, but
you're also.
Speaker 3 (49:45):
Wrong, absolutely right, and you know it. Anyway, I give
this a four as well. Uh, it is a three
star movie because at some point it climbs up its
own Malkovich hole and stays there. But the performances are
so damn good, and then that ending does just pay
(50:08):
off so much like it is Darren's right in this sense,
if you sit there, you just stick with it. You
get to the end and you're like, wow, this is
meta on every level I ever wanted. And the performances
are great. Four star movie. So that's where I end.
Four stars.
Speaker 4 (50:26):
Just take the audio where he said I was right,
and then just keep it.
Speaker 3 (50:29):
Dump the rest. Hopefully I was sloppy enough in my
speech that you cannot isolate it.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
For me, I give it a four as well, So
this is four across the board. I think this is
a really good movie. I often forget how good this
movie is, even though I've seen it many times. But
every single time I watch it, I'm reminded of how
much fun it is and how interesting it is. But
at the same time, it's not perfect, I think for
the reasons that both of you guys have said, like
(50:58):
the first two acts aren't perfect, Like there's a lot
of things I'm just like I could skip that scene,
or like I could move past this, or like that's
too awkward. I know you're supposed to be awkward, but
it's too awkward, you know, things of that nature. But
there's so much going right for it. And even though
I think that Being John Malkovich is a better movie
(51:18):
than adaptation, and even though I gave Being John Malkovich
a four, I'm still giving it a four because this
is solid craftsmanship across the board. So, Darren, what are
we doing next week?
Speaker 4 (51:31):
Well, we're heading into our next chapter in the House
of Spike Jones with two thousand and Nine's where the
Wild Things are based on the beloved classic.
Speaker 1 (51:40):
Here on House Sits join the Revolution, join the net
Polta
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to Houselights, the podcast that tried to review a
movie about a book about flowers, and somewhere along the
way things got weird. There were dreams, sex swamps, screenwriting gurus,
and one very sweaty Nick Cage. I'm Tristan Riddell, your host,
currently caught in an endless loop of rewriting this intro
(00:42):
while spiraling into self loathing, sugar binges, and the haunting
echo of Bob McKee yelling God help you if you
use voiceover. And Next in our neurotic writer's room, Who's smart, sincere,
and possibly on the verge of falling for an orchid
poacher John Mills and complete being our trio is someone
who recently confessed he might leave everything behind to chase
(01:05):
orchids in the Florida Swamp Darren Moser. Today we're unraveling
adaptation the two thousand and two film where Nick Cage
plays twin screenwriters. Meryl Streep gets high and maybe falls
in love with a toothless orchid thief and the movie
you thought you were watching takes a hard left into drugs, murder,
and an alligator. This podcast is dedicated to my twin brother,
(01:26):
Hank Radell. Rest in peace, Brother, Rest in peace. All right,
So I have seen this movie many times. I did
not see this in theaters. I was too young at
the time, I think, but I did buy it buy one,
get one free at Blockbuster previously viewed movies. And so
I've had this on DVD for a very long time.
(01:47):
When was the first time you guys saw this.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
I don't think I saw this in theaters. I know
I saw it on home video, but I'm pretty sure
that's the first time I saw it. I haven't watched
it in a very long time since. But it's definitely
a movie where, even if you've only seen it once
and it's on home video, somebody says adaptation, you're like, oh, yeah,
I know that one. Like this movie sticks with you
(02:10):
regardless of whether you loved it or hated it, like
it definitely carves out a little little segment in your
brain where you're like, oh, yeah, the Nicholas Cage plays
his own twin sort of thing, Darren, how about you today?
Speaker 4 (02:23):
This was my first time watching it. The cover of
the potted plant that's cracked. It makes a lot more
sense now because I remember looking at it, you know,
on a blockbuster shelf and being like adaptation, what okay,
it's it's his head that doesn't make any sense, And
then I kind of never thought about it again. We
probably were supposed to watch this in review for one
(02:46):
of my film classes in college. It feels like the
kind of movie that we was on a list and
I somehow dodged it, not in a negative way, but
just never never came across it. So it was fun
watching this app after John Malkovich, same writer. I mean,
there's shots of John Malkovich being made in this. It's
(03:07):
very meta, but not meta. It's it's it's something that's
for sure.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
That's a way to put it.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Feel How did you feel about the being John Malkovich stuff?
Like were you did you think it was fun? Did
you think it was cheap?
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Like?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
What did you like when you first responded to it?
What was that response?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Well, honestly, usually I never try to look at a
Wikipedia article if I have not seen the movie at all,
because it's very quickly will give away spoilers and things.
But when I saw that, I did have to pause
and looked up the writer's Wikipedia page, and it was like,
did he write John Malkovich. Yes, okay confirmed? Does he
(03:49):
have a twin?
Speaker 3 (03:51):
No?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Okay, because I I think rightfully so the movie was
throwing what is reality at me right off the bat,
and I was already treading water, which I it is great,
Like how movie giving that visceral reaction? So yeah, because
it's like hiding the lies in truth? Was he the
writer of John Malkovich? Yes, and then you start to
(04:14):
believe like, well, does that mean that that's how we
acted on set?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Well?
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I don't know now because I know part of what
you told me is true?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
So is the rest true?
Speaker 4 (04:23):
And that's kind of the whole movie.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
It is it is. I think one of the challenging
things for this movie is I think it is actually
and this is gonna sound insane the way I say it.
I think that this is less accessible to non film
fans than Malkovich. Malkovich is one where it's like, if
you sit down with somebody and they're not like a
(04:46):
diehard film fan, you can be like, listen, this is
just weird. Just get just go with it, and they'll
go with it, and then you sit down with them
to watch this. This is gonna be one where you're
going to lose half of the audience by the closing
credits because they're gonna be like, what the hell is
even happening right now? And I think that this is
I think that if anything, there is a like this
(05:06):
is because Darren, you said this when we were talking
about John Malkovich where it was not You said, Hollywood
loves a movie that's about movies, and I would say
that process right, and I would say that this movie
feels like it's made for those people who felt that
being John Malkovich wasn't enough that you know, like they
(05:27):
were like, you know what, we could take it up
to eleven, Let's go ahead and amp this one up.
So I think that's the biggest challenge with this movie
is it really climbs into itself after a certain point
and you're either going to choose to go with it
or you're just gonna say, okay whatever and disconnect. Like
(05:48):
I could very easily see sitting down with my wife
and about thirty minutes in, she'd be like, well, why
am I even watching this? You know, walks out.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
I mean, I will say, on a positive note, I
think it's trying to work at two levels where it's
telling us a story as an audience, but obviously it
is also having a conversation looking off to the left
at writers that are going to react in a very
different way of Oh my gosh, I've been in my
head saying I'm stupid when I'm trying to write page
(06:19):
five of the draft. Oh so, like there's a relatability
in that because he's getting so meta on his own
writing of his own piece, and then he's also talking
to himself as his brother like it. Yeah, I think
there's kind of two movies going on. Both are a
bit wacky, but they're I mean, I have to give
(06:42):
it that.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Let's talk about the dual protagonists. Well, I mean, I
guess they're not really both the protagonists, but like, let's
talk about the dual performance of Cage. What did you think, like, John,
what did you think about his performances as both brothers,
and what did you think about the effectiveness of having
that within the movie.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I think it's very effective, specifically because I think Nicholas
Cage is one of a handful of actors that can
pull this off without me call him buless at the
very beginning, like he has that energy, like I'm not
saying anything anybody else wouldn't say. I'm not like terribly
insightful here, but like Nicholas Cage comes on and you
see this sort of premise start playing out and you're like, yeah, okay,
(07:21):
this Nicholas Cage movie, Sure that makes sense, and it's
I think it's because Nicholas Cage is arguably the most
fearless actor that we have in the modern day, and like,
I would struggle to think of this movie working with
anybody but him. I don't think it does. And I
think it's I think that the premise is high brow
(07:42):
enough that if you don't cast the right actor in
this role, you're all is lost. So kudos to them
forgetting a Cage to play these roles, because I don't
think it works without him. I mean, are there other
actors where it could have happened. Yes, But I would
have to sit here and spend the entire hour with
you guys being like, well, who else could pull this off?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
You know? That's the That's the beauty of it, though,
is that he's not the first person to come to mind,
and you probably would take a very long time to
think of Nick Cage when like when you're developing this movie,
but then after you mention it, or even after you
see it, you're like, I, who else could you know?
Who else but Cage? And that that's that's a really
(08:23):
interesting and very narrow niche Uh, Darren, what what did
you think about I I want to ask you specifically
about the screenwriting process that they both went through. Obviously,
there are two sides of the spectrum where you know,
like they're they're showing extremes, you know, where they have Charlie,
who is the uh he sees himself as an artist
(08:47):
and he wants to do something unique and different and
you know, like inaccessible. And then you have you have
Donald who's just like I want to have I want
to have. I want car chases, I want cops and
guns and horses and everything like that. Darren, what did
you think about the screenwriting aspect between the two of them?
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (09:06):
It, I mean, first off, like you very quickly buy
this as two people, Like there's no suspension right away.
You're like, okay, these are they're they're different enough. You
don't feel like, oh, he just pitched his voice down
a little and now he's Donald. It's like no, this
feels like a different person, and yeah, it takes a
(09:27):
because that's the arc we go through is with Charlie.
Like when he's bouting off some of his ideals, I'm like, dude,
like good luck because and then he kind of gets
it shoved in his face with the lecture and it's like, yeah,
you're what do you like? I want to write a
movie with no conflict, Like it makes me think back
(09:49):
of Gene Roddenberry, you know, laying down the well. We
have to have these characters, but they can't actually have
interpersonal conflicts and it's like welcome to Star Trek Deep
Space nine, and we're gonna show you why how we
can do that. But no, I think the highest compliment
could be by the end, I cared about both characters.
I saw them as people. I cared about what happened
(10:11):
to them. I mean it was in the fourth act
because you know, it takes some turns at the end.
But no, I think as writers, it it did straddle
that line of a movie about writers that's also being
written like it's very meta, but it doesn't come across
(10:33):
as like he never broke the fourth wall. He's never
looking at me the audience, And I think that would
have broken it, but it straddled that line, but it
didn't go over.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I like that. That's interesting. I never really thought of
it that way before. But that would have been a
very easy thing to do. I particularly like it when
the fourth wall is broken. But you're right, this wouldn't
have worked like this would have been off putting.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
It's all ready deep enough where he's he's talking about
the movie that he's right, like he catches up to
the self moment in his writing. It's like we put
in the VHS tape for Spaceballs and we're now the.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
First thing that I thought of that. I'm so glad
that you mentioned that.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
So it but it works because it's like it's just
that moment, I guess. I will say he does kind
of break the fourth wall right at that moment where
he says, Oh, I shouldn't use voiceover. Ah, what the heck,
I'm gonna use it anyway, Like, because he's caught up
to now there you feel the wall break a tiny bit,
but he's not talking to us, but he is because
(11:39):
it's now it's but it works. I will say, it
does work.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
You know. I got to interject really quick though, because
you know we're talking about breaking the fourth wall, Nicholas
Cage's performance, what the movie's about, and everything like that. Uh,
what does Susan Orlean, who wrote The Orchid Thief feel
without this movie? Like that? That's what I can't that's
a kick it out, you know.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I looked it up. I looked it up because I
knew this question was coming, because my first instinct was, oh, man,
I bet she thought this was awesome, you know, like
seeing herself like, you know, like running around in the
swamp with a gun trying to kill it. First, but
then I really then I sobered up, and then I
(12:22):
was just like, wait, Like, this is somebody who's in
the public eye who understands that audiences sometimes aren't very
smart and thinks movies are real. And that was her
first instinct was people are going to think that I'm
like this. People are going to think that that third
act actually happened. And so she initially said no when
(12:45):
they pitched it to her. She's like, no, you can't
portray me this way. But then basically everybody else around
her said yes. And then she started realizing like the
craziness of the script and how over the top it
was and how Nick Cage was going to play Charlie
Coff and she's like, okay, and now she actually does
love the movie, like once it got made, she actually
does love it. But there are morons out there who
(13:07):
believe that Kaufman has a brother and that he died
tragically because the movie.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Was dedicated on the Titanic.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
I saw it, you know.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
But that's the thing though, that this movie was dedicated
to his brother, and it was co written by his brother.
He's the only fictional character in history to win an
Oscar or at least be nominated for one. And it's
and I remember, like when this was going out, like
I was listening to the radio and I heard a
movie critic talking about his Charlie Kaufman's brother, like he
(13:40):
was a real person and that it was tragic how
he passed, and like how it was cool that the
movie was was dedicated to him. And I was like,
oh my god, people are actually believing this.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Yeah, But at the same time, like what we've touched
on this with Stone covering the Doors or JFK or
Spike Lee talking about Malcolm X and stuff like that,
It's like people go in and I think people, you know,
we all know very well. Yeah, it's very easy to condemn.
But people go in with a very trusting nature like
they you know, it doesn't matter how many disclaimers you
(14:13):
put on. There are saying, you know, the events in
this picture are fictional. Everybody you see is fictional. This
is all a work of drama. Everybody's going to sit
there and say, oh, well, this must be true. But
I would flip that around and I would say that
at a base level, it's sort of a tribute to
Nick Cage because to Darren's point, you're invested enough in
(14:37):
both of these characters by the end that it is
the ultimate emotional trick. It's like a magic trick where
you believe that the girl got sawn in half or
something like that. You know it's not true, but there's
a part of your brain that's like, well, that's what
I saw, that's that's what's true. So I'll be looking
a little bit of a break on that.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
If I saw that he had a brother, I would
not have been surprised. It was that it makes you question,
it makes you and I did not know that both
Charlie and Donald were because already one of them is
a real person. But that is you know, that blows
me away that both names were on the nomination list
(15:16):
and what is not even a real person?
Speaker 3 (15:19):
I mean, which you would think that the Academy would
have some sort of rule where they would say no, guys,
you can't do or WGA would be like, no, you
can't have.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
A rule is put into effect only real people may
be nominated for Academy Awards.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Right, I mean it feels like the ultimate thumb in
the eye to the Writer's Guild and the Academy to
be like, oh, look your rules, I found the loophole. Right,
you allow allow, you allow Alan Smithy and other things
like that, I'm just going to make up a name
and this person doesn't even exist. Like it almost feels
like a prank that the South Park writers would make,
(15:55):
you know.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
So all right, there's a there's a lot of great
people in this movie. There's a lot of great performances.
And since we were talking about awards, Chris Cooper won
the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance. You know, Darren,
do you think that was deserved?
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
I mean, you say, then there are a lot of
people in this movie, but there's really three, Like it
is such a small micro cast of and again obviously
they interact with you know, Tilda Swinston and many other characters.
But yeah, he transformed in this movie. Although I do
(16:36):
want to ask you guys with the roach, I feel
like it's a little different watching adaptation in a post
Tiger King world, because that's what I immediately thought of
of that kind of like off the wall, like it
felt like that's the person, but obviously that didn't exist
(16:57):
back you know two so did did either of you
on this rewatch? Did it even cross your mind until
I just said it, I didn't think of Tiger King.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
Now that you say it, it's almost like Tristan's thing,
where it's like, well, once you say Nicholas Cage, you're like,
of course this is the only guy. I think that's
really insightful. That's yeah. I can get that sort of
vibe where it's like a guy who's invested so much
of his identity in this to hide from some pain. Like,
if anything, it allows you. I think what was beautiful
(17:28):
about the way the character is written, in the way
that Cooper performs it is that there is I think
it allows you a specific channel of empathy for somebody
who you might look at as a dismissable person if
you were to meet them where you can go. You
know what, maybe this person is so committed to this
(17:48):
bit because they're so hurt that it's their shell, it's
their protection. And like, I think that's in a large
way a beautiful thing. I like what you said here
because it really is helping me look at this character
in that sense of you know, and it is there
in the text of the film. This is a guy
who has built this whole self as a way to
(18:11):
protect himself from being hurt again. But then at the
end of the movie that's what winds up hurting him.
And so there's there's this beautiful, cyclical sort of idea
about it. And so you feel sympathy. Even though he's
he's doing illegal things, exploiting a loophole and doing terrible stuff,
you still feel sorry for him. At the end, you
(18:33):
feel a sadness for him instead of an anger. I think,
I think, I think Tiger King is a great way
to to draw that out.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Yeah, I always love Chris Cooper in a movie.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
I think he's one of those actors that it's easy
to say, like, oh, Chris Cooper's in this it's probably
gonna be good, or at least his performance is going
to be good. And that's how I felt about Jim
Beaver too, even though he's only in one scene, Like
when as the as the ranger a pull up and
you see Jim Bieber's face, You're just like, ah, Jim Bieber, okay,
all right, right, cool cool, cool, cool, solid performance coming.
(19:07):
And apparently Stephen Tobolowski was also a ranger and he
got completely cut from the from the movie.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
That's a damn shame. I know, I love Tobolowski, He's
so great.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
And also I mean, like, you know, like we even
you know, we haven't even got to Meryl Streep yet,
who's obviously is a highlight. But you know, like you
have Kara Seymour in this who I can't think, I
can't help but think of American Psycho, you know, when
when she pops up, and we have Gregory Eitzen, who
(19:39):
like we basically see like the side of his head
and he's a prosecutor. And we also have Peter Jason
as the defense attorney. Like they get almost no lines
at all. But yet these are really good actors all throughout,
and so Meryl Streep's performance. Like, John, I know that
you have a mural of Meryl Streep on your wall.
I do, and she's she's one of your favorite actresses
(20:03):
of all time.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I have a think full Streep tattoo on my back
in fact, and a full back tattoo.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Are feeling like she hasn't gotten enough nominations.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
I honestly know she hasn't gotten enough recognition through time.
I mean, talk about an overlooked actress who hasn't gotten
the claim that's well, do her.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
She'll breakthrough. I was hoping it was this, but you.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Know, at some point, at some point, she will stop
being the Susan Lucci of big budget films, and she
will in fact get recognized.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
So for all of you who don't know, we're being
extremely tongue in cheek. Yes, John, That's why I'm asking
you this question, as someone who is not an automatic
Streep fan. What did you think about her performance in
this movie? Was it just Meryl Streep being male Streep
or did you actually connect with his character.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
I did not connect with the character until the ending,
but I credit a lot of that with how the
ending is put together editorially. I listen, I have nothing
against miss Streep. I don't. I have nothing against her
as a person. I get why everybody loves her as
an actress, but I can't see characters beyond her. And
(21:14):
if I have to jump on this grenade and be like,
it's a John problem, Okay, that's fine, that's fine, it's
a John problem. That's fine. But during the uh, you know,
the first three quarters of the movie, I'm just like, look,
there's Meryl Streep doing the thing and that. But then
at the end, like the very end, I think that
there is the way that it's put together. I'm able
(21:37):
to forget that it's Streep, and so I will. Actually,
I guess it's kind of backhanded compliment where it's like,
you know, the they they help me get past my
Meryl Streep issues in the ending.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
That's not an unfair nothing to say, because I mean, sure,
she's surrounded by Nick Cage doing two performances that are
very anti Nick Cage and Chris Cooper, who you never
like it. He completely like the closest that you could
see Chris Cooper doing this is way back with great expectations,
and even then it's completely different. And so she's surrounded
(22:15):
by people who are doing something radically different and she's
in her Niche like, this is a very Meryl Street
performance in a very Meryl Street movie. That's her. So
I completely understand where you're coming from, John, But the
thing is is that you I think what I really
liked of her performance is the subtlety of her face acting.
(22:37):
Like her facial expression I thought was superb in this.
I think like when she was listening to Laroche in
the van, and when she was kind of hiding in
the bathroom from her friends, and then at the very
end when she decides that they need to kill Kaufman,
just like that everybody's taken a beat and letting Orlean
(22:57):
have her moment, and like seeing that journey that she
takes in her mind. I think that was the standout
performance for not stand up performance like that was the
standout aspect of her performance for me. Was just like
the subtlety of her facial acting. But it's it's easy
to get overlooked with Cooper and Cage right next to you.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
Yeah, I'm I'm in the same I'm very similar to John.
Where like Chris Cooper and Nick Cage vanished into the
roles very very very quickly, and but Meryl Streep and
I'm not, like not a Meryl Street fan, but I
it just she's a great actress, Like I recognize her,
but I'm not putting her on a pedestal. Which but
(23:40):
I'm looking now with La Roach like I it looks
like they were very close to doing John Taturou, which
that would have been I could see him doing it.
Nothing against Chris Cooper, but h and then but one
of the other supporting cast names you hadn't gotten around
to you at Tristan was Brian Cox, who.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Just nailed that.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
Now I cannot watch Brian Cox unfortunately in anything and
not think of X two, like I.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Just well, this is this was this was Brian Cox
playing Brian Cox. Basically, yeah, this.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
Is McKee is a real person too, Like that's there's
so much blurring in this movie.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
But unfair that the X two Like, yes, he's great
next too, but come on, man, you're killing me here
at least go with like you't play Cannibal or something.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Come on, man, John killing in South Park earlier? Do
you remember that bit where they said that, like Steven
Spielberg's Coming Town known for such movies as as a
nineteen forty two and and always Yes, yeah, yeah, that's
that's Darren saying Brian Cox from Next two all.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Right, sorry, it's ingrained in my brain. I think you
did an amazing job in that.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Not he did. I don't see. That's the funniest thing
is I don't discount that, like like Tristan, you're mentioning.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Patrick never greater than Charles Xavier in his wheelchair.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
No, but like you put Brian Cox in a movie
and I'm like, on board, Okay, I'll watch it just
to see whatever scenes he's in, because he is that good,
Like he's my Meryl Streep. Where if you put Brian
Cox in a movie and I'm like that kid say that.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
When Maryl's in the movie, it doesn't it doesn't translate.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I can't. But it's no, like Brian Cox, I think,
is so he's so fun Like.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Well that is on stage, Yes, Like that scene when
he's on stage is genuinely like probably one of the
biggest takeaways from the movie for me. Like when I
think about adaptation, I think about Brian Cox screaming at
him saying what, like why would I want to go
see your movie? Why would I want to give you
two hours of my life if you think nothing happens
(25:59):
in the world, and I think that's a it's it's
such a great microcosm of I think an issue that
a lot of people have where and a lot of
writers have it too, where you're constantly told we'll write
what you know. Okay, fine, But I feel like there's
a lot of issues that people have where because it
(26:19):
didn't happen to them, they think it doesn't happen. So
because Kaufman has had an uneventful life, he thinks that
that's what life is. It's uneventful, and so he projects
that onto other people. But you know, McKee's character and
the real McKee, you know, says like, you know, it
gave all these examples about like another like every day
(26:40):
a human being decides to destroy another one, you know,
chooses a woman over his brother, you know, and everything
like that, just like all these very like none of
these examples that he gave were outrageous, and it just
lands and I just I absolutely love Cage's performance and goes, okay, thanks, yeah,
sects down.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
I know, you know, it's this might be an outsized comparison,
but do you think that Brian Cox It's not a
one to one, not by any stretch. But I feel
like we're in a post Magnolia world where Brian Cox
sees this as his sort of Tom Cruise on stage
(27:21):
self help guru moment where he comes in and he
knows his entire and what I mean by that is
he knows in this scene his entire job is to
punch the audience in the mouth, to just unsettle us
to the point where we're like, what is even happening
right now? Like, do you think that's an apt comparison?
Do you think that that's a good good way to
(27:41):
look at it?
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Yeah, I can, I can see that. I was gonna
say I hadn't watched the trailer for this movie, but
it's one of those movies where if they had just
shown a large chunk of the Brian Cox scene and
maybe a little bit of dialogue from Nick k and
that's the entire trailer, I think I would have been hooked.
(28:03):
Like movies very rarely do that where they show you
a tenant. You know a few others have done that,
where they've given you a large chunk of the movie
or a scene and it's and they leave you hanging
wanting more, and I think the Brian Cox scene could
have delivered that.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Yeah, yeah, I don't recall the trailer, but I agree
with you. If I had seen the Brian Cox scene
even in two thousand and two, I probably would have
made a real effort to see this in the movie theater.
I think it also probably would have helped audiences. Again,
I don't know if the trailer was that, no doubt,
but that would have helped audiences understand what they were
(28:44):
getting into for the movie and probably would have drawn
more people into it because I think that this movie
is again getting back to like sort of what we've
been talking about since the beginning. It's like there's a
there's a barrier here, and I think if you were
to lead with the Brian Cox thing, that would at
least inform the audience of the potential audience of what
(29:07):
they can expect this movie to be about, because that's
what a trailer was supposed to tell you, is like,
what is this movie about? What am I expected to
understand or glean from the characters going through this movie?
And that really is a thing where for all of
the other stuff, Cox is the right actor because he's
I think He's just one of the best actors that
(29:28):
I've ever seen on screen. But that scene distills the
entire why of the movie because it's all about how
do I tell a story, how do I convey an idea,
how do I, you know, make it interesting for somebody?
And I think it's so fascinating because the movie is
(29:50):
on a certain level. We just did all of the
screen movies, and it's so meta, but in such a
different way from the scream movies from you know, like
it's meta, but not in that wink and a smile
sort of way, in that very deep sort of way
that you expect when somebody says that something is meta.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
So yeah, I mean, John, I think that what is
this movie about?
Speaker 3 (30:17):
I think this movie is honestly about the difficulty of
trying to relate because you have Orlean trying to relate
to the Orca Thief, you have the Orca thief trying
to relate to the world. You have the writer trying
to relate to himself and trying to relate to everybody
around him in terms of how do I communicate things?
(30:40):
So I get I guess probably if I were to
say one word, I would say this movie is about communication.
How do I communicate? But basically that scene where they're
both sitting in the swamp, something I do not recommend
in the Florida Everglades. Just going to put that out there,
where you know, Charlie and Donald are talking to each
other and they're sitting there talking and it's about they
(31:04):
suddenly realize that their whole problem has been trying to communicate,
trying to understand each other, and I mean, that's what
I think the movie is about.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Well, and in that scene, it they finally break down
their assumptions of each other. I mean, and I think
it's very subtle, but when they're talking about like the
past as brothers do, like you feel that feels like
a brother conversation where he's like, oh, you were rejected
by this girl and and I thought you didn't you
know they were laughing at you and you didn't know.
(31:35):
And then he's like, you choose what you do with
your love and that's that's it. No one can change that.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
So yeah, I love that line, oh right, where he
said like that was her problem, not mine.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
I think that that conversation is one of the best
conversations ever committed to film, And I think that that
whole thing is absolutely gorgeous, Like it's if you walk
away with nothing else from this film, like I could,
I would show just that scene to like a teenager,
(32:08):
to be like, look like it's the ultimate it's gonna
be okay scene, you know, like you have to make
a decision not to let the world tell you how
to feel about things. You will decide how you feel
about things. I think that scene is so gorgeous. Thank
you for calling it out, Darren, because that's that's exactly.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Right, Darren. What did you think about the third act?
And what did you think about the scene here? Okay,
here's I'm gonna give you a John question here where
all right?
Speaker 3 (32:37):
So he's gonna be two minutes long, and Tristan's gonna say,
what are you even asking me? So just so the
on his understands.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Yeah, So we have the scene in the hotel room
with the two brothers, and Charlie is obviously anxious and
he's frustrated, and he's also jealous that Donald has written
a screenplay. People like, get Catherine Keener, is that his house?
(33:04):
You know, Like he's like he's supposed to be the artist,
he's supposed to be the genius writer and his brother,
who he sees is now a Hollywood hack, is getting success,
and so he says, how would you end it? What
would you do? From that moment on, we get a
completely different movie. We get Donald's movie.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
What did you make? The hand off?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
The protagonistness? And it shifts, Yeah, it too, even though
it focuses on Charlie. Still you're getting a shift in
perspective on how the story is told. So what did
you think about that? What does the third act work
for you? Because you know Brian Cox him said himself
said you may have issues, but nail the third act
and you'll be fine. Yeah, did this third act? Did
(33:45):
they nail the third act in your eyes? Or was
it weird? Was it too different from the previous two? No?
Speaker 3 (33:49):
I think they did.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
I mean I almost call it the fourth act. It's
so late in the game that it feels that removed.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
But now it does.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
It's it's so amazing how it lands, because, like you
just said, they telegraphed it with Brian Cox saying, you
nail the third act, like again, semi meta because we
still need to nail the third act and the third
act feels very different. I will say that the protagonist
miss shifts because if you think about it, Donald starts
(34:20):
driving the story, his decisions of go, where they go,
who they do, who they're spying on. Like, I will
fully say that it shifts between the two characters. But yeah,
I mean it caught me off guard as well, because,
you know, to be honest, like getting up to there,
I'm still kind of grasping and I'm trying to get
(34:41):
a bead on this movie, and it's kind of slogging
along and then it's like a click and you're like, oh,
I'm now invested. But I needed all those other acts
to get there. You couldn't have dropped me in right here.
I would add no idea what who any of these
characters are, But I have to admit it got me there,
(35:02):
It got me where. I'm now caring about the characters.
I'm caring what happens to them. You're throwing crazy stuff
at them. Man, you know cars, you never know what
cars are going to do in this movie. But yeah,
I will say it very much succeeds in the third act,
and like they telegraph you kind of then, don't scrutinize
(35:24):
the other two acts as much as hard because at
the end of the day, they did their job. Were
they amazing? Was I fully invested by the first five minutes? No,
not even clothes, but it got me there.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
John Lance Accord photographed this movie, and he's the one
who did being John Malkovich as well. I have a
two part question for you. Did you feel like this
was the same cinematographer that he was doing the same thing.
Do you feel like this was an evolution of a
photographer of a cinematographer? And how do you feel he
filmed the twin scenes? Did that land for you?
Speaker 3 (36:00):
I am going to answer in reverse order. The twin
scenes I think were absolutely nailed. I have a deep
and abiding hatred of split screen, like all the way
up to and including Star Trek six, where like The
Blue the split screen doesn't line up as well as
(36:21):
it should and it just it. I have an unreasoning
hatred of it as a tactic because I think that
rarely does it work well, and I think it's always
better in concept than execution, Whereas in this case, I
think that the split screen works freakin' perfectly. I will
sing its praises to my dying day because I think
(36:43):
that it does everything exactly right, including balancing the exact
right amount of one shot and two shot, so that
I accept that they're in the same space, but I
don't rely on it, and I don't have it long
enough to stare at it and say I can see
where the line is, sort of like just to throw
(37:05):
it under the bus. Another Star Trek movie, the overuse
of diopter in Star Trek the motion picture, which fills
me with rage every time I watch it. Anyway, so
I love the split screen use. I think that Lance
Chord deserves a lot of praise. I think that additionally,
Nicholas Cage deserves a lot of praise because I feel
that both of those performances inhabit the scene that it's in,
(37:29):
and like there's a logical part of my brain that
understands that they are not actually there at the same time,
but I feel like they are there at the same time,
and so that is to heap all of the praise
on that. Do I think this looks like the same
person that shot being John Malkovich. I think I wouldn't
necessarily call it an evolution. That feels like a weird
(37:51):
word to use. I'm not throwing that at you as
like an insult sort of thing. But I think that
this is in an adaptation. See what I did of
the shooting style of Malkovich where I think that the
I think I look at this and visually I can
see a stamp where it's very similar. I can tell
(38:13):
it's the same people put this movie together. But while
I wouldn't necessarily say it's an evolution, it reads as
the same people put it together but understood the sensibilities
they needed for this story. They adapted for the type
of story they were going to tell. I don't know
(38:34):
if that makes sense, but that's that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
Darren, going completely opposite direction, different direction. Did you recognize
Doug Jones in this movie?
Speaker 4 (38:46):
I did not. I just saw him in the credit
list and I'm trying to place him.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
John John, do you do you know where he is
in the movie.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
No, I don't.
Speaker 4 (38:57):
I mean, he's so tall. I'm trying to think when
he would have.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
He was the orchid thief who was dying of dysentery.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Oh oh my gosh. Okay, okay, okay, okay, Well, like
Nicholas Cage's casting, it makes perfect sense once you say it.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Okay, God's right. Not crazy, Darren. Uh. I hate to
give you this question, but I'm going to give it
to you anyway.
Speaker 4 (39:21):
We're talking about Spike Jones.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
We're talking about you know, we haven't talked about Spike
Jones yet. We're going to end with him. Okay, okay,
But Carter Burwell did the score for this, as he
did for being John Malkovich. Was this a memorable score
to you? Was it just a score? You know?
Speaker 3 (39:36):
How did?
Speaker 2 (39:36):
How did you feel?
Speaker 3 (39:38):
I feel it was.
Speaker 4 (39:39):
A good score, but it I mean, I feel like
this is my broken record of I'm a theme guy.
Like if you give me a theme for a character
or a person or a place or whatever, I'm going
to remember it. And this wasn't a theme type score,
which isn't bad. I don't think it should have been
a theme type score. I don't think that it's would
(40:00):
have worked so memorable. I couldn't hum you a single bar.
But did it ever distract me or take me out
of it or you know, jar me? No? And I
think in that regard, it did what a score should
do and under underscore, uh, the performances, because the performances
were what I was paying attention to.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
What's really weird. And this is weird for me to
even think this because I'm very much a fan of directors.
Obviously we all are, because this is a director focused podcast.
But when when I think adaptation, I don't think Spike Jones.
I don't think, Wow, that was a really well directed movie,
even though he's the one who put all the pieces together.
(40:43):
You know, he's the one who got the performances out
of these great actors. He's the one who, you know, like,
worked with the editor to put it together, who worked
with the cinematographer to get the shots. It's one of
those things where there's like almost so much going on
and so many good things that you forget that somebody
was at the helm. Am I alone in thinking that?
(41:04):
Or how do you feel about that?
Speaker 4 (41:06):
Would you say this feels like a Charlie Kaufman movie.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
I think that's the thing is that they did such
a good job at making this all about the writing
process that you forget that this is a movie that
was directed by someone and shot by someone and edited
by someone.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
I'll jump in, Darren, I completely agree this is I
lose Jones in this, and it is because of all
those other aspects that you're talking about specifically the writing.
I think of this as a Charlie Kaufman movie. Is
that a tribute to Jones that he brought the writer's
intent so perfectly to screen that I forget that I
(41:46):
lose him. That it's an unintended side effect that I
think of being John Malkovich, and that I think of adaptation,
And then I think of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,
which is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Just so you guys know, I adore that movie on
a level that I cannot even comprehend. I didn't know that,
(42:07):
Oh my god, I get like Eternal Sunshine of the
Spotless Mind. I think is one of the few perfect
films ever made in the history of humanity. And although
in the history of film, because you know, humanity has
been around a little bit longer than film arguably just
an depends on your philosophy, who knows, But I think that, yeah,
(42:29):
I think it's an unintended consequence of this film that
Spike Jones is lost. I think that I know that
he's the reason it comes together the way that it does.
But I think that it is you know what, I'll
go back to making my bos Lherman reference. Mulan Ruse
(42:52):
comes together and everybody forgets that boz Luhrman was the
reason that it did.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
That's what I was thinking too. And also like with
being John Malkovich being nominated for Best Picture but he
wasn't nominated for Best Director, It's like, how do you
think this movie got together?
Speaker 3 (43:06):
Exactly? Yeah, there was a ghost in the chair.
Speaker 4 (43:10):
No, I really jive with that, John, because it I
don't think any of us mean it in a negative way.
It's not at all like I think you look at
I think if I wasn't doing this as a podcast,
I just watch adaptation, I would look up the director
and once I see that he and Charlie collaborated on
(43:32):
their previous movie, it all would click and I'd be like, oh,
that makes total sense. Like they worked together, they made
John Malkovich, and then they have that trust and that
rapport and yeah, this movie is one hundred and ten
percent right focused. But it only happens because they already
have that. If it had been like Charlie's like, hey
(43:54):
I need a director, anyone want to come direct? This
not going to work? It had to be that pair
and that trust but yeah, he does kind of fade
into the production background, as it were, but that in
a way only allows the writing level to you know,
(44:15):
I mean, I mean you think of other movies like
The Artist or I mean or Again we've said, there's
a coffity of movies that are about the movie making process,
and this one is one of the top as far
as writing, like it has to be on that list,
on that short.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
List, John, do you think this movie is rewatchable? And
if so, why.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
I think it is rewatchable if it works for you.
And this is one of those movies where I if
somebody were to come to me and say I hated adaptation,
I would look at them and I would say, I
understand and respect why you said that. Being John Malkovich,
I might defend even even a little bit and say no, no, no, no, no, no,
(45:01):
you've got to give it another shake. This one. If
somebody comes to me and says that, I'm simply going
to say, I understand you. I get it. This is
very much a movie that is rewatchable if and only
if you enjoy it, which I mean is true of
any movie. So I can rephrase it.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
You mean, if it clicks with you yeah.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
And you're going to know if it's rewatchable within the
first thirty minutes of the film. If you don't, if
you don't go along with it by that point, just leave.
Just you're done. It's okay. We can all leave as friends.
There's no hard feelings.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
Darren. I have a question for you, and it's my
last question because I'm hosting today and I make you
go first every single time. I need to hear your
final thoughts on the film. And how many script revisions
are you giving it? Out of five?
Speaker 4 (45:58):
It's so many script revisions. No, yeah, this movie. I
mean like they telegraphed it. It nailed it in the
third act. I didn't think it was gonna get there.
Like I was along for the ride, but I was like,
what what is this about? Like my goodness, some of
the moments with Nick Cage and Charlie, like my skin
(46:20):
is crawling. I'm like, he's so socially awkward and in
his head and self deprecating, where I'm just like, h like,
I don't know if I can take a whole movie
of this guy and it. But again, I've said it before.
You know you're making me care about the character and
you and you express which character I should care about, Like, like,
(46:43):
this movie does a lot of things right in that
regard whether or not it's your favorite or not, that
doesn't matter in this case. It you know, pulls the
story together, has a wicked fourth act. I will say
it's a fourth act no matter what, because it is
so so late in game. But and it makes you
(47:03):
doubt in a way, what is real? What is biography?
Speaker 3 (47:08):
What is you know?
Speaker 4 (47:09):
Because there's a lot of I mean, like I feel
like I'm repeating what I've said before. But when you
hide the little lies within the truth, which this movie does,
of real people, real stories, real books, real writers, it
starts to bleed or blur the line between. So I'm
(47:29):
I'm gonna give it a four. This movie, I will say,
I kind of disagree with John as far as I
think if you're hooked in the first ten minutes, you know,
if it's rewatchable where I say, it really comes down
to the ending, like if you can make it through
the Like, yeah, you might get turned off in the
(47:50):
first ten minutes, but I think you have to get
this movie a whole watch through shake because it is
such a ending movie, you know, I can't think of
another example of an ending movie, but we all know
they exist. So yeah, I'm going to give it a four.
I will I rewatch it, probably not just because it
(48:13):
is it my favorite source material. Will I watch it
with a film friend who is interested in something like
that or hasn't seen it and I get to introduce
it to him. Absolutely, I would rewatch it in those circumstances,
but not as a casual viewing. So for four rewrites,
I'm almost done with the script. Guys, just give me
(48:34):
three four weeks.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
John, how many Nick Cage masturbation scenes out of five
are you giving this movie?
Speaker 4 (48:43):
What?
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Why?
Speaker 3 (48:44):
Why? Why are you going to do that to me?
Speaker 2 (48:46):
I saved that one for you. I had that idea
before we even started podcasting.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
You know, and I feel like it was very much
tailored and I hate you for it, but I will
say that. Okay, Darren, forgive me. I disagree to me.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
He's going to have to tell you why you're wrong
before he can give his rating. I could feel it.
I could feel it. No, no, no, no, no, it's
not about wrong.
Speaker 3 (49:14):
It's it's about the fact that any movie where you're
going to say, oh no, you just have to go
to the end. It's a very tough sell, man, It's
a very tough cell. I will say that.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
That's like when you watch a TV like, you recommend
a TV show like once you pass the first three
seasons when it really.
Speaker 4 (49:33):
Like, hey, guys, give and shake, but you gotta.
Speaker 3 (49:36):
Yeah Inoor season Indoor season two, just skip the first
six episodes, but the best seasons.
Speaker 4 (49:42):
You've ever sew Yes, I know you're not wrong, but
you're also.
Speaker 3 (49:45):
Wrong, absolutely right, and you know it. Anyway, I give
this a four as well. Uh, it is a three
star movie because at some point it climbs up its
own Malkovich hole and stays there. But the performances are
so damn good, and then that ending does just pay
(50:08):
off so much like it is Darren's right in this sense,
if you sit there, you just stick with it. You
get to the end and you're like, wow, this is
meta on every level I ever wanted. And the performances
are great. Four star movie. So that's where I end.
Four stars.
Speaker 4 (50:26):
Just take the audio where he said I was right,
and then just keep it.
Speaker 3 (50:29):
Dump the rest. Hopefully I was sloppy enough in my
speech that you cannot isolate it.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
For me, I give it a four as well, So
this is four across the board. I think this is
a really good movie. I often forget how good this
movie is, even though I've seen it many times. But
every single time I watch it, I'm reminded of how
much fun it is and how interesting it is. But
at the same time, it's not perfect, I think for
the reasons that both of you guys have said, like
(50:58):
the first two acts aren't perfect, Like there's a lot
of things I'm just like I could skip that scene,
or like I could move past this, or like that's
too awkward. I know you're supposed to be awkward, but
it's too awkward, you know, things of that nature. But
there's so much going right for it. And even though
I think that Being John Malkovich is a better movie
(51:18):
than adaptation, and even though I gave Being John Malkovich
a four, I'm still giving it a four because this
is solid craftsmanship across the board. So, Darren, what are
we doing next week?
Speaker 4 (51:31):
Well, we're heading into our next chapter in the House
of Spike Jones with two thousand and Nine's where the
Wild Things are based on the beloved classic.
Speaker 1 (51:40):
Here on House Sits join the Revolution, join the net
Polta
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.