EN2203 Facillitation report

Discussion Facilitation Report on Adaptation (W1) by Jan, Syaf and YH

Section A: Outline of Tutorial 2.0 (after comments given by Sonia)

[Jan]

Introduction of Postmodernism

1. Recap on Postmodern characteristics
1. Visual, Simulacrum
2. Self Reflexivity
3. Intertextuality
4. Irony and Parody
5. Rejecting boundaries in Art and Genres
6. Pastiche, Bricolage
7. Disorientation
2. Background information of the movie & the adapted book + the writing process
1. Based on The Orchid Thief
2. Metafilm: disrupting the suspension of disbelief (by informing audience that they are watching a work of Fiction by referencing its own production)
3. Writer’s Block catalysing the shift in Narrative
4. “leaves you breathless with curiosity, as it teases itself with the directions it might take. To watch the film is to be actively involved in the challenge of its creation” - Roger Ebert
5. Fun fact:Donald Kaufman (fictional character) was actually nominated for an academy award
3. Definitions/Dual meanings of the word ‘Adaptation’ + ask what they thought the movie was about in 1 word/sentence
1. Change (Evolution to be better suited to the environment)
2. Switching of media in literature (eg. book to film)
4. Levels the film opperates on
1. Within the film:
1. The story itself and its characters
2. Story and character development
2.  Self-reflexivity - the movie commenting on itself constantly
1. The movie constantly refers to itself and comments on what it is doing
3. The movie’s commentary about life (outside of the movie)
1. What the movie says about love/life/the human condition/movies itself

Scene Analysis

1. What is the significance of the [opening] scene? How is the significance shown? Make reference to cinematic techniques if relevant.
1. Narration +   2) The Beginning of Time/ History fast-forward
1. What do we think is the postmodern condition? How is this linked to neuroticism?
2. Stream of consciousness Soliloquy mingled with self deprecation → anxiety, neuroticism, fixation. The whole idea of twins + talking to himself
3. Neuroticism as emblematic of the postmodern condition :
4. Simplistic→ complex ideas; order → chaos, fragmentation; objective → subjective
5. The sudden shift in definition of truth instills the question of what Truth is, and how to grapple with that concept
6. Themes of Longing, Passion, Obsession + repetition of Voice Over
7. Lead in: “I’ve been on the planet for 40 years and I’m not closer to understanding a single thing. Why am I here? How did I get here?” - Nihilism
8. Emphasizes the largeness of the problem as perceived by Charlie, parallels his epiphany scene in the recreation: ‘tie all of history together’

2. Film set, Being John Malkovich
1. Graininess of the film stock (regardless of whether it’s film or digitally created) gives the scene a kind of cinema verite (combines improvisation with the use of the camera to unveil truth or highlight subjects hidden behind crude reality)
2. Scene within a scene: Colour, Film Stock (mentioned above), POV of camera (zoom), character descriptors (documentary). Cinema Verite?
1. Hints at self reflexivity: Movie within a movie
2. Disorientation of reality/truth: Possible audience confusion due to the immediate recognition of BOTH John Malkovich AND Nicolas Cage as Charlie Kaufman (Recall Whoopi Goldberg in The Player)
3. Intertextuality: Being John Malkovich feature-film debut of Kaufman and Jonze
3. The unimportance of Charlie:
1. Largely ignored/shoo-ed off set. Charlie’s self referentiality → sets the atmosphere of film
2. Neuroticism : excessive and irrational anxiety or obsession
3. Self loathing as part of the process of Growth (Character Arc)

[YH]

2. What is Charlie’s breakthrough [discovering how to start the movie]  and how does it relate to the post-modernity of the film? What other commentary does this scene make?
1. The breakthrough: The way to tie the characters (and flower) together is their context (the opening scene)
1. They have they same origin
2. All stuck in their own state in the current stage of evolution
3. We all adapt as part of the whole process of evolving
2. Adaption as a fundamentally intertextual film
1. Movie about a writer, writing a movie about a book (which is the same movie)
2. As we see how Charlie literally “adapts the book into a movie”, he is also actually (in real life and the movie) breaking the conventional narrative structure and bringing it to a new stage of evolution
3. Other commentary
1. “The flowers arc stretches back to the beginning of life, how did this flower get here?”
2. Through the writing of the script, he finds some sort of answer for himself regarding his existential questions:
3. How did I get here? Because you were evolved from this common cell.
4. Why am I here? To adapt and progress. You are one part of the evolution chain.
5. The film uses Charlie’s breakthrough to insert commentary about possibly real-life Charlie’s own ‘answers’ to the big questions in life.
6. The character’s mouthpiece is literally(metaphorically) his own.

3. What is the significance of the [seminar] scene with respect to Charlie’s growth, and the speech with respect to the film?
1. Charlie attending the seminar as the first indicator of a shift in both his character and for the movie
1. Successfully approaches Mckee VS Susan
2. The speech: “And why are you wasting my precious two hours with your movie”
1. Real-life charlie borrows McKee’s mouthpiece to poke fun at his own movie
2. Breaking of the fourth wall
1. First half of the movie is boring,
2. signalling a shift/turning point in the film
3. Blurred temporal and physical boundaries between real and fiction.

[Syaf]

4. How has his character ironically grown from the beginning [discussion with valerie] to [conversation with Bob in the bar] scene?
1. 5:00 “I’d want to let the movie exist rather than be artificially plot driven. I just don’t want to ruin it by making it a Hollywood thing. You know? Like an orchard heist movie or something?”
2. There is an ironic opposition of his principles in film writing in the beginning versus the end. Why the shift? He needs to produce the film and the actual writer, Kaufman also needs to produce Adaptation.
3. Juxtapose it with the ending (The car chase, drug, Donald’s and Laroche’s ending).
1. The ending occurs when Donald takes over especially after the post-seminar, what is the purpose of Donald’s involvement and why is it important — hint: what character does Donald represent as opposed to Charlie?
2. Donald embodies McKee’s advice and McKee’s advice for the ending is largely tragic which thus, suggests the modernism view he adopts. Hence, the contrast between Donald and Charlie represents the difference between modernism and postmodernism, manifested through their execution of screenwriting.
3. McKee “Your character must change, and the change must come from them” > Susan “I lied about my change”. The abrupt shift suggests the extreme self-reflexivity. Who is in control of this shift? Fictional character Charlie or real life character? Real life character control the shift. Possible reasons:
1. As a means to show parody
2. To provide an ending of the film to produce the film.

5. How does the ending produce a parody of the post seminar scene and what is the significance of the parody? (Hint: McKee ““A last act makes a film” “Don’t you dare bring in a Deux Ex Machina”)
1. Explanation of Deux Ex Machina: an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel.
2. Deux Ex Machina is applied in the last act of the film which is ironic because McKee advises against it but Kaufman executes it in the end of the film. The sudden changes made towards the end echoes ‘A last act makes a film’ which is ironic because in retrospect of the film, it undermines the film, reducing its significance through its reliance on action. The irony reinforces the Charlie’s initial principle.

Conclusion

1. Q&A
2. Thoughts to leave the class with: What is one new thing/new insight they picked up either from us or from classmates?

 Section B: Survey of what was discussed (Some key[1]  observations and additional points)

1. In a word, what do you think the film is about?
1. Romance
2. Satire
3. Humour
4. Change
5. Evolution
6. Meta
7. Films
2. What is the significance of the [opening] scene? How is the significance shown? Make reference to cinematic techniques if relevant.
1. Sets the movie as self-reflexive
2. Underlies: Pessimistic take on [Charlie’s] self, pessimistic take on the idea of movies in general
3. Confuses the audience when trying to compartmentalise the film into a specific genre, resulting in a conclusion of its genre-less-ness
4. “How did I get here” creates the link to the beginning of time - Mircro to Macro
3. What is Charlie’s breakthrough [discovering how to start the movie]  and how does it relate to the post-modernity of the film? What other commentary does this scene make?
1. The irony of Charlie’s conception of good ideas, and his subsequent judgement that they were not good, followed by the eventuality that the film was borne out of these seemingly bad ideas.
2. Observations of the lighting and mise-en-scene eg. “the screen gets darker” and the fact that Charlie stops listening to the tape after Donald comes in, as if “nobody should listen to how bad this was”, seen by this particular classmate as “so sad[2] [3] ”
3. Mockery of his artistic process due to the “abrupt editing” and “cuts to different [camera] angles” which contributed to showing Charlie’s passion vs. his dissatisfaction with himself. Though this lack of “seamlessness”, Charlie’s mind is shown to be “fragmented”.
4. The class’ general reading of the scene (above) and our initial reading (his creative process is private and he stopped the tape out of competitiveness with his brother instead of shame) can be reconciled by recognising that both readings have good points. Additionally, it might be important to note that some of our classmates who had not done as deep of an analysis/given enough time to do so, might have taken some of the cinematic techniques at a more surface-level standpoint, ignoring the larger context (eg. the background information, definition of some terms etc. by us). The film’s ambiguity also lends itself to different interpretations, keeping in line with the ‘death of the author’ theory and allowing people to contextualise the same narrative within their own lives and thoughts
1. Points about the fragmented mind can be further supported by seeing his reflection in the window while listening to the tape and the cool, blue moody lighting during the replaying of his ideas contrasts the warm toned conception. This suggests different states of mind and the class is probably right about the self-critical aspects of Charlie’s personality
2. However, it might be too much to say that he was ashamed of his work so much so as to want to hide his work from Donald (there seems to not be much evidence to support this). On this point, it might be more accurate to read it as the creative process (and adapting) is a personal journey and competition with “perceived threats” are also part of that process. This possibly paints a more cohesive picture.
5. This was the first scene where the audience can link his writing process to what is actually happening in the move, which primes the audience to expect more “trickery” and postmodern characteristics
6. Comparison between the names of Charles (darwin) and Charlie as a possible example of intertextuality, and a comparison between Darwin’s theory of evolution as the pinnacle of scientific findings with Charlie’s attempt to make a “high art piece” in his screenwriting. This is ironic because of the postmodernist aspects which make the film partially pander to Hollywood cliches, and reflects the “destruction of a distinction between high and low art/culture”
4. What is the significance of the [seminar] scene with respect to Charlie’s growth, and the speech with respect to the film?
1. Parallels between Charlie’s initial vision (with minimal conflicts) to the actuality towards the end involving accumulation of many minor conflicts. Charlie’s life and story changed after this scene (speaking to Bob McKee)
2. Pointing out Charlie’s character growth reinforces the idea that the film is constantly operating on different levels. His growth is part of his own “adaptation” process which is part of the storyline which simultaneously doubles as a tool for subverting hollywood cinema (following a character’s development) by satirising it. Another interesting point to note is that the film that is being watched is a product of Charlie’s growth and in the whole process of personal adaptation (and the subversion of it) results in the evolution of the narrative structure of films in general. This link was not emphasized in class.
5. How has his character ironically grown from the beginning [discussion with valerie] to [conversation with Bob in the bar] scene?
1. The movie is poking fun at itself by actualising all the things Charlie said he did not want, into the movie. While Bob’s speech may be motivational, it might also be “self depreciative” due to the necessity of dramatising events due to the shift in media mediums (book to movie).
2. Charlie experiences a change which is significant rather than remaining faithful to adapting the book’s contents because “wikipedia says… the movie is about the process of adaptation itself, rather than the book”
6. How does the ending produce a parody of the post seminar scene and what is the significance of the parody?
1. Everything McKee warned against, happened in the end eg. Romance, Drama, Deus Ex Machina which is far away from Charlie’s original vision.
2. Charlie undermines himself through this. Echoes the scene where Charlie tells Donald not to “call it an industry”. However, in the end the film conforms to “everything which is expected” of a film
3. Scene might show Charlie “taking agency over the film and the whole screenplay” because even though McKee gives him advice, he partially does not completely follow through with it, instead ‘adapting’ screenwriting to produce something new/ unheard of
4. The twice-used “whiplash car crash scene” as a Deus Ex Machina, due to the lack of foreshadowing and there being a sudden change of the plot. Similar to Laroche’s death. This is compared to the film ‘Whiplash’ where the car crash is semi-expected due to the protagonist rushing to the concert. The lack of anticipation in Adaptation make it more “humorous and ironic”
7. Last Thoughts on the movie?
1. Irony subverted Charlie’s own endeavor to make an artistic film. The last act contains many hyper-dramatic plot points and cliches, yet most of the classroom did not think Adaptation was a typical Hollywood film.
2. This highlights that it has fulfilled its purpose in wanting to be “artistic” and to “tell a different kind of story”. The beauty of irony allows this double address: Charlie’s self reflexivity coupled with how he is trying to be ironic in making the last act a “hollywood film”. He can thus “have his cake and eat it”.
3. He gestures to the audience that he knows, that the audience knows that this is a hollywood film. This gesture makes Charlie appear more intellectual and intelligent. As an audience, we recognise him making that gesture, making us feel more intellectual as well. Despite the fact that the last act panders to many hollywood cliches, “it still becomes more than its original content”
4. Emphasis that out of all the characteristics which make a postmodern film, intertextuality seems to be the most important. “At the heart of adaptation, is intertextuality” in the 2 different mediums “brushing up against each other” to become something else.
5. Adaptation is a process of evolution. There is a discussion about the structures of narratives becoming more intertextual as the next evolution reflects how we tell stories. Self-reflexivity stems from us looking at an objective text and recognising subjectivity in it- dual approach. Irony is the ability to see something as more than it is, and parody is seeing parallels. Most other characteristics lead back to the core concept of intertextuality.

Section C: Summary of problems encountered

l  Some problems we encountered:

  Poor time management

■        We underestimated the amount of time given throughout the tutorial; we had to rush towards the end and we were not able to dedicate ample time for the discussion of the last two scenes.

  The analysis/readings of the scenes from the class were different from our analysis/readings of the scenes.

■        It was difficult to guide and direct the class to our readings of the scenes/line of thoughts in general given our questions for them were vague but our answers were very specific.

■        We tried to prompt the class using more questions but even so there seemed to be a disconnect in the way we were communicating and the way they understood the questions. Eg. there was a lot of unnecessary back and forth regarding a particular student’s derivation of significance from the names of Charlie and Charles Darwin.

■        Furthermore, we had difficulty accepting and adapting to the class’ answers although the answers were relevant to the questions asked. This problem was compounded by our poor time management, so it might have come off as dismissing their answers, or not giving enough credit to good points raised.

  Generally very unresponsive, perhaps due to low stakes, and it being the last tutorial

  Classmates seemed to either not comprehend our questions, or provide very surface-level answers about techniques of cinema and their effects, leaving out the significance gained, or applying frameworks to look at the movie.

■        Moreover, it was difficult to assist them in linking their analysis to a larger point as we kept asking “So, what is the significance?” rather than asking specific questions.

l  What we learned about presentation and facilitation techniques

  Some positive aspects were our enthusiasm and had good energy which lifted the atmosphere especially in the beginning of the tutorial.

■        This was done through the low-stakes opening gambit used to elicit responses from classmates and reduce the risk of fear of making mistakes/having a different interpretation of the film thereby increasing likelihood of response

  We were able to compel classmates across the room to respond, despite not knowing their names

■        This was done by referring to classmates via their appearance (eg. what they were wearing) or their seating position (eg. left/right side, second last row) to encourage a more targeted group of people to respond.

  Despite drastically different readings between students and facilitator on a specific scene, we recovered well and was able to acknowledge students' readings of the scene.

■        Different possible readings of a movie like adaptation are bound to arise. Recognising this helped in the facilitation because it is important to be open to the possibility of very different but still valid points of view.

l  Some things we would change/do differently in the future, and thoughts on how we could resolve such issues for future presentations

  Prepare possible answers rather than a specific answer so as to be able to accommodate the class and anticipate their answers easily. Otherwise, narrow down the question to help the class reach to the specific answers.

  Prepare equal duration for each parts and give more to those that require more discussion.

  Sustain the energy throughout the lesson so as to ensure the class will constantly cooperate and be responsive.

  Perhaps bring an incentive/prize into play to encourage a discussion

  Explore the original idea one of us had about asking everyone to sit on the floor in  circle to foster a less formal atmosphere.

  Explore other ideas we had (but could not follow through with, due to time constraints):          

■        Ask classmates to voice their opinions, and start a debate by presenting two different but equally valid readings of the text. This encourages further critical thinking, and vocalisation/participation

■        Probe classmates further about their opinions, so as to foster deeper thinking about the way they critique the film, and its larger significance

---

[1] S:reconcile these varied readings of the same scene

[2] J:can u feel my shade @ that one annoying girl in class

[3] S:yes