One of the interesting things about "Adaptation" is that the last act only makes sense if the viewer is aware of the author's presence outside the screen and watches it as if reading over the shoulder of the screenwriter as he constructs his fictional events.
I welcome any interpretations of this film, as I just saw it for the first time last night and haven't quite got my thoughts together. If I'm correct in seeing the third act as Charlie's fall into the cynical commercialism praised by his brother, his agent and McKee, wouldn't it almost make more sense for him, not Donald, to be the victim at the climax?
Robert Hunt
|