Robert:
I saw the ending as representing how Charlie could take in and accept the part of him that was commercial, and hence could have his fictional characters kill Donald off. If we take his brother to be a projection of a part of Charlie that he couldn't previously accept, and which wasn't all bad (e.g. Donald's greater self-possession and security with himself is clearly a virtue), once he does he can reincorporate that part of himself and no longer needs to project it onto a double.
Otherwise, how to explain the sympathetic portrayal of McKee by Brian Cox?
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Fri 6/6/2003 3:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Adaptation
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
|