Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pedro Eiras
Abstract
Adaptation is everywhere. Yet, its position as an art form is still very much under
scrutiny. The movie Adaptation., Charlie Kauffman’s adaptation of Susan Orlean’s The
Orchid Thief, serves as the starting point for a discussion of what it means to adapt.
Two sides of the process are discussed: biological adaptation as an overarching theme
in the novel and the movie, with orchids serving as both analogies and examples of
what it means to adapt; and, primarily, mediatic adaptation as a creative practice,
providing a framework for its analysis which allows us to better understand how the
shift in media impacts both message and artistic production. Ultimately, this discussion
aims to solidify the position of the adapter as an artist, whose artistic input is integral
to the adaptation practice.
1
The Art of Adaptation
We, human beings, have been adapting since the dawn of time. We’ve adapted
to live in the most diverse ecosystems and under the most different social-political
regimes. There are humans who live in the scalding heat of the Sahara desert and in
the paralyzing cold of the Antarctic region. There are humans who survive in the midst
of the sprawling Amazon jungle and between the towering cement jungle of
Manhattan. There are humans who have endured unimaginable hatred and who have
thrived against insurmountable challenges. We, as a species, are all about evolving,
changing and adapting. If there’s one art we’ve collectively mastered, is the art of
adaptation.
2
In this article, that is what I want to discuss: the problematic, gigantic,
Adaptation. (Spike Jonze, 2002) and the novel that serves as its origin and inspiration,
The Orchid Thief (Susan Orlean), as my case study, and while most of what I’ll talk
about springs from an analysis of these two works of art, the goal of this paper is to
shed more light in what it means to adapt in general. Of course, adaptation can be
applied to so many different things that just asking that question becomes
complicated. First, I am required to explain what I mean by adaptation, and how those
In keeping with the botanic motif of the book and the movie, I look at
adaptation as a tree. At its core and roots, we have the same principles. To adapt
means to adjust, to change. Change is at the trunk of the tree that is adaptation.
Things like Adaptation., the movie, are at the leaves. And then we have the branches.
Of course that the branches are many, almost too many to count. What this analogy
does is allow us to look at adaptation without necessary having to qualify any specific
There are two main kinds of adaptation that are important to me. The first one
is biological adaptation. If I can move from Rio de Janeiro, one of the most tropical
climates in the world, and survive the New England winters in Massachusetts, that’s
adjust to new places, climates, and cultures. If orchids have evolved in such precise
ways so that they can attract the exact particular insect responsible for its pollination,
that’s because of biological adaptation, and because orchids are among nature’s most
3
adaptable species, because they have evolved so specifically that they are in complete
sync with their environment. Biological adaptation is everywhere in The Orchid Thief,
and, consequently, in Adaptation. It’s a pervasive theme that can be felt in Orlean’s
her mute passion for John Laroche, in her discoveries of orchids. It’s also present in the
movie, in the journey of change that Kaufman, the character, goes through, and in the
way the movie allows us to see all of the elements previously noted about the book.
The second kind of adaptation pertinent to me here is what I have come to call
mediatic adaptation, that is, the adaptation that occurs between different media.
Media are, essentially, middles (the word medium comes from the Latin medius, which
and its audience, and through which this agent gets his message across to the
audience. In our case, this agent is most often a storyteller, be it a writer or director or
screenwriter, and the message is a kind of story that this storyteller wants to convey to
us, the audience. Therefore, mediatic adaptation is the attempt to convey the same
message (tell the same story) through different media, usually by a different agent, to
an audience that may or may not be the same. However, as I will explore later in the
article, a shift in medium directly impacts the message being conveyed, the way the
agent reflects on this message, and the way the audience apprehends it.
Having briefly introduced these two kinds of adaptation, I set out to better
comprehend how they play out in the book and in the movie, ultimately trying to
better define the process of mediatic adaptation, and how biological adaptation is
always informing the ways in which we adapt media products. Though they are
4
separate kinds of adaptation, and though I can only try to study how mediatic
adaptation works (since biological adaptation escapes my abilities), they are still part
of that same one tree. I won’t be able to flesh out a definition for that tree as a whole,
but I can certainly try to look at some of the branches, specially the one that is
Biological Adaptation
The Orchid Thief, is, unmistakably, a book about orchids. But it is not a botanical
book, or a book about pollination, hybridization, the politics of growing orchids or the
dangers of collecting them (though it talks about all these things). Like the Japanse
paper balls Orleans alludes to, it is about so much more. First of all, it is a journalistic
book. Susan Orlean is a staff writer for The New Yorker, and much of the work that is
printed in The Orchid Thief originated at the magazine. It tells many stories, but it is
kind of structured around the character of John Laroche, a white man arrested for
stealing endangered orchids from a reservation in Florida. While Orlean discovers his
5
personal story, she constructs her own personal story of discovery. She talks about
orchids, about the native people of Florida and their history, about the people whose
lives are completely taken over by orchids, about Florida itself, and, mainly, about the
pursuit of passion, and the drive towards change. Kaufman begins the movie with the
over the audience. His lack of confidence is our way in, and then our way through a
struggle to bring to life Susan Orlean’s work and to find his footing in life. One hour
into the movie, he writes himself into the adaptation of The Orchid Thief, therefore
linguistic one. The movie also suffers a major change when, after talking to a fictional
Robert Mckee (in real life and in the movie, a successful screenwriting guru), the story
goes into completely fictional terrain, unveiling a romance between Orlean and
Laroche that is surrounded by drugs and sex. When, towards the end of the movie,
Kaufman catches the two having sex in the middle of a greenhouse that is also a drug
lab, Laroche and Orlean take him into the swamp to execute him, their plan hampered
by the appearance of Kaufman’s (fictional) twin brother Donald. The movie can
therefore be divided into three clear acts: the first one that goes up to the moment
when Kaufman writes himself into the movie, the second one that goes up to the talk
Kaufman has with Robert Mckee, and the third one where all that is seen is not based
works of art without the need to regard them in combination to each other. Even if
The Orchid Thief had never been made into a movie or if Adaptation. had not been
adapted from a book, there would still be plenty to talk about when it comes to
adaptation in both these works. In the movie and the book everything and everyone is
always adapting. Laroche is constantly trying to adapt; the book (and the movie) is
filled with stories of his many attempts to become a collector, and how he suddenly
gives up on one particular collection and moves on to something else. His capacity to
just let go of things and find new passions, his mutability, one could say, greatly
impresses Orlean:
go without a trace. At the end of the book, he renounces orchids, prompting Orlean to
write the above, because, as he claims, ‘I can’t stand working with things that die on
you all the time’ (Orlean, 226). In the movie, Kauffman brings Laroche’s fear of things
that die to a new level by killing Laroche on a swamp, attacked by an alligator. In the
book, he seems to be a character that is always going around in circles, never finding
true meaning to a life surrounded by tragedies. In the movie, when he finds meaning in
the arms of a fictional Susan Orlean, that new life too is brought to a definite end. His
7
attempts at adaptation in real life might not have brought him any closer to finding
himself, but in the movie, through Kaufman’s artistic intrusion, his attempt at
Susan Orlean, both the writer and the character, also pays a price for
undergoing adaptation. In the book, at first we are presented to a narrator (the book is
told in first person, from Orlean’s perspective) who is a journalist trying to find out
more about a particularly interesting case of orchid theft. However, as the pages are
turned, everything changes, and the narrative becomes more and more about herself,
prompting Orlean the journalist to adapt to this new role of being the subject of her
own story. As she investigates the maddening passion of others for orchids, and the
maddening character of John Laroche, she starts to question her own position in the
universe, and doing that is her experience of adaptation, which is made possible by the
journey of writing:
The honesty with which Orlean constructs these sentences make us feel as
though we are being told a secret that is as exposing as it is truthful. It made sense that
in the movie we get to hear these exact sentences in a hushed voice-over, as we watch
the character of Susan Orlean at a dinner party and then lying in bed at night by her
husband side with an expression of someone who is harvesting deep secrets she
8
wouldn’t dare tell anyone. Therefore, both in the book and in the movie, we get to see
a character slowly unveiling herself as she adapts to this new role of someone being
exposed (as opposed to someone who exposes). And in the movie’s third act, we get
to see an Orlean that is then completely mutated, and though she is addicted to drugs
and her behavior is a bit out-of-bounds, she has found something she is passionate
None of the third act is in the book and it is all fictional, as I’ve said before. But
it is impossible not to notice how all of these roads Kaufman takes at the end of the
movie can be constructed as his artistic interpretations of the book. Though Orlean
never expresses any romantic attraction for Laroche in the book, there seems to be an
undeniable attraction.
I was developing mixed feeling about spending time with Laroche. (…) I
am the sort of person that finds his sort of person engaging. (…) I didn’t
care all that much whether he said was true or not; I just found the flow
irresistible. (Orlean, 29)
She also compares orchids to heroin (Orlean, 279) and talks plenty about how
sexual plants orchids are (Orlean, 51). Or course none of this can be accurately
constructed into the third act of the movie, but artistic interpretation allows the
adapter ownership of the material he writes with no preoccupation with fidelity to the
original. Or, better yet, as Dudley Andrew puts it in Concepts in Film Theory, the most
important thing is fidelity to the spirit, ‘to the original’s tone, values, imagery and
rhythm, since finding stylistic equivalents in film for these intangible aspects is the
9
opposite of a mechanical process’ (376). In creating a third act where he can bring
forth so many issues explored in the book and give them his own voice, Kaufman
Which brings us to the character of Charlie Kaufman, who also goes through a
Charlie Kaufman is a character in his own movie. Kaufman has explained that the
reason why he included himself in the movie was an attempt to keep the experience
an interactive one, where the audience is forced to see things differently (Kaufman,
129). In my opinion, writing himself in the movie was the way he discovered to allow
himself freedom to interpret and recreate Orlean’s book. Robert McKee, in a critical
commentary included in the shooting script of Adaptation., says it better than I ever
could.
She (Susan Orlean) dramatizes the invisible, the tides and times of inner
conflict. But you can’t drive a camera lens through an actor’s forehead
and photograph thought, although there are directors who would try. So
The Orchid Thief could not be adapted; it had to be reinvented. But as
what? Taking a cue from Orlean, Kaufman decided to layers his self-
inquisition over her self-inquisition. (McKee in Kaufman, 133)
Orlean includes herself in the story she is telling, and so does Kaufman. And his
character even gains a fictional twin brother, Donald Kaufman, who becomes a
screenwriter during the movie and writes a commercially successful thriller titled The 3
in which detective, serial killer and victim are all the same person with multiple
personality disorder. Donald Kaufman is Charlie’s alter ego, he represents all the things
10
Charlie struggles against becoming. He is successful because he is not afraid of being
commercial, he is confident and does well with woman while Charlie is constantly left
adapts, he slowly incorporates all of those things. In the end, Adaptation has car
chases, sex, drugs, people overcoming obstacles, learning and changing, everything
that Charlie was against in the beginning. Charlie also learns to overcome his fear of
relationships and opens up to the woman he loves. Of course, in the end, Donald dies,
because he has too. As Charlie adapts, he no longer needs this externalized alter ego
given that he mutates into a whole being, now capable of existing on his own.
And then we have the orchids and Florida. These two extremely important
components of the story that Orlean and Kaufman tell, and that are present in both
the book and the movie. They serve as great analogies for adaptation. If both the book
and the movie are so fluent in the theme of adaptation, then that’s all because of
They are ancient, intricate living things that have adapted to every
environment on earth. They have outlived dinosaurs; they might outlive
humans. They can be hybridized, mutated, crossbred, and cloned. They
are at once architectural and fanciful and though and dainty, a jewel of a
flower on a haystack of a plant. (Orlean, 53)
(Orlean, 123). If all of the characters of the book and movie seem to be looking for,
going through or suffering from adaptation, than that all comes from their relationship
11
with orchids and their being in Florida. The place and the plant represent the theme
that is pervasive to the story being told by Orlean and then by Kaufman. However, if
they are such important aspects of the story, how can they be dramatized and brought
which presents us with a whole set of new challenges on how to transform something
that is imminently literary into an experience that is filmic and yet holds true to the
spirit of the original. The expansion of the biological (human) adaptation from the
book into the film (which I’ve discussed thus far) is of great importance to the mediatic
adaptation of The Orchid Thief, but in this next part I plan to focus more diligently on
the process of adapting from literature to screen, and bring forward some examples
Mediatic Adaptation
12
I was starting to believe that the reason it
matters to care passionately about something
is that it whittles the world down to a more
manageable size. It makes the world seem not
huge and empty but full of possibility.
(Orlean, 109)
When writing, an artist always faces the emptiness of something that is huge,
unknown and scary. An adapter is not freed from this fear or anguish simply because
he is adapting from something that already exists. A mediocre adapter might hide
behind his position in order to escape the necessity of finding the thing that moves him
in order to create. But just as Orlean points out in the quote above, finding the thing
we care passionately about helps us to bring things down to a more manageable size.
An adapter is someone who has to find in his work of origin the thing that makes him
or her passionate and then create from there. Not copy, but interpret and then create.
His quest is the quest of any writer or artist, but with some particularities.
the forms’ (20). John Laroche talks about how adapting orchids makes him feel like
God (Orlean, 17). To Linda Hutcheon, mediatic adaptation is ‘an announced and
compares it to translations, saying that they are ‘intersemiotic transpositions from one
sign system (for example, words) to another (for example, images)’ (Hutcheon, 16).
Susan Orlean herself talks about having her book adapted as similar to the process of
putting a child up for adoption (Orlean in Kaufman, VII), and Frank P. Tomasulo, in an
article about Adaptation., says that ‘to adapt (in both he cinematic and biological
13
Earlier in my paper, I presented mediatic adaptation as an attempt at conveying
the same message through different media, normally by a different agent and to an
audience that may or may not be the same. Pair this with the above quotes and
mediatic adaptation sounds simple enough, but if we look at all the variables present
in the equation, we realize it isn’t so, for the shift in medium affects all of the portions
of the equation. First, let’s talk about the agent. When an adapter appropriates a book
to turn it into a movie, he first needs to read it, and there is no reading without
interpretation. Hutcheon says that “adapters are first interpreters and then creators”
(18). That is the dilemma that Kaufman faces in the beginning of Adaptation.. He states
he believes the book is great (Kaufman, 4), and he is determined to remain true to the
spirit of the book. What we watch in Adaptation. is an artist struggling to cope with his
different turn towards the end it is because Kaufman finally comes to the
understanding that this is his work, allowing himself to create, but a creation that he
change in the message. And since audiences will also interpret the material, therefore
adapting the adaption, adapters must bear in mind the scope of the audience at which
his work is aimed, particularly since most adaptations work within a production system
that values profit and economic gain, therefor privileging works that already have a
14
There is an obvious financial appeal to adaptation as well. (…) Italian
composers of that notoriously expensive art form, opera, usually chose
to adapt reliable – that is, already financially successful – stage plays or
novels in order to avoid financial risks. (…) However, it is not simply a
matter of risk-avoidance; there is money to be made. A best-selling book
may reach a million readers; a successful Broadway play will be seen by
1 to 8 million people; but a movie or television adaptation will find an
audience of many million more. (Hutcheon, 5)
Adaptations are, usually, less of a risk since they already have a fan base and a
brand, and therefore are more easily marketed and can make more money. In fact, a
quick Wikipedia search already informs us that the only box-office champion of the
past 10 years that was not an adaptation or a sequel was James Cameron’s Avatar,
released in 2009. Adaptations are more successful, and as Hutcheon shows us, 85% of
all Oscar-winning Best Pictures are adaptations, as are 95% of all miniseries that win at
the Emmys (Hutcheon, 4). These numbers show us how important that part of the
And it’s interesting to look at how this whole notion of commercial influences
plays out in the movie and in the book. The orchid industry as presented by Orlean in
The Orchid Thief works almost as a perfect analogy for the Hollywood system.
This system in which a financial successful product dictates the market is very
similar to the way Hollywood operates. Also, it is interesting to observe how the movie
15
itself takes a more commercial turn at the end. At the very beginning, Kaufman points
out his intention in making a movie about flowers, where nothing much happens. He
confronts Robert McKee about it when he attends one of the guru’s seminars.
Ultimately, however, taking a cue from McKee and from his brother’s thriller (The 3,
which is bought by a producing company for loads of money), he turns the movie into
something marketable, with sex, drugs, car chases and characters learning and
despised at the same time that he ironically makes fun of them. The movie becomes
commercial at the same time it retains its artistic purity and originality.
But to this paper, the most pertinent discussion is the one that relates to the
message. The message of a book or movie is not simply the story it tells, but also the
values it carries, the emotions it produces, the tone it has. All of those things, many
almost too intangible to discuss, are, in conjunction with the actual narrative, the
message. And if mediatic adaptation is, again, an attempt at conveying the same
that may or may not be the same, then what happens if we bring to the discussion
Marshal McLuhan’s idea that “the medium is the message”? In his famous book
that the focus of communication studies should not be on the message, but on the
medium, since, according to him, the medium greatly influences the message. Tom
Gunning also says that ‘story can be studied without regard to the medium, linguistic
16
What all of this tells us is that a shift in medium has tremendous influence over
the message, or the narrative discourse, of the new product. The same story told in a
book will have to change in order to survive in the medium of cinema, a medium with
its own language. Dudley Andrew poses this as the greatest challenge of an adapter,
‘how is it possible to transform the signifiers of one material (verbal) to the signifiers of
discourse, in movies and literature can be perceived according to its inclusion in the
one or both of two spheres: mimesis and diegesis. Because literature is exclusively
diegetic (though one could argue it has mimetic dimensions) and cinema is both
diegetic and mimetic, the narrative discourse in both mediums cannot possibly be the
same. Movies work outside in, literature works inside out. Movies focus on the
physical, while novels focus on the psychological. Movies show in order to tell, and
If in the book Orlean spends pages describing orchids, how they are and relate
to the insects that pollinate them, the movie is able to do so in a scene that lasts about
one minute in which we are shown the orchids and the insects and the pollination. This
toward the representation of a world from which the filmic narrator can seem to be
absent” (Gunning, 394). Movie’s photographic capacity for mimesis makes the topic of
orchids one exciting to explore cinematographically, since orchids can then be shown,
conflict.
17
The Orchid Thief is able to tell us so much about the feelings and psychological
conflict of its characters in a few sentences, and in the movie those feelings and
conflicts need to be fleshed out in long sequences or with the use of voice-over. If
those things can simply be told in the book, in the movie they need to be shown, and
how do you show a character grappling with its pursuit for passion or its reluctance to
adapt? Voice-overs are highly diegetic, but they can be included in the mimesis. In
Adaptation, the voice-over is split between the three main characters (Orlean, Laroche
and Kaufman), but they work differently. Orlean’s voice-overs are normally direct
quotes from The Orchid Thief used in moments when the character is showed in deep
introversion. Laroche’s voice-overs are very few and far between and normally spring
from dialogue in the movie and are used to illustrate something that relates to orchids.
Kaufman’s voice-over is the most pervasive one, and it is the first thing we hear when
the movie begins and the last thing we hear when it ends. Because he is the true main
character of the movie, that makes sense. His voice-over is so brutally honest (“All I do
is sit on my fat ass. If my ass wasn’t fat, I would be happier”; “She looked at my
hairline, she things I’m bald”) that it disarms the audience, creating empathy with a
character that is at times grumpy and rude and mostly incapable of relating to anyone
else. All three voice-overs are within the diegesis, since they come from characters in
the movies, and their use is always justified, given that what they illustrate are things
that could not be done visually, like Kaufman’s great lack of confidence or Orlean’s lack
of orientation. For that reason, though a cinematic device, voice-over is still very
literary. Kaufman himself jokes about the use of voice-over through the presence of a
18
screenwriting seminar attended by Charlie Kaufman, says the following (interrupting
…and God help you if you use voice over in your work, my friends! (…)
God help you! It’s flaccid, sloppy writing! Any idiot can write voice over
narration to explain the thoughts of the character. (Kaufman, 68)
The interesting thing is that though Kaufman makes extensive use of voice-
over, he leaves plenty to be brought to life by the actors and the audience’s
interpretation. Like the increasing romance between Orlean and Laroche, most of
which is never presented in voice-over but rather through Meryl Streep and Chris
Cooper’s performances. This brings to mind an important aspect of the shift between
literature and cinema. While literature is solitary work, done pretty much individually,
cinema is a collective art form, and though screenwriter and director have most of the
control over the final product, cast and crew are also part of the adaptation process
since they adapt from the script and from the original as they play their parts in the
Conclusion
After all, is Adaptation a movie about orchids? It might as well be, since it is a
movie about what orchids represent: chaos and evolution, sensuality and danger,
beauty and passion, immensity and mutation. What I learned in the process of
19
studying this specific case is that adaptation is too large a thing for me to try and
behold at once. Instead, we need to carve out some meaning slowly as we move along,
travelling carefully but obstinately like the crazy orchid hunters fighting the forest in
Therefore, I bring forward the analogy of the tree once again, since it is fitting
on so many levels. Adaptation is a living thing that keeps changing even if at times it
seems to be still and stately. It has many branches and they all inform each other, they
are all part of the same thing. In this paper, I came to the conclusion that biological
and mediatic adaptation present in the process of turning The Orchid Thief into a
movie are intrinsic to each other. In order to tell Orlean’s story in a different medium,
Kaufman had to rethink not only the mediums with which he dealt but also his own
create. The adapter must be aware of the mediums with which he deals, and
cinema. He must also be aware of his new audience, what they might want or expect
from his product. But most importantly, he needs to be self-aware, and place himself
deep inside the process of adaptation. That is what Kaufman did, though he took it to
the extreme by actually implanting himself in his adaptation, but in doing that he
something an adapter needs to think of himself as an artist first and foremost, and an
artist who owes allegiance to nothing else but his work and his integrity, even if he has
20
the media between which they travel, they need to understand how literature works
and how cinema works and how to efficiently transpose meaning from one medium to
the other. But ultimately, they need to understand that adaptation is more than a
Bibliography
Adaptation.. Dir. Spike Jonze. Perf. Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda
Swinton. Columbia Tristar Home Video. 2003. DVD.
ANDREW, Dudley. “Concepts in Film Theory.” Film Theory and Criticism. Ed. Marshal
BAZIN, André. “Adaptation, or the Cinema as Digest.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James
21
FOUCAULT, Michel. Language, counter-memory, practice. New York, Cornell University
Press, 1977.
GUNNING, Tom. “Theory and History: Narrative Discourse and the Narrative System.”
Film Theory and Criticism. Ed. Marshal Cohen and Leo Braudy. Oxford: Oxford
KAUFMAN, Charlie. Adaptation – the shooting script, Newmarket Press, New York,
2002.
Theory and Criticism. Ed. Marshal Cohen and Leo Braudy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
ORLEAN, Susan. The Orchid Thief, Ballentine Books, New York, 1998.
22
23