phil 3604 - hermeneutics and adaptation

8/7/2019 PHIL 3604 - Hermeneutics and Adaptation

1/7

Hermeneutics and Adaptation

Michael Gonzales

Prof. Bielecki

December 10, 2009

Words


2/7

At one point in the filmAdaptation, directed by Spike Jonze and written by Charlie Kaufman,

where the character version of Charlie Kaufman feels inspiration strike him and begins writing his

screenplay. It is an adaptation of a book about orchids, so he feels that in order to understand these

beautiful flowers, one must take into consideration the entire history of nature on planet earth. He

begins with the crust cooling in what would end up being Hollywood, and continues past the first legged

fish crawling out of the primordial ooze, dinosaurs, all of human history and ends with a baby being

born. He has lost touch so thoroughly that this is what he considers to be necessary context.

Adaptation is a self-reflexive comedy whose plot concerns the writing of its own screenplay.

Hermeneutics, as Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote about it, concerns the process of understanding a text

when human experience is so personal. Adaptation highlights the many shades of obfuscation that the

truth must journey through to finally reach the screen, and in this way it illustrates much of what

Gadamer had to say about the matter.

Nicholas Cage plays the dual-role of Charlie Kaufman, and his brother Donald. Charlie is a real

person, and Donald is not. Charlie is hired to adapt a non-fiction book called The Orchid Thieffor the big

screen. His first task in his writing is to try to fully understand what makes the book so interesting: A

person who is trying to understand a text is always performing an act of projecting. He projects before

himself a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text

(Gadamer, 1975, p.59). Charlie spends the first sequences of the film trying to figure out how to

translate the beauty of this world of flower hunters to a medium that doesnt really care about flower

hunters. While this may not specifically reference Gadamers interpretation of the circle of

understanding, there are obvious references to be made about it. Any movie about somebody who is

trying to understand something is a movie about hermeneutics, and this film certainly qualifies. To

Gadamer, the circle is not formal in nature, it Is neither subjective nor objective, but describes


3/7

understanding as the interplay of the movement of tradition and the movement of the interpreter. The

anticipation of meaning that governs our understanding of a text is not an act of subjectivity but

proceeds from the communality that binds us to the tradition. (p. 65)

The circle starts with a small part, which informs understanding of the larger whole. The

understanding of the small part then, in turn, informs understanding of the smaller parts. Thus, a

chicken-and-egg scenario is created and it is understood that understanding is a continuous process, in

the way that a decimal point and an infinite number of nines can never quite add up to one.

Gadamer would have a lot to say about Charlies philosophy of adaptation in the film. In an

early scene, Charlie has a meeting with one of the film producers who is interested in hiring him. She

asks him how he would want to tackle the subject matter, and suggests adding a love story between the

two main characters who, in real life, did not have a romantic relationship:

Charlie: I just dont want to ruin it by making it a Hollywood thing, like making it an

orchid heist movie, or or something. Or changing the orchids to poppies and making it a

movie about drug running. Why cant there be a movie simply about flowers?

Valerie: I guess we thought that maybe Susan Orlean and Laroche could fall in love.

Charlie: See, thats exactly what Im talking about. I dont want to cram in sex or guns

or car chases. Or characters, you know, learning profound life lessons, or growing or

coming to like each other overcoming obstacles to succeed in the enditsthe book

isnt like that, and life isnt like that. (5:30-5:58)

At this point in the film, Charlie believes that he can completely remove himself from the

process of the adaptation and makes several presumptions about the life outlook of Susan Orlean based

on his own pre-conceived prejudices that he refuses to acknowledge. This is, of course, not the case.

Gadamer states that removing the self from an interpretation of a text is a nave concept. We have

prejudices and fore-meanings that we cannot possibly set aside when interacting with a text, and that


4/7

we wouldnt want to because it is these prejudices and fore-meanings that help us understand the text.

As he states in Truth and Method:

[A] person trying to understand a text is prepared for it to tell him something. That is

why a hermeneutically trained mind must be, from the start, sensitive to the texts

quality of newness. But this kind of sensitivity involves neither neutrality in the matter

of the object nor the extinction of ones self, but the conscious assimilation of ones own

fore-meanings and prejudices. The important thing is to be aware of ones own bias, so

that the text may present itself in all its newness and thus be able to assert its own truth

against ones own fore-meanings. (p. 62)

The best thing for Charlie to do, Gadamer would say, would be to stop hiding behind the integrity of the

adaptation. Charlie must accept that he is imposing his own pessimistic viewpoint upon the screenplay,

and this idea comes into sharper focus when Donald is introduced.

Donald Kaufman is Charlie Kaufmans fictitious twin brother. Where Charlie is neurotic and

socially awkward, Donald is constantly upbeat and has no problem talking to women. He lives with

Charlie rent-free and one day decides that hes going to be a screenwriter like his brother. He swears

that it isnt another one of his get-rich-quick schemes. Donald represents everything that Charlie, who

is trying to be a serious screenwriter and has had a little success in the business, hates about Hollywood

culture. He is self-congratulatory, unoriginal, and hasnt put one tenth of the thought into his writing

that Charlie has. All Charlie does is think, and all Donald does is act.

Halfway through the film, Donald sells his taut psychological thriller to a studio and is on track

to become an instant success. At this point, Charlie is past his deadline and has already begun writing

himself and his struggle into the screenplay. He swallows his pride and asks Donald for help. Almost

immediately the film stops being an awkward comedy and becomes a caper movie as Donald

supposedly begins collaborating. Donalds character becomes smarter and more in control, as he


5/7

hatches a plan to switch places with his twin brother to meet with Susan Orlean, and deduces that she is

hiding something about her relationship with Laroche.

[J]ust as we believe the news reported by a correspondent because he was present or is

better informed, we are fundamentally open to the possibility that the writer of a

transmitted text is better informed than we are, with our previously formed meaning. It

is only when the attempt to accept what he has said as true failed that we try to

understand the text, psychologically or historically, as anothers meaning. (p. 66)

Charlie and Donald are operating under different horizons of understanding. A horizon, in

hermeneutics and in life, is everything that can possibly be seen from one vantage point. Each of us has

a horizon, which contains our complete world perspective and everything that we are capable of putting

together. Each horizon, of course, is unique, but the areas where they most commonly overlap are

called tradition. Charlie is unable to see the Hollywood antics that exist in everyday life. He is reminded

of this when he, in his desperation, attends a screenplay seminar and is chewed out by his instructor for

having no faith in the real world to be interesting and dramatic. Hes so obsessed with making

something important that he realizes the he forgot to make something good. It doesnt have to be

boring to be true.

Another example of horizon in the film is in a scene where Susan Orlean is having dinner with

her friends and having a conversation about Laroche. John Laroche, the titular orchid thief, was tried for

poaching endangered flowers from a state preserve. His manner of speaking and way of life were

considered by the mainstream to be eccentric at best. He is missing his front teeth, tools around in a

creepy white van, and has left a trail of odd obsessions in his past. Laroche is odd, and maybe a little

crazy, but he is not a bad person.

Susan understands this, and it upsets her when her intellectual friends make fun at Laroches

expense. They comment on his shabby way of dressing, his non-standard hygiene practices, and his


6/7

relentless eccentricity. She pretends to be amused, and excuses herself to the bathroom, and lies about

wanting to tell them a story about Laroche when she returns. Another friend, who has heard the story

before, loudly tells it offscreen while Orlean stares miserably at the mirror. These people live on the

opposite end of the country from Laroche, but they might as well live on the opposite side of the

universe. They are not inclined to want to try to understand Laroche, because he is a character of

comedy to them.

Adaptation is a story of understanding. In one way, we want to be able to understand

everything, and to make everyone else understand everything the way we do. But no one can really do

that. Charlie wants to convey his understanding of the whole world through his script, but Donald just

wants to make a story that some people like. Charlie wants to do something important, and Donald

wants to do something fun. Susan was looking for understanding as well. She wanted to understand

obsession, and how it feels to truly want something. Laroche was the greatest source of enthusiasm in

her whole life, so its not surprising when things go dangerously off the deep end for both of them and

they end up shot and eaten by alligators. Perhaps Gadamer would approve.


7/7

Reference List

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1975). Foundations of a theory of hermeneutical experience. In M. Bielecki &

M. Calvo (Eds.), Roots of Contemporary Philosophy Selected Readings (6-24). Hayward, CA:

California State University, Hayward. (Reprinted from Truth and Method)

Sarafe, P. (Producer), & Jonze, S. (Director). (2002).Adaptation [Motion Picture]. United States: Sony

Pictures

phil 3604 - hermeneutics and adaptation

Documents