How do theories of narrators and authors help us understand Adaptation and Pushing Daisies? Or do these examples complicate the theories we’ve discussed? (And if you’re curious, there are two earlier drafts of Adaptation on this site – in the early drafts, there was a swamp ape in the third act!)
7 thoughts on “Response for 10/28”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Two quick things I wanted to point out. First of all, I think watching Adaptation has definitely confused my understanding of author and implied author particularly because “Charles and Donald Kaufman” were listed in the real credits as having written the film. I think they did this on purpose, to confuse you about the author’s intent and the real author… Second of all, I just wanted to say that the narrator in Pushing Daisies worked really well to give it a fairy tale feel. Because of the way it’s narrated, the magical realism seems perfectly appropriate. I’m still confused about whether this is the “style” that Bordwell says is part of a narration, or a character that Chapman argues is a narrator.
I would argue that both Kaufmans are listed in the credits for the same reason the Cohen Brothers would lie and say Fargo is based on real incidents. I see it as an attempt to shape our schemata, i.e., through word of mouth, it influences our understanding of the type of film we are going to see and then, upon seeing the film, it reinforces are metaphysical, abstract, artworld understanding of the text. That is to say the credits makes you want to go out and say to your friend, “Hey, did you hear about that movie by Charlie Kaufman and his brother?” It doesn’t matter that Kaufman doesn’t actually have a brother. What is important is that the film’s paratext and outside influences, and its content once we enter the film, all go on to make us think this is a film about its author. As people our saying, it makes us postulate the existence of an author and some would term this figment an “implied author.” Although deeply conflicted myself about this term, I think I’m leaning towards seeing this “implied author” in this case as a construct meant to shape our impressions. It is an artifice aiding the film’s plot. Therefore, I think this could be that rare instance where Bordwell’s emphasis on narration working with a filmic purpose could butt heads ever so perfectly with Chatman’s terminology and kind of make sense.
Adaptation confused my understanding of life in general. I still felt, and still feel a little weird after watching it so much so that I had to look up more about the film, only to find that the story of Kaufman’s struggle is real, as is the book “The Orchid thief”, which confused me even more especially in terms of implied author. Do we construct our idea of Kaufman around what is presented in the film even though a lot of what is presented is Kaufman’s idea of himself and the struggle presented was his real struggle?
Pushing Daisies is a simpler case to tackle. Before watching the show, I saw Chatman’s argument for an un-named narrator true when there is an actual voiced narrator guiding the story along, and Bordwell’s argument to call the process filmic narration true when there isn’t. But, as Bianca said above, the narrator of Pushing Daisies isn’t just an omniscient voice guiding viewers through the show, he fits perfectly into the fairy-tale, fantastical style of the show and enhances it. I would have no problem putting the voice into the category of filmic narration.
In terms of narration, I feel that, in Adaptaion, there is clearly an implied author at work. If viewers have knowledge of Charlie Kaufman as the screenwriter of the film, then they will perceive him to be the implied author of the story, the narrative. The self-awareness, the self-conscious and quirky nature of the story would be recognizable trademarks that could cue a potential viewer, even if he or she had little or no knowledge of Kaufman’s other work (for example, the various voice-over narration scenes). I think both Chatman and Bordwell make good points for their points of view, but I feel more inclined to agree with Chatman’s conception of a narrator in motion picture media narratives. I do see a parallel between the traditional third person narrator in literature and the camera in film and television. I do not think narration has to necessarily be verbal; it can also be visual in this way. I do think that if there is narration, then there is a narrator.
Adaptation makes my head spin when I try to think about the idea of authorship in it. Like Andrew said and according to wikipedia (I know, I know), not only is the orchid thief an actual book but Charlie Kaufman was supposed to adapt it back in 1997. Kaufman encountered writer’s block while trying to write the script AND wrote a script about his experience trying to adapt The Orchid Thief. Obviously there must be quite amount of fiction once the two worlds of Susan Orlean and the Kaufman’s collide. I think that those fabula events in the movie (e.g. Laroche being bitten by the alligator) could possibly be fictional events that Kaufman wrote into the “real” movie he wrote about his experience adapting the orchid thief. I would say the implied author wants us to be confused by the film and wants us to conflate it with reality, but at the same time I can’t totally separate this from Kaufman’s intent himself (whatever that may be) just because he and his life are so present in the film. It seems almost biographical for the first half.
In Pushing Daisies, I would tend to say that Jim Dale’s narrator is not the narrator of the entire show, but merely a facet of the show’s overall narration. He is not the architect behind the syuzhet of the fabula. He provides interior character knowledge and expository background but he is not the one who decides how the fabula events are told to the viewer. He is only one piece of the overall narration. The idea as to whether there is a narrator or just overall narration is still up for debate and I would tend to agree with Chatman that there is an overall narrator.
As everyone has probably already commented on, Adaptation was nothing less than a matrix of complexity. I could do a large synopsis about how the film allows us to further understand authorship, while simultaneously confusing the viewers as to who is the actual author, his function, and what implications are sought by the viewer, but I feel Adaptation is not the best film to describe authorship. What I find is that this film cannot exist without any author—and the like—in conjunction with the narration. I feel they are synonymous and necessary for the film to progress in a continuous frame as to emphasize the big third act twist. I do agree with Seymour Chatman in this aspect where the “author” has to be more than a mere Meta concept. Here, the Bordwell filmic system becomes flawed in the sense that the story disavows any valid excuse to remove the physical entity we refer to cognitively as author. At the same time, this is where I feel Chris Nolan succeeds in his films where we see an implied author be distinctly distinguished from the author’s function, as well as the story’s narrator, which can be indicative of the intent of the author himself. I may be running on a random tangent that really doesn’t make sense, but I feel Adaptation is not the best example to exploit the terms we have been discussing in a clear fashion.
So, as many of you know, Community is one of my favorite television series. In the second to last episode of the show, they had a reference to Charlie Kaufman that I thought was particularly brilliant. If anyone is interested in seeing it, it’s around the fifth or sixth minute:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/184793/community-messianic-myths-and-ancient-peoples
It’s interesting because the premise is that Abed’s character decides, when propositioned to make a successful viral video promoting Jesus’ message, to make it a movie about Jesus making a movie to show God, but really realizing that he is a character in the movie and… well it gets complicated from there, but it’s very similar to Adaptation in many ways. Funny stuff.
Anyway, in response to the prompt, I would like to talk about Pushing Daisies. I have always loved this show, in part because I think that it pushes itself to fit into a mold and yet break the boundaries. The show is very much based around the mold of a storybook fairy-tale, and yet it deals with very adult topics like death and sex. In crossing these boundaries while still maintaining the structure and omnipotent narrator of enchanting fairy-tales, it disrupts the clichéd nature that so many theorists give to voice-over narration, since it is, in a way, not really fitting into any genre.