Analyzing the theme used by the writer, it can be seen that he was successful in portraying how the characters of the film underwent the different hardships and struggles related to their life. However, the main argument that the film is depressing remains to be questionable. The idea of portraying assessing the film according to how it pursues life must not be based on subjective purposes alone but rather in the intention of the director overall. Specifically, Spike Jonze may seek to portray meaning in a particular manner that tries to connect the characters together and complement the plot. By basing mainly on the external factors makes the argument that the film is ‘depressing’ limited and somewhat constrained.
On the other hand, I would have to agree in the analysis of the student where the portrayal of the theme demonstrates something deeper. The portrayal of Jonze of a ‘movie-within-a-movie’ aspect indeed allows people to recognize the symbolisms and meanings of each character in the story. However, it may be essential to clarify in the post how these areas have been manifested in the film. It may be true that the paper provided an argument on how this could be seen. But there are also elements present in the film that also demonstrates the argument provided (e.g. character conflict and scene selection).
Lastly, the argument that the film seeks to connote transition of unexpected twists indeed is a central aspect of the story. The question that can be raised in this analogy then is how have these been complemented by the characters? Likewise, what was their role in its facilitation and accomplishment? These areas are therefore essential to fully justify the relevance of character development in the overall relevance of the story.
Reacting to the second post, the first issue that needs to be raised involves the reasons on how the paper pursued why the film ‘Adaptation’ is titled in such way. The manner on how the arguments were built to provide this conclusion remains to be vague. It would have been best if the author sought to sum up the analysis made in the previous comments and analysis to justify the rationale for the creation of such title. By connecting all these ideas accordingly, the statement would have been more striking and responsive.
Similarly, this paper provided a good description of the characters in the film. Appropriate analysis had been made in creating connection with each one and determining their role and value in the outcome of the story. Indeed, the value the ability of Jonze to put these characters all together in the story provides numerous ways to analyze and interpret the way they respond to one another. The question here and what the paper would have tried to address is how can these characterizations affect the overall outcome of the story? Plus, would the idea of influence contribute to its betterment or further degradation of particular characters (e.g. John and Charlie)?
Lastly, I would have to disagree with the argument of the paper that the film was muddled particularly in its theme. The change and action that happened among the characters are just manifestation of how one could adapt to specific scenarios. Likewise, it was not also mainly to provide solutions to the current conflict among the characters of the film. Rather, they are responses through constant interactions that allow people to change their perspectives and views about reality. Though the ending may have been arguably tragic, it creates the perception of change as inevitable and demonstrates the ability of people to utilize their choices according to specific circumstances and issues resonating in their lives.
“Adaptation “. Dir. Spike Jonze. Perf. Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper. Columbia
Pictures. 2002. DVD.