[Read Stephanie Zacharek's "'Adaptation' and the Perils of Adaptation."]

I think that Ms. Zacharek should relax a little. Every now and then a movie comes along and shows us what movies can do. That's how film language expands. There should be room for every kind of movie. A moviemaker (was it Kazan?) once said that in movies there are no rules. There are only sins. And the deadliest sin is dullness. "Adaptation" was far from dull. It is, among other things, a glimpse into the creative process. It's honest and it's funny. It's much more accessible than the inside joke she claims it to be. I saw it to a full house and most people were laughing genuinely. It couldn't possibly have been that all 500 of the audience members were in the movie business.

-- Michael Sibay

I am probably about as annoyed by Stephanie Zacharek's essay "'Adaptation' and the Perils of Adaptation" as she was by the film "Adaptation," since, among other reasons, very few of the movie-going populace outside L.A. and N.Y., as well as film critics, have gotten a chance to see it yet. A negative critical appraisal may be in order, certainly; I'm less sanguine about a self- congratulatory pseudo-philosophical attack on the film's alleged self-congratulatory pseudo-philosophy.

Perhaps "Adaptation" is as creatively bankrupt as Ms. Zacharek suggests, perhaps not. Nonetheless, it strikes me as not unlikely that this was a case of a book being optioned that by necessity would have to be shoehorned into the Hollywood blueprint due to its own non-Hollywood nature. Should this be the case, then doesn't Mr. Kaufman deserve credit for at least attempting to address this problem in the screenplay itself? God forbid that someone should try to insert some creative commentary into their work.

Finally, Ms. Zacharek's essay is undercut by the fact that the upcoming film "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," penned by Mr. Kaufman, is an adaptation of a book that shows no signs of being preciously "meta," if there are people still using that tired appellation.

-- Jacob Fyrste

Jesus, lady, if you don't get the joke, just say so.

-- Mike Trotman

Ms. Zacharek seems to have missed the point. Perhaps the problem stems from the context in which she places the film. Rather than simply comparing "Adaptation" to other novel-to-film adaptations, this film seems to fit more aptly with novels that share its mechanics. I would point her toward Flann O'Brien's "At Swim-Two-Birds," something Borges called a "verbal labyrinth." What Ms. Zacharek dismisses as a self-defeating how-meta-can-you-be game is really something more complicated -- like James Joyce (though with a far more popular sensibility), Jonze and Kaufman are pointing out that the mechanics of a story define its sensibilities and plot. How we write is as important as what we write, if not more so.

-- Ian Eletz

Thanks for the interesting roundup of movies that adapt books. However, I'd like to respond to some generalizations that Salon critics Stephanie Zacharek and Charles Taylor have made recently that I think are mistaken.

The genre of literary fiction called "postmodernism" has lent a number of bad habits to the screen. David Fincher even provided a step-by-step guide to all the problems of the genre (in print or on-screen) with the slickest and emptiest movie ever, "Fight Club." In film and literature, it's appropriate for reviewers to attack these bad habits and the intellectual laziness they conceal.

However, filmmakers like Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman, and even Alexander Payne (who is certainly more of a satirist than the rest of those guys, and hence a little meaner) simply aren't guilty of the kind of slick, hip detachment that Salon critics have been accusing them of. Although they employ some of the narrative devices of postmodernism, they use them to completely different ends than do no-heart pseudo-experimenters -- say, Fincher, Oliver Stone, or any Brett Easton Ellis adaptation. It's a mistake, I think, to label these filmmakers by the narrative devices they employ. To choose the clearest example, Anderson's humor is always inclusive; his portrayals of his characters are always warm. Kaufman may stoop to making easy meta-jokes in "Adaptation," but even if the film doesn't work (and I'm not saying it does), it isn't cynical or condescending to its characters -- or to the book it's based on.

As an increasing number of young writers and a few young filmmakers have shown, postmodern narrative devices don't need to imply postmodern emptiness. The sooner Salon's film critics learn this, the sooner they'll avoid the embarrassing mistake of calling Wes Anderson hip and condescending, or of accusing Charlie Kaufman of having nothing to say.

-- Robert Mentzer

Kaufman's adaptation of "The Orchid Thief" may be the self-referential, self-indulgent and smugly hip meta-aware work that Stephanie Zacharek claims it to be, but it is fully redeemed by also being entertaining as hell. No, it may not be a particularly deep meditation on the pain of creating meaningful writing (see "Barton Fink" for that); and it may not be an especially vicious satire on Hollywood (see "The Player" for that); but it has enough pleasures to keep it fun, and enough depth to keep it thoughtful.

Also, I might feel as "protective" as Zacharek of Orleans' book if the movie were called "The Orchid Thief," but it 's rightfully called "Adaptation" precisely because it's about not being "The Orchid Thief." In my opinion, that gives Kaufman even more latitude in making his choices.

-- Jordan Fields

"Adaptation" stunk as badly as the Florida swamps that orchids thrive on. Two-thirds of the way through I couldn't take it anymore and walked out of the theater. (And I loved "Being John Malkovich.")

It's comforting to know that your film critique agrees with me. Although reading Salon's review was almost as painful as watching the film.

-- Monica Gullon

Bravo to Stephanie Zacharek for exposing Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze for being the pathetic, naked emperors they are, and for taking on all the short-sighted film "critics" that are just as self-serving as the talent- and vision-depleted "filmmakers" working today. "Adaptation" is simply the latest of a long series of nails in the coffin of American filmmaking that matters.

-- Dennis Osborne

Recent Stories