Adaptation · written by Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman · 2002

McKee argues that cinema must be vivid and active rather than a recording of ordinary life.

Scene 175 of 202 · ≈ 1 min on screen · Act two

Mckee

Act oneAct twoAct three

Begins 1:28 into a 1:57 film

The story so farBefore scene 175

Unable to find a conventional story in The Orchid Thief, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman turns his own crisis into an increasingly self-referential adaptation.

Scenes 1–9
Charlie inhabits an isolated, self-condemning world while Orlean’s book supplies a distant model of obsession.
Scenes 10–88
Charlie wants to write honestly and make flowers matter, while also longing to be desired and understood.
Scenes 89–105
He leaves his familiar writing room and goes to Florida to search for the story firsthand.
Scenes 106–126
The swamp is ordinary, Orlean’s research fails, and Charlie experiments with increasingly personal versions of the book.
Scenes 127–144
Charlie finds a way to focus the material by putting himself in it, then commits to meeting Orlean.
Just before
Scene 172
McKee condemns voice-over and insists film must show internal conflict through image and movement.
Scene 173
Charlie leaves the seminar building alone, troubled by McKee’s attack on his method.
Scene 174
McKee says originality comes from more than eccentricity as a student reacts behind Charlie.
Scene 175
This scene

175INT. AUDITORIUM - LATER

It's late. The audience is tired, but still attentive. Now Kaufman takes serious notes. McKee, energetic as ever, wears his sweater tied around his shoulders. We stay firmly planted on his face as he talks and talks.

MCKEE

Long speechs are antithetical to the

nature of cinema. The Greeks called it

stykomythia -- the rapid exchange of

ideas. A long speech in a script, say a

page long, requires that the camera hold

on the actor's face for a minute. Look

at the second hand on your watch as it

makes one complete rotation around the

clock face and you'll get an idea of how

intolerable that would be for an

audience. The ontology of the screen is

that it's always now and it's always

action and it's always vivid. Life is

rarely vivid. And that's an important

point. We are not recreating life on the

screen. Writers are not tape recorders.

Have you ever eavesdropped on people

talking in a coffee shop? Then you know

how dull and tedious real conversation

is. Real people are not interesting.

There's not a person in this world -- and

I include myself in this -- who would be

interesting enough to take as is and put

in a movie as a character.

DISSOLVE TO: