Seen Through Charlie Kaufman's Eyes

Question: What was it like seeing yourself as a character in \r\nthe film "Adaptation?"
 

Robert McKee: I took my son to\r\n a screening at Sony.  And it’s one thing... I’ve seen myself on screen \r\nmany times because I’ve done umpteen TV series when I lived in England \r\nand interviews on TV, so it’s not surprising, even though I myself \r\nplayed myself in another movie called, “20 Dates.”  And so it wasn’t \r\nthat big a thing to see Brian Cox do me.  But imagine what it would be \r\nlike for a son to see his father portrayed in a major motion picture.  \r\nAnd so he came out of the screening and I said, “Paul, what did you \r\nthink?”  And he said, “Dad, he nailed you.”
 
That whole thing \r\ncame about as I was sitting in my office one day working and the phone \r\nrang and it was a producer, Ed Saxon, calling from New York with a very \r\napologetic tone saying, “This is the most embarrassing phone call I’ve \r\never had to make.  I don’t know what to do, but here’s the situation.  \r\nThere’s a screenwriter named Charlie Kaufman.  He’s written a screenplay\r\n and he’s made you a character in it, and he has freely quoted from your\r\n lectures and quoted from your book without permission, without \r\ncopyright.  We don’t know what to do.”  I said, “Well, send it to me, \r\nI’ll read it.  And I’ll give you a sense of what I think.”  And so I \r\nread it and I saw what he needed to do.  He was trying to write this \r\nfilm about the worse case of writer’s block in history, and he needed an\r\n antagonist.  And he needed somebody to represent Hollywood in an \r\nantagonistic way.  But in a way that would cut both ways.  And so he had\r\n twin brothers.  One loves my book and is writing a huge action piece \r\nwith great success.  The other is struggling to make an independent film\r\n and this is the inner conflict in Charlie Kaufman and many \r\nwriter/directors like him.  How to make a commercial art movie.  Okay?  \r\nAnd so he needed my character to have something to push against.
 
The\r\n third act of that script was awful.  He just ran out of ideas.  It was \r\nreally awful.  And so I called Ed Saxon back and I said, well first, I \r\ncalled William Goldman, and I said, “Bill, they’re trying to make a \r\nmovie and they’ve made me a character in it.  What should I do?”  And he\r\n said, “Don’t do it.”  And I said, “Why not?”  And he said, “It’s \r\nHollywood.  If they’re out to getcha, they’ll getcha.”  I said, “But I’m\r\n going to ask for and I’m going to get control over the casting.”  He \r\nsaid, “Okay, okay, let’s say you got control of the casting.  Who do you\r\n want?”  I said, “Gene Hackman.”  He said, “Fine.  It’ll be Gene Hackman\r\n with big bows of purple bows around his neck.  If they’re gonna getcha \r\nBob, they’re gonna getcha.  Don’t do it.”
 
So then I called my \r\nson and I said, “Paul,” and I told him, and he said, “Dad, do it.”  And I\r\n said, “But William Goldman said, they could satirize me.”  He says, “So\r\n what?”  He says, “You’re going to be a character in a major motion \r\npicture.  What difference does it make?”  And so I thought about it and I\r\n thought, if it’s done with humor, if it gets a laugh, I know I’m a \r\ncontroversial person and so I called Ed back and I said, "If we have fun\r\n then I’ll play his villain for him, but if two things... one, I have to\r\n have a say in the casting. Two, the third act sucks and I can’t be a \r\ncharacter in a bad movie. Three, I want my redeeming scene." And so they\r\n agreed to all of that and so we had many, many meetings over the act \r\nthree problems until it got to a point where I would finally agree.  And\r\n then of course, my redeeming scene in the bar, which becomes a pivotal \r\nscene, I think Charlie understood from that scene that even McKee \r\ncouldn’t help him.  And that’s why Donald writes Act 3.  And if you \r\nwatch the film carefully you’ll realize that Charlie’s character only \r\nwrites the first two acts and then he brings in Donald from Hollywood \r\nand Act 3 is Donald’s version of an Act 3.  Right?
 
And then I \r\nasked for a list of the actors that they were thinking of casting and \r\nthey gave me a list.  Surprisingly, because see I didn’t know whether \r\nthis could be the Dan Akroyd, Danny Devito school of casting, right?  \r\nBut the list they gave me was the top 10 middle-aged British actors \r\nalive; from Christopher Plummer to Michael Caine.  And on that list was \r\nBrian Cox.  And I said, start there and ask him.  And they didn’t even \r\nknow who he was.  The casting director knew, of course, but I said, \r\n"He’s the best British actor you don’t know."  And Brian’s a friend of \r\nmine.  And he was a student of mine up in Glasgow.  And I know Brian’s \r\nwork.  And Brian would not sentimentalize me.  Other actors I couldn’t \r\nbe sure because actors love to be loved.  And so while they’re going \r\ndown the poor screenwriter’s throat in that lecture scene, an actor like\r\n Christopher Plummer, or somebody would also put up, but I’m doing it \r\nfor the right reasons, I’m kind of – you know?  And I didn’t want that \r\nbecause that’s an idiotic question.  And he deserves to be answered in \r\nthat tone of voice so that he gets it, the notion that there’s no \r\nconflict, that real life is without conflict is the most naive \r\nridiculous thought a person could have. And right now you and I are in \r\nthis interview full of conflict.  As we’re sorting out ideas and trying \r\nto make this work, or whatever, I said that being – so anyway... I \r\ndidn’t want to be sentimentalized because I don’t lecture that way.  I \r\ndon’t want to be loved.  I want them to love the art.  I want them to \r\nlearn from me and love the art, but I don’t want groupies, I don’t want \r\nto be loved.  And so I knew Brian would do that and give that kind of \r\nedge to it, and it was great.
 
So, my answer to the question is:\r\n I thought it was wonderful.  I loved it.

The screenwriting guru talks about what it was like to see himself portrayed by Brian Cox in the film "Adaptation."

Are we really addicted to technology?

Fear that new technologies are addictive isn't a modern phenomenon.

Credit: Rodion Kutsaev via Unsplash
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink, which has partnered with the Build for Tomorrow podcast to go inside new episodes each month. Subscribe here to learn more about the crazy, curious things from history that shaped us, and how we can shape the future.

In many ways, technology has made our lives better. Through smartphones, apps, and social media platforms we can now work more efficiently and connect in ways that would have been unimaginable just decades ago.

But as we've grown to rely on technology for a lot of our professional and personal needs, most of us are asking tough questions about the role technology plays in our own lives. Are we becoming too dependent on technology to the point that it's actually harming us?

In the latest episode of Build for Tomorrow, host and Entrepreneur Editor-in-Chief Jason Feifer takes on the thorny question: is technology addictive?

Popularizing medical language

What makes something addictive rather than just engaging? It's a meaningful distinction because if technology is addictive, the next question could be: are the creators of popular digital technologies, like smartphones and social media apps, intentionally creating things that are addictive? If so, should they be held responsible?

To answer those questions, we've first got to agree on a definition of "addiction." As it turns out, that's not quite as easy as it sounds.

If we don't have a good definition of what we're talking about, then we can't properly help people.

LIAM SATCHELL UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER

"Over the past few decades, a lot of effort has gone into destigmatizing conversations about mental health, which of course is a very good thing," Feifer explains. It also means that medical language has entered into our vernacular —we're now more comfortable using clinical words outside of a specific diagnosis.

"We've all got that one friend who says, 'Oh, I'm a little bit OCD' or that friend who says, 'Oh, this is my big PTSD moment,'" Liam Satchell, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Winchester and guest on the podcast, says. He's concerned about how the word "addiction" gets tossed around by people with no background in mental health. An increased concern surrounding "tech addiction" isn't actually being driven by concern among psychiatric professionals, he says.

"These sorts of concerns about things like internet use or social media use haven't come from the psychiatric community as much," Satchell says. "They've come from people who are interested in technology first."

The casual use of medical language can lead to confusion about what is actually a mental health concern. We need a reliable standard for recognizing, discussing, and ultimately treating psychological conditions.

"If we don't have a good definition of what we're talking about, then we can't properly help people," Satchell says. That's why, according to Satchell, the psychiatric definition of addiction being based around experiencing distress or significant family, social, or occupational disruption needs to be included in any definition of addiction we may use.

Too much reading causes... heat rashes?

But as Feifer points out in his podcast, both popularizing medical language and the fear that new technologies are addictive aren't totally modern phenomena.

Take, for instance, the concept of "reading mania."

In the 18th Century, an author named J. G. Heinzmann claimed that people who read too many novels could experience something called "reading mania." This condition, Heinzmann explained, could cause many symptoms, including: "weakening of the eyes, heat rashes, gout, arthritis, hemorrhoids, asthma, apoplexy, pulmonary disease, indigestion, blocking of the bowels, nervous disorder, migraines, epilepsy, hypochondria, and melancholy."

"That is all very specific! But really, even the term 'reading mania' is medical," Feifer says.

"Manic episodes are not a joke, folks. But this didn't stop people a century later from applying the same term to wristwatches."

Indeed, an 1889 piece in the Newcastle Weekly Courant declared: "The watch mania, as it is called, is certainly excessive; indeed it becomes rabid."

Similar concerns have echoed throughout history about the radio, telephone, TV, and video games.

"It may sound comical in our modern context, but back then, when those new technologies were the latest distraction, they were probably really engaging. People spent too much time doing them," Feifer says. "And what can we say about that now, having seen it play out over and over and over again? We can say it's common. It's a common behavior. Doesn't mean it's the healthiest one. It's just not a medical problem."

Few today would argue that novels are in-and-of-themselves addictive — regardless of how voraciously you may have consumed your last favorite novel. So, what happened? Were these things ever addictive — and if not, what was happening in these moments of concern?

People are complicated, our relationship with new technology is complicated, and addiction is complicated — and our efforts to simplify very complex things, and make generalizations across broad portions of the population, can lead to real harm.

JASON FEIFER HOST OF BUILD FOR TOMORROW

There's a risk of pathologizing normal behavior, says Joel Billieux, professor of clinical psychology and psychological assessment at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, and guest on the podcast. He's on a mission to understand how we can suss out what is truly addictive behavior versus what is normal behavior that we're calling addictive.

For Billieux and other professionals, this isn't just a rhetorical game. He uses the example of gaming addiction, which has come under increased scrutiny over the past half-decade. The language used around the subject of gaming addiction will determine how behaviors of potential patients are analyzed — and ultimately what treatment is recommended.

"For a lot of people you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping (mechanism for) social anxiety or trauma or depression," says Billieux.

"Those cases, of course, you will not necessarily target gaming per se. You will target what caused depression. And then as a result, If you succeed, gaming will diminish."

In some instances, a person might legitimately be addicted to gaming or technology, and require the corresponding treatment — but that treatment might be the wrong answer for another person.

"None of this is to discount that for some people, technology is a factor in a mental health problem," says Feifer.

"I am also not discounting that individual people can use technology such as smartphones or social media to a degree where it has a genuine negative impact on their lives. But the point here to understand is that people are complicated, our relationship with new technology is complicated, and addiction is complicated — and our efforts to simplify very complex things, and make generalizations across broad portions of the population, can lead to real harm."

Behavioral addiction is a notoriously complex thing for professionals to diagnose — even more so since the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the book professionals use to classify mental disorders, introduced a new idea about addiction in 2013.

"The DSM-5 grouped substance addiction with gambling addiction — this is the first time that substance addiction was directly categorized with any kind of behavioral addiction," Feifer says.

"And then, the DSM-5 went a tiny bit further — and proposed that other potentially addictive behaviors require further study."

This might not sound like that big of a deal to laypeople, but its effect was massive in medicine.

"Researchers started launching studies — not to see if a behavior like social media use can be addictive, but rather, to start with the assumption that social media use is addictive, and then to see how many people have the addiction," says Feifer.

Learned helplessness

The assumption that a lot of us are addicted to technology may itself be harming us by undermining our autonomy and belief that we have agency to create change in our own lives. That's what Nir Eyal, author of the books Hooked and Indistractable, calls 'learned helplessness.'

"The price of living in a world with so many good things in it is that sometimes we have to learn these new skills, these new behaviors to moderate our use," Eyal says. "One surefire way to not do anything is to believe you are powerless. That's what learned helplessness is all about."

So if it's not an addiction that most of us are experiencing when we check our phones 90 times a day or are wondering about what our followers are saying on Twitter — then what is it?

"A choice, a willful choice, and perhaps some people would not agree or would criticize your choices. But I think we cannot consider that as something that is pathological in the clinical sense," says Billieux.

Of course, for some people technology can be addictive.

"If something is genuinely interfering with your social or occupational life, and you have no ability to control it, then please seek help," says Feifer.

But for the vast majority of people, thinking about our use of technology as a choice — albeit not always a healthy one — can be the first step to overcoming unwanted habits.

For more, be sure to check out the Build for Tomorrow episode here.

Why the U.S. and Belgium are culture buddies

The Inglehart-Welzel World Cultural map replaces geographic accuracy with closeness in terms of values.

Credit: World Values Survey, public domain.
Strange Maps
  • This map replaces geography with another type of closeness: cultural values.
  • Although the groups it depicts have familiar names, their shapes are not.
  • The map makes for strange bedfellows: Brazil next to South Africa and Belgium neighboring the U.S.
Keep reading Show less

CT scans of shark intestines find Nikola Tesla’s one-way valve

Evolution proves to be just about as ingenious as Nikola Tesla

Credit: Gerald Schömbs / Unsplash
Surprising Science
  • For the first time, scientists developed 3D scans of shark intestines to learn how they digest what they eat.
  • The scans reveal an intestinal structure that looks awfully familiar — it looks like a Tesla valve.
  • The structure may allow sharks to better survive long breaks between feasts.
Keep reading Show less

Mammals dream about the world they are entering even before birth

A study finds that baby mammals dream about the world they are about to experience to prepare their senses.

Michael C. Crair et al, Science, 2021.
Surprising Science
  • Researchers find that babies of mammals dream about the world they are entering.
  • The study focused on neonatal waves in mice before they first opened their eyes.
  • Scientists believe human babies also prime their visual motion detection before birth.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast