Being John Malkovich at 20: why the surrealist comedy demands a rewatch

When Being John Malkovich
opened in 1999, nobody knew the name of its screenwriter, Charlie
Kaufman, who’d spent the previous 15 years laboring in the comedy salt
mines, submitting articles on spec to National Lampoon, writing a number
of unproduced pilots, and landing gigs on short-lived (if beloved)
sketch shows like Get a Life and The Dana Carvey Show. Yet as soon as it
premiered – and for every project he did afterwards – it was talked
about as a Charlie Kaufman film, even though it was directed by Spike
Jonze, whose work on innovative commercials and videos for Weezer (Buddy
Holly), Beastie Boys (Sabotage), and others had earned him a reputation
as one of the most sought-after talents in the business. This was
virtually unprecedented; even Robert Towne, whose script for Chinatown
is frequently cited among the best ever written, wasn’t credited over
its director, Roman Polanski.
Still, it was only natural to cite Kaufman for the inspired absurdity of his premise, which treats the very specific consciousness of an esteemed character actor as the site for a grown-up Alice in Wonderland, a place where people can escape their sad, desperate lives for 15 minutes before getting thrown out on to a ditch by the New Jersey Turnpike. It was Kaufman who imagined The Belle of Amherst performed by a 60ft tall Emily Dickinson puppet (“gimmicky bastard”), a workplace conceived for the short-statured on the 7½th floor of a nondescript office building (“The overhead is low!”), and 44-year-old humans as vessels for those who want to live forever. And none of that even accounts for the random one-liners and conceits that are jammed into the screenplay, or the emotional richness of its themes, from loneliness to self-loathing to yearning, and how love can transcend bodies and genders.

Facebook Twitter
The film also introduces the Charlie Kaufman type: pasty and disheveled, with bad hair and lumpen bodies and a thin film of flopsweat on the face. He’s not a hero, either, which is another great and rare quality Kaufman has as a screenwriter. He doesn’t want his characters to be loved; he’ll settle for them being identifiable and understood. To that end, Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is a self-involved artiste, obsessed with getting some recognition for his uncompromising work as a realist puppeteer, but mostly languishing in a cramped, lightless garden apartment with his wife Lotte (a frizzy-haired Cameron Diaz) and her pet parrot and chimpanzee. Soon after his nimble fingers land him a job as a file clerk at LesterCorp, a company on the 7½th floor of the Mertin-Flemmer Building in New York, he falls hard for the glamorous Maxine (Catherine Keener), who wants nothing to do with him.

Facebook Twitter

Facebook Twitter
One more 1999 connection stands out: in a deliberately mundane point-of-view sequence in his apartment, Malkovich is ordering periwinkle towels over the phone, recalling the “cornflower blue” that Edward Norton’s narrator singles out in Fight Club from the same year. In both films, there’s something in the air about the meaningless of material things – even American Beauty, which criminally defeated Being John Malkovich for original screenplay that year, had Kevin Spacey yelling about a couch being “just a couch” – and a common longing for a more meaningful life. Norton finds it in violence and machismo while Kaufman’s characters can only find themselves by discarding their old lives, as if Malkovich was the pupa stage in a metamorphosis. For them, being John Malkovich for 15 minutes is better than a lifetime of being themselves.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment