Charlie Kaufman

Interview by Rada Djurica

The Oscar-winner Charlie Kaufman participated in a very relaxing discussion at the Sarajevo Film Festival, speaking about the frequent presence of Darwin's theory of evolution in his screenplays. His film, Synecdoche, New York, shown at the Sarajevo Film Festival, was his highly anticipated directorial debut. Film goers know Kaufman as the unusual writer behind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich. His scripts examine the nature of memory, love and identity, all in a rather bizarre way. It's strange to hear Charlie Kaufman talk about his brain, because it's that brain that served as a portal into John Malkovich's mind, as well as transformed an adaptation of a flower book into a screenplay.

Synecdoche, New York is a movie about death and illness but has a lot to say about life, as well. Kaufman spoke, both directly and indirectly, about his work. Sitting near Kaufman is both fascinating and frustrating, as his answers of his screenplays can sometimes be as mysterious as those screenplays themselves.

A writer is always a writer, even during the recent big writers' strike. Can you comment on that?

Well, I was doing my movie. I wasn't allowed to do a writer's job even if I had to do it. But I supported the strike with courtesy.

You have gained success as a director and as a screenwriter. Can you tell us the differences between writing and directing?

For me, writing is very lonely task, and directing is a very social process. Directing is an entirely different task. When you direct you need to keep so many other things in mind, and you depend on so many things that you are actually not responsible for. The role of director gives me control over what I do. It is very frustrating when, as a screenwriter, I am not able to influence the filming of the work and the final product. For instance, I was not allowed to participate in the process of filming Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which was a very frustrating experience.

What happened with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind?

Yes, I did write Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, but the script was cut in the process. I won't talk about Clooney here, because I'm digging my own grave here. He was very flattered, and he told me his ideas. He told me that I was the writer, but when I told him what I didn't like about it, he simply didn't wanted to talk to me, and the movie ended done by his own idea.

There were stages of process where I was involved, but also there were parts in the movie that I didn't want to be. I definitely didn't want to have some silly game show of the day. What was interesting about it was the writer of the book; he was very serious about it, and reading it didn't sound as a joke. What is interesting about this is that people in movies would turn fantasy into reality, like in the case of a middle-aged man who decided to be a secret agent. I wanted to write about that. You really have to be serious about Chuck and to know who he really was on that level.

Was that the motivation behind Synecdoche, New York?

No, actually not. I mean, it was really more about exploring things that are scary, and mortality, and illness, and regret, and time passing. I really wasn't thinking at all about the other thing.

Was it, in some ways, different from the movie you had in your head before you started with it, after what happened with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and George Clooney changing your script?

In some ways, yeah, and I think in some ways it's an inevitability. Before you start production, you have characters you have created without actors in mind, then all of a sudden, you've got actors. They bring an enormous amount in creating these characters, and creating the dynamics between the characters that you've written. People ask me, even on other movies, did the movie come out as you imagined it when you wrote it? It's an impossible thing that it would.

Was everything that happens in the movie in the script?

No, that was in the script. That was in the script because the pieces that are in the movie need to be built — literally and figuratively. We couldn't improvise that.

What about the title of the film?

Synecdoche? The various things in the movie mean something to me, and that's why I write them. I put them out in the world, and then they mean something to you or not, or different things to you, or the same things to you. My feeling is for me to come out at any point and say this is what the movie means, is really only my opinion. But the title is something in the movie. The title, for me to say why I used synecdoche... I think if you read the definition of synecdoche, my sense is that a lot of it will make itself revealed, why I might have used it. At the same time, I had an interaction with the word "synecdoche" as a title for this movie a month ago.

Could you talk about your writing?

My writing and work in general is always connected to evolution and human nature, and that what fascinates me is man and his psyche. Ordinary human life, the problems that man faces and the emotions that he feels as a result, are the source of topics that he could think about for days. I find inspiration in everyday life, in the day-to-day thoughts of ordinary people. The issues I struggle with and the situations I am facing are often fused into my work. For that reason, I often strive to write precisely while such times last, and not later from distance when it's all over.

When I was writing I was exploring the ideas that I was interested in, which are, I think, evident in the movie. In no way was I trying to make this thing an episodic kind of thing. Once things would open up to me, I would try to incorporate them into the story and adjust the structure so that they were organic to each other.

Do you feel like you really want to write more and direct, or do you want to see how it works as a director?

I want to write to direct now, in the immediate future. I did this thing, and I learned an awful lot; and I want to go back and try again with what I've learned. And I liked it. I really like working with actors, and I also like the control that I have. Which isn't to say — I had a lot of influence with both Spike (Jonze, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich) and Michel (Gondry, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). They were enormously collaborative with me. As a writer collaborating with someone else, I don't think I could have asked for a better situation. But it is different now, in that I have this, and I can do this, and I don't have to petition anybody.

Did you have that chance on Being John Malkovich?

Spike is a really collaborative person. It's one of his great traits as a person, and as a director, that he really does open himself up to anybody who wants to talk about anything. You don't disrespect him in any way.

Tell us about the process of making a film?

I'm just trying to have conversations with people. They can like the movie or not or see it or not. I don't really care. I can't care about it because it's out of my control. I feel like a lot of people put a lot of themselves into this thing and people will respond as they respond. If you create something that is asking for people to respond as they're going to respond, you have to allow them to respond as they're going to respond. Some of the people are going to be uninterested and some people are going to be mad for some reason, which is their business. That's just the way the world is.

Are you going to direct again?

I want to do it again. I feel compelled to do it again. It was hard in a lot of places. It was a very strenuous schedule for a lot of reasons, but I like the idea of it and I like the work and I like working with actors a lot, so I would like to do it again.