David Ulin makes an awfully convincing argument that Charlie Kaufman is the best writer of his generation in West, the L.A. Times weekend magazine. Not only is Ulin doing great work for the Sunday Book Review (this week's edition features reviews by Emily Barton and Ben Ehrenreich), but his fascinating homage to Kaufman is uber literary fare for Sunday morning. Pynchon, Erickson, Lethem, Saunders and Kipen are either addressed or interviewed for the piece. What's next bagels with Bataille?
I too thought Ulin's piece was spectacular; incredibly well-read and smart, but in an unpretentious, common sense-making way.
But here's a question: If Charlie Kaufman's such a great writer, why the heck did the artist draw him to look like Satan?
Posted by: Kit Stolz | May 15, 2006 at 09:34 AM
Mark,
Not only do I agree that the article was great, I have to agree with the content as well. Kaufman is one of those writers whose work is utterly confounding to me, in the way in which it makes sense when you experience it, but you have no clue how he did it.
I did wonder whether Lethem was trying to get a little dig in with his comment: "I can understand the impulse to consider screenwriters as writers, but at the same time, the whole nature of screenwriting is to relinquish control. Even from the perspective of the audience, movies are different. You don't experience the story in the direct and intimate way a reader does on the page."
Now, Lethem is probably a writer whom I admire as much as I admire Kaufman, but the whole point of article is the miracle that in the end, Charlie Kaufman movies feel like Charlie Kaufman movies. It doesn't matter what the words looked like on the script page, he's still the author of the movie.
Posted by: Ken | May 15, 2006 at 09:50 AM
Kit, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. The few tmes I've heard Ulin speak he was the same way: saying profound things in a plainspoken way while sounding cheerful and earnest. For a first-person piece, he has a remarkably light touch. Apparently, the image has been used a number of times in Kaufman pieces.
Ken, (this is Jim filling in for Mark) I love that Ulin left that in there because the rebuttal is the centerpiece of his argument.
Posted by: Jim Ruland | May 15, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Jim,
Nice to see you here. I really like your work.
And I agree, the quote worked well in the piece. I guess I was just a little disappointed in Lethem for sounding so provincial. Maybe the quote is out of context?
Posted by: Ken | May 15, 2006 at 11:28 AM