Pretty damn funny. I laughed aloud several times the first time through, and upon a second reading just now it still delivers. The fact that I'm familiar with Kaufman probably helps a ton, but still. Anyway, you've got a number of running jokes, all of which are consistently implemented and build quite nicely. Furthermore, all of them both relate to the subject and yet (I imagine) would still be funny to someone unfamiliar with it, that subject of course being Charlie Kaufman. My favorite aspect of the aforementioned running jokes would be when they get all self-referential in the Sunshine section, because, being an article about Kaufman, you're expecting a sort of self-reference, but you--like he--do it in a very subtle-while-still-blatantly-being-self-referential-type of way. In short, this is funny, and you don't need to improve anything.
Between you and I, the whole "filmmaker article" schtick has been done more times than I care to count, and yet this--like a Kaufman screenplay--feels both familiar and fresh at the same time. It's basically a recounting of Kaufman and his style, but it's also sort of done in his style, in that each section in the "Screenwriting" section gets more and more ridiculous/intense/whatever before eventually diving into self-reference and an apex of the aforementioned ridiculousness/intensity/etc. in the last two sections. In short, it sort of plays out like a Kaufman film, which is pretty damn cool. Into this you sprinkle sort of one-off sections (the first and last ones), and, bam, you've got an article, and it's pretty good.
Prose and formatting:
No spelling mistakes/grammar errors that I can find, so that needs no attention. The semi-colloquial expository tone you take in many of your articles really, really works here, given the subject. That's all I have to say, actually.
The two of Kaufman himself are pretty much obligatory/necessary/expected, and are therefore uninteresting to talk about. The "Tip" thing you do on the right side is brilliant, however, and deserves praise. The only complaint I can possibly make has to do with the varying quality of the images themselves--which range from poor (Being John...) to pristine (the last two)--as well as the letterbox format lines on the ones for Being John... and Confessions.... This is really just a nitpick, however, because the effect/point of the images is what matters.
Well below your average here. A large part of the general enthusiasm I have for this article has to do with the fact that I'm very familiar with Kaufman's stuff--people that aren't probably won't find this as funny as I do. This accounts for those people, basically.
Other general cool things that I failed to mention above include the header for the "Being Charlie Kaufman" section, the general observations made in that section, and the fact that you changed the format of the filmmakers' template so it doesn't wind up being so cumbersome. Of course, half of my own filmmaker articles are formatted specifically to accommodate it in its prior form, but whatever.
Also, this article requires pretty much zero revision, so nominate it for VFH if you like.