this is the thread to anticipate "Synecdoche, New York" - written and directed by Charlie Kaufman

Huh.

Kaufam first time as director here.
the synopsis reminds me of a PTA project.

hmmm. could be good, could be bad. altho I pretty much always enjoy anything with JJL in it

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/protectedimage.php?image=NatTunbridge/barton1.jpg

was originally supposed to be directed by spike jones

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Synecdoche%2C_New_York_poster.jpg

Apparently Tilda Swinton was originally slated to play the JJL role.

the synopsis reminds me of a PTA project.

sounds pretty much like kaufman to me!

jonze has done a kids movie or something. heck of a work rate, that guy.

This sounds like Indie Film Mad-Libs.

i like a lot of the people involved (tho rly dislike morton gah) but am not quite psyched.

"sounds pretty much like kaufman to me!"

things like family relationships and megalomanic characters are more PTA teriroty,isnt it?

What, how can you dislike Morton?

Things like blurring the line between the self and the representation of the self are fully Kaufman territory.

was samantha morton in some shitty movie that everybody but me saw?? every movie nerd i know went from loving her to calling her overrated in like a minute

xpost

true, but this movie seems to be even more complex than before (which was also complex for itself)

i still love her. overrated by, like, five people?

xpost

who the fuck is she?

morton's worst film is 'code 46'. she's become a shitty hipster talisman-type actress. is in harmony korine's new film, i think.

she was good in 'cracker'.

wo i have no idea what this is gonna be like! i guess it piques my interest. i hope kaufman's learned how to end a movie by now.

morton is pretty bad in the pretty bad elizabeth 2.

was this inspired by that joke movie in that episode of the Critic, Schenectady, New York starring Jerry Lewis? if so, it's time people started making movies out of those joke movie titles you see in the Simpsons.

c'mon slock, eternal sunshine had a perfect ending!

"...it's time people started making movies out of those joke movie titles you see in the Simpsons."

And 30 Rock!

I read this script about a year ago. There's some seriously great Dakota Fanning jokes. Not kidding!

hi suzy

Whoa, this movie's cast includes Michelle Williams, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton, Hope Davis, and Emily Watson! Sounds like every indie-movie boy's wet dream.

apparently the script is incredible. lots of people are calling it his best yet. huge grain of salt, etc, but my interest is definitely piqued.

script buzz from 18 months back: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/cl-et-scriptland13sep13,0,4222289.story

I think Kaufman could shit a better film about writing than Barton Fink

was samantha morton in some shitty movie that everybody but me saw??

http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/c/Cruise_Tom/sq-cruise-morton-minority-fox.jpg

1) minority report was dope
2) samantha morton is cute

3) max digs bald chicks

1) otm
2) not so much

Sounds awfully complicated for a first time director, as someone pointed out. Still, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Since all the indie fuxxor fawning that used to accompany this guy's every twitch has moved on to Diablo Cody, I'm really looking forward to this. And chap, Kaufman's pretty savvy/actor-friendly for a first-timer.

samantha morton + in america = you are never, ever allowed to hate her.

i'ma go see this.

I can't believe the studio let him keep that title.

I think Samantha Morton is really good in the Harmony Korine movie ("Mr. Lonely"). And I thought she was good in "Control" as well. And she's excellent in "Jesus' Son." Is "Movern Callar" the one that bums everyone out? (I thought she was good in that one too).

Since all the indie fuxxor fawning that used to accompany this guy's every twitch has moved on to Diablo Cody, I'm really looking forward to this.

huh? how does the one follow from the other?

i know at least one person who just hated morvern callar and hates samantha morton (I am not that person, I loved that film). I think this sounds great.

also, I don't think this sounds anything like Barton Fink (which I love)

caek your right one doesn't hang on the other. it'll just be nice to see a Kaufman pic w/o all the noise.

TIMES ONLINE - Great, 4/5 stars
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/cannes/article3993534.ece

VARIETY REVIEW - mixed
http://www.variety.com/VE1117937263.html

CINEMATICAL - mixed (Though calling it the "8 1/2 for a new generation and post-Woody Woody Allen" is a massive compliment in my book!)
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/23/cannes-review-synecdoche-new-york/

NEW YORK TIMES - Good
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/movies/23cann.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=f4e5409f56eb6a89&ex=1211601600

SCREEN DAILY - Good
http://www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=38803

GLOBE & MAIL - Bad
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080523.wsynecannes0523/BNStory/Front

NATIONAL POST - Great
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2008/05/23/171465.aspx

INDIE-WIRE - Good
http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2008/05/cannes_08_noteb.html

REPORTS, WITH PHOTOS & QUOTES:
http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSL2342165120080523

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvwwGrRWR8la_aDZE7zDwe5lqX5wD90RCVJG2

Schenectady, huh.

ILX weighs on said town:

Schenectady!

It's a pretty ambitious pun. I have to respect that.

Its sequel should be called Metonymy Falls, Wisconsin

And then comes Metalepsis, Minnesota: The Vengeance of Adele

^^ those unfamiliar with Greek names for figures of speech and upper-midwestern geography should just trust me that all this is hilarious

Para, Taxis

I guess that's a rhetorical tactic rather than a figure of speech, but close enough.

!!!!

Colin, that's pretty beautiful.

Hoberman did not like (good sign?), but...

It doesn’t matter how big a Kaufman devotee you are, how many times you’ve seen Being John Malkovich or Adaptation or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It doesn’t matter what you’ve read or heard about Synecdoche, New York, his directorial debut, because nothing could possibly prepare you for the overwhelming mindfuckery on display. It is easily Kaufman’s most ambitious project, which means that it is easily one of the most ambitious films I’ve ever seen. The role of the artist in society; coming to terms with death, God and fate; and the importance of escaping from the trap of solipsism in order to connect with others are among the most prominent themes, but they are far from the only ones. The sheer depth and complexity of the ideas Kaufman is out to explore here is mind-boggling.

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/05/cannes-2008-days-9-10.html

ha! OK, I'm interested.

most def looking forward to this.

i love the title of this soooo much i only hope it comes close to living up to it.

assorted raections:

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/006908.html

Reviews are generally brutal with a few passionate dissenters, which reminds me of Southland Tales.

I knew the pronunciation but didn't catch the "Schenectady" pun.

reviews i've read have been nowhere near as bad as southland tales

No the reviews are generally good:

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/synecdocheny

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/synecdoche_new_york/

As the city inside the warehouse grows, Caden's own life veers wildly off the tracks. The shadow of his ex-wife Adele (Catherine Keener), a celebrated painter who left him years ago for Germany's art scene, sneers at him from every corner. Somewhere in Berlin, his daughter Olive is growing up under the questionable guidance of Adele's friend, Maria (Jennifer Jason Leigh). He's helplessly driving his marriage to actress Claire (Michelle Williams) into the ground. Sammy Barnathan (Tom Noonan), the actor Caden has hired to play himself within the play, is a bit too perfect for the part, and is making it difficult for Caden to revive his relationship with the alluringly candid Hazel (Samantha Morton). Meanwhile, his therapist, Madeline Gravis (Hope Davis), is better at plugging her best-seller than she is at counseling him.

i. really didnt know tom noonan was still alive

ii. how many hot broads in this joint are supposed to be romantically tied to the kaufman character? sounds like a woody allen movie imo, but with more self-loathing - what a delight~

coming to terms with death, God and fate

--ooh epic themes, I expect to have them finally worked out for me! Looking forward to this a lot tho

fuck the reviews. still excited.

super jazzed to see this in 1.8 hours

Oh Jesus.

This was - is - ASTOUNDING. Like all his other films on acid + steroids. And much more so than any film since "Malkovich" - HILARIOUS, for long stretches. I was seriously so disoriented as soon as I stumbled out of the theater that my friend had to help navigate me to my car...

Initial reaction of initial viewing - as I'm still digesting - (and as this is a thing to be seen at least 3 times before fully swallowing): flawed but dense masterpiece of sorts, and far more powerful - and personal - than anything he's done before. Even if it's just of the narrative technique, that of uncovering, endlessly, Russian dolls of different shapes out of each other, as the viewer is transposed from one world of self-observation to the next, while still seamlessly returning to modified, meta-versions of the "original world" in context. I guess you could simplify it as "looping," but that implies circularity, while I'm more predisposed to note the "progression" of the loops, as a steady distance from the observed, hypothetical original world, increases via each turn. The genius remains in how the internal logic never breaks.

"Eternal Sunshine" seems like a high school paper compared to the PhD dissertation here, really...

But that is still about the technique, not the content; in that regard, I think the last third disassembles a bit, overreaches thematically and loses some potency in the intentional slacking of the pace. The increasingly abstract middle third is on fire, and the most funny and riveting. It's still more impressive as a Kaufman script, or at least to me at this point, since while I'm certain some of these reviewers (I think like Edelstein) are making more cogent cases for directorial amateurism or flatness, I'm just not sure what his directing is singularly bringing to it rather than more indulgence. For this is still coming across as a "Kaufman script" first and foremost - the narrative is more played with than the visuals as in Gondry's kinetic "Sunshine" - and if I get any impression, it's just that he took the camera to the page and filmed it as he intentionally wrote it; in other words, I can't discern a conscious directorial "style." Which of course only makes sense, as it shouldn't be forgotten that this is a debut, and even otherwise, I'm sure from here on a "Kaufman film" will still = a "Kaufman script" regardless of director, for it is his narrative voice that remains so distinctive. Here the directing is a moot point, as the script dwarves everything, and has such density to it that one could easily imagine it being an adaptation of a 300 page novel.

That last third has problems, with the notions of (imo, watered-down) pan-mysticism ("everyone is everyone" / all is one, etc) seeming undeveloped to the extent of formidably relating to all that's transpired before. The constant that works better is the focus on mortality, intertwined with the relentless distrust of love. All the performances are exceptional, but for some (Williams, Morton), they feel like career-highs. The slightly stylized, aggressively-ugly prod. design is fantastic, especially in the burning house and expanding warehouse.

I might get really knocked for this cliche if everyone here hates it (which would be surprising, as even "Southland Tales" was semi-justifiably defended), but if anything, this sort of struck me as being Kaufman's own "8 1/2," with a dour, self-loathing Hoffman standing in aptly for the neurotic Kaufman as the untouchable Mastroianni did for an irrepressible Fellini, with each auteur's dysfunctional relationship with women being a key parallel. (For the record, did Kaufman have a bad experience with a woman who left him to lezz up? Keener's character here echoes Diaz's in "Malkovich" in that vein enough to suggest as much...) Yet the other film that sprang to mind was Solondz' "Happiness," and if anything, that's a testament to Hoffman's tantamount skills: instead of just being a stand-in for Kaufman or a tool in his fractal universe, and makes the film his own to the degree that we are reminded of his own past work, his past greatness. Of course, "Synecdoche" is more like "Happiness" trined to the eleventh degree of insanity, but the endearing anti-social aspects of Hoffman's persona - what he does best? - remain the same

Speaking of anti-social behavior, I am also reminded of when I saw Kaufman speak at a Q&A screening for "Adaptation" at the time of its release: he was downright misanthropic in all his awkwardness: barely responding to the moderator in choppy sentences, agitatedly shaking his legs, trying his best to avert his gaze from the audience; all conveying a sense that he'd rather be dead than present. On Charlie Rose the other night he was mellow, affable, and looked like he'd lost a lot of weight (suffice it to say, maybe the guy just hates crowds). Perhaps he has come a long way since then, or perhaps directing has forced him to come out of his shell and interact competently with a mundane "real world" that's far, far removed from what's the hell's inside his head. Whatever the case, his seemingly newfound ease and confidence is only reflecting positively in his work, and I'm really hoping he'll continue outdoing himself. After this, I'm REALLY looking forward to the next outing; I kind of fear this can't be matched without a complete reinvention/redirection, but he'll probably manage that effortlessly

Oh, and I had major lols at the use of "Death of a Salesman." So I must lol @ that again: LOL!!

well Vich, i dont read posts like that til I've seen the film. :)

the late-breaking reviews have been better than the early ones, it's true.

going to see this today and hoping i dont want to kill myself after.

i liked this a lot. sure shoots for the moon. might be a bit in the admired-more-than-enjoyed category, but i enjoyed it plenty. the one thing that restrained my enthusiasm a little was wishing the protagonist was just a little less lumpen and self-loathing. kaufman's characters tend to be bigger losers than they really need to be for narrative purposes, it's like some kind of neurotic woody allen reflex. (one reason i think eternal sunshine works so well is that the jim carrey character isn't as immediately dislikable as kaufman's other leads.)

unseen yet. too busy writing reviews of bad films.

ha. well, i'm curious what you'll think. my day-after reaction is that i like both malkovich and eternal sunshine more. but it's still a heck of a thing.

one thing that restrained my enthusiasm a little was wishing the protagonist was just a little less lumpen and self-loathing. kaufman's characters tend to be bigger losers than they really need to be for narrative purposes, it's like some kind of neurotic woody allen reflex. (one reason i think eternal sunshine works so well is that the jim carrey character isn't as immediately dislikable as kaufman's other leads.)

This is OTM. I liked the movie a lot, but while I don't think it was as sloppy or over-reaching as some have said, it seemed like there were some very basic directorial decisions that Kaufman didn't seem to really engage; camera placement, sound design, etc. Still, I can't think of a working filmmaker who would've been right for the job, certainly not Jonze or Gondry.

i felt like the influence of working with jonze and gondry was pretty obvious -- i think they taught him how to make his ideas work visually -- but his own style is more low-key than either of theirs. and i think the low-keyness works well in this movie, because it's so conceptually loaded that any more frenetic approach could have just capsized it.

the house on fire was a good touch, and very jonze-y.

There were some beautiful moments in this film, but dear god it was turgid.

I think I'd need to see it a second time to register a real opinion, but hell if it isn't ambitious and, in places, astonishing.

This movie provoked a patented pan from Rex Reed, but it's disappointingly not up to the vintage of his most classic slatings -

http://www.observer.com/2008/o2/could-synecdoche-new-york-be-worst-movie-ever-yes

But nothing that has belched forth from his word processor so far—not the abominable Being John Malkovich, the asinine Adaptation (Meryl Streep even worse than in Mamma Mia!), the artery-clogging Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (Chuck Barris from “The Gong Show” a secret operative for the C.I.A.?), not even the jabberwocky of Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind—prepared me for a bottom feeder like Synecdoche, New York.

yeah it's like, watch it again grandpa

I'd forgotten how ridiculous Reed is. I wish I could find his lengthy explanation (printed in lieu of any movie reviews) of his "accidental" theft of, I think, Mel Torme cds from Tower Records.

reed's trashing of "i heart huckabees" was pretty funny too. (it included some gratuitous kaufman-bashing too.) his big complaint with all these movies usually boils down to, "i don't understand this, so it must be shit." (sarris is generally more sympathetic, as he is in this case.)

This was the last Charlie Kaufman film I will ever watch.

more room for the rest of us!

i dont get why the chuck barris bit is in bold up there^^^? am i missing something

bcz it's like, yes, Rex, that's the gag of the whole thing, you weren't supposed to take it as verified history.

Saw this last night, liked it a lot although it has its flaws. The overall emotional effect of the movie really resonates, especially the scenes when his daughter is dying and when the priest makes his speech at the funeral. I thought a lot of the reoccuring surreal and claustrophobic images were also pretty awesome.

But my friend who saw it with me made a good point that there is some lack of development/exploration to make you initially care for Caden and Adele, Caden and Claire, Caden and Hazel, etc. As in the movie just skips over stuff like the whole Adele divorce/exile to Berlin and his whole courtship of Claire (he's married her and had a kid with her within 2 minutes of movie time) to just focus on Caden's downwards spiral and obsession. I mean, its hard not to get sucked into the movie's tidal wave of despair, but it might have even more effect if we had some more context and time to know these characters.

Samantha Morton was really terrific though.

yeah she was. the women in the movie are like a roll-call of indie-nerd crushes: her, keener, michelle williams, emily watson, jj leigh...

morbius, did u like adaptation?

meh. we walked out before it was over, can't remember the last time I bailed on a movie.

the one thing that restrained my enthusiasm a little was wishing the protagonist was just a little less lumpen and self-loathing. kaufman's characters tend to be bigger losers than they really need to be for narrative purposes, it's like some kind of neurotic woody allen reflex.

yeah she was. the women in the movie are like a roll-call of indie-nerd crushes: her, keener, michelle williams, emily watson, jj leigh...

― tipsy mothra, Monday, November 10, 2008 3:34 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark

ayo who called this first? DIS NIGGA:

ii. how many hot broads in this joint are supposed to be romantically tied to the kaufman character? sounds like a woody allen movie imo, but with more self-loathing - what a delight~

― ಥ﹏ಥ (cankles), Friday, October 24, 2008 10:36 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark

imo c-kauf's contempt for himself is only surpassed by his contempt for the audience, i would only see this if i bought a ticket for High School Musical 3 and decided to sneak in

the one thing that restrained my enthusiasm a little was wishing the protagonist was just a little less lumpen and self-loathing. kaufman's characters tend to be bigger losers than they really need to be for narrative purposes, it's like some kind of neurotic woody allen reflex.

yeah she was. the women in the movie are like a roll-call of indie-nerd crushes: her, keener, michelle williams, emily watson, jj leigh...

― tipsy mothra, Monday, November 10, 2008 3:34 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark

ayo who called this first? DIS NIGGA:

ii. how many hot broads in this joint are supposed to be romantically tied to the kaufman character? sounds like a woody allen movie imo, but with more self-loathing - what a delight~

― ಥ﹏ಥ (cankles), Friday, October 24, 2008 10:36 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark

imo c-kauf's contempt for himself is only surpassed by his contempt for the audience, i would only see this if i bought a ticket for High School Musical 3 and decided to sneak in

i liked this film a lot, totally acknowledging but in spite of its flaws; it kind of reminded me of reading woolf, where in parts it isn't something that you're nodding your head at, but just appreciating the spirit, spectacle and stature of; that someone has crafted such a thing, that it's such an outpouring of feeling. it was almost selfish in detaching from the form of the first thirty, forty minutes (which i thought were totally, unarguably classic: very much in a modern american (squid/whale, all that kinda thing) mould but so perfectly written, so deadpan, beautiful sound design and timing), but continued to be worthwhile just for the snippets. i always think watching bad woody allen is always compensated by a few little allenisms, like the radio ventriloquist in radio days or whatever. and even while i could see this getting away from the audience and gathering such strange momentum, it was still beautiful - the dying flowers of the tattoo, etc, the priest's speech etc.

I mean, its hard not to get sucked into the movie's tidal wave of despair, but it might have even more effect if we had some more context and time to know these characters.

i kind of agree, in that it would have, but i think part of what made the film special was that it was playing with things in such an idiosyncratic way -- the way that it dared to represent time so recklessly showed that it was trying to relate through sensation rather than narrative. it's how memory actually feels. when we heard about the father having died, and the long battle with cancer, all having occurred at once, retroactively, it's the way it actually feels to be a human at a moment in time remembering that thing happening - a flood of the whole saga condensed into some choking synchronous moment. the chronologies of the film appealed to me a lot - maybe by the end they were confusions, and it was ambitious to have pursued so many threads and narratives along the way, but it was a nice idea. most of my 'he shoulda-'s about the film centre along the same lines; that maybe it could have been tidier in some ways, just in terms of the pacing, but i don't think that was a big concern.

I saw this last night and was pretty bewildered and unsure about my actual opinion of it, but having had some time to think about it, I loved the hell out of this.

One of my favorite aspects was how the things that Caden and by proxy the film glossed over or missed completely, like Ariel, were shown in a way that, instead of indicting him for missing them, pointed out how sad it was that he had missed them. Just a beautifully depressing film.

That said (and I suspect this is probably a desired effect), I now really want to watch a film that is an unabashed celebration of life, like a 110-minute version of a Gondry trailer or something.

here's my review in .jpg form:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1425925/2/istockphoto_1425925_flushing_money_down_the_toilet.jpg

this was so shitty that it made me mad

imo c-kauf's contempt for himself is only surpassed by his contempt for the audience, i would only see this if i bought a ticket for High School Musical 3 and decided to sneak in

― ಥ﹏ಥ (cankles), Sunday, November 16, 2008 8:16 PM

^^most accurate post in the thread.

This was the last Charlie Kaufman film I will ever watch.

― (*ﾟーﾟ)θ L(。･＿･)　　　°~ヾ(･ε･ *) (Steve Shasta), Monday, November 10, 2008 11:23 AM

^^this too haha

Need more time to organize my thoughts, but I was generally satisfied w/out being moved a whit. There was an element of Adaptation here in that I grew fatigued with the play/life conceit before CK did.

Samantha Morton was amazing in this, and I liked PSH more than usual.

Now I'm off to buy a house afire.

so many jokes to be made

I was generally satisfied w/out being moved a whit

i mostly agree, but i guess i was moved a whit -- a few of the big moments got over the hurdle for me. definitely agree about samantha morton; a few weeks on from seeing it, she's most of what i remember.

(my overall opinion of the movie has flattened out since i saw it. the dazzle of its razzle didn't really stay with me, and its overall glumness sort of grays it all out in my mind.)

I thought the first 45 mins was the most unapologetic body-disgust cinema I've seen made by someone other than Cronenberg.

(caveat: I''m no horror maven, so there's obv lots I've missed)

lol, I couldn't place Emily Watson playing Samantha M.

even though there was like a ten minute scene where she's not wearing makeup and she's mostly nude?

no, have I seen her nude before?

i still stand by my extraordinarily long and empty review. did anyone read it? lol

i liked it and champion its singular ambition, even its emotional hollowness. it's at least an honest reflection of its creator's self-loathing mindset, even if that doesn't justify the redundancies. i felt it less empty and more intriguing than "Adaptation," and personally, funnier. but i'm sure many other people will think this was a humorless drag, i guess

Too long and too gross at points, but some extraordinary moments and very funny. The long and the gross were very evocative of "serious literature" which is generally difficult to film (maybe he should have done Blindness) - which I both recoiled from and admired. I was the only person in the theater LOLing uncontrollably during the daughter's death scene.

too much poo

>> I was the only person in the theater LOLing uncontrollably during the daughter's death scene.

Hm, about a third of the (smaller) audience when I saw it at least snickered during this. But I was also LOLed at like, everything else

I was the only person in the theater LOLing uncontrollably during the daughter's death scene

I bet you were; I don't think that scene, or the whole J-J Leigh and Caden's daughter as German-accented lovers shtick came off. That kind of literary humor -- well, it just didn't work consistently in this film.

(which, nevertheless, might make my top-10 list for the year right now)

I think I initially snickered and then started laughing more because no one else was laughing.

I laughed at the line about the guy who had so wasted away by the time he died, they had to fill the coffin with cotton wool so it didn't rattle.

Yeah, that was great plus the tiny coffin (his dad).

remind me how the daughter died. i feel like i tuned out in the final third.

The daughter, Olive, was dying because her tattoo's were infected. Caden visits her deathbed and during their absurdly translated conversation it becomes clear that the daughter had been lied to about Caden's responsibility for their estrangement (or was she?). The daughter extracts an apology from Caden for things he did not do but she refuses to forgive him. The falling flower petal was the weakest moment in the film.

i loled at the line where samantha m tells PSH she had twins and then names three boys names instead of two and then i think two guys next to me started loling at the fact i was loling

but mostly this movie was bad

compared to what?

spending my afternoon not watching this movie.

this movie really weirded me out. and I watch a lot of weird movies. but at least with, like, Jodorowsky or some shit like that, I feel like I'm in on it and I can go "haha this movie is so weird!" instead of "urgh, this movie is so... weird." that playing-with-time aspect of it that somebody was talking about upthread definitely had an impact on me; it felt like a dream, and not just a dream in the general sense, but a specific dream that I might have had, since my dreams tend to have lots of shifting identities and multiple layers of reality and all that shit. and I actually wouldn't laugh in someone's face if they wanted to use phrases like "___ on acid" to describe this, because there was something about the pacing that really did remind me of a trip, although I'm finding it difficult to put into words exactly what that was. NB I have somehow managed to never see anything of Kaufman's before this, so these qualities might be pretty unremarkable to everyone but me.

all in all, I liked it. and I anticipate my gf and I getting lots of sexy lol mileage out of "I want to fuck you until we merge into a chimera".

this was good but kind of a mess - some interesting stuff brought up in the first third is inexplicably dropped (the random sicknesses, in particular) and by the end some emotional punch is lacking from the "DO YOU SEE?!" emphasis on clever narrative technique. But lots of very funny scenes, great acting, very pleased to see Diane Wiest again, and the central idea of confusing life and work and memories to make this endless-chinese-box way of getting inside PSH's head was generally really engaging. Huge debt to Woody Allen.

Woody? Like, Woody when he was imitating Fellini?

Huge debt to Woody Allen.

that didn't occur to me at all, but i can see that now. kinda like one of the little deconstructing harry premise vignettes with robin williams outta focus, etc

or the bits when he's walking through flashbacks/talking to characters in Annie Hall, etc.

but the debt is also partially in tone as mentioned above - the self-loathing guy who nonetheless bangs several attractive women over the course of the film, the "my wife left me for a lesbian lover" bit = Manhattan, little things like that.

I found it funnier and less unwieldy on second viewing.

(re: self-loathing dude who bangs several attractive women: the difference is that ir's meant to be believable in Allen's films, whereas here all the relationships with the non-Keener women could be invented, especially the one with Michelle Williams, with whom he conveniently has has an insta-daughter the same age as the one he lost.)

guy too fixated on mortality to enjoy life = lots of Woody Allen movies (Hannah and Her Sisters springs to mind)

I'm not saying its a straight rip or anything - obviously it isn't - just that there were a number of elements familiar to me from Allen's oeuvre.

but moreso from Charlie Kaufman's.

CK, casting director, and cast have won the Indie Spirits' Robert Altman Award.

I loved the first 40 minutes so much.. and I'm pretty sure there's a point during the 2nd third where it slows down significantly and stays that way for the rest of the movie.. At this point I have only vague ideas and concepts to take away from this one.. It can take me a while to digest such density.

That poster is scary.

I liked Stuart Klawans' one-liner: "a Sci Fi Channel version of Henry James' The Beast in the Jungle."

the more time separates me and this movie, the more i dislike it. i was unimpressed at first — the complexity of the film seemed unnecessary and counterproductive — but had at least enjoyed the first half or so. now that so many people have compared it to woody allen's work i realize that the self-indulgent self-loathing is the unbearable characteristic both these men have in common, and a large part of why i just didn't enjoy this film.

also, i didn't think i was some sort of jaded old adventurer or anything, but this film really didn't seem "OMG CRAAAAAAAAZY" to me the way all my coworkers and friends made it sound. the house on fire was kind of weird i guess...

Kaufman has some weird obsession with endless regressions. He's the Greorg Cantor of film directors.

I mean if he made a movie about a loser computer programmer who bangs hot chicks it would probably be all about nested loops or something.

I'd watch that.

seconded

watching this movie I couldn't help but feel that the joke's on us, the audience — I mean, there's no way that kaufman expects anyone to take this seriously, but a lot of people are falling into that trap.

what does 'take this seriously' mean? It's obv an attempt at a serious statement about mortality and thwarted ambition.

yes, morbs.

I should've been more specific in referring to po-faced types who are too busy digesting kaufman's artistic statement to appreciate the movie's inherent lulz, because I have a few friends like that.

The last 30 minutes or so of this movie were tedious and sometimes eyeroll-inspiring, but I really loved everything up to that point. Great performances by all but a few minor characters. If Saving Private Ryan can get by on two fifteen-minute scenes, this movie should at least get a lot of credit for the things it does right.

Also, my main quibble with Adaptation was that it felt like he simply gave up on telling his story and turned the movie into a farce as some sort of critique of Hollywood filmmaking or something, so I was pleased that he actually tried to give this film an ending that cohered with what had preceded it, even if it was messy and boring.

saw over the break. definitely see the woody allen comparisons, and also think this movie indulged kaufman's tendency for pushing self-reference into surreal extremes. the pace at the beginning did seem a bit too fast to give me time to care about anyone onscreen, but I actually found it easier as the film went on. the ending was maybe a bit on the maudlin side for me, but it "made sense". 7/10? I personally hope he makes a more up movie next time, but considering this was a first-time direction, and all the layers of plot and symbolism he was trying to juggle, I thought it was good.

I finally got to see this last night, living in the cinematic backwater that is Australia.

An incredibly sad film, but justifiably so. Kaufman is clearly one of the screenwriting greats. The multi-layered narrative and general atmosphere remind me of Murakami.

I wish I had been LOLing at Olive's death scene, but I found that particular storyline so moving that it has stayed with me more persistently than anything else. (Although I agree the petal falling was unnecessary.) The loss of his first daughter overshadowed everything else he did in his life. His initial fling with Hazel was marred by feelings of allegiance to his wife and child, and his subsequent marriage to Claire suffered due to his broken-heartedness. I'll have to make sure some of my friends see this, so that I can have someone to rave about it with.

Mostly I agree with Ebert's enthusiastic review. I'll have to watch this a few more times.

I finally got to see this last night, living in the cinematic backwater that is Australia.

It's still not out in the UK.

"I read this script about a year ago. There's some seriously great Dakota Fanning jokes. Not kidding!

― Clay, Monday, February 11, 2008 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink"

Obviously he was kidding.

I'll say this for a movie that was this all over the place, up until maybe the last twenty or so minutes I was not bored (point where Wiest takes over as Hoffman pretty much kills everything dead, although it may be the ponderous priest speech that is the final nail.) Still plenty of laughs and good acting and set pieces a plenty and no shortage of ideas (maybe a few less might have helped frankly.)

Ha, actually in the script I read back then there was a series of running gags about how dakota fanning has aged very well, what movies she's starring in, etc. I never got around to seeing the movie so those jokes may have been edited out by the time of shooting.

Not a single Dakota Fanning joke.

I hadn't read this thread though so I didn't know to be disappointed by their omission.

I couldn't stand this until Dianne Wiest's moment, so I'm in the minority. Hoffman's sad sack act grated on me.

I had the same reaction, the film started great, then just got kind if irritating for almost an hour, then improved immensely for me in the final half hour with Wiest.

watched this again last night - still pretty great but felt in some ways slighter than it had on first impression. the "synopsis" up top is so weird (seems to have a number of things out of order - also, his second daughter was retarded? his autonomic functions shut down? wha?)

saw this today, enjoyed mostly. I thought it was hilarious, like laughed more at it than I do at most things. the house which was permanently on fire, the death from smoke inhalation, the scenes with the characters playing each other.

I felt the efforts at profundity were a bit hammered home and it was full of red herrings, but a great movie all the same. more people should at least be as ambitious as this. thought it was like a comedy "inland empire", hugely lynchian imo. i liked the stupid inexplicable bits, like samantha morton's character meeting her husband cos he happened to be living in the basement of the burning house.

This was awful.

i like that hazel died of smoke inhalation while adele died of lung cancer.

good movie, but sheesh, pretty gut-wrenching, and i have an unusually high threshold for depressing films. lots of death and grief and sorrow and longing.

favorite line: "i played a cleaning lady in hedda gabler at the roundabout theater."

i loled at the line where samantha m tells PSH she had twins and then names three boys names instead of two and then i think two guys next to me started loling at the fact i was loling

reminds me of the line from woody's love and death: "i want three children... one of each."

re: the crushing depression; I found a second viewing helps - you've gotten the hard work out of the way ad you can better appreciate all the little lols.

but for realz, i'm ready for a moratorium on movies about misunderstood "genius" males who bang lots of women and alienate everyone. i would have loved to see a version of this where dianne wiest was the macarthur-winning PSH character and got to navel-gaze in the company of several doting young men.

I think the movie argues pretty well that he's not really "misunderstood" or even a genius, just a depressed fuckup who overthinks everything. Also, unlike most of the films of the "tortured genius" type you're annoyed with, his time spent w/ these young women can't be taken at face value given the way time (and Caden's headspace) operates.

did anyone catch that dianne wiest's love interest (who was in one scene) had the same name as caden's alleged "homosexual lover"?

saw this last week - that it was pretty great but started flailing in the last third, like it couldn't figure out how to find its way to the ending you knew was coming. and the declamatory soliloquies were really trite. but mostly, i loved how it played with time and meta stuff - when i came out of the cinema i genuinely had a few "is this real" moments w/r/t the buildings around me. i liked how it v subtly shifted from quotidian domesticity w/only the occasional oddity to full-on lynchian wtf is going on stuff.

but for realz, i'm ready for a moratorium on movies about misunderstood "genius" males who bang lots of women and alienate everyone

^^THIS IS SO CORRECT THO, absolutely. same goes for "depressed fuckup" males tbh.

Para, Taxis

― C0L1N B..., Saturday, 24 May 2008 18:39 (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

!!!

I plan on watching this again, but I think I had the same nagging problem with it that I have with all Kaufman movies.

I loved Adaptation, and havent really loved anything else, even though I've admired them all greatly. And I think it's not really due to any aesthetic deficiency, but rather I just dont jive with Kaufman's philosophy. I took Adaptation to be ABOUT solipsism, and about trying to overcome it, and attempting to engage with a world outside yourself.

But this movie felt like it was actually solipsistic, and so it didnt seem so much tragic as just distasteful. it makes me feel sorry for and angry toward the main character. 8 1/2 is a good comparison because i always felt like that movie ended with real revelation of the world outside his head, or at least a recognition that he can't control the world, that he's NOT constructing it, that it's passing him by in all its confusing complexity.

Synecdoche, on the other hand, feels exhausted--like the dead end of a certain philosophy of the subject, about a certain (impoverished, in my opinion) way of thinking about our interiority that leads inevitably to solipsism.

Guy I know went to see this with his wife the other week, said she refused to talk to him for two hours after leaving the cinema

*whoa*

i really quite liked the kitschiness of some of the later soliloquys (the priest scene (priest played by Derek?) was hilarious and chilling all at once), and was genuinely affected by a great deal of the dialogue...the film's descent into alienating over-dramatisation was beautiful chaos, both conceptually and emotionally

the bit where we see adele's picture of caden is like some oasis of utter emotional truth and sadness in amongst the acting, the self-reference

saw a part of this movie a few days a go and it was so fucking laborious, boring, and badly acted

my best friend, a dude with real passion for and knowledge of film, found it boring with neat ideas

i found it riveting with very neat ideas, although obviously CK was playing around a helluva lot...not all the shit stuck, but most did imo

the very final bit was maybe less good than it could have been...there were moments just beforehand where the film could have ended more satisfactorily, but then i'd need to see it again

A crazily odd film that I'm yet to formulate a definitive opinion of, having finished watching it three hours ago and writing as a big fan of Kaufman's previous work. The first hour or so I loved, crazy ideas rebounding off each other and often so straight up funny. Lots of big laughs in the cinema. I thought the unheralded timeshifts worked really well at first. The second half had me fluctuating between 'actually this is extraordinary' and 'I really hope this ends soon'. I'll have to watch it again (not soon though), before deciding if it's good, but I certainly can't deny it's affecting and hugely original.

The teenaged girls sitting behind us left the Odeon loudly declaring it the worst film they'd ever seen.

teenaged girls otm

The single most vile and oppressive film I've ever seen. I can't even describe how much I hate this film. I've written and erased five to ten elaborations on this, but you will not want to read about how murderously angry Synecdoche, New York makes me.

Its most divisive aspects help make it my favorite film of last year. I'd love to hear your reasons for hating it, though, I'm pretty familiar with most of the arguments already. (I'd love to know what your favorite film from last year was, salmon.)

Watching it actually did give me a glimmer of what torture and suffering are actually like. Not the content of the film, but the filmmaking itself. Hard to explain. In any case I just desperately wanted it to end and couldn't believe that a filmmaker would have the nerve to want to make me sit through that without giving me some sort of aesthetic experience to take away or at least something philosophical to chew on. The filmmaker plainly just wanted to torture me.

For me, a film can pretty much say anything as long as I enjoy just looking and listening. Some of the weirder Godard shit, for example, just sweeps me along and I blink and nod and look at the pictures, regardless of how "difficult" the filmmaking is supposed to be. This, though, is the UGLIEST film I've ever seen, on a technical/aesthetic whatever level, I don't know what word to use. On the other hand, a film about something horrific like genocide can make me put aside (or at least qualify) aesthetics in the name of giving me something to think about. But there's nothing to think about here other than self-indulgence. David Lynch, whose films I enjoy but am ultimately indifferent to, kind of walks a line between this nightmare/abjection philosophical shit and just cool visual poetry. Like I say, I'm not a fan, but maybe it works for him, I dunno.

But this... The piece-of-shit filmmaking. The cowardice of the little gags (which is all you get really.. people point out that they found the movie "funny," but these are sad little jokes that refer only to the movie itself. That's manipulative, sadistic filmmaking, it's a very high price of admission for a few shitty little jokes and PSH's fucking mug).

This actually WAS torture. I can only conclude that was the intent. That this film was an actual weapon. I was revolted by it.

I wonder if Kaufman has read the Tom McCarthy novel, "Remainder".

See, I think the reason the film works so well is that ultimately it's a rejection of the self-indulgence you're railing against.

Explain!

Spoilers!

Caden's self-obsession does nothing to ease his fears or bring him to any sort of higher meaning. It's one of the key reasons he loses his "real" family, and it destroys his "not real" one as well. It separates him, hopelessly, from the human experience he hopes to recreate. It's only when he hands the reigns over to Dianne Wiest that he allows himself any measure of the "brutal truth" he supposedly strives for - previously obscured by the massive pomposity of the "production." The world he built around himself is finally exposed as being vast but barren. If anything, the film's message is: relinquish control, because life is other people, not you.

This, though, is the UGLIEST film I've ever seen, on a technical/aesthetic whatever level

don't get this at all, really. I've seen films with way shittier production values than this one.

also Simon H otm re: the "self-indulgence"

sad little jokes that refer only to the movie itself.

I don't get this at all.

I think lots of the jokes are genuinely funny (the way that, say, George Saunders can turn something confusing, grim and horrific into something hilarious).

i also hated this movie, but my friend told me it was like kaufman collaborated with david lynch and david foster wallace, both of whom i love a LOT, so even though i knew he was just gushing, i had some pretty high expectations built up. but even if i hadn't heard my friend's ridiculous praise i still think i would've been really disappointed. i just found it incredibly unpleasant to watch and i didn't find the characters compelling enough to care about all the self-referential reality/fiction trickery.

i definitely got the point about the film being a rejection of self-indulgence, but that didn't prevent it from being a film that was nauseatingly obsessed with self-indulgence and the writer's complex with self-absorption. i felt like i so knew what to expect from PSH playing out Kaufman's complexes that I was just incredibly bored and frustrated when the film just went so so deeply into his suffocating neurotic narcissism and really didn't do much else. i mean, i guess in that sense it succeeded, it definitely made me disgusted with the main character, but its just not really something i want to experience for 2 hours (had to look up the running time, it felt way longer than 2 hours to me.) when david lynch does visual poetics there is something convincingly otherworldly/mysterious/creepy about it, you don't know exactly what its about, his films make me want to figure it out, and they seem so earnest in their oscillation between creepiness and beauty that there is a sort of visceral pleasure in getting lost in that world. but with this one i felt bored with the visual metaphor and weirdness that was going on because it seemed so predictably focused on the writer's own complexes. so i guess my problem with it was that it felt extremely solipsistic (despite being a rejection of solipsism) and it was intensely focused on a character i was bored and grossed out by.

admittedly some of it was pretty funny, though. i think someday i'll probably give it another chance.

it seems to me the moment he relinquishes "self-control" the movie fades into oblivion. kinda equating that lost of "self" with death! this is in stark contrast to 8 1/2, where at least the lost of self is seen as a plenitude, and not a deprivation. as i said above, i just cant get on board with that sentiment, though i respect it.

ryan, i didn't see your post above. you basically said what i meant to say way more concisely. completely agree with you re: kaufman's solipsism. i also loved adaptation and 8 1/2 and see those as being much better treatment of similar subject matter.

funny, Adaptation is probably my least favorite Kaufman (though I've not seen Human Nature) - the last act is cute but a little transparent.

Adaptation is terrible

This, though, is the UGLIEST film I've ever seen, on a technical/aesthetic whatever level

don't get this at all, really. I've seen films with way shittier production values than this one.

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:43 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Yes, shittier production values, but every shot in this movie, the colour, the sound, the camera work was repulsive to me.

This movie gave me an inner core meltdown & made the tectonic plates of my BRAIN shift around.

with depression!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard%27s_Syndrome

c/o my weekend reading the wonderful culture-specific syndromes category.

I maintain that it is as roughly as funny as it is depressing...tho maybe only to already-depressed people.

Coincidentally, or maybe not, this went on the "to watch" queue a couple days ago, and I have it right here.

xp I watched Mike Leigh's Naked a couple of nights ago, so "funny to already-depressed people" sounds like a huge relief from "soul-crushing to already-depressed people."

nothing could possibly prepare you for the overwhelming mindfuckery on display.

^This.

as far as mindfuckery goes, it was a bit tedious. It was interesting enough that I didn't fall asleep, but there was something about it that just didn't jibe/do it for me.

The word someone used upthread is "turgid," and I rather agree. Another reviewer said that it's more fun to think about than to watch, and I can definitely see that.

It's just not any fun.

Any movie that inspires no feeling in me so much as a desire to drink heavily and stare at the wall is not one that I can whole-heartedly recommend.

I'm glad people are finally waking up to the fact that this is the worst piece of shit ever made. My hostility towards Charlie Kaufman and everyone complicit in the making of this film has not abated, despite it being six months since I watched it.

This is still the 90 minutes or 2 hours of my life I'd most like to have back, beating out personal lows such as: getting my head smashed in by thugs, food poisoning, pissing blood, going to court for traffic offenses, throwing up on myself in a bar, erectile dysfunction. I look back on all these things and they seem like fun times compared to watching this fucking movie.

You may lack a little perspective there. But I didn't much love it, either. It's not that it's depressing, though it is certainly that. It's that it's dull.

Don't tell me I lack perspective. You don't know how much I hate this fucking film.

No, I think I do.

Please don't hit me.

I won't hit you unless your name is Charlie Kaufman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, or the other ones.

Don't hit Catherine Keener, either. We can use her later.

Besides, she seems like someone you don't want to piss off.

Another reviewer said that it's more fun to think about than to watch, and I can definitely see that.

Ok, a few hours later, I must revise this statement. It's not fun to watch, and it's not fun to think about. Watching it was fairly painful, and thinking about it bores me out of my mind.

Maybe I need to sleep on it? But I can't imagine dreaming about it or anything. For all its own bombast about being a big important puzzle/statement, it's mostly about that "artistic temperament" that makes for people you would never want to talk to. I think Kaufman has made a movie just personal enough that you don't want to engage with it. Its insides are ugly.

I thought I'd sleep on it too, and when I woke up I still felt as if I'd witnessed the most arrogant and malicious piece of filmmaking I'd ever seen.

Malicious is a bit OTM... I just called it "mean-spirited" a few seconds ago in a chat.

It's like it creates a portal into Charlie Kaufman's ass. Yeah, it's a dark, dark place. Everyone's lower colon is. Don't be too impressed.

See also: being waterboarded-by-film

Reading back through the thread I notice this:

my friend told me it was like kaufman collaborated with david lynch and david foster wallace

And to me really this collaboration would really sum up the end of anything that is good about art as it is made by humans (presumably computer generated fractals and midi files would become the new standard of entertainment if this atrocity were to ever have taken place).

This film to me is just the human (and its capacity to create art) at its most abject, demented, and pointless. It's really just the end of the whole show. To me Beckett tried to do something similar with Endgame but because he was a decent human being and a talented artist, his vision of the absolute end of the human allowed us to go out with some fucking dignity. And a few good laughs.

imo you guys are reading this flick all wrong, but you already know that.

I don't know how to defend my opinion except to say very simply that this movie made me feel BAD.

I know that sounds dumb... Look, Godfather II doesn't make me feel like clicking my heels, either, but it doesn't make me feel BAD, because it's well-made and about something that resonates. What is this movie about?

I think he's wrong when he says it's not about death, it's about everything. No, it's about death. It's about death in a whiny, neurasthenic, self-pitying way, no less.

The fact that the movie is also about itself doesn't make it extra clever.

It makes me feel BAD too. And angry. Really fucking angry.

I've never found a work of art so.... manipulative?

Do elaborate. I'm not angry at it. I get where it comes from. I just don't think I like it.

Kind of reminded of watching cats play with wounded birds. Why do they do it? Just end it already (the movie, the species, oxygen, solar radiation, the whole fucking thing).

re: "what's it about?" - it's about a guy who refuses to be happy, and the universe he creates for himself. like it or not these people do exist and they usually don't just "end it." I go on about this a bit upthread already. I can totally see how people can take issue w/ the movie but I think Kaufman deserves props for fully realizing his particular vision. Also, as previously stated, I found it quite funny in places, but that seems to be a minority position. I'm also really not convinced that Kaufman intends people to take the movie quite as seriously as Cotard takes himself.

I felt like most of the "jokes" were at the expense of audience members who might not get them. Same game the title is playing, and it's not fair.

oh, ffs. give me a break. people can look in a fucking dictionary.

also re: "fully realizing his particular vision" = is not a valid props.

I "fully realize my particular vision" of drinking water every time I successfully raise a glass of water to my mouth.

xp It's the spirit of it though. I have often though that Kaufman was being clever-clever instead of simply clever, and much of this movie was more "Fuck you if you don't get it" than "We are all one." Though at the end, he tries to have it both ways.

I felt like it wallowed too much, as well as presented a certain amount of self-loathing, if one reads the Phillip Hoffman character as a stand-in for the author/director, for said wallowing. The puzzle it presents, is somewhat similar to that of Primer - in that it's absurdly recursive ...

see I don't necessarily see those statements as contradictory xp

Primer was flawed but enjoyable. This movie is flawed and flat.

I'm also really not convinced that Kaufman intends people to take the movie quite as seriously as Cotard takes himself.

Yeah, that's one of the main things people who liked this movie say. But it's now pretty evident that if that's what he wanted then it backfired. There's a lot of people who don't find this funny one fucking bit. I guess that's where talent would have been useful.

Side note: I never, ever again want to see a character dig through his own poop. Please. No.

Well, I don't know if it was what I'd call flat ... it had peaks and interesting and amusing parts, but it was kinda like watching this dude stare at his reflection in a murky puddle and talk to himself semi-coherently. I didn't loathe it ... I was disappointed, because a friend of mine recommended it so highly.

Digging through my own poop is on the list of things I'd rather do than re-watch this movie.

I loathe it the more I think about it.

hate on Synecdoche all you want, I get it, but condemning CK as being talentless is just challopsy - eternal sunshine, famn it. there is more invention and wit - in service of actual characters / plot - at work in that film than in many screenwriters' entire careers. xxxo

*damn it

I dislike it less after having not watched it for several weeks.

Well, I don't know if it was what I'd call flat ... it had peaks and interesting and amusing parts, but it was kinda like watching this dude stare at his reflection in a murky puddle and talk to himself semi-coherently. I didn't loathe it ... I was disappointed, because a friend of mine recommended it so highly.

Not to mention that it happens to be a loathsome, squinting, gap-toothed reflection with a voice like a swarm of mosquitoes.

xxxp I LOVE Eternal Sunshine, for the record.

yeah, I think this movie would / does rub most Eternal Sunshine fans totally the wrong way.

Yeah I actually really liked Adaptation lest any one confuse me with someone who just randomly hates on directors.

Eternal Sunshine was wonderfully directed and filled with images that stick with you. One of my top films of the 00's, easily.

And Adaptation deserves some kind of special award for being the last watchable Nick Cage movie.

even compared to the one where he's a contract killer in Thailand?

Or that new one about Christian aliens vaporizing everybody except the children or something.

of course, kaufman didn't actually direct either of those films - spike jonze was supposed to do this one but of course he was taking forever on Where the Wild Things Are. xp

oh god, Knowing, now THAT is an epic talentless slice o' bs.

Not as bad as Synecdoche by a long shot.

Re-watching Knowing while sorting through my own poop is quite enticing compared to re-watching Synecdoche.

I don't dislike Kaufman's films -- I didn't hate this one -- but there's a certain combination of self-indulgent characters and quirkiness that just makes me suspicious, for lack of a better word. It's not nearly as off-putting as something like that Away We Go trailer made it look like that movie was, but I just feel like his movies are poking me in the shoulder saying, "Look, I'm clever! Look, I'm charming! Clever! charming! Pathos. Clever! Pathos! Charming!" I dunno ...

That's what I mean by "clever-clever instead of simply clever," precisely.

And the "charming" part is all in the marketing, I think. His films are never cutesy. Putting Jim Carey in one and still having it turn out pretty damn dark is a testament to his skill.

okay, I'm still kinda drunk ... but I think a more succinct way of saying what I was trying to say is, they are manipulative in a more sophisticated way than most films, as well as being manipulative about their sophistication and your own ...

that Malkovich movie was kinda cutesy.

self-reflexivity and so-called "cleverness" are a large part of the cinematic language he traffics in, and has always trafficked in. it's a style, like it or loathe it, as with any other artist.

that Malkovich movie was kinda cutesy.

I'd say that you're wrong just to support my point, but tbh I haven't seen it in several years. I should go back to it.

The thing is, I don't entirely loathe self-reflexivity and cleverness. Schizopolis has both of those qualities, and I love that movie. The Malkovich movie had plenty of plot to perhaps minimize those qualities. Synecdoche, NY bugged me but I didn't hate it.

Malkovich had fucking puppets for christsake! Puppets! That's up there with pirates!

IIRC, the main character gets punched for his puppetry. That's funny shit.

yeah, but he's such a sad sack in general, I felt sympathetic for him and his chosen profession, and then felt manipulated for caring about a guy that made fucking puppets!

... eventually I'll be sober and capable of continuing this discussion without so many exclamation points.

But his puppetry allowed him to control John Malkovich!

My only beef with that movie is the last act, when it becomes about old people lining up to get into Malkovich's head... it lost focus.

Simon, re: "self-reflexivity": Pretty much everybody on this thread is already familiar enough with self-reflexivity or whatever to say that they know when it's being done well or being done poorly. This is poor. I've seen the films of Lynch, Alain Resnais, all the French ones, and I enjoyed them even though they were hard to watch. I got something out of it. This one just filled me with hate.

xp kenan: I'd rather have had more old people than sad sack puppet dude.

xp I still don't know how it's worth your hate.

But I do see the Lynch connection. I thought of Inland Empire a few times while watching it. Another movie I love.

I'm sorry. In terms of three hour movies where I resent the three hours watching them, Inland Empire is right up there with Southland Tales, and the Lord of the Rings movies for me ... except I think I managed to sleep at least 20-30 minutes during each of the Lord of the Rings movies, and watched the last 45 minutes of Southland Tales the next day.

Inland Empire is fucking massive.

Say what you will about Lynch, but his movies never leave you cold. "Synecdoche" left me cold.

I can imagine being left cold by either Inland or Synecdoche.

I dunno, that mid-life crisis movie left me cold. They're visually interesting - even the ones that try my patience past the point of continuing to care/engage with the film. By the end, Synecdoche did the same for me.

My opinions are like my asshole: I've got one.

I'm so relieved to hear that.

The one thing I could say in favor of Inland Empire over Synecdoche, is that empathy/caring for the characters is a lot more integral to the latter film, such that if you don't empathize or care, it's a greater failure.

I like comparing these two takes on the film from Slant writers, who describe the film in very similar terms but have wuldly divergent reactions in terms of actually liking is (Schager put it as his #1 of '08):

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3938
http://www.nickschager.com/nsfp/2008/10/synecdoche-new-york-2008-a-.html

*wildly

*liking it. I need sleep.

I need to drink a large glass of water before sleeping, so I don't have a nasty hangover tomorrow. I am not going to dig through my own poop.

Prolly not be too solid, anyway. Hey, one less thing to worry about.

I would like to take that last post back.

shit, after hearing about how lasik eye surgery works from a friend who researched it, and another who watched his wife undergo it ... digging through poop seems less gross ... not that it isn't gross, but ...

I liked the film, and feel that the hataz need to be sent off to Funland.

sooo i think i liked this?

not really sure though

I liked it but i don't think i'll ever want to see it again.

I think I'll watch it again in about five years and decide if I like it then.

weird I was just thinking about this movie this morning. I think it can be summed up by the phrase "crippling narcissism"

i mean if nothing else i admired it

It kind of laughs at and is exasperated by its own crippling narcissism though. I couldn't decide quite to what extent it does that though, and whether that was enough to save the movie from, er, its crippling narcissism.

I think these are exactly the kind of questions Kaufman wants to be going through the viewer's head, so it's certainly a success in that sense.

xpost

oh I'm not knockin it, I think its a pretty interesting movie (seen it twice, it was more involving the first time)

this movie is bleak as fukk but funny and 'true to life' too. in conclusion i enjoyed it a lot with some reservations.

It kind of laughs at and is exasperated by its own crippling narcissism though. I couldn't decide quite to what extent it does that though, and whether that was enough to save the movie from, er, its crippling narcissism.

I think these are exactly the kind of questions Kaufman wants to be going through the viewer's head, so it's certainly a success in that sense.

xpost

― Ok Abacus (chap)

Yeah, but that's what CK does. Suffering from crippling narcissism, being aware of it, and laughing at it, while still being crippled by it = his entire sphere of concern (that and metafictional recursiveness). Recently watched Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation and Syncecdoche in short succession, and found them all crippled by their insistence that staring at a shlubby, emotionally crippled asshole staring at himself = insight, comedy and/or a movie. Adaptation's got enough other stuff going on to be interesting, but Synecdoche quickly collapses under the the weight of its own oh-so-intentional inertia. Hated it. Not to say it isn't worth watching...

im actually kind of interested at how MAD this movie makes people--i can totally understand not digging it but there seems to be something about it that really inspires vitriol in ppl

maybe they never got to fail at art!

maybe they never got to fail at art!

― Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:27 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark

Or maybe they, uh... Yeah.

Anyway, I admit that there is something less-than-totally-rational about my response (at least about its intensity). In part it's the anger of betrayed idolatry, cuz circa Being John Malkovitch I really did idolize him. And it's easy to say that maybe his stuff hits too close to home, but I don't think that's a factor. If it REALLY did that, I'd probably like it more. I think it's more that he's attempting something difficult, interesting and maybe even important, and he comes achingly close to pulling it off, but he also ends up so frustratingly short of success that it makes me regret my emotional/intellectual investment. And maybe the project is impossible in the first place. He's trying to take this fundamental aspect of the human condition (narcissistic obsession with one's own sense of brilliance, failure, disconnection and irretrievable loss) and to make it the focus of a quasi-heroic narrative, and also to question the production of such narratives as an artistic end at the same time. I can see why he's doing this, but I can't say he's succeeding. In diving so deep into what initially attracted me to his writing, he seems to be destroying it.

this movie pissed me off because it felt so drained of life, so gross and flaccid. it was like being imprisoned in a hot stuffy PSH fat suit.

not to say i'm actually enraged by it, it was just an unpleasant viewing experience.

agreed. I'm not sure I ever want to see it again. It was alright. The ending was rather nice. I think the middle is kind of a mess.

I thought it was full of the worst of life! Which admittedly is not something most people want to see.

loved this.

Writing a paper on this & Death of a Salesman right now.

Wow - it's hard to know what to make of this. It's kind of amazing to think that people actually went and saw this movie in American cineplexes, expecting something "clever" like Being John Malkovich or Adaptation.

what are you getting at?

I guess I just mean that I found it to be such a serious and difficult film in a way that you almost never see with an American film of this wide a release.

also, exceptionally long.

it is clever, though

I mean "clever"

it's not as clever as 'adaptation'. or as funny or entertaining.

I don't think I've ever wanted a film to be over so much by the end, and at the same time there was something brilliant about it. I think if the film just asked us to get off on the idea of the warehouses-within-warehouses-within-warehouses play-within-play-within-play and that was it, it would be a little thin - and that's in fact how I've felt about other Kaufman stuff even though on the flipside they tended to be funnier and lighter. But this one was incredibly heavy imo. After watching it I kind of felt like all that philosophical idea of "facing death" is nonsense - but maybe that's part of what the film is getting at - PSH character lives in this kind of semi-dead state, avoiding life by obsessing on his mortality?

I don't think I've ever wanted a film to be over so much by the end

exactly! i guess i am some shallow mf, but this is not a good sign to me. i do think there's more to 'adaptation' than 'woah, meta'. granted it's less about death, but i think synecdoche, ny is too specifically about the "life of the mind" (via barton fink) whereas 'adaptation' is... not.

(nothing wrong with a film about being an artist per se, and, on reflection, there were good things. but i suspect a film that needs to "put you through it" as this really did toward the end.)

I just came away from it asking, "So, was I supposed to feel contempt for this character and this movie? Was I supposed to resent it for being self-indulgent and dull? And why?" If that was the point of the movie, then it was successful.

you are supposed to identify and sympathize with the burden of the true artist in search of expressing the human condition

What I came away with, is that the main character in the film was contemptible because he never actually completes his gesamtkunstwerk, and that the filmmaker should be viewed as superior because he actually completed and presented his.

dudes
i liked this movie. i saw it once, and i thought it was long. but i think gesamtkunstwerk is a wonderful word; sarahel you are onto something there. how do you know when your work of art is done? i mean a practical way to look at that is when the money runs out or something but this character was funded so kept reworking and that is a slippery slope. many times the first try has a naturalness that gets lost in repetition. ah i am blathering now

i think we're supposed to have contempt for charlie kaufman, as well (intentionally, so). in fact, it's the dark undercurrent of humor running through the whole film--"how dare this director try to bore us with their personal anguish with life and death?"

kaufman finished his film, but at what expense? it's difficult, heavy, depressing and heady.

however, its success is in its futility. have any of you read beckett?!

another reminder to kenan not to fuck my mom. have a great day!

Ebert named it the best movie of the decade. I haven't even thought about what that might be for me, because I can't even decide on the best movie of three decades ago, but whatever the best movie of the decade is, it's probably not this.

Maybe I'll like it more the closer I get to death?

No, I'll probably just forget about it more.

I guess I just mean that I found it to be such a serious and difficult film in a way that you almost never see with an American film of this wide a release.

― Bay-L.A. Bar Talk (Hurting 2), Monday, December 21, 2009 2:31 AM

"serious" "difficult"

wtf sarahel?

Sex with you is like which of these movies?

Watching this after deliberately avoiding reading anything about it, I just kind of figured that PSH hit his head five minutes in and the rest was a brain-damaged hallucination.

Ebert named this the best film of the decade.

Yeah Ebert goes on about how it the way we all live life, in the original review and his little piece about it being the best of the decade. I certainly hope that he's wrong about that. If that's true, we're in deeper shit than I even suspect.

i guess i have trouble getting past the fact that the main character doesn't actually produce/present/complete his magnum opus, that he doesn't actually accomplish anything, and I don't think that's universally true about "how we all live life."

I kind of maybe a little bit have trouble with the fact that he only lives his "life" in relation to himself. Deliberately. I know we all construct our own defenses and pick our own battles, but what this dude needed most was a couple scenes from Apocalypse Now or something. I think that maybe the script knows that, and that the character is supposed to be pitiable at best, and kind of a sack of poop at worst. It's unsettling that Ebert didn't pick up on that aspect of it all.

Anyway, it's a drag of a movie.

Self-awareness is no more a justification for being a self-involved boring asshole than ignorance of the law is a justification for not following it.

Well, Ebert is a celebrity - i imagine it's a lot easier and more acceptable to live one's "life" only in relation to oneself when one is a celebrity.

I think if I had faced death a couple times in the past few years & had most of my jaw surgically removed & had to eat through a tube, I could maybe relate to a vision of life as lived by a guy named after this.

Again: I certainly hope that he's wrong about that.

I found the movie sort of liberating and cathartic.

I really wanted to.

I kept wondering whether the viewer was supposed to feel superior to the main character, because presumably the viewer is less self-centered and actually does things with his/her life.

That interesting, because I didn't know, either. And it felt like a trap. And in the end, even though I really do love Kaufman and adore "Eternal Sunshine" and even admire "Adaptation," I felt like the only way out of the trap was to say, "Fuck this movie."

if the goal of the movie was for the viewer to say "fuck this movie" then I admire Kaufman and the film, otherwise, my ambivalence stands.

He did a lot of things with his life, he just never completed the overambitious last thing he aimed to do, tho he participated in it to the fullest possible extent. I don't get yr argument, sarahel.

I guess he didn't finish fucking Hazel but that's a two-way street.

The concentric circles of being aware of your own cleverness and then questioning it and then questioning the questioning of it is really a lot of circling the drain, innit? Yes, yes I know -- we all are. But you're not invited to my next party, dude. In fact, get out right now. No, you can't have any more dip.

he devoted an absurd amount of time to something that was meant to be presented to an audience, but never finished it, and it was never presented. He lost sight of the work as a piece of art to be presented to an audience - and in a sense, the work was weaker because of it. So, as I read it, he failed on two accounts.

When I really start questioning the validity of my life and facing death as if it's a real thing, I have my copy of Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse handy. I'm saving it. I hear it's a lot better when you're 50 than when you're 25.

it's interesting how mid-life crises are things associated with one's 40s and 50s, when for a lot of people their mid-late 30s are actually the middle of their life.

Happy new year to you, too.

heh - I figure since we're the same age (+/- 15 days) and both smoke that our life expectancies are similar.

No, yours is still longer. Statistically. Don't run around in a lightning storm in an open field or step in front of a bus, and yeah, you'll live longer than me.

uh, i probably smoke more than you though -

the fact that this thread is being derailed into a potentially self-indulgent contemplation of our mortality is conceptually appropriate - otherwise, I wouldn't be doing it.

Also, try not to walk around with an earpiece with Dianne Wiest telling you what to do.

no danger of that - though maybe if you had one, you can assign her to remind you not to fuck my mom.

Goddamnit I keep forgetting that!

Forgive me?

You're forgiven - but you might want to write an overambitious epic play about it.

Then again, I might very well fucking not.

Couldn't sleep last night and I'm blaming the dreams I was having about this film.

I finally saw this. definitely not perfect but a ton of lol moments.

Watched this again last night. It actually reminds me a lot of Last Year at Marienbad.

Also, whenever I see it, it makes me want to do a shot-by-shot and chart everything in the film -- every time I watch it I notice another reference. This time I couldn't stop noticing the musical leif-motifs and wondering whether, if diagrammed, the repeated motifs would illuminate more of the film.

i still think about this movie a lot. still dislike the solipsism, but in its way its a devastating depiction of that state, or the way in which our attempts at connection and intimacy simply "re-enter" into the stage of our consciousness rather than transcend it.

I feel like Stanley Cavell could write a great little book on this movie: "With respect to the external world, an initial sanity requires recognizing that I cannot live my skepticism, whereas with respect to others a final sanity requires recognizing that I can. I do."

Wow. This was completely amazing, and hilarious. Yes it was solipsistic but it was also a dream, and it shouldn't be taken as a completely po-faced story of a director disappearing up his own arse. The fact of its being a dream is also the source of, and key to, all of the humour in the film. All the laugh-out-loud moments - the burning house, the nested warehouses, the traumatic novel written by the four year old (who kills himself one year later), the psychiatrist appearing as if by magic from her own book as he's reading it on the plane, claire revealing her giant back tattoo, his daughters diary describing (in an increasingly german accent) events long after she would have stopped writing it - these are all pure nonsense, only in a dream would such twists of time and space and logic be convincing. Arguably we're never more self obsessed than when we're dreaming (because dreams are entirely conjured from our own minds), but dreams are also reflections of reality, albeit often monstrously distorted. I think he's teasing out grains of truth from this dream-state, but also using it to insert a necessary mocking distance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-n1vGeVIXo

friend told me to watch synechdoche, just because. and i kept putting it off. watched a minute of it

seymor hoffman waking out of a bed, to the soundtrack of a small child singing, and scratching himself

music by jon brion

turned that off. don't need to be depressed this saturday evening.

saturday evening is the best time to be depressed imo

but not this early (on the West Coast, 7:20PM). By 11PM I'll be into this, or reading a Benjamin Disraeli biography. At 720 you tell yourself you can't give up -- you can still go out etc.

watch it

This movie deserves another viewing from me.

i rate it highly, worth seeing many times imo

Feeling up for feeling down. Will give it a shot now that the night has gotten away from me and you guys continue to rally behind it.

wow can't believe i've never searched for a thread on synecdoche here. this is my absolute favorite movie. the most affecting and powerful moviegoing experience i've EVER had....it knocked the wind out of me. PLEASE WATCH IT IF YOU HAVEN'T, and with someone you love

Try to get behind the mordant humor. "Caden, does that feel terrible?" "Yep." "OK, good."

"Die."

watched this recently roughly 10 years to do the day since I first saw it. first time in full in 5 years. what struck me was how brisk the movie is. the cutting is ceaseless, brutal. it felt more like a snapshot than an overwhelming epic. remembering the titanic effect it had on me in 2008 and how detached and distanced I felt from it now was unexpected and kind of upsetting, but it hasn't gotten old or been exhausted for me. I'm still not over it.

have you written about it on ilx? this movie left me cold on first viewing but it was on a laptop so. will try again!

here and there for sure, but never at length I don't think. it's my favorite movie, nothing else comes close at all. has been since the night I saw it for the first time. it was on the weekend, and I was so bowled over by it I went by myself again at one of the last showings on a school night that Wednesday or Thursday. I couldn't believe it, it just nailed me to the wall. I think the circumstances at the time - beyond seeing it in a theater and knowing nothing going in - compounded my emotional response significantly. But long after all that, the film still yields so much for me, it is the work of art that we watch Caden struggle and fail to create. And even though my viewing a few weeks ago felt a little tepid or removed, the movie's in the front of my head again. I saw a movie with Dianne Wiest in it today and I was on the verge of tears every time she was on screen. I kept thinking about her reverie toward the end of SNY, "Where is my little girl?...Where is my little girl?..." The only time we see "Eric," Ellen Bascomb's husband and (according to Olive) Caden's lover. It's beguiling but there are no loose ends or unfinished thoughts. But if you watch it again, you should be in a position to be absorbed and overwhelmed, otherwise I imagine the pitch and the speed can be ridiculous. I mean, for how powerful the movie is, it's also really fucking funny. Consistently.

I own a copy but I'm afraid to rewatch

I remember being kind of confused; I saw it with a friend who was seeing it for the second time because he had liked it but was also kind of confused.

It’s p good, but I liked it less on 2nd viewing. It’s very... hermetic? If I was inclined to be less kind to it I would say it’s v solipsistic. Some good jokes/recurring gags

Showed up on Netflix on Friday. First time on any of the major streaming platforms AFAIK.

is this a good or a bad movie to watch if you haven't slept in 3 days

go another day without sleep then give it a bash

GO FOR IT

I loved this. So fucking good.

is this still on Netflix? I want to recommend it to my therapist

Kaufman's rather tasteful Craftsman is up for sale.

Surprised Kaufman is 60, but I guess he’s been around a while (and so have I)

Is the ending as brutal as I think it is? He finds another woman to take comfort in, he doesn't give much of a shit who she is, he's figured out how he's going to do it now ...

The whole film is brutal - but he's had the experience of stepping out of himself to understand (become?) Ellen earlier, and that encounter at the very end with the actress who played Ellen's mother closes the circle of loss and disappointment for just a moment.