Synecdoche, New York

[Drew Ott]

Has anybody else seen this yet?

I just saw it at the Austin Film Festival with Kaufman in attendance. He was actually really similar to "himself" in Adaptation.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I want to see this so hard. I can't wait to see how Kaufman does as a director. And also, I love Philip Seymour Hoffman.

[TheMacB]

me too. i also love hope davis, jennifer jason leigh, samantha morton, and katherine keener. And frederick elmes. and jon brion.

[Drew Ott]

The more I think about this film the more I like it.

I still don't fully understand a lot of what went on, but it was just so full of emotion that it's not escaping my thoughts.

[Kubrick71]

Im not sure if this film will open in AZ this weekend but Im damn sure hoping it does! Been waiting what seems like forever to see this flick.

[BryantStanton]

Undecided on this so far.

I've really enjoyed Kaufman's track record, but for some reason this movie keeps coming off as interesting, but kind of pretentious looking.

The last week or so, I've begun to gain more interest in it, and will probably end up checking it out once it's a bit closer to my neighborhood.

[Drew Ott]

I definitely wouldn't call the film pretentious... then again, I hate the word pretentious.

[BryantStanton]

Well, by pretentious I just mean that it seems from the trailers like it was trying REALLY hard to be this quirky, odd, introspective story.

I don't really know how to explain it, it almost seemed like Kaufman trying to be twice as Kaufman-y as usual...

I have a feeling this post made no sense...

[Drew Ott]

It makes sense. I just dislike the word for a number of reasons. It seems like films are only considered "mainstream" or "pretentious".

Kaufman shouldn't have to try not to be so Kaufman-y. The film is a quirky, odd, introspective story.

[Will Clegg]

Saw this last weekend. I really, really liked it but I wonder what it could have been if Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry had directed it. Kaufman didn't do a bad job, but the shot selection and pacing were just a bit boring. The script was so imaginative - I wanted the direction to match it.

That said, it was a wonderful, emotional, mind-bending and challenging trip, just as we have come to expect from Kaufman. I won't say he's the best writer of our time (that's too subjective), but I will say that he is the most creative and original.

[spidey]

i want to see this.

[MikeQuill]

Saw this last night. I thought it was fantastic. An extremely powerful/emotional film about the passing of time and the fear of dying, among other things. Hoffman's performance is quite outstanding as usual. I haven't seen such an uncompromising, visionary film in a long time.

Mike

[alveraz]

Arriaga and Kaufman are the strongest contemporary screenwriters around, and though I think Kaufman was overdue for a directorial debut I think he missed the mark by a wide margin here. I've always had a feeling that if Kaufman was given the director's chair we'd fall too deep down his rabbit hole to find a way out, unfortunately, I was right. There's a reason he's a screenwriter that works with smart directors. It's because all the directors he works with understand balance and how to reign in Kaufman's complex albeit brilliant work.

If you give Kaufman full creative control, you get something like this, self-indulgent, overboard complexities that stumble over each other while having symbolic subtext that only the writer (now Director) understands. I felt Kaufman was giving the audience the middle finger for two plus hours. I felt most of the dialog could have been re-written for the average college-educated audience member. Instead it was left in the pretentious hands of the villainous Kaufman as he chuckled in the dark recess of his set, knowing that this time, "it's all mine, all mine!!!"

Balance, balance, balance, something that could have been achieved at several points in this film to even it out as they did in his previous scripts. Instead the producers trusted him to run wild with his own work and it hurt the overall design. I think this is the perfect example of why film is coined the greatest collaborative artistic endeavor in the world. It's not all about you Kaufman, there is also an audience that needs to digest your opus of heavy-handed meandering and posturing symbolism. Next time, brainstorm and take some producer advice instead of demanding so much from your own work at the demise of the film.

Yes, there are moments of absolute brilliance in this film that 99.9% of screenwriters will never achieve in their lifetime, however stuffing it down our throats with uncompromising bridges of unintelligible sub-plots that only you understand killed the film. He will always be my hero, but he needs to sit the next one out until producers realize he needs a choke-chain when directing. Even the intentional symbolic misspelling of the title to enrich us to Kaufman's deep subtext speaks volumes about the direction of this car-wreck.

Two notes on the performances; Hoffman was exceptional as expected but when handed a character that has zero direction in life and meanders around his own world completely complacent without objectives you end up with a wasted performance. I think Hoffman became so directionless it became relevant when every five minutes he hangs his head down during monologues, so much so you can't even see his friggin' face! Way to keep me engaged, Kaufman. The only saving grace from a character perspective was Catherine Keener, hot damn, she was absolutely breathtaking in this film and deserves the bald-man for this one in a big way. Unfortunately in Kaufman's lack of control he arbitrarily dumps her from the film one quarter of the way through to find another character Hoffman can latch onto for no reason whatsoever outside of filling Kaufman's quota of "peculiar" female characters.

One final note of brilliance never realized. The concept of a "play within a play, within a play" was incredibly smart and concise. If someone would have helped Kaufman realize that this was the foundation from which to build, it could have been a more focused film. That was a stroke of genius that he barely visits in this film, instead we get Hoffman's character babbling about nothing for two and half hours at the self indulgence of Kaufman, forgetting the premise altogether. I want this film remade by a smart director that understands how to channel Kaufman's material in a more palatable and cohesive manner. I guarantee even us dumb people would have enjoyed it.

[Will Clegg]

...self-indulgent, overboard complexities that stumble over each other while having symbolic subtext that only the writer (now Director) understands. I felt Kaufman was giving the audience the middle finger for two plus hours. I felt most of the dialog could have been re-written for the average college-educated audience member. Instead it was left in the pretentious hands of the villainous Kaufman as he chuckled in the dark recess of his set, knowing that this time, "it's all mine, all mine!!!"


Obviously you are exaggerating for effect here. But I think these charges are a little harsh. What makes you think that he was directing with such spite for the audience rather than the explanation that he simply didn't know how to balance the film because he has never directed a film before?

I am not really disagreeing with you on the point that the film desperately needs balance - it does - just wondering why you assume that he has such disdain for the audience. Also, I'm not sure about your assertion that there is subtext that only the director understands. Can you explain?

Not trying to start a flame war here. I just think that a film this rich deserves some thoughtful discussion (with actual examples from the film) rather than an attack on the integrity of the writer/director. You raise many interesting points.

[alveraz]

I think you took the quote a little too seriously, Will. I'm not attacking him, he's my favorite screenwriter after all and I wish I had a pinky of his talent. I was merely pointing out what I believed to be a funny way of describing his thought process while pounding us with his cerebral scenes only he understands.

[Drew Ott]

I do see what you're saying Alveraz... I sort of had those thoughts as well, but ~3 days after seeing the film, I couldn't get that emotion out of me. It was such a strong experience that it's still holding on, even if I don't understand all of it.

I disagree with "self-indulgent." I don't think there's any way to prove that.

[EduardoMiguel]

I just got back from watching this. I pretty much echo most of what Alveraz stated above, so I won't rehash his post. I did read somewhere (maybe Wire magazine) where Spike Jonze stated that he wouldn't have made the film that Kaufman made, but that he respected his film. I think Jonze was being kind and professional; if one reads between the lines it's pretty clear Jonze wasn't thrilled with it either.

[spidey]

well jonze is in his own trouble bubble so he better finish his movie.

[sean90291]

I agree with Alvarez. Very over indulgent. I looked at my watch too many times through the film. Serious moments of brilliance (has there ever been any doubt that Kauffman could be brilliant?), but he needed an editor big time. The story is almost impenetrable and you never get a relief from the abstract surrealism. I did think about the movie for several days afterwards. So it has layers that are really intriguing. No doubt the performances are good. But it's a film a lot of people will "pretend to like," I think. It just isn't a journey that kept me engrossed for the duration.

[alveraz]

But it's a film a lot of people will "pretend to like," I think

This is exactly what's going on with this film.

I have a friend that used words like cerebral, ephemeral and transcending after watching this, yet when I asked him why that house was on fire in the film he shrugged his shoulders and started back in with his pithy platitudes. Some people think complex concepts equals a "smart" film.

On a side note this same friend owns about 20 unopened Criterion DVDs.

I mean, c'mon.

[MikeQuill]

Alveraz: So what's your main gripe: The film itself or how people are perceiving it?

[alveraz]

I thought my thesis explained my gripe just fine. It was a little long-winded, but I made my point. Was there something you didn't understand regarding my critique? I'm not attacking anyone, just contributing to the thread with my thoughts on the film.

[bill totolo]

Roger Ebert:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/o_synecdoche_my_synecdoche.html

[TheMacB]

(covering ears) LALALALALALALA... I wonder if this will ever come to Vermont?

[sean90291]

Yeah, Roger Ebert sums it up nicely. It's a film to be discussed by film scholars for years to come. It's all symbolism and veiled meaning. I actually feel I got what it was really about, and think in some ways it delivers on this theme beautifully. I guess it depends on how much a film should require years of study, and how much a film should be a 2 hour film-going experience. Opera, similarly, requires a lot of "study" to fully appreciate. So does Shakespeare. No one is going to say Shakespeare sucks because it takes that much work to appreciate (though I have my own feelings on that too). So, if you want to take Synecdoche as a puzzle that requires multiple viewings and will be written about by a lot of film scholars, then it gets a 10/10. If you want a film that an intelligent audience, even an "art house" audience, can become fully absorbed with for 2+ hours, I don't think I could give Synecdoche more than 6.5/10.

[arrestthisman]

I can't believe what I'm hearing here. I think this was the most incredible film since 2001. Kubrick is my favorite director with Paul Thomas Anderson a distant second. I have a huge bias towards them and admit that sometimes I try to find fault with other directors to substantiate why I love them so much. It's a bad habbit, but that's where I'm coming from.

When I saw Eternal Sunshine, I had already read the script, and cried while reading it. I had almost impossible expectations. Sure enough I saw it in theaters, and liked it a lot, but it fell short of what I thought it was going to be. I WANTED to love it so much, but I had to admit that I didn't. It's grown on me since.

BUT,

I went into Synecdoche with the same expectation as eternal sunshine, so I was setting myself up for disappointment; not only did it not disappoint me, it exceeded my expectations ten fold.

It's not just that I think it's an important film, or there's something to be learned from it. I genuinely loved this movie with all my heart. I'm not ashamed to say I cried like a baby through the second half.

If you don't like the film, I understand. It's a very niche flavor, so to speak. It doesn't mean you're unintelligent if you didn't "get" it, or just didn't like it. But I do think it's unnecessary to bash the film, and it's maker.

I suspect the problem here with most of the critics on this thread is the same with Mullholand Drive. To me, the magic of film, and sometimes literature (I like Pynchon a lot, so...) is that it doesn't always need logic to entertain or to teach. (Do I get points for not saying, enlighten?) Some people don't like films without a clearly defined or succinct narrative. That's find if it's your taste; but it doesn't mean a film that meanders around or obfuscates its own meaning is self-indulgent.

There are those of us who really enjoy films like this. Specifically this. I love this movie, and I'm not pretending to love it. I'm probably going to see this movie over a dozen times in the same month I can get it on DVD. The only other film I've seen more than 15 times is What about Bob? lol. I love that movie. I know there are pretentious film buffs out there, and I know plenty. But trust me, there are also plenty of us who love movies like this with all our hearts.

I saw Synecdoche with my dad. He's a film buff, but very matter of fact. He almost never sees a movie twice, and is a pretty harsh critic. He also, being a New Yorker, can't stand people who over-analyze a film, (think the scene in Annie Hall with the Columbia professor in the movie line. My dad would be Woody Allen), and he LOVED this movie. In fact, I think this is the first movie we both loved equally. He is not a Ph.D, and doesn't consider himself an intellectual.

So yes, this is anecdotal, but the point I can't stress enough is that just because a movie is difficult to understand doesn't make it self-indulgent. I haven't heard anyone critisize physics because the universe isn't easy to understand. Does that make God, or gravity, pretentious or self-indulgent?

Be my guest and nit-pick the film. But please at least consider the fact that it may be a brilliant film that just isn't your thing.

[Skribbleman]

There was a lot to the film. I found myself asking "where is this film going?" a couple of times. In the end though, it gave me a lot to mull over and discuss with friends. Could you imagine how confusing that set must have been? A director directing someone directing someone directing someone...

[Kubrick71]

It's not just that I think it's an important film, or there's something to be learned from it. I genuinely loved this movie with all my heart. I'm not ashamed to say I cried like a baby through the second half.




2001 is one of my all time favorites and after I watch it is my number 1 which is then replaced as i watch another of my all time favorites, I also love Mullholland Dr. so I think for the most part we can be on the same page.

But in your post you didn't explain at all what you liked about the film, besides not having a "clearly defined or succinct narrative" and you didn't tell what it was that you got from the movie, just that its so great and you will see it a dozen times. I'd like to hear more about what made it so fantastic for you that you'd compare it to 2001 in greatness.


I wasn't bored during the film, I didn't check my watch, and I wouldn't say I was confused. Leaving the theater I had a definite sense that I would need to see the film again but I asked myself the question, do I want to?

And the answer is, I'd like to have seen it twice or three times to understand it better, but I don't think I want to go through watching it again, the actual experience that is, at least for sometime. There's a 99% chance I'll see it again but at this moment I have no desire to.



Now the movie was pretty heavy, I stood and talked about it for about an hour afterwords and certainly will continue thinking about it for days to come and not every movie will do that to you, so I applaud that.

Another thing I didn't really get was why the last 20 minutes told, literally spoke, meaning into the film? I would have been very impressed if Kaufman could have gotten me to think about those things without telling me so straightforward like. And I'm talking about the priest and ear microphone.

[ecking]

I'm really looking forward to seeing this, has it hit wide release yet?

[alveraz]

wide release? i'm not sure it's even in theaters anymore.