Synecdoche, New York
- Thread starter Drew Ott
- Start date
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
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.
BryantStanton
Well-known member
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.
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.
BryantStanton
Well-known member
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...
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...
Will Clegg
Veteran
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.
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.
Last edited:
MikeQuill
Well-known member
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
Mike
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.
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.
Last edited:
Will Clegg
Veteran
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.
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
Wish I were banned.
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.
I disagree with "self-indulgent." I don't think there's any way to prove that.
EduardoMiguel
Active member
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.
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.
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.