Synecdoche, New York
- Thread starter Drew Ott
- Start date
bill totolo
Veteran
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
Well-known member
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.
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
Member
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...
Dvader
Well-known member
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.
