Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#101 Post by Michael » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:51 pm

I was so bewitched by Adele, her painting the miniature works in the basement, her getting stoned with Jennifer Jason Leigh, etc. My goodness, there is a whole film begging to be made right there with those two women. So when they disappeared, I was already longing for them to return to save the film. I was very intrigued by her - what was it like living in the shadow of Caden? There was so much in her face (what a great, beautiful actress Keener has always been) that left me hunger for more.

poussiere, I appreciate your thoughts (you write remarkably, by the way).

User avatar
Gary Tooze
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#102 Post by Gary Tooze » Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:26 am

I thought this film was just wonderful. I've watched it three times (so far). I recommend it to friends who also loved it - or they were lying to me (one said - "I assume it didn't get a wide release" - which could mean he thought it was crap I suppose). But if it gets this much discussion it probably means it has some merit - if only being so widely interpretational. When I see terms like 'self-indulgent' or 'pretentious' - it reminds me of another film that got a lot of love/hate reaction - PTA's Magnolia. My sister has friends who told her they walked out of the theater watching Magnolia - which I can't get my head around. I've wanted to meet them every since I heard this - not to discuss the film with them - but probably just to stare at them with a blank expression on my face.

In Synecdoche, New York I found so much amusement... Caden's conversations with Doctors, his yelling at Sammy after he jumps, everything with Keener, pounding on the glass "Olive it's Daddy...", the conversation about tattooing, the constant soapbox philosophy... Conceptually I think the idea behind the film is brilliant. Resolving personal issues, cathartic therapy, by staging plays with people portraying you and other important characters in your life - totally cool. The more neurotic you are the grander the scale... Hoffman is such a great actor he makes an incredible straight man. When he really loses it he reminds me a bit of Matt Foley.

But I can see this is certainly not a film for everyone - the lack of structure will throw many people off balance enough to despise it. That's now I felt about Adaptation.... but maybe I need to watch that one again.

User avatar
greggster59
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:37 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#103 Post by greggster59 » Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:23 am

Gary Tooze wrote:But I can see this is certainly not a film for everyone - the lack of structure will throw many people off balance enough to despise it. That's now I felt about Adaptation.... but maybe I need to watch that one again.
Going by your observations of and your reaction to Synecdoche, NY, Gary, I think you should look at Adaptation again. I went into Synecdoche knowing I was making another visit into Kaufman's mind and it was my response to Adaptation that had me looking forward to the new film. Sometimes expectations and one's particular mood on a given day can influence a POV. Stylistically, there are a lot of similarities in both films in the way any auteur's work is. PTA, Altman, Kubrick, Wes Anderson all come to mind.

jojo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#104 Post by jojo » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:42 pm

Just saw this last night and it's the first "false" note Kaufman hit with me. For all his cleverness, "self-conscious quirk" and smarm, his past work always ringed "true" somehow. Even Adaptation's rather smug final act didn't take away from that film as a whole, and Eternal Sunshine seemed to be him laying everything out when it came to his thoughts and feelings on relationships and male insecurity.

I can't pretend to "get" all the "weighty" themes on art, life and death...but I couldn't even get that far into the film to even think about all that. Where Synedoche... failed for me was that I just did not buy Caden's relationships. Although it may have flew over my head, I just did not see how someone as unremarkable as Caden would have such a complicated love life. He's creative, perhaps, but he is not portrayed as a genius, so that's one quality I'm sure is not the reason the women are attracted to him. As for everything else--he's not good looking, not charismatic or outgoing and he's not particularly funny either. There's really nothing about him that I see being particularly attractive to such ripe young women as the ones portrayed by Morton and Williams. Now, this is no slag on Mr. Hoffman the man...he's a fine actor and I'm sure many women today would line up for him. But PSH as Caden is a wholly unremarkable man, there's no two ways about it. Domino noted the narcissistic nature of the film and that bugged me from beginning to end and took me completed out of the film.

Although perhaps the entire film is basically a middle-aged male fantasy that turns into a nightmare...even so, that's a lot to ask out of the viewer just to indulge in your fantasies and insecurities for 3/4 of the film.

One could argue Eternal Sunshine was also wish-fulfillment male fantasy but I bought that because I could see how someone like Clem could be attracted to Joel. After all, he's not such a bad looking guy as portrayed by Jim Carrey (who's not a bad looking guy himself) and the film does show him as a guy who's got an interesting "inner" life at least. He may be introverted but he's got a distinct persona with his own weird thoughts and he does have a somewhat dry, if dour, sense of humour.

Plus Joel probably smells better than Caden.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#105 Post by knives » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:05 am

Never use emo unironically here again, okay Ebert. [-X Besides that was nobody's complaint. If memory serves Domino's main complaint was that All That Jazz did the same thing earlier and better.

Numero Trois
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:23 am
Location: Florida

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#106 Post by Numero Trois » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:52 pm

Gary Tooze wrote:
Magic Hate Ball wrote:Every once in a while someone makes a film that is completely unlike anything else. David Lynch did it with INLAND EMPIRE, Stanley Kubrick did it with 2001, there are probably a hundred more examples out there, and Charlie Kaufman has done it with Synecdoche, New York (wow, I just realized the thread title has a typo).
When I see terms like 'self-indulgent' or 'pretentious' - it reminds me of another film that got a lot of love/hate reaction - PTA's Magnolia.
There's a league of difference between Synecdoche and the films both of you mentioned. 2001, Magnolia and Inland Empire certainly do have passages that are open to interpretation. But you never get the impression that the respective directors are confused or that they're chasing their own tail. Kaufman dug his own conceptual hole here. The worst thing of all is not that the film is overlong, convoluted or repetitive. The worst thing is Kaufman thinks the film is saying more than what it actually is. The reality, of course, is that it's not saying much at all and what it is saying is said in the most confused manner possible.

I couldn't help but smirk at the three bloggers discussing the film in the DVD special features section. From the one mentioning his trip to Cannes to the other stating with a straight face that there's absolutely nothing from the film that could be cut. As if there was no conflict of interest in discussing a film while being employed by the ones who bankrolled it.

Numero Trois
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:23 am
Location: Florida

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#107 Post by Numero Trois » Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:15 pm

The larger the crowd, the more uncritical the opinions.

User avatar
"membrillo"
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: San Diego, California / Tijuana, Baja California Norte

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#108 Post by "membrillo" » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:45 pm

Peter-H wrote: In my opinion it is the best film of the decade, and one of my favorite films of all time.
You need to watch WAY more films.

User avatar
The Elegant Dandy Fop
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#109 Post by The Elegant Dandy Fop » Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:18 pm

Peter-H wrote:What do you think accounts for the large gap in opinion between "The Auteurs" and this forum? It's strange that in some "high brow film" places it's praised, but here it's very mixed, I don't know I just find that interesting.
As someone who just uses The Autuers to keep track of movies I've seen and avoid the forums like the plague, I have to say that the crowd from here and there are completely different. Over here, it's the bit more jaded cineaste who's seen a great deal of cinema, has delved into several books about the subject and takes it incredibly serious. The Auteurs is full of people who are borderline or pseudo-cinefiles that think if a movie is "trippy" or a "mindfuck", then it's equated as being a smart movie. While a discussion of the film is promoted here, on The Auteurs, you simply get pointless comments like "intense. dont watch this movie stoned...or do. just know itll probably ruin your high..." or faux-intellectual or dramatic comments like "This movie in 20 years will become a classic,This movie it's about life,this movie it's about beginning to the end,This movie it's about humans,this movie its about the day we die,this movie its about,regret,this movie its about loneliness,this movie its about choices we make,this movie its about everything.". It also has a lot of pretentious basterds keeping face that refuse to give things like Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Zoolander decent scores just because it isn't Antonioni.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#110 Post by zedz » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:31 pm

Peter-H wrote:[quote=""membrillo""]
Peter-H wrote: In my opinion it is the best film of the decade, and one of my favorite films of all time.
You need to watch WAY more films.
I didn't say it was objectively the best movie. However, I only judge movies by there emotional resonence (sp?) with me, it is the one that has resonated with me the most, and so it is one of my favorites. I have seen many movies, but none have ever made me cry.[/quote]
We all need to watch way more films.

If Synechdoche worked for Peter, fair enough.

To me, it seemed like a shambles, with Kaufman climbing a jungle gym that he was building as he goes, with no idea of how he's supposed to get back down afterwards. But there was an interesting experimental kernel buried inside it, which seemed to be Kaufman striving to create strong emotional resonance from specific moments in a context which did everything it could to destroy traditional character identification for the audience. Even on those specific terms (emotion without character), I think it misfired half the time (i.e. moments which were supposed to be emotionally evocative fell flat), but I found it an interesting experiment.

Peter-H
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#111 Post by Peter-H » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:56 pm

I returned to this film last night after not seeing at for years. Looking back over some of the posts in this thread i'm a bit baffled by the some of the responses to it. I don't understand why so many people thought of this as just some conceptual exercise, yet was emotionally cold. I think the problem with many people watching the movie is that they focus to much on the surreal elements and meta-crazyness. As Kaufman said, the movie is like a dream. In a dream you don't sit there asking why the house is on fire, you just accept it and move along.

I think the way this movie should be watched is to just enjoy the dreamlike, surreal nature of it of it without intellectualizing it. Once you do that, you realize the film isn't some incomprehensible clusterfuck but is in fact simply a drama about man searching for meaning in life. Once you do that you realize the film is brimming with emotion. How could someone not be affected by a moment as bittersweet and tender as Caden remembering a game he used to play with his daughter in more innocent and simple times? How could you not feel affected when you see that close up of Cadens face as he drives through the rubble of his failed creation, realizing his search for meaning has been futile as he nears his life's end? The look of sheer tiredness, sadness, and disappointment on his face is pretty heart wrenching . Or how about when Caden and Hazel are old, and are reflecting on how there lives could've been different had they made different choices, and how they wish they where young with a "bright and mysterious future" of opportunity in front of them?

Even if you don't think it says anything "new" (after thousands of years of literature and art it's pretty hard to say anything truly "new") it says old things in a way that's emotionally affecting and resonant. I don't think one needs to interpret everything in the movie to get that, in fact I don't think you're supposed to. I think many of the "weird" things in the film are just there to add a dream like flavor, which I felt added to the emotional impact. It somehow made me feel more connected to this world, not more distanced.

And I don't understand what people mean when they say stuff like "which seemed to be Kaufman striving to create strong emotional resonance from specific moments in a context which did everything it could to destroy traditional character identification for the audience." Or that it needlessly abandoned traditional plot structure.

For me, once I stopped thinking of it as some experimental puzzle movie I had to figure out, and just thought of it as a drama with some weirdness splashed around for effect (granted, it's splashed pretty heavily, perhaps to the point of being a distraction from the emotional core of the film for many), I realized that the characters where very well fleshed out and relatable, and that there is a fairly well defined 3 act structure.

A masterpiece in my opinion.

EDIT: Also why am I not able to delete my poorly articulated thoughts on this film from a couple of years ago?
Last edited by Peter-H on Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#112 Post by domino harvey » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:00 pm

You can't delete a post once someone else has posted, but you can edit your comments out (which you've done)-- I'll delete them though, since they're been edited to nothing anyways. Don't make a habit out of rescinding your earlier comments for a new perspective, though, as it makes what fleeting permanence a discussion forum retains even sillier if we all just pretend we didn't say whatever we said when we were younger

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#113 Post by jindianajonz » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:08 pm

Not to mention it makes going back through threads quite confusing when you can only see one side of the conversation. I've certainly said my share of dumb things, but since this forum is a great archive for thoughts and ideas, I figure it's best to leave past discussions as comprehensible as possible.

Jakamarak
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:46 am

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#114 Post by Jakamarak » Sat May 03, 2014 7:53 am

A masterpiece in my opinion.
I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it here because the reaction to this film has been so negative , but I wholeheartedly agree.

Prior to this film, I appreciated several of the films with Kaufman screenplays. It's rare for a screenwriter working within the Hollywood system not directing his own work to get scripts to screen with such a clear voice. And I loved how Kaufman used Hollywood three act film structure perfectly while turning it on its head -- and not just in Adaptation. Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine do this as well. Impressive as these films were in many respects, I did find them emotionally lacking.

In 2008, I was very excited about Synecdoche, New York and eager to see it. However, the day the film opened, I was at a party at which several people just came from a screening. To say they loathed it was an understatement. They were venting as if they needed to be cleansed of it. Then I spoke to someone else who saw it and drew a similar reaction. The film became a very low priority for me and it wasn't for another two years before I Netflixed it.

For me, this film is immersive. It elicits a strong and strange and undefinable response. I can't think of another film that has this same effect. I've seen it four times now, and that's happened every time. I feel like I'm a different person when it's over -- and that's good and bad and beautiful and sad all at once.

So many of the scenes just kill me.
SpoilerShow
Caden at Olive's death bed communicating through the translation device. The final moment on the bench with the actress. The way Samantha Morton's character directs the director in their early flirtations.
And the images.
SpoilerShow
The burning house gets a lot of attention, but the dying tattoo, the contrast between Caden's huge canvas and Adele's tiny ones. Little Winky.
But it's how it's put together that is so astonishing. The way the film creates that sense of time moving faster as we age. The way Adele vanishes from Caden's life but her presence continues to be felt long after she's disappeared from the film -- at least visually. We feel her loss. Instead of having characters talk about these things, it seems that Kaufman is creating the cinematic equivalent for what these life experiences feel like.

I agree that intellectualizing many of the details would probably be confounding. Even so, the emotion delivered along with the most dreamlike flourishes resonates and rings true.

Based on the reactions, I suspect many people have trouble entering into the world of this film. I don't know why. I am very pleased I'm not one of them. And that song! "I'm just a little person/one person in a scene..." Now I have to watch this again!

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#115 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon May 05, 2014 9:02 am

Jakamarak wrote:...The way the film creates that sense of time moving faster as we age...Instead of having characters talk about these things, it seems that Kaufman is creating the cinematic equivalent for what these life experiences feel like.
While I picked up on some of the time manipulations the first time through, it didn't hit me until the third viewing that the film's structure and pace appears to be an attempt to mimic what an entire life feels like: a series of repetitions, daily routines that just come to an end without any great epiphany or sense of closure. I believe this is why audiences have such a problem with the film or, at least, the final third where, traditionally, some kind of climax or resolution is expected.

I must also assume that most folks don't find this film as hilarious as I do - it's one of the funniest works of the decade to me.

Peter-H
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#116 Post by Peter-H » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:32 am

It actually fucking pisses me off that everyone doesn't love this movie.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#117 Post by domino harvey » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:38 am

Hope the H doesn't stand for Hulk

Peter-H
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#118 Post by Peter-H » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:44 pm

It does seem like this movie is seen more fondly in general than it was on release. I guess Ebert's best of the decade award might have something to do with that. It seems like the movie hasn't faded into obscurity like the box office numbers suggested it would.

I certainly hope Kaufman's new movie does better than Synecdoche, so that it's easier for him to make movies. I think he's extremely talented.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#119 Post by domino harvey » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:39 pm

Well, remember that Ebert was facing death at the time and a film about an artist's life work and meaning clearly hit him personally (just as the film's alternate, Tree of Life, hit him in evoking his childhood). I don't think it's a coincidence that he wanted Philip Seymour Hoffman to play him in a movie of his life!

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#120 Post by Gregory » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:41 pm

Maybe if I add it to my kevyip now, I'll get around to rewatching it by the time I'm facing death and it'll affect me more than it did the first time.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#121 Post by domino harvey » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:45 pm

I was going to make a joke that I'd rather welcome the sweet embrace of death than watch this film, but that's a hyperbolic bridge too far, even for me. I still would rather do almost anything over seeing this again, though!

User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#122 Post by dustybooks » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:47 pm

Just to throw in some irony, this was the first movie my now-wife and I watched together, on her recommendation. (I loved it, for what it's worth.) So Synecdoche can potentially connect to you whether you're standing on the precipice of death or a new relationship!

User avatar
copen
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:43 pm

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#123 Post by copen » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:47 pm

Synecdoche, New York became my favorite movie after i watched it a second time. I've seen it many times since then, and haven't changed my mind.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#124 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:55 pm

I wonder if this film simply needed another director besides Kaufman - I think Spike Jonze was supposed to do it, then when he was no longer available, he pretty much told Kaufman "why don't you do it?"

Anyway, I recall this being a little inchoate but still had plenty of great things about, namely Hoffman, who gives one of his best performances. And one of my favorite lines in any Kaufman film, the bizarre "I want to fuck you until we merge into a Chimera!"

Jakamarak
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:46 am

Re: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

#125 Post by Jakamarak » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:52 am

hearthesilence wrote:I wonder if this film simply needed another director besides Kaufman
The direction of this film is pretty unbeatable in my opinion. Your praise of Hoffman's performance supports this. Especially in film, even a great actor's performance does not exist on its own. It is supported by all that is around it. This film's as layered as the screenplay and the story it is telling. Almost every moment works on multiple levels and it has a crazy number of memorable performances starting with Hoffman, but including Morton, Keener, Weist, Williams and a particularly good Jennifer Jason Leigh. But I'm in the very small minority that would rank this film among the greatest of its decade.

People's response to film in general is so interesting to me. It's often broken down into this formula: A.) because I didn't like it, B.) the film must have some flaw. The unspoken premise being that without such and such a flaw this would be a good film and I would like it. But the opposite of this idea most would agree is flatly ridiculous. ( A.) because I like this film, B.) it is a perfect film.) It's not as often as one might think that people actually agree on the particular flaws and strengths of any given film. A film is its flaws. Every film has "flaws," but any equation that uses flaws to calculate success or greatness is wrong.

I'm not of the mind that everyone needs to agree on the merits of any given film. However, we live in a consensus age where box office is bigger news than critical response. People rush to things because they're popular, not because they're supposed to be good.

I suppose my thesis here is that films often aren't as easy to reduce/diagnose as people like to think they are.

Here's a link to part one of an in progress four-part breakdown of the film that is mostly magnificent despite a little overreaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjqYpsuBrPU

Post Reply