Persistence of Gloom
"For all its sophistication, Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche is oddly fond of poop jokes and, indeed, of poop shots. Is there really no better way to dramatize the frail health of your character" -- Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Caden Cotard -- "than by showing the discolored stream of his urine? The problem is not one of bad taste, to which the director is welcome, but the obviousness -- dare I say, the dullness -- with which he nags away at the sight of debilitation, in body and spirit alike.
Illustrationm by Robert Risko
"There has long been a strain of sorry lassitude in Kaufman's work, and here it sickens into the morbid. Although Hoffman appears in almost every scene, he is seldom given the chance to shrug off his blue mood and demonstrate the dazzling range of which he is capable. One longs for the Hoffman of The Talented Mr. Ripley, all crowing tones and carroty crew cut. I have heard him, in an interview, say how freed up he felt by that film's director, the late Anthony Minghella, but Kaufman seems to be following the reverse procedure.
"Such zip as we get is provided by performers in the secondary roles, notably the women: Dianne Wiest, Emily Watson, and, phlegmatic as ever, Samantha Morton. (The best gag in the film is that Hazel's home is forever on fire; she lives there quite cheerfully, never explaining the flames, and barely noticing them. Luis Bunuel would be proud of her.) To what end, however, are these actresses devoting their panache? In short, what is Synecdoche, New York about?
"Well, there are three commonplaces on which it repeatedly riffs. One is what you might call the romantic-pathetic theory of imagination: any alternative reality that we design and furnish, when we conceive a work of art, is always to some extent a stand-in for the puny or pitiful one that we have been personally landed with. The second and most imperishable truth is: we grow old, and perish. And the third says: all you need is love.
"These are noble principles to pursue; unless the pursuit is waged with gusto, however, it threatens to slump into the sententious, and that is what happens here. With so much screen time being allotted to Caden's bad marriage and pustular health problems, his majestic production doesn't get going properly until the second half of the film, and by then we don't care enough (worse still, we don't know enough, such is the vagueness of its guiding rubric) to mind whether it triumphs or flops.
"Compare Dennis Potter's great mini-series of the nineteen-eighties, The Singing Detective, and you will see much the same setup -- a wry leading man with a skin disease, inspired by a furious creative itch -- rendered with unstinting vigor. And, should you still have a taste for the fancies of a fading man, try Orson Welles's ,em>The Immortal Story, or a little picture of his called Citizen Kane, all of which, I sometimes think, could be floating within Kane's cranium, like snow inside a globe.
"In each case, there is joy -- not just a mournful snickering, as carried in Charlie Kaufman's bag of tricks, but the breath of divine pleasure -- in the conjuring of dreams. If you want to show a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, go right ahead, but give that hour all the life you can." - from Anthony Lane's New Yorker review, dated 11.3.08.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM
comment #1
p.Vice
says ...
This is an essential movie for anyone trying to build up the courage for a suicide attempt. Sadly it seems that Lane doesn't quite fit that demographic.
Posted by p.Vice
at October 26, 2008 11:50 AM
comment #2
azmoviegoer
says ...
p. vice, despite the cruelty of wishing that someone-even a notorious crank like Anthony Lane- would off themselves after seeing that movie, I must admit I laughed out loud. I think that says more about me than I'd care to admit.
And I have to say, based on some of the reviews I have read, this does sound like a real downer that could push some poor depressed soul over the edge. And it's not like there's nothing to be depressed about in the news today.
Also, is just me, or does it seem that lately Mr Lane does not like any movies these days. I mean does anybody know the ;ast movie he wrote a positive review about that was also by some measurable consesus considered good?. Maybe he's just waiting for the ax to fall on his neck given the legions of other critics that have lost their jobs. Maybe he just needs to quit the movie review business and start writing cranky books instead, if only to save his soul from eternal doomation
Posted by azmoviegoer
at October 26, 2008 2:40 PM
comment #3
K. Bowen
says ...
The film is an longwinded post-modern way to say "LIfe sucks and then you die."
Posted by K. Bowen
at October 26, 2008 3:40 PM
comment #4
MilkMan
says ...
Charlie Kaufman is smarter than 99% of all the other screenwriters in this god-forsaken city, combined. That's why he's the top dog right now. Because he reads things other than best-selling novels and comic books. He takes chances. Any griping is professional jealousy, plain and simple.
Posted by MilkMan
at October 26, 2008 5:43 PM
comment #5
roquentin
says ...
Being "smarter than 99 percent of all other screenwriters" does not mean he's immune from making a really bad movie. Which Synecdoche is. Have you even seen it MilkMan? It's oppressively one-note, and it hammers home the same theme so mercilessly that it makes that airport hangar-warehouse feel like a coffin. That's the point? I understood it quite clearly at about the three minute mark. And the fifteen-minute tacked-on message about inhabiting someone else doesn't save it. What Charlie Kaufman, for all his brilliance, needs is a collaborater, someone to bring some levity to his visions. I'm going to hate hearing assholes talk this movie up.
Posted by roquentin
at October 26, 2008 6:05 PM
comment #6
MilkMan
says ...
Seen Synecdoche. Thought it was okay. My comment is more about the dearth of ideas in Hollywood than anything else. However, anyone who thinks he's the only one writing about these kinds of things needs to read Remainder by Tom McCarthy (not the indie director). That novel has the same set-up (man gets a windfall of money, decides to use the money recreating key moments from his life), but tackles it in a less histrionic way. The book was written in 2001, or 2002. And why has no one mentioned Be Kind Rewind and Michel Gondry, which is also about the act of recreation? What chaps my hide about Kaufman is that people thinks he just gets his ideas from nowhere, and that's not true.
Posted by MilkMan
at October 26, 2008 8:24 PM
comment #7
K. Bowen
says ...
The problem for Kaufman is that ALL he knows is what he's read. I would have liked this film a decade ago, when all I knew was books and ideas and not enough about life. Then I grew up.
Posted by K. Bowen
at October 26, 2008 11:41 PM
comment #8
actionman
says ...
I love doodie humor. Can't wait to see this.
Posted by actionman
at October 27, 2008 7:02 AM
comment #9
Gordie Lachance
says ...
Charlie Kaufman's only problem is that his intellect so surpasses anyone who would think to criticize him that they don't even understand what it is that they don't get.
Oh and I'd LOVE to hear one single thing that K Bowen has "learned" about life.
Seriously, I'll pay $10 cash for any thought or idea you can muster up that isn't shallow, trite or cliched.
Posted by Gordie Lachance
at October 27, 2008 9:03 AM
comment #10
dcc77
says ...
Kaufman is a noteworthy screenwriter because his simple yet daunting aspiration is to create something transcendent, memorable and classic -- a true work of art. However, SNY dramatizes this quest instead of making strides towards the pure creation he seeks. It's too meta for its own good.
In many ways it's Adaptation all over again, minus the humor, visual flair, and whimsy. It's a nuanced, layered film but a somewhat painful viewing experience. You leave the theater more drained than enlightened.
Still, it certainly wasn't the average trip to genre-land. I applaud CK for this ambitious but flawed film.
Posted by dcc77
at October 27, 2008 9:28 AM
comment #11
T. S. Idiot
says ...
Somebody tell Lane real writers don't use moronic expressions such as "freed up."
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at October 27, 2008 11:22 AM
comment #12
lipranzer
says ...
I don't think this was as good as Kaufman's other films, (though it is better than the flawed but still worthy HUMAN NATURE), but I was still entertained by it. I do think Spike Jonze could have added the visual flair and humor, as dc777 put it, that made BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ADAPTATION so memorable and thought-provoking, but it was still funny, and Diane Wiest's speech near the end did pull the film into focus for me.
As for Lane, I used to be a big fan of his (I still have an autographed copy of his book of collected criticism, "Nobody's Perfect"), but it does seem like he's become less patient with American movies these days. On foreign films, he still writes well (his review of EDGE OF HEAVEN, for example). Maybe Denby gets to cover most of the better ones?
Posted by lipranzer
at October 27, 2008 6:50 PM
comment #13
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of server high availability
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 6:45 AM