THANK YOU!!!! Finally, someone is with me on this! I assume you mean Eternal Sunshine as the movie of the decade, right?
Yes, Absolutely.
I have yet to see a Kaufman idea as anything other than an undercooked sketch
all kaufman script are amazing ! complex and original. He’s one of my favorite writer of the decade.
Most writers think they’ve done their job when they come up with a high concept idea. They execute it on one level (see Liar Liar for a not so bad example.) Kaufman has only just started with the concepts. He fleshes out characters to such an extent that they emotionally ground the films no matter how elaborate the plot. Then he allows a combination of logic and imagination to take his story into rewarding territory, regardless of our expectations. The result is the dark humor of Being John Malkovich, the utter originality of Adaptation, the melancholy joy of Eternal Sunshine and the existential sadness of Synecdoche New York.
Although the Jim Carrey factor kept me from appreciating ETERNAL SUNSHINE more than I did, everything else that I’ve seen that Kaufman has written and/or directed has been amazing. One of the most interesting and unique talents in US films just now.
Without a doubt
I should add that Sunechodche is one of those underated masterpieces, and I can only hope the dvd sales are good because it bombed at the box office, and Charlie’s gonna have a tough time keeping working if it doesn’t.
there is no place for kaufman he is not a good scriptwriter like towne; he is only a niche writer like tyler perry only his niche isnt particularly profitable
Synecdoche was so uncompromsing and challenging that it could never attract a general audience. My guess is that Kaufman knew this going in, decided that he would ignore commercial considerations and make the exact film he wanted to make. His other scripts show that he can work commercially if he so chooses.
not that it should matter but none of those scripts were particularly commercial. U want challenging philosophical comedy watch richard kelly tho he is not all that hot either
Comparisons to Towne and then Tyler Perry followed up by stating he isn’t very profitable? What does this have anything to do with his writing and the movies that come from it in relation to their quality? I’ve read this forum for over a year and posted here and there and it’s a bit disconcerting that there’s suddenly a huge rise in imdb style logic and punctuation on these forums.
I did say as a writer he is no towne, he cant write conventional films or unconventional marketable films. He is a writer who attracts his own audience (the new kaufman movie is out lets go) but that niche audience is small not large like Perry’s therefore there is not much place for him that is all I was saying quite logical
Yes, but unlike Tyler Perry, Charlie Kaufman has a little thing called TALENT.
He is no Towne because he’s better. He’s more imaginitve. One of the factors that hurts Kaufman is that he doesn’t have advertising dollars behind him like most big films. His" niche audience" are his many fans, but most of the general public never knew what Synecdoche came out or what the hell it was because there was no add for it
How is there no place for an uncompromising voice such as his in cinema? He’s in my opinion, one of the most consistent voices in US cinema for a decade now. His movies are funny, sad, tragic and despite being high concept, grounded in a very real world that he’s created.
May I also ask what it matters whether his movies are marketable or not? If what you’re interested in is box office receipts, then perhaps you’re in the wrong conversation. I can’t imagine many people on this site concerning themselves with marketability when they discuss their love of cinema and those that help construct that love.
marketplace affects yr ability to make movies.so it affects the movies that are made I have gone to films so many times where I was the only one there (mr fox for one). Marketolace is the reason I dont think u will see much of kaufman it is also why john waters stuggles to make what he wants and bay has money thrown at him
I agree Doinel.
This is becoming apples and oranges. Kaurfman’s first three major films were financially successful in terms of arthouse films. They didn’t cost as much as blockbusters to make and they’re not expected to perform as blockbusters. He is not competing with the Tyler Perrys or Michael Bays of the world. Like Woody Allen’s films, they just need to make enough that he can afford to make more. I’m also uninterested in the financial success of films, except to the extent that they determine whether a filmmaker keeps working. Look at the level of actors who want to work with Kaufman. He’s not at risk.
Charlie Kaufman — Cineman of the decade?
Fuck no.
I think he is a risk maybe because people outside of the fans that go which would have to be a large number to make it sucessful would end up by and large not liking it, akin to when mainstream movie goers went to see The Box, rated it very poorly and probably wont be talked into seeing a Kelly film again.
To reply to the topic I thik the cineMan of the decade has been David Gordon Green
I’ll sure take David Green over Kaufman.
Doesn’t anyone see that S. NY was a personal film? There are few of them around now.
Amend that – There are a lot of amazing personal films around. But none coming from the studios.
watch henry jaglom
“I’ll sure take David Green over Kaufman.”
moi aussi.
Den:
I’m not crazy about Charlie Kaufman, but you have a weird way of judging films.
“He is a writer who attracts his own audience (the new kaufman movie is out lets go) but that niche audience is small not large like Perry’s therefore there is not much place for him”
WHO CARES? Whether a film is good or not has nothing to do with how popular it is. Do you think McDonald’s is the greatest restaurant in the world?
“marketplace affects yr ability to make movies.”
No it doesn’t. For one, Charlie Kaufman is able to make movies on his own terms, and compared to a lot of other independent filmmakers he’s a raging financial success. Secondly, anyone can make a movie for $2000 if they really want to. John Cassavetes lost money on virtually every film he made. Filmmaking is NOT ABOUT MONEY. It’s about exploring life.
Finally, there’s no race to post as much as you can on this forum. Take a minute to get your ideas in order and run a spell check before you click “Post Reply”.
who cares about spelling if dworkin can write without puncuation and mccormack can write how he wants I dont care much about my spelling.
I didn’t say bigger is better I am saying there is not much place for Kaufman therefore he is not the cineMan of the decade.
I think you’re half-right, Fraser. I do not, for one second, think that a films budget correlates into how great the film is, but in this day and age, a filmmaker who (in the case of Kaufman) tends to spend $20 million on a film, has to make at least half of that back. He’s been lucky enough that most of his films made a profit (Synecdoche didn’t even make 25% back) and that may hurt him a bit in his next film venture.
Will it hurt him a lot, probably not, filmmakers are usually entitled to a flop here and there, but if you’re spending big, there has to be some sort of return.
Chris, it might be more difficult for him to make his next film, but it won’t stop him from making them. The real artists are the ones who will make a film if all they have is a $500 camcorder and their friends as actors.
“I didn’t say bigger is better I am saying there is not much place for Kaufman therefore he is not the cineMan of the decade.”
I’d agree he’s not the filmmaker of the decade, but that’s because I don’t think his films are good enough to warrant that title. You seem to judge if he deserves this title based on how much of an audience he has. But the quality of a film has nothing to do with how accessible it is. Hollywood films that are designed just to make money are deliberately as bland and formulaic as possible. A film that is challenging will automatically have less audience appeal, but it’ll be a far more interesting film.
Peter Rinaldi
His writing in general set an unprecedented new bar. He wrote the movie of the decade and his directorial debut is an under-appreciated masterpiece that will be remembered well after the so-called great films at the beginning of this century are a distant memory. Charlie Kaufman – CineMAN of the Decade. Agreed? Yes? No? Who then?