I like Eternal but I can’t quite understand all the fuss about it. It has some elements that don’t work well in it (I tolerate Carrey in it but it would have been so much better with a more suitable actor, the Elijah Wood subplot).
On the other hand, Science of Sleep is one of my most despised film of the past decade. I found it agonizing to watch. It tells me that Gondry is someone who works well with other people’s material and should never be left to his own devices. I didn’t bother with Be Kind Rewind as it looked like more of the same. Green Hornet looks like it will be a disaster but I’m mildly curious as to what Gondry can do with a 90 million dollar budget. It promises to be one train wreck of a film!
I do not have much to say.
I find most of his films poorly cast and poorly concieved. Be Kind Rewind had a nonsensical plot and no comedic tone to keep it afloat. The jokes just aint funny either. Mos Def is a fun actor usually but he has never been more annoying than here.
I like his episode of Flight of the Conchords and Block Party was a good concert film.
But I just do not care for his brand of whimsy.
SOS had poor performances by great actors and a nonsensical story with no tone, it lumbers on screen and feels an hour longer than it is.
His two films with Charlie Kaufman (the most dull and self-indulgent screenwriter working) Human Nature and Eternal are just trite in my mind.
I love Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and consider it my favorite film of the last decade. Its seems to me, however, that it was Charlie Kaufman and not Gondry who was the true auteur of that film. Gondry deserves some credit, particularly on the technical side (his low tech effects are cool), but Eternal Sunshine seems more comfortably placed in the Kaufman filmography than Gondry’s. Science of Sleep attempted to recapture some of that magic and fell far short.
@Ari
I haven’t seen Eternal in a while, but I thought the concept was original and interesting, and unlike other Kaufman (Jonze) efforts, the film had a solid story.
Science of Sleep is not a great film, but I liked it. Why did you despise it so much?
As for Be Kind, Rewind I think it’s a film that all (well, most) people who love films and creativity in general would enjoy. It’s not a perfect film, but the spirit behind it is beautiful and rare, imo. C’mon, see it. If you don’t like it, at least you’ll be able to have a spirited discussion with me about it afterward. :)
@Den
If you don’t like Gondry’s “whimsy” then I can understand why you don’t like him—and there’s really very little I can say to debate that point.
I disagree with you about casting, though. I really liked Bernal and the Gainsbourg (the office guy with the glasses was hilarious, too). I love Mos Def and didn’t find him annoying in Be Kind, Rewind. But I guess these are all matters of taste.
WRT to Be Kind, Rewind
(spoilers)
Let’s set aside the humor and whimsy of the film, areas that are basically matters of taste. I think the message and spirit of the film is really terrific and rare. The film is essentially a rebuke—although that’s too strong a word for the tone of the film—of Hollywood filmmaking. It celebrates creativity in general and even a communal ethos in art making. There’s a joy about movies and creativity in general that, again, I find very rare.
You didn’t like those “sweded” movie versions? I mean, they’re silly, but they’re really fun and impressive given the meager means those films were made. For me, they did make the case that art can be fun and entertaining—as long as you have creativity and the right spirit. These are the essential elements, and that often Hollywood gets it so wrong, particularly when they emphasis effects, big stars, etc.
Btw, I love the fact that protagonists “lose” to the legal battle to Hollywood. They lose in legal terms, but it doesn’t matter; that doesn’t stop them from making movis that bring joy. That’s the ultimate victory (and repudiation against Hollywood—but again the film is to joyful to be a repudiation).
Jazz I guess it is ultimately a matter of humor (like that comedy thread you started).
The film had no laughs for me and felt incredible long and uninvolving.
I wanted to like it. I saw it in a theater cause Mia Farrow and Mos Def were in it, but I apologized to my date afterward because it was a real groaner. She never talked to me again afterward. Rumor has it she killed herself, not sure if this was due to the film
@Den
I can’t defend the humor, and I didn’t think the humor (especially Jack Black’s schtick—although I did like him in the sweded films, particularly his version of the “Ghostbusters” theme song) was the strong point of the film. The “sweded” films may not have been laugh-out-loud funny, but you didn’t find them delightful?
But my main point about the film is that it’s essentially not a comedy—or at least I don’t value it for its comedy. I think the heart of the film is the joy of creativity—and that fact that this joy doesn’t require movie star talent, gobs of money and effects, etc. It’s about being creativity and having fun. This movie has both (fun, not necessarily knee slapping laughs), imo.
@Brad
Here’s why I think Gondry deserves credit for Eternal. What makes this film different from Adaptation, Being John Malcovich and even Synechdoche, NY is that there is a stronger, more focused story. A clever concept (Kaufman’s) are at the center of those films, imo. Imo, these films are concepts in search of well-drawn characters and a strong story (not so much with Synechdoche, NY, but I think Eternal is a stronger story). As far as I can tell Gondry is the primary difference between Eternal and those other films
u should watch Human Nature also by that duo Jazz and see if u feel the same way, you just might
@Den
Do you mean that I would think Human Nature has a stronger story?
yes since Kaufman and Gondry did Human Nature would it have a stronger story than Kaufman’s other projects.
Jazz, my sense is that the tighter narrative in Eternal Sunshine is a result of Kaufman’s own growth as a writer, as opposed to Gondry’s influence. Kaufman’s style is so particular that I don’t see him allowing a director that much leeway. Had I not known otherwise, I would not have been surprised if Eternal Sunshine was a Jonze film. (and I find the Jonze films brilliant as well.)
Human Nature is fun, but more of a quirky comedy and not as resonant as Kaufman’s other films.
Growth could be a possible explanation. I did feel Synechdoche, NY had a stronger story, but not stronger than Eternal. Did you think Human Nature had a strong story? If it did, it would lend more support to the theory I proposed.
I’d have to say no on Human Nature. Although it came later, its feels like Kaufman’s first story before he got ambitious. Not that its bad, it just doesn’t have the levels.
Jazz, i agree with your assessment of Be Kind Rewind. i don’t share your admiration for it necessarily, but i liked the whole communal art vibe to it, the idea of tapping into your own local history, and taking control of your own culture. In an increasingly fragmented and cynical world, it’s a positive and uplifting ‘message’ without being overly sentimental. In today’s youtube DIY fan culture vs the protectionism of corporate culture , the ‘message’ also has a certain amount of currency. In fact, i saw this movie when i was actually looking into fan cultural practices for university, and paying special attention to the work of Henry Jenkins, who is regarded as a bit of an expert on fan fiction and fan culture in general.
Can’t say i am a fan of Gondry though. I find his movies ‘cold’, for lack of a better word. I respected the concept behind Eternal Sunshine, and found it completely interesting and relevant, but for whatever reason, the movie just didn’t click with me.
@Joks
“In an increasingly fragmented and cynical world, it’s a positive and uplifting ‘message’ without being overly sentimental.”
(spoilers)
I think this was no small feat. The film could have easily become treacly and…overly sentimental. I also think the way the film “criticizes” Hollywood movie making sans the bitterness and bile (See Altman and most other films that are critical of Hollywood industry). The joy is what is so powerful in the film.
Again, the antics between Mos Def and Jack Black are silly and one can dismiss them—besides the “sweded” movies—but if viewers would look past that and see the celebration of creativity and movie making, I think they can enjoy this film.
I recently saw Human Nature, and I do feel like it does have a more solid story than Being John Malkovich and Adaptation—which I think does lend more credibility to my theory that Gondry’s involvement has made for a stronger story. Having said that, a weak story is one of the drawbacks to Science of Sleep. I do think Kaufmann is an auteur, but that Gondry is just as strong an auteur as well (especially in terms of filmmaking).
Btw, I don’t think Gondry has made any great films yet—although I think there is something special about Be Kind, Rewind—but I enjoy watching his films. On the other hand, I have no interest in seeing Green Hornet.
I actually resent all the blind critisism for Green Hornet. See it before you judge. I thought it was great, actually.
I wasn’t criticizing the film. I just don’t have much interest in seeing it—but it’s the kind of the thing I would have been interested in seeing. I’m always interested in seeing a good super-hero film, so I might just see this.
He fucked up after Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. He should’ve stopped there.
I think Gondry is hit or miss, but he’s really good when he’s good. Basically his issue is lack of filter. He strikes me as the kind of person whose mind is constantly spewing ideas, some brilliant, some not, but he flings it all at the viewer. His best movie is Eternal Sunshine, obviously. Some of his music videos and commercials are brilliant (see his videos for “Joga” by Bjork or “Fell in Love with a Girl” by The White Stripes). I also enjoyed his Polanski-esque contribution to Tokyo!. I agree with those who said he works best with others’ material, and is in danger of spinning himself into a creative tizzy when left to his own devices.
I agree Gondry can be hit-or-miss, but I don’t know if the issue is lack of filtering his ideas. For example, I thinkn Science of Sleep was a flawed film (still enjoyed it, though), but not because there were too many ideas crammed into it. (I haven’t seen any of his short films or his videos—at least not any I am aware of.)
@Jazz — I think even Eternal Sunshine, which I like a lot, kind of has this problem in its third act. He goes a bit overboard with the set pieces near the end, and I kind of wish he’d exercise just a little more restraint.
Hmm, I can’t remember any Gondry-esque set-pieces in the film (at the end or in any part of the film! It’s been a while since I’ve seen it.) I want to watch it again sometime soon.
But I don’t see lack of restraint as a problem. Can you think of other examples?
Gondry is a masterful video-clip director but a terrible film director.
I don’t understand why there are so many threads around this site dedicated to video-clip directors turned poorly-imaginative motion picture hacks…Jonze, Fincher, Gondry have a common element: they belong to the music video sub-genre.
Eternal Sunshine was fun, but I think its success owes more to Kaufman’s script than Gondry’s direction. I think the same could be said regarding Being John Malkovich, which Jonze directed. In both cases, the most compelling aspect of the movie was the highly imaginative script. I thought BJM had a better cast and a faster pace, which helped hide some of the shortfalls. Eternal Sunshine really started to drag in the end, as you already knew the outcome of the story.
Be Kind Rewind could have been told in 15 minutes or less. Nickelodeon stuff here.
it’s a fun director and thats it for me.
Of the three you mentioned, the only one I didn’t particularly like was Eternal (although, admittingly, this needs a re-watch). I dug Science and really liked Be Kind Rewind.
Of these, BKW is the one I like best, notably for its creativity but also in the way it presents a movement that starts quite by accident, and grows as people become drawn in, creating something huge and bringing a community of people together (in this case, through film). People take this film too literally, which I find strange, as it seems that is the thing one shouldn’t do.
What I like about Gondry is his imagination and creativity when it comes to film-making as a whole. He has this unique approach in making his films especially when it comes to production design and camera shots. You just know it’s Gondry when you see his films. That’s probably one factor that makes him a great director. Visually most of his films are eye-pleasing though story wise, he’s not consistent.
Jazzaloha
Apparently my man, Den, does not like Gondry, but I love him. I’ve seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Science of Sleep and Be Kind, Rewind and I really like all of them. I think Eternal is a candidate for one of the better films of the decade, and, for me, Be Kind, Rewind is an underrated film. (I’ll be happy defend my reasons for both films.)
What do I like about Gondry? First, I love his set-pieces—the DIY, low-tech sensibility to them. Second, of the “quirky” recent directors (i.e. Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson, Jeunet), I think Gondry’s films are the most solid and cohesive (in terms of having a strong story; Science of Sleep was a little weak in that regard, but I still liked it). In other words, the “quirkiness” serves a point and is not an end in and of itself. Imo, his films are good and original. In any event, I like his stuff and look forward to seeing more of his films.
Den, over to you. :)