Thanks for giving this much maligned (and soon to be more maligned, when publicly released) movie a chance. It is impressive and striking, whatever its merits or flaws may be. A work of profound pity and sadness…
Moments after watching this film I wasn’t sure whether I liked it or not. Didn’t know what to make of it. Loose ends all over the place.
After I digested it, everything fell into place, and loved it. It is certainly a very complex film, which will have to watched over and over again in order to dissect it. But for me, the ultimate thing about Synecdoche is the experience of watching the film. Scene after scene, Kaufman managed to put me in a dreamy state of magical realism and confusion. Credits rolled, lights on, and it felt like waking up from a bizarre dream. I wonder how much of this film is precise filmmaking from a very well-thought screenplay and how much of it is luck, accidents, mistakes. Agreed with Mezm. Breath of fresh air allright. Bless Kaufmann for his pen.
Happy this film got made.
Sad it will go unnoticed.
Superb film. My review can be found here: http://thebrowncoat.blogspot.com/2008/11/synecdoche-new-york.html
I can’t wait to see this but I am not so sure it will be overlooked. I know it probably will not be a mainstream hit but it might make bank, It all depends on how they advertise it.
i thought Synecdoche was alright.
Derek I don’t think it’s going to make bank either.
Synecdoche, NY Production Budget – $20 Million
Synecdoche, NY Domestic Box Office as of 11/23/08 – $1,554,060
I didn’t enjoy this movie at all. It was like an explosion of possible meaning that used deconstructed device as a mask for lack of profundity. Kaufman’s tried to draw us a treasure map showing his own consciousness of the circularity of the questions he confronts as a person and as a writer, but he’s lost himself down the rabbit-hole where that self-consciousness has become the sole motivating force for his work. There is a kind of wisdom—even a kind of joy—in being aware of one’s own questioning and the many paradoxical circuits it implies. But it’s adolescent to stick there, to fail to break out of one’s insular personal theater. Much of Kaufman’s work shows sporadic abilities to leap past this limitation, but in Synecdoche he sinks into the mire he previously skirted.
This film will be remembered for his ambition, but for little else. And unless Kaufman can write a story of deeper stuff than this, he’ll be remembered largely as a writer unsatisfied with his own gimmicks.
My review: http://cinemabecomesher.blogspot.com/2008/11/synecdoche-new-york-charlie-kaufman.html
I’ve heard Charlie Kaufman movies never make money. But Synecdoche NY hasn’t really had a chance to play in many theaters. I’ve had the great opportunity to see it twice. Once it comes out on DVD, it will probably find its true audience. Twenty million isn’t a lot these days. I’d like to think it will break even!!
My review, copy and pasted, from the first time I saw it:
“It’s gonna be VERY hard for me to explain this movie, as I am aware of how layered it is and how I’ll probably pick up on new things every time I see it. But the best thing that I can tell you about Synecdoche, New York is that it truly does not feel like you are watching a movie. The acting and emotions portrayed are so real and so moving, to me. It starts out being really funny for awhile as Caden’s character is developed, and then goes into this deal of Magnolia-style drama that basically had me in tears for the final twenty minutes of the film.
This is a sad, sad, brutally, no-holds-barred movie about so many different things (most notably death). Nearly every line of the movie seemed to have a comedy touch and a serious touch simultaneously. For those of you who love those Kaufman epiphany speeches, there are certainly some here. Aside from the usual Kaufman meta-style, the emotion in this movie is so intense. I mean, really fucking intense. Caden is a sad, lonely man who goes through so much and winds up slipping out of existence, having accomplished nothing but making himself more miserable . I can’t say enough of the writing, but it’s more of the same brilliant, rich, memorable writing we are used to from Kaufman. It’s also possibly the best Philip Seymour-Hoffman performance.
At first, the emotion was so devastating that I found it strangely un-head-trippy for Kaufman. But then, the second time, I realized how insane the movie really is. It’s a movie within a movie within a movie, etc. At one point, Kaufman directs Hoffman to play Caden, who is with his girl Hazel, watching his own about-to-have conversation with her being reinacted by actors playing him and Hazel. Then, the actor playing the actor playing Caden comes onscreen. After he’s dismissed, the actor playing Caden says to the reinactment Hazel, “I think Sammy likes you.” At this point, we have no idea which Sammy nor which Hazel is being referred to, and the movie has gone in such a way where either possibility could be plausible. I think it’s a wonderful metaphor to represent the idea that everyone is everyone, and that we share our experiences and live through others. And that stepping outside of ourselves and observing our own behaviors could tell us interesting things about our own minds.
I am, again, stunned that nobody has reviewed on this movie or even cares about it. I consider it one of the best, most moving, and most profound films I have ever seen. Absolutely devastating."
Since the review, I have seen it three more times, and it is really just brilliant. You can take so much from this movie. You can watch it a different way each time. Kaufman does so many subtle things with time, character interaction/replacement, Caden and Ellen’s interchangeability. I pick up a lot of new things with each viewing. Kaufman has created a theme of life within life as a way to play between the interior and exterior of humanity, in the vein of the actual person, words and labels, feelings, and the way all of these things can be perceived. He is also able to naturally commentate on art. It’s so dazzlingly executed to me, not to mention how it has deeply affected me on an emotional level.
It’s my favorite movie.
What I blogged after I saw it:
For the first time since the birth of our son, Jules, last night Stacy and I went out on a date to see a movie, handing the kid into the very capable hands of a babysitter friend. Given the rarity of this occasion, I scanned Metacritic to make the most of this choice. I dismissed our initial impulses towards safe, fun, and likely forgettable (Quantum of Solace) and
We instead saw something that has polarized critics, Synecdoche, New York. Charlie Kaufman is not a slam dunk for me (I loved Eternal Sunshine, and deplored Adaptation), but I know that this movie would incite passionate response.
Well, this morning I woke up still thinking about the movie, which I take as a sign of remarkable success. Though I cannot say that I loved Synecdoche, it has captivated me, and I find myself turning characterizations and story points over in my mind.
Other reviews acknowledge how this film shares many similar themes with Kaufman’s other work (memory, neurosis, love, melancholy) though one crucial quality they neglect to point out is silliness. Whether it’s the New Jersey Turnpike in Being John Malkovich, the stoned techs in Eternal Sunshine, or in this movie, Tom Noonan’s initial appearances, or the house on fire, Kaufman revels in the silly. It’s probably worth remembering that Kaufman got his start in TV sitcoms, and he can still make an audience laugh. I don’t mean to suggest that silliness implies a lack of depth — in Kaufman’s world, it becomes a tool or irony or absurdity, the humor forcing us to reconsider just what it is that we’re seeing.
What most surprised me about this film, compared to Kaufman’s earlier work, is how he engages with the body. From the moment of Olive’s bright green poo, to the Caden’s head trauma, pustules, bloody urine, the therapist’s feet, tattoos, flab, thinning hair, and more, this Cronenberg-ian in it’s bodily obsessions.
The other filmmaker that came to my mind was David Lynch, in terms of the matter-of-fact surrealism that abounds. Perhaps Bunuel would be a more apt reference. This will be the single quality that most frustrates most viewers, because today’s audiences can’t handle the truly fantastic. Explanations are required. So, for example, why is Hazel’s house on fire? Why is there a divorced man living in its basement? The answer is, “Because.” I found that it felt right, and went with its flow.
The construction of the film made me think of Joseph Cornell’s assemblages. It’s remarkably taut, precise, and eclectic.
For the bulk of the film, I found the narrative to be so cerebral that while I was intrigued by what I was seeing, I wasn’t emotionally invested. That began to shift in the last quarter or so, where the heart-tugging actually worked. The performances in the film are solid throughout, but Dianne Wiest, who comes in around that last quarter, is amazing, and takes the movie to a whole new emotional depth.
(I must say I also love seeing Tom Noonan get a meaty role. His screen presence is so compelling, and pretty much always rewarding.)
Anyway, if you care about cinema, and are dismayed at how few filmmakers are trying to do anything interesting with the form or medium, I recommend viewing Synecdoche. You might not like it, but you won’t help but have a strong reaction.
My thoughts on the overall meaning and message of this film are this:
This may contain Spoilers
I think that over the years, Charlie Kaufman has compiled loads and loads of complicated motifs and imagery to describe the people around him. Things like the enigmatic burning house, the tattoos, etc. etc.
This entire film is about Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character, Caden. It has nothing to do with the people around him. Only how those people effect him. He is in a constant state of worry over his health and love life, and all he wants is to create art, art that is true to life.
A while back, I read in an article with Kaufman in Vice Magazine that this film came out of the idea of him and Spike Jonze doing a horror movie together. But instead of doing a slasher film or some crap like that, he decided to write a story about things in real life that truly are scary. And going into the film with that knowledge might help inform your expectations a little bit.
But yeah. Basically, this character, Caden, goes through life thinking only about the way other people effect him and how that makes him feel, and he thinks of people in terms of these complex concepts. And the more he tries to understand, the more complicated it gets, and what he fails to realize is that people are not concepts. And that another person isn’t defined by your interactions with them. That’s only a small part of who someone is. And I think that’s where the title of the film comes in, Synecdoche. Which is a figure of speech that means putting a part of something for the whole.
He wants to understand all the world around him, but he can’t look outside of himself. And he grows old, and sick, and dies. And that is a true horror story. When the credits rolled, I was crushed. It was a terribly moving experience that I will never forget. I don’t think I’ve ever sat in a theater where when the lights came on and the credits began, not a single person moved.Not until Jon Brion’s “Little Person” stopped playing did I even move an inch.
Go see this movie. You may not love it. Or even enjoy it. But it will most definitely effect you.
when i saw the trailer for this film the first time, i began to tear up. I love hoffman, and i’ve never felt let down by any of kaufman’s work.
i still haven’t seen it. because i live in arizona. i feel extremely moved and influenced by everyones’ reviews.
Can anyone explain all the symbolism in this movie? I’ve figured out most of it but there’s still some confusion.
Oh, and it is out in Arizona. It’s just at one theater.
Synecdoche N.Y was a confusing experience for me, but whatever i understood I loved it. Hoffmana and Samantha morton were outstanding, I will have to watch it again to catch the intricacies and symbolism.
By the way it was more like watching a lynch movie rather than a kaufman movie, maybe because of the sedate’ness in the pace.
Synecdoche, New York was the bravest film I’ve seen in a long time. Filmmakers take risks nowadays, but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a revealing outpouring of emotion and thought. Kaufman’s masterpiece to date.
I think the reason there has been such a backlash at this film is because people wanted to see another Eternal Sunshine. A good film in its own right, but in my opinion juvenile when compared to Synecdoche. Many of the complaints I have seen deal with how they feel the film is self-indulgent or convoluted or how the ending wore on, yet these same people praise Fellini or Spielberg or some of the other filmmakers of old. Nostalgia? Perhaps. And also, I think it is an indication of just how narrative-centric cinema has become, how story trumps all other aspects. People simply want to be shown something.
The unique thing (and probably what puts people off) about Brecht, Godard, and yes, Kaufman is that they make demands on the viewer. They are not here to entertain, but to question the very core values they see maybe contributing to the degradation of the things they hold dear: in this case, cinema. I find Kaufman’s latest example of resistance to taking things for granted to be his deepest exploration, his most honest introspection, and thus his most brilliant.
I think filmmakers, and people in general, could use more of this psychological/metaphysical/intellectual/emotional catharsis. It is sorely missed in this world of marketability, returns on investments, cynical hypocrites and uncritical critics.
I don’t think a fuller, more alive movie can be made
ZZZZZZZ.
Giving Charlie Kaufman way too much space with this film. What a fking mess of a movie, that Synecdoche one…
Actually less Brecht and Godard than Raul Ruiz and Adolpho Bio-Casares. Any who has seen the former’s “Memoire des Apparances” and read the latter’s “The Invention of Morel” will know precisely what Kaufman is doing and the artistic tradition to which he belongs.
But Americans are a proudly ignorant and stupid people.
I just got back from it and all I thought of was the Fellini of 8 1/2 and Juliet of the Spirits — but not in a bad way. It seemed as if he had taken the ending of 8 1/2 and decided to run with it even further. I think it’s the most complicated movie I’ve seen since Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire, except that somewhere along the way I lost some thread of the ever-more-complex story Kaufman was telling. I have every intention of seeing it again — maybe, then, I can say more.
I agree with David that this is a bit more related to someone like Raul Ruiz. I also thought of some of Richard Lester’s more experimental narratives (How I won the War? The Bed-Sitting Room etc) and of the work of Nic Roeg. It also conjures up Fellini to a certain degree.
Brecht and Godard tend to have a greater political analysis at work and I felt that this film was primarily rooted in a more purely psychological space. I liked the film. I didn’t like it as much as Adaptation or Being John Malcovich but it is quite impressive as a first film.
“But Americans are a proudly ignorant and stupid people.”
Just because someone doesn’t like a terrible movie doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
Never has a trailer made me want to see a film more than Synecdoche New York. I can’t wait.
The film is great. Whether it’s good or not or whether you “got it” or not it was a pure expression of the artistic condition. The love of art and women and how our neurosis cripples us into a half-world of stasis and non stasis. We are too afraid to die but too paralyzed to live. It made sense to me since I suffer from this snakelike condition whenever it sneaks up on me. Sure, life is hard, we have to pick up and move on yet it’s not so easy for some people and it’s too late when they realize it was all very simple.
The movie is clear with it’s obsessions and it’s simply layered: time is wasted, it slips by, people betray others, love is tragic, our bodies do mysterious things—- all of this is there and easy to overcome if we simply open our eyes to see. Perhaps you can’t see it in the movie itself but perhaps in your own life. The concerns of the movie are definitely grown up matters that emerge with life experience and perspective. If you’re lucky you never have to endure such suffering and if you’re lucky you’ll be able to understand that it’s all around you carried by numerous people in various apartments and homes and you’ll try not to let it swallow you, too.
“Let’s have some fun. . .”
>>But Americans are a proudly ignorant and stupid people<,
And we clearly deserve that Plane Nine thing you’re working on.
I always feel stupid when I dislike a movie that has been considered a masterpiece, ect. But I can’t lie — I really didn’t enjoy Synecdoche, New York. I didn’t care about any of the characters and the film failed to communicate with me in any way. But that’s just my opinion. And I do love Godard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3YFReThi0
Having now seen Synecdoche, NY for a second and third time on blu-ray, I feel that I can finally form an opinion.
And that opinion is that this film is a masterpiece, and will be considered one of the greatest American films of the early 21st century at some point in the future. It’ll be a classic case of film lovers/students/makers looking back and wondering why such an incredible film was looked upon so poorly by the majority of critics and audience members alike.
Movies like this simply don’t get made enough, let alone in America, and let alone by Hollywood.
I wholeheartedly agree Brandon. It instantly became one of my favorite movies of all-time as soon as I saw it. Not a day has gone by that I haven’t thought about this movie since seeing it at the beginning of November. I have it on the way in the mail at the moment, can’t wait to see it again.
mezmorized
I saw Synecdoche, New York today at a screening at school and found myself thinking about Brecht and Godard. His new film is like a Brechtian dream and he tries to utilize the epic theater in ways that Godard implemented in his earlier work. Disjointed/episodic nature of scenes, hopping through different times as if you were inhaling and exhaling and always a sense that the characters are breaking a fourth wall that really wasn’t there in the first place. It’s hard not to watch the film and not think of Brecht’s alienation technique of distancing the audience to the point where they have to look at what they are seeing objectively and with a critical eye. The film I found worked well in that respect, which I enjoyed, but I also found my self smiling when I heard the students next to me repeating “What the fuck” silently to themselves and to their friends. It’s not an easy film to digest and Kaufman (who was at the screening afterwards and gave a Q&A) said that he didn’t want to put out something that he had been seeing in cinema right now. For those who love Eternal Sunshine, they are going to be conflicted with this film, because it’s a logical progression as a writer for him. Sunshine, in my opinion was a simple story told in a complex way, which had broad appeal. Synecdoche, New York is a complex series of events (I would hesitate in calling it a straight narrative) that is told without giving any “in” for the audience. The end doesn’t sum up everything you were confused about the film, it doesn’t give you a feeling of completion, it leaves you empty and hungry for understanding, which is in no way a comment to disparage the film. The film is a breath of fresh air for cinema and it’s terrible that it’s going to be ignored by the general public (Film students who have seen Kaufman’s work and arguably fans of his, were confused about how to feel about the film, so I’m not sure how America will respond).
Love him or hate him, Godard has prepared me never to assume anything about a film until the credits are rolling and with that attitude I throughly enjoyed the ride that was Synecdoche, New York. It’s left me wanting to see it again so I can look at it now with a critical eye, but also because the journey is one that is best experienced by watching it again.