Thoughts on My Dinner With Andre
I know of a guy who thought there was a problem with his VHS copy because “it showed the same thing all the time-2 guys talking”!
LOL!!!!!
LOL!
Wonder what he thought of it
I believe he never got around to see it! What a jerk!
Count me on the ‘Masterpiece’ side of the aisle
The minmalist way the film is shot and Malle’s framing/lighting – excellent.
The conversation and dialogue – especially Andre Gregory’s inspired stories – excellent.
However, I keep wondering now about that oblique, silent, older waiter that hovers in the background. What was he thinking? What had led him to this point, to this restaurant, to this scene? I wanted to see the story of his life, as done by Malle.
What is his story? Inquiring minds want to know!
Also, looking back, does anyone remember after the fact what the two were actually eating??? We should have had more about the food surely. I am sorry, but food is important to me. After all, where would Babette’s Feast be without the food being an integral part? So, as a result of these lapses, I can’t give the film the full 5 stars.
Where’s the beef…bourguinon?
In the film they both order quail. As far as what it actually was i have no idea.
This film can definitly be seen as complex as far as all the philosophy, which i love, but i was surpised and delighted that the immediate affect on Wally after the dinner was simple in that he realized the power of the simple memories from our past. What are your thoughts on the end of the film? Did it change the way you think when you drive down a familiar street?
I’m sorry but I thought the film wore out it’s welcome fairly soon after it had begun. I think if I wanted to see something like that I would go to a play. It seemed to me to be a one trick pony. Most films for me have to be visually stimulating and I got fairly tired of it after a while. Louis Malle has made some great films. I think he directed a really great debut film called Elevator to the Gallows and I like Au Revoir Les Enfants and Damage, but this one didn’t seem to reach me like those did. It’s kind of amazing how they remembered or improvised or both the dialog in My Dinner With Andre, but after a while it got pretty boring. The conversation is kind of interesting of how Andre talks about living in a spontaneous manner, but it didn’t really seem to add up to much and after a while it got repetitious. The ending sort of reminded me of Annie Hall and that both of the characters in those films are recalling their past and I guess coming to terms with their lives. My Dinner With Andre was not a terrible film, but it should have been shorter I guess. Does anyone think along these lines about My Dinner With Andre?
No, Hal I found the conversation really interesting (although it’s been almost twenty years since I’ve seen the film, so I’m not sure what I would think of the conversation now). To me, that’s the key to this film: if you don’t find the conversation interesting, there’s almost no chance you can like this film; if you like the conversation, you’ll like the movie. (I guess that’s stating the obvious.)
In terms of filmmaking though, can we really say the filmmaking—as in the direction, cinematography, editing, etc,—was really terrific?
Well, Jazz there’s essentially “no” cinematography to speak of, but what’s on show here is the writing which is makes this film such a great one (in my eyes at least). I mean if someone can’t sit through less than 2 hrs. of talking then I probably would have a very low opinion of their intelligence. But saying that, it’s not really an “intellectual” film at all, just a couple guys discussing philosophy and personal cosmologies, but the film does require the attention span of more than a fly, so I suppose that rules out a large number of people. It really says a lot about the two actors as well, because not anyone could’ve pulled it off as effortlessly and genuinely as these two did.
It’s not a showy film and it wasn’t meant to be. There should be more films like this, but unfortunately filmmakers today seem more concerned about wanking the audience than actually taking the time to write a decent screenplay. Few filmmakers focus on “concept” anymore and are just content with telling a story. Certainly a film of the “less is more” variety.
@Annie Hall comparison: I don’t see that at all.
All in all, I think it’s one of Malle’s best work, and it really shows how a director can take material that is virtually all dialogue and still make an intriguing film out of it. Sure, I like Malle’s other work such as Elevator in the Gallows and Murmur of the Heart, but this is the one that really struck me.
SIDE NOTE: Apparently Wally and Andre had joked about “switching philosophies” and filming a sequel. Of course it didn’t happen, but wouldn’t that have been a strange double bill?
Although I was being a bit facetious in my earlier post (in case you didn’t notice), I agree completely with Deckard’s own comments re this film. I was mesmerized by the intelligence of the conversations and how Malle never impeded this conversation with showy techniques or staging. What you get is ease-dropping on the conversation of two interesting and contrasting figures. Shawn and Gregory wrote their own dialogue and it never drags.
Gregory is a great raconteur and his stories re the bizarre antics of the Grotowski group are fascinating. Shawn always puts just the right touch of down-to-earth realism into the mix to make for a believable and captivating take on two people’s perspective. If we don’t have friends as lively, informative, and smart as these two – at least we can partake in their company for about 2 hours. I found the film didn’t drag at all for me. I just wish every conversation I had with a friend at a restaurant could be as lively as this one. Full cudos to Malle for not interfering with the magic and enhancing it by his understated tone and lighting. Full marks here.
It looks like my picture of the waiter in the earlier post got taken down. Here is a smaller version:
@Deckard Are you saying that people that can’t sit through a showing of My Dinner With Andre you would regard as people with low intelligence? There are a lot of different kinds of films and I don’t think you have to like everything that is deep and philosophical to understand and enjoy films. What I mean by the comparison between My Dinner With Andre and Annie Hall is that those characters are both recalling their relationships to people in their past. Alvy Singer with his relationship to Annie Hall and is the character’s name Murray in Andre?, who thinks about his father. I usually sit through all sorts of films even if I don’t like them. I try to some degree perhaps not to see certain movies like sophomoric ones. Films like that would be something like 27 Dresses and Twilight. Those are just not my type of films. I’m not saying that I would never see films that were similar to those or those themselves ever but their not on my list of films to see right away. I’m sorry that I can’t agree with others on this film, but that is just how I feel about this particular film.
Should have been a play.
Fails as a movie.
I’m sorry that I mentioned the other character’s name as Murray. It’s Wally.\
@Jason Thanks for agreeing with me.
@JASON + HAL: Have either of you guys ever even seen a play before? If so I’m sure you’d agree My Diner with Andre would be almost unbearable if done that way. I’m sure you guys would dislike like it even more. Plays tend to have a more over the top acting style which would not fit the overall mood of the subject matter. If anything it’d be anti- theater material.
I agree with Will that the film would not work as a play, because every time you see a play it changes. But with this film the only thing that changes is the viewer interpretation.
What do you mean that every time you see a play it changes?
I understand that this movie would not be the ideal play, It would probably work best just as a work of literature.
Plays don’t have major changes, but what i mean is that the film captures this moment, this conversation once. A play on the other hand is performed several times and although the plot remains the same, the experience is slightly altered because the audience is part of the reality of it. That’s what i like about plays, but i agree this would also be great literature. It sure does stimulate your imagination.
“Are you saying that people that can’t sit through a showing of My Dinner With Andre you would regard as people with low intelligence?”
Well, I don’t want to offend anyone on here so, no. I mean it’s simply childish that someone can’t sit through a 90 minute film. Whether one agrees that it’s a good film or not is something else altogether. But who says we all have to agree anyway? I watch a lot of films which I dislike on a personal level, but I appreciate if it does something unique or whatnot. I’ve sat through truly horrendous films and I’d even go so far as to say that one can learn just as much from a bad film as a good one (interpret that how you will), so in my mind, I just can’t comprehend NOT watching a film because one dislikes its approach or style, etc. Again though, that’s just me.
“What do you mean that every time you see a play it changes?” – Jason
I think that answers your question, Will. Of course a play changes every time you see it. It’s a live performance. Sure, everything is rehearsed but, like a concert, there are things that don’t go exactly as planned (for one reason or another) and improvisation is an aspect that is USUALLY (though not always) absent from film – or at least not a major aspect in most films.
I would recommend seeing Opening Night, but that’ll probably garner the same reaction as this film, so I won’t.
“Fails as a movie.”
Why?
I think we can fail to recognize, however we interpret this film, that Malle was trail-blazing here. He has the audacity to make a film about two people talking. Talking – that’s it! Of course, like any film with a new approach, it either works for you or it doesn’t. Deckard has that covered.
I find Malle one of those fascinating small handful of filmmakers who was willing to try something new and take a different approach depending on what he was filming. He was not afraid to change his style or alter his treatment. His films also deal with identity and character – especially characters who find themselves in extreme situations. He is much more interested in the complex relationships between people than in expressing a pleasing visual style. As a result, I find his films more satisfying overall than his more showy colleages like Godard or Truffaut. Each of his films stands out from the next as a re-invention. He didn’t like to repeat himself. Perhaps something he shares with Altman. I admire him for not always doing the same thing. He was not a Nouvelle Vague groupie – and good on him for that.
Does anyone detect here that I like the film for what it is and think it a significant contribution to Malle’s varied filmography? Well, that’s my final take on it.
This was what I was referring to, Will:
“@JASON + HAL: Have either of you guys ever even seen a play before?” – Will
“What do you mean that every time you see a play it changes?” – Jason
“I think that answers your question, Will.” – Deck
Just for clarification, Malle wrote all the dialogue; the actors did not improvise or express their own views?
I have mixed feelings about the “boldness” of the concept. Yes, it’s different, but is this difference noteworthy or commendable? What is the difference between this film and say the Charlie Rose Show or the Dick Cavett Show? Granted, those TV programs are more interviews than conversations, but besides that, is there any significant difference—especially if we think of the filmmaking involved.
Again, I enjoyed this film because I found the conversation interesting, and I happen to enjoy the interview/conversation format.
@Deckard: Ah, I see now thanks for clearing things up.
Jazzaloha – I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that Malle wrote all the dialogue. Since you put a question mark at the end, I wasn’t sure whether you were making a statement or asking a question.
Just in case anyone is confused on that score, the two actors Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn wrote the screenplay for the film. Malle did NOT write the dialogue. Here is the transcript:
My Dinner with Andre
I know dialogue-driven films like this don’t work for everybody – obvious from the types of responses here. Just to make clear: this is NOT a play or a mere record of a conversation (ala Rose or Cavett). It is a screenplay like any other, with the action taking place in the restaurant as the two character eat and talk.
I greatly admire French cinema. I find it more sophisticated than most any other. French films are often dialogue and character driven – from Renoir to Rivette to Rohmer – and just about everyone in between. The French love language and its subtleties. That’s why if you aren’t conversant in French, you need to read alot of sub-titles! Action in a French film is usually oblique. The action is never the main thing driving the story. What can we say about a culture that is much more leisurely than the Americans, where the favorite pastime is talking to friends and shooting the breeze outside in a cafe – watching the people go by?
Different culture, folks. Don’t expect the same things from a French director that you would from an American one – even one making a film in the US (as Malle is here). My Dinner with Andre is by all means well in-line with other dialogue/character driven French films..
If you have a short attention span, or love action films, or most any typical Hollywood schlock, stay away from French films. They tend to be slow, articulate, measured, and centred around the lives of their characters. If this bores the hell out of you – just stay away.
Now I am thoroughly bored trying to convince others of the merits of this film. I see no point in continuing along an obvious blind alley or speaking to deaf ears – ears that can’t hear the beauty of the language in this film or any dialogue-drive film, or the complexity of the story being told. We almost always end like this when in any discussion of film here, with nothing being learned and everyone just staying in their own separate, isolated corners. I have tried to present my position for the film, and now anyone is free to do whatever they wish. All I can say is that I wish every friend I had was as interesting and brilliant as these two characters.
If you haven’t seen it, and think it might sound intriguing inspite of the negativity, please give it a try, especially if you like French films in general.
@Will I have seen a play, I had a play of mine performed when I won a playwriting contest in high school and I acted in a play once when I was in high school. I also have seen a few Broadway musicals. I think My Dinner With Andre would be interesting as a play. There are one man show plays that are performed on Broadway from time to time.
@Deckard I sat through the film even though it got boring after a while. And I agree with you that we can’t agree all the time on what we consider a good or bad film. I think you make a good point about how you can learn something or find something out even by viewing a bad film. For the most part, I agree with you that people when they come to see a film should stay until the end of the film, but maybe some people would leave. I don’t necessarily think that is a good thing, but not everyone will stay in a theater during a film and I guess that’s just how it goes.
Hal: Respect good sir. I didn’t mean any of what I said as some sort of attack.
But I do agree that it would be intersting as a play I was just under the impression that you may not have been familiar with the theater medium and it’s possibilities. I don’t know if you can compare it to one man acts though. Aren’t they usually comidec performances? I mean something as low key as the material in My Diner With Andre I think it just works much better because of the cinematic quality it has; editing and what not.
@Will Sorry to have seemed defensive towards you regarding plays. The play I wrote was written a long time ago and the play I acted in was also a long time ago too. I’m not really a theater person. I really like the movies and that’s why I visit this website. As far as one man act plays go, I thought there maybe ones that are serious ones as well. I stated in what I believe was my first post on this thread that I thought this might be better as a shorter film. I think you make a good point about the editing in My Dinner With Andre. Like I said in what I believe was my first post, I didn’t hate this movie but I didn’t love it either.
Thanks for clarification, RLS—I wanted to know if Malle wrote the screenplay.
Btw, I don’t mind dialogue driven films—even films where people are essentially sitting (or not moving much) and just talking the whole time throughout the film. Some noteworthy examples come to mind: The Big Kahuna, Before Sunrise (actually many of Richard Linklater’s films) and many of Neil LaBute’s films. But these films have a story and plot to them, whereas My Dinner with Andre does not. To my mind, it is not very different from a conversation on Cavett or Rose—except that it isn’t an interview. Then again, I haven’t seen this film for almost twenty years, so maybe I’m remembering this wrong. How is the film different from simply filming a conversation—i.e. two people “shooting the bull,” as it were—between two (fascinating) people? Again, I like listening to interesting conversations, and I really liked this film.
Jazzaloha – You have provided a reasoned and considered opinion of the film and mentioned that you have no problem with dialogue driven films. I can appreciate your distinction between the films you mentioned (which I have yet to see) that have a plot and storyline and a film like My Dinner with Andre that is primarily a record of two people in conversation. Full marks to you for making your position clear – which I completely respect.
What I don’t understand are those condemning the film just because it primarily is a record of two people talking as if this was a boring concept or not worthy of a cinematic treatment. Regardless of how one judge’s the film, to condemn it out-of-hand as boring because of its lack of a plot, or action, or defined storyline is a bit unjust – imo.
I think we always need to think outside the box on what our expectations are for any type of film. Full credits to Malle for taking this project on and making a film of just that – two people talking. It might not work for you – fair enough – but please don’t shoot down the concept itself. We must always allow the filmmaker the option of making any type of film they want. If a fillmaker just wants to do a film with only one person in it, it could still be interesting. We can’t limit the possibilities by saying that a film that mainly records two people in conversation is boring or uncinematic – just for that reason.
myersc
One my all time favorite movies.First time through i didn’t remember much of it but each successive viewing was more rewarding. Just wondering if you think it’s a masterpiece like me or a dull meditation.