‘Synecdoche, New York’ is a 2 hour movie about rejection, loneliness, and death. On Friday night my friend Chris, who was visiting me from out of town, thought it would be a wonderful way to spend our evening. This week past the annual Ebert Film Festival was going on. The film festival is what it sounds like. Once a year our oldest theater in town, sort of like the Majestic in Ohio, screens a number of movies picked by Ebert. After the movies there is a discussion session with people who were involved with the movie. My friend Chris is a huge movie buff, and really wanted to see Synecdoche because he considers the movie a masterpiece and wanted to hear what the director, who was going to be a part of the discussion panel, had to say about it. The writer and director is Charlie Kaufman. He has written a number of movies, like Eternal Sunshine and Being John Malkovich. Roger Ebert has said that Synecdoche is the best movie of the decade.
I had not seen the movie before, and likewise had never been to the festival before, so I figured it would be a great time. And for the most part it was. We had to stand outside in a long line of people who didn't already have tickets. Chris said we should get there about 30 - 45 minutes a head of time, but since he got in about an hour before the movie started we didn't have much time. So we ran over to Steak and Shake, apparently Ebert's favorite restaurant, and got our food to go. Then we stood in line eating our food and people watching until it was time to get in.
Our seats were terrible. They were in the balcony on the far right. But we could see the screen and remarkably got to sit together. Plus is was cool being up there anyway. Before the movie started Ebert came out and talked to us a little bit about the movie. Since he cannot talk anymore he had his computer helping him out. It was a little funny because at one point his computer repeated the same text twice, and Ebert shook his fist at it in mock anger. Ebert also asked a question during the discussion panel which was nice because it was clear he wasn't allowing his loss of speech to mean a loss of voice.
The movie was alright but I found it to be terribly depressing. The beginning was great, being funny and light-hearted, but the story takes a sad turn quickly and from there on out things get progressively worse. Throughout Kaufman is throwing in humor and I think the movie is meant to be enjoyable but for me those glimmers didn’t mask the sad nature of the story itself. At the end though, around a peak of despair, this Catholic Priest comes along and basically rips everyone up and down, slapping us all in the face, with a very inspirational speech that’s probably directed at the audience as much as the characters. The audience clapped after the speech.
A neat part about the movie is that it is very deep. You can find all sorts of little meanings going on. The story is rather confusing at first and generally will require multiple viewings for a good understanding. I cheated a bit and read some reviews ahead of time, and they greatly helped me understand what was going on. I’m not so sure it’s the story and plot that’s confusing as it is trying to figure out what the little details mean. It’s like a great painting that has an easy enough illustration to understand but maybe an odd color choice that is meant to convey a deeper meaning. Kaufman won’t talk about these little aspects because he wants them to the audience to take whatever they want from them. For example, in the movie there is a burning house that people live in. Kaufman refuses to talk about the meaning of this house. At first I thought that it was a fire sale. When we first see the house, it is for sale and one of the characters is being taken through on a tour by a realtor.
After the movie, I happened to run into both Ebert and Kaufman, and I got them both to sign my movie pass.
I had not seen the movie before, and likewise had never been to the festival before, so I figured it would be a great time. And for the most part it was. We had to stand outside in a long line of people who didn't already have tickets. Chris said we should get there about 30 - 45 minutes a head of time, but since he got in about an hour before the movie started we didn't have much time. So we ran over to Steak and Shake, apparently Ebert's favorite restaurant, and got our food to go. Then we stood in line eating our food and people watching until it was time to get in.
Our seats were terrible. They were in the balcony on the far right. But we could see the screen and remarkably got to sit together. Plus is was cool being up there anyway. Before the movie started Ebert came out and talked to us a little bit about the movie. Since he cannot talk anymore he had his computer helping him out. It was a little funny because at one point his computer repeated the same text twice, and Ebert shook his fist at it in mock anger. Ebert also asked a question during the discussion panel which was nice because it was clear he wasn't allowing his loss of speech to mean a loss of voice.
The movie was alright but I found it to be terribly depressing. The beginning was great, being funny and light-hearted, but the story takes a sad turn quickly and from there on out things get progressively worse. Throughout Kaufman is throwing in humor and I think the movie is meant to be enjoyable but for me those glimmers didn’t mask the sad nature of the story itself. At the end though, around a peak of despair, this Catholic Priest comes along and basically rips everyone up and down, slapping us all in the face, with a very inspirational speech that’s probably directed at the audience as much as the characters. The audience clapped after the speech.
A neat part about the movie is that it is very deep. You can find all sorts of little meanings going on. The story is rather confusing at first and generally will require multiple viewings for a good understanding. I cheated a bit and read some reviews ahead of time, and they greatly helped me understand what was going on. I’m not so sure it’s the story and plot that’s confusing as it is trying to figure out what the little details mean. It’s like a great painting that has an easy enough illustration to understand but maybe an odd color choice that is meant to convey a deeper meaning. Kaufman won’t talk about these little aspects because he wants them to the audience to take whatever they want from them. For example, in the movie there is a burning house that people live in. Kaufman refuses to talk about the meaning of this house. At first I thought that it was a fire sale. When we first see the house, it is for sale and one of the characters is being taken through on a tour by a realtor.
After the movie, I happened to run into both Ebert and Kaufman, and I got them both to sign my movie pass.
0 comments:
Post a Comment