PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Kaufman: Synecdoche, New York (2008)



Chris Knipp
11-15-2008, 07:21 PM
CHARLIE KAUFMAN: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (2008)

A folly

Review by Chris Knipp

In this behemoth, this collection of characters in search of a story, hip screenwriter Charlie Kaufman delivers a directorial debut of enormous ambition. But while earlier writing-only efforts like Being John Malkovich, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are brilliant provocations, this time Kaufman's just enamored of his own fancy. Playing the role of director as well as writer he lacks the perspective or self control needed. The wearying result stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as a depressed schlub theater director called Caden Cotard whose modicum of public recognition doesn't save him from a host of problems, psychological, physical, and marital. And he thinks he's going to die--a thought harped on incessantly that signals the film's other chief weaknesses besides its self-indulgence: its tendentiousness, and, ultimately, its sentimentality.

Given a Macarthur "genius" award just after his painter wife has taken their little daughter and left him to live in Berlin, protagonist Cotard plunges into a giant, quixotic project that goes on for decades and is never finished. He fashions an outsize stage that's a microcosm of the world--or his world anyway. Perhaps this is the point of using "synecdoche" (the rhetorical term for using a part to stand for the whole) in the title. But more likely this is just a rather childish play on words, since the film's set in Schenectady, and Caden's boxes-within-boxes excess is far from rhetorical elegance: it's not synecdoche, it's a clumsy life-size replica. Kaufman's recreating of Caden Cotard's neurotic, dazed life and his overblown stagecraft gradually emerges as not so much a revelation about the artistic struggle as a compendium of what could be outtakes from every depressed schlub role Hoffman has ever played--all jumbled together without anything to connect them but throwaway displays of cleverness and bizarre, unfunny humor. Despite its ponderousness and ambition, the film never finds a consistent tone.

In the first section, which one may long to return to when the tedious repetitions of the theatrical production set in, Caden is suffering a series of Jobian torments and lives in what appears to be a state of justifiable hypochondria. He gets boils, jitters, has a seizure, his pupils don't dilate properly, he's prematurely arthritic, or thinks he is. Worst of all, he's miserably unhappy and afraid of dying. Meanwhile his blithe indifferent wife Adele Lack (Catherine Keener) goes off to Berlin with little Olive (Sadie Goldstein), a child who suffers from green stools, fitting with her name. Caden sees a series of puzzling or bizarre physicians, but just gets more ailments--some of which may be purely psychosomatic. The focus on odious bodily fluids and other disgusting aspects of human decline here is almost (but not quite) worthy of Hieronymous Bosch.

After he's abandoned by his wife, who ominously exclaims on the phone from Berlin "I'm famous!," and gets the Macarthur grant, Caden tells his therapist, the archly named Madeleine Gravis (Hope Davis), that he thinks he's dying and he wants to accomplish something before he dies. "Yes, that would be the time to do it," she dryly comments. So he takes on a vast aerodrome of a building on a city street and fills it with unemployed actors. Earlier, he has had a critical success with a production of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman in which the principals are played by young actors--in a self-conscious effort at the Alienation Effect, or to make the audience think about aging. But Adele chides him for not doing something completely his own--thus maliciously opening a Pandora's box of overblown ambition and fanatical verisimilitude, for Caden's effort is to copy everyone he knows. And like computer files, they clone themselves every time they seem to have been canceled out.

There are a number of women, all of whom resemble the eager, sweet Hazel (Samantha Morton), a would-be thespian who buys a house that's perpetually on fire. One of these is Claire Keen (Michelle Williams). Time goes by without Caden being aware of it, though the makeup man shows us he's getting older by decades. Olive grows up in Berlin as a figure of the local decadent hip culture, covered in tattoos by her best friend, Maria (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who becomes her lesbian lover. Caden's effort to get through to Olive is frustrating and dreamlike. He winds up scrubbing his ex-wife's toilet and kitchen when she's not there. Adele's celebrated paintings, which are said to be marvels of truth and reality, are tiny, and viewers in galleries must wear jeweler's magnifying glasses headsets to walk around and view them. This curious detail is one of many examples of how Kaufman's writing blends the surreal and the comic, and defies the viewer to distinguish between the actual and the dreamed or imagined. Emily Watson and Dianne Wiest round out the interesting female leads, who seem as coldly manipulated as any of Lars von Trier's.

Caden's life is marked by a cruel absurdity worthy of the early novels of Nabokov. Like the Russian master, Kaufman supplies his sad sack hero with a smiling doppelganger, Sammy Barnathan (Tom Noonan)--who doesn't resemble Caden at all (he's tall and thin), but qualifies to play him because he has followed him around for 20 years. But Nabokov would have rounded things out elegantly with a mock-detective story finish, like the duel between Humbert Humbert and Claire Quilty toward the end of Lolita. Instead, alas, Synecdoche becomes more and more repetitious and maudlin, the theatrical event Caden is staging becomes increasingly conceptual and uninvolving, and the movie clunks to a mechanical finish, weighed down by its own ambition, not to mention its tendentiousness and free-floating gloom.

This is material that Pirandello explored--thus making it more early modern than post-modern, in fact, though Kaufman often gets the latter label. It also touches on themes that occur in the films of Jacques Rivette. Above all one thinks this whole fantasmagoric production might best have been handled by Fellini. But he already did it, and the result was 8½. Kaufman hasn't Fellini's visual sense or virtuosity in staging complicated crowd sequences. His actors just pop up awkwardly here and there in clumps.

Kaufman and Michel Gondry are two talented cinema artists whose invention needs to be held in check or given a structure, and (surprisingly, perhaps) they collaborated brilliantly in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Working on his own as both writer and director in The Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind, Gondry grows too whimsical. Here, Kaufman simply has become too self-indulgent, and lacks the passion and empathy of a Werner Herzog in pursuing his quixotic striver.

oscar jubis
11-27-2008, 11:23 AM
You had prepared me for the negative review in a previous comment in which you say that regarding human behavior as a set of performances (as I proposed), hence thinking about the overlap between reality and fiction, and between life and art, "can lead to some pretty pretentious nonsense". You don't seem interested in thinking about these ideas and that's fine. I must be wrong though otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to write a review of the film as it would be patently unfair. I loved Synechdoche, New York. I found this article by Roger Ebert to reflect my general thoughts about the film. It's a shame the film is not playing here anymore as I'd like to watch it again. Here's the article (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/o_synecdoche_my_synecdoche.html), for those who are interested.

Chris Knipp
11-27-2008, 11:47 PM
You had prepared me for the negative review in a previous comment in which you say that regarding human behavior as a set of performances (as I proposed), hence thinking about the overlap between reality and fiction, and between life and art, "can lead to some pretty pretentious nonsense". You don't seem interested in thinking about these ideas and that's fine. I must be wrong though otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to write a review of the film as it would be patently unfair. I would have been 'patently unfair' to....what? write a review about a film that involves ideas you think I disagree with? And it is not unfair to assume this on your part? I have always liked Charlie Kaufman's writing. I had no idea that I would dislike his directing debut. There are lots of reasons, which I can't interpret in terms of your generalizations, though you can or could, if you chose to write a reiview rather than merely to question my integrity and say you loved the film. I'm glad you cite Roer Ebert, whose value as a film critic I suspect you may have disparaged in the past.

oscar jubis
11-28-2008, 09:17 PM
No, it would have been unfair to write a review about a film that forwards ideas/themes that don't interest you. I wrote that I must be wrong in having assumed from another post that such themes (behavior as performance, etc.) don't interest you since you went ahead and wrote a review of a film that deals with those themes centrally. No questioning of integrity involved.

I have disparaged Ebert for his being overly generous with 4-star reviews and praised his knowledge of film grammar (after listening to his commentary on the Citizen Kane dvd), his interest in new films from all over the world (based on his persistent attendance and coverage of festivals worldwide), and his willingness to admit when his critical apparatus fails him (Kiarostami's greatness eluded him at first).

Chris Knipp
11-28-2008, 10:26 PM
I don't think I know what the "ideas" in a movie are till I see it. Anyway that's all highly debatable. I would go to a movie by Charlie Kaufman for obvious reasons--I've admired his screenwriting, even if its "ideas" don't seem to me as revolutionary as some think viewed in terms of literature, where they go back fifty years or more. Anyway, if I did "know" what the "ideas" were in a movie and I thought they didn't "interest" me (which to me is a big "if"), why wouldn't I go anyway and write about the experience, which might open my mind and make them turn out to be interesting to me after all? I'd like you to tell what "behavior as performance etc." means and how it's central to Synechdoche and how that makes you love the movie.

tabuno
11-24-2009, 08:03 PM
Chris Knipp has elegantly expressed the tone and overall impact that this movie had on me better than I ever could. This pretentious movie contained all manner of attempted clever gimmicks that only served to distract, annoy, and confuse what could have been a innovative, creative premise for a movie. Tom Noonan interestly enough had as powerful and more satisfying demise in MANHUNTER (1986).