Synecdoche, New York reviews
Many of you will see Synecdoche today or sometime soon. Here are a few reviews to open a discussion for anyone who needs to talk it out.
Manohla Dargis, The New York Times: To say that Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” is one of the best films of the year or even one closest to my heart is such a pathetic response to its soaring ambition that I might as well pack it in right now… Despite its slippery way with time and space and narrative and Mr. Kaufman’s controlled grasp of the medium, “Synecdoche, New York” is as much a cry from the heart as it is an assertion of creative consciousness. It’s extravagantly conceptual but also tethered to the here and now, which is why, for all its flights of fancy, worlds within worlds and agonies upon agonies, it comes down hard for living in the world with real, breathing, embracing bodies pressed against other bodies.
Scott Tobias, The Onion: For this master of mindfuckery, Synecdoche, New York probably qualifies as a magnum opus, since it essentially multiplies Adaptation by an exponential factor and thus grows into a snarling, ungainly beast of self-reflexive absurdities. It’s a movie that doesn’t just benefit from repeat viewings but practically requires them.
And after the cut, a couple of critics who just didn’t get it.
Owen Gleiberman, EW: It’s a hallowed ritual of film culture. An artist makes a movie that is so labyrinthine and obscure, such a road map of blind alleys, such a turgid challenge to sit through that it sends most people skulking out of the theater — except, that is, for a cadre of eggheads who hail the work as a visionary achievement. It happened in 1961, with that high-society puzzle obscura Last Year at Marienbad, and in 2006, with David Lynch’s through-the-looking-glass bore Inland Empire… Now Charlie Kaufman, the brain-tickling screenwriter of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, has directed his first movie, Synecdoche, New York (he also wrote it), and yes, it is one of those ”visionary” what-the-hell doozies. Prepare to be told that it’s a masterpiece.
Excellent! Gleiberman hates it; ergo, I’ll like it. (uh-oh, is ergo an egghead word?)
Armand White, New York Press: Kaufman’s artiness ignores political reality—further congratulating hipsters who prefer Todd Haynes–style narcissism to Todd Solondz’s humane sociological explorations (Kaufman imitates both)… Pity those nerds and fashion-sheep who’ll waste time trying to connect Kaufman’s symbols, cite the many David Lynch references and puzzle for ways to use “synecdoche” in daily conversation.
Or we could pity the pompous twitics like Gleiberman and White who devote so much time insulting moviegoers who appreciate Lynch, Resnais, and Todd Haynes. I thought these soft-boiled egghead critics only stooped to sneer at audiences who like The Dark Knight. Is this what we want from a review? Scorn toward readers who disagree with them?
jennybee says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 7:55am
Hey, you left out the best pan of them all. This one’s so over-the-top, it’s hysterical:
http://www.observer.com/2008/o2/could-synecdoche-new-york-be-worst-movie-ever-yes
richard crawford says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 8:12am
Dargis is NEVER to be trusted.
Pierre de Plume says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 10:52am
I see from jennybee’s link that the NY Observer guy hated Borat, too. That means I’ll probably like Synecdoche, NY.
XanderLJ says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 11:05am
White is the most despicable, and wretched critic in the country BY FAR!
I like Gleiberman, but he’s been wrong sometimes. However, Sasha, Owen LOVED “Dark Knight”, so don’t think he’s “one of those critics.”
Scott Feinberg says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 12:29pm
“The Feinberg Files” on “Synechdoche, NY” (October 17)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/2008/10/like-life-the-o.html
The hordes of people who enjoyed “Being John Malkovich” (1999), “Adaptation” (2002), and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (2004) will be pleased to learn that Charlie Kaufman, the man who wrote those films and who I regard as the greatest screenwriter of the last quarter-century, has struck again. They may be less pleased, though, when they discover that his latest film—though insanely imaginative, shockingly ambitious, and ultimately brilliant, like his earlier offerings—does not explain and tie together everything in the neat and satisfying way that those films did. Instead, it will leave many who see it confused, frustrated, and even lost, which is probably why it couldn’t find a distributor before, at, or for quite a while after it premiered at Cannes, and why the distributor it did find is giving it a very conservative release. Some who see it will find it haunting and profoundly meaningful, as did Time critic Richard Corliss (“A miracle movie”), New York Times critic A.O. Scott (“Kaufman has created an alternative reality unsettling nearly every expectation”), and myself (I’m personally convinced that it’s a modern-day masterpiece). But, as previously discussed, it is almost impossible for a film that splits not only critics and the public, but also both groups among themselves, to convince a studio to fund an awards campaign, and therefore to last through the end of the year.
“And The Winner Is…” on “Synecdoche, NY” on 10/16
http://andthewinneris.blog.com/4023591/
Unlike Kaufman’s earlier films, though, Synecdoche does not tie everything together at the end in a neat way that is sure to leave audiences pleased with themselves, the film, and the screenwriter; instead, it requires audiences to form interpretations and conclusions of their own, which inevitably means that some will go home dissatisfied. I, however, went home with the sense that I had seen a film that undoubtedly has its shortcomings, but is nevertheless one of the most insanely imaginitive, shockingly ambitious, and ultimately brilliant films of this or any year. To me, it is the work of a visionary.
I don’t expect or ask others to agree with my own reading of the film—and, as you can hear for yourself by playing the 20-minute podcast (below) of my chat with Charlie Kaufman, neither does he. But I do encourage you to check it out, for it is a rare example of a tragically dying breed: a film by a filmmaker who actually assumes his audience is not stupid, but smart.
humdinger says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 12:56pm
i love his adaptation, being john malkovich and eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
check out this interview of charlie kaufman
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/synecdoche_new_york/news/1775535/rt_interview_charlie_kaufman_on_synecdoche_new_york
Daniel says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 12:59pm
I wish it was playing here in Vancouver…
Maybe someday soon….
cjKennedy says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 2:17pm
Synecdoche’s goodness is directly proportional to Armond White’s Douchiness.
And Richard Crawford is wrong about Manohla. I’m just saying.
D/N says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 2:42pm
Give me a break, Sasha. I worship Kaufman like a demi-god (even though I will ALWAYS maintain that Eternal Sunshine is one of the most overpraised works of the decade). I haven’t seen Synecdoche, but I hope to love it. But to suggest that every critic that’s going to give it a negative review just “doesn’t get it” at best, and is an evil anti-elitist jerk who probably eats puppies and is going to vote for McCain at worst, is completely stupid. OH NOES, James Berardinelli didn’t like it either (http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=1379), let’s all pile on him for saying it’s too overtly “artsy” for his tastes!!
Do we really want people who show scorn to those who diasagree with them? I don’t know Sasha, you tell me.
Rob Wills says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 3:15pm
There is no such thing as THE most despicable and wretched critic in the country. They are all tied in first place. If only one of them would admit to filing a minority opinion and that there is the tiniest chance they are incorrect in the opinion they formed. And don’t tell me an opinion cannot be wrong. Hitler had opinions.
Sam Juliano says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 3:39pm
Richard Crawford is COMPLETELY wrong about Manohla Dargis. She is only one of the very best critics writing right now in the country, but I think we’ve had this argument before. Dargis is unfailingly eloquent and insightful, and her reviews are poetry and wonderful to read.
Richard says that Dargis is “not to be trusted” which translates to “I don’t agree with her.” I am sorry but I find this entire objection as elitism, that is misguided and completely contrary to the truth. It is frankly laughable.
cjKennedy says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 3:45pm
I don’t always agree with Ms. D, but she’s almost always a good read. Armond is another story…
Luke Gorham says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 4:07pm
Sasha didn’t write this, D/N. Ryan did.
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 4:25pm
D/N, I strike back in accordance with how hard I feel hit.
Also, I see a difference in what I wrote (mocking specific individuals) and doing what White and Glieiberman have both done in their reviews: dismiss a huge segment of cinema-lovers with a weak wave of their listless wrists.
I don’t say all critics who don’t like Synecdoche “don’t get it.” I say these two critics don’t get it. They say so themselves.
Gleiberman: “I gave up making heads or tails of Synecdoche, New York”
White: “Pity those nerds and fashion-sheep who’ll waste time trying to connect Kaufman’s symbols…”
It’s a complex movie that demands some intellectual engagement, but I had no trouble connecting the symbols or making heads or tails of it. It’s a puzzle, for sure, but it’s solvable. Gleiberman and White could not, so it’s apparently over their heads. But instead they choose to throw up in their hands and tell us, “don’t waste your time! there’s no way to figure this shit out!”
Daniel says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 5:10pm
Ryan, could you give us YOUR thoughts on the movie?
person123 says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 6:19pm
I just wanted to point out that Gleiberman has named 2 Todd Haynes films as his favorites of their respective years. He also gave The Dark Knight a rave review.
I do think that that was a retarded, poorly-written review, but still, most the things directed towards him in the last paragraph aren’t exactly true.
michael says:
Friday, October 24, 2008 at 6:34pm
I’m eager to see this film, and have my own opinion. Often, I like films that the measure of critics declare a “folly”, or “a labor of love”. These films are usually ambitious (granted, sometimes to a fault), and give you alot to talk about afterwards. However, occasionally the films can be so layered, and confounding, that they really aren’t worth the effort to piece together (at least for those of us caught in the speed of life). For instance, INLAND EMPIRE. I’m a big fan of most of David Lynch’s films, but I found this one overlong, and bizarre to a fault. Still, I can’t get the images of those damn rabbits out of my mind. Wish I could…god knows i’ve tried…but I can’t.
Sam Juliano says:
Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 7:18am
I saw SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORKlast night and I’m still recovering from its ambitious, awe-inspiring brilliance.
Once again, Ms. Dargis has it right!!!!!
God says:
Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 7:37am
Lol even I think this movie was crap