Synecdoche, New York

Started by MacGuffin, August 11, 2006, 12:36:05 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Now I can go back and read some of these articles.

I know that I can say I enjoyed this movie and I know that I can say it definitely needs at least a second viewing to really soak it in.

Kaufman stated Lynch influences in the Q&A and those influences are pretty strong in Synecdoche.

I don't think Kaufman can do "ideas unfolding within other ideas unfolding within other ideas" this strongly again without it getting stale.  I think he pretty much played that card as far as it could be played in this... to the point where the layers comment on the layering.

I don't exactly know what happened in the movie... i mean I know what happened and I get the majority of the themes, but there's more that I need to look into.  Some of the metaphors seem so direct, I almost suspect that they're intentional distractions and it wouldn't be strange at all for Kaufman to hide a subtle metaphor within an obvious one.

Anyway, the long-short is that I really liked it, but need to see it again and part of me believes that I might not like it upon second viewing.


thx for a worthwhile post on it.


indieWIRE INTERVIEW | "Synecdoche, New York" Director Charlie Kaufman

In the opening scene of "Being John Malkovich," John Cusack is a street puppeteer controlling the interaction of his creations. Spike Jonze may have directed, but the film's screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, makes clear from the get-go that he is the master of the enterprise. The screenwriter as auteur. We see that again in "Adaptation," also directed by Jonze, but the complex doubling of character is pure Kaufman. The non-linear narrative of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," in which people can have memories erased from their minds, is Kaufman, not Michel Gondry.

With "Synecdoche, New York," Kaufman's directing debut, he gets away from his usual humor and becomes more serious. It's not quite Woody Allen doing Ingmar Bergman, but it has the feel of a very old person philosophizing about life and death. Kaufman does it with a Russian-doll-like quality, layers upon layers of actors playing real persons playing actors. It is the story of playwrite Caden Cotard (Phil ip Seymour Hoffman), who suffers from several diseases, and it follows him from middle age to death. After moving from Schenectady to Manhattan, Caden attempts to organize his life issues as one huge theater piece, with New York City itself as a massive stage. An exceptionally difficult film to deconstruct, "Synecdoche, New York" is dense and powerful, a profound meditation on existence, and the art of existence.

indieWIRE: You say that you are moving in a more personal direction with "Synecdoche, New York." I think of "Synecdoche" as a film by someone not so young. It's mature in that sense, moving toward death.

Charlie Kaufman: When you approach middle age, lots of stuff happens. Your body is aging, you're watching people around you get sick, you're watching people die, your mortality becomes very present at that point in your life. I've always been fearful of things like that, but as you get older, you have to deal with it more.

iW: "Synecdoche, New York" deals with the synthesis of theater and film. "Adaptation" is a film about a novelist and screenwriter. "Being John Malkovich" begins with a marionette performance. There appears to be a mixture of all the your films. Are yuou interested in a lot of arts, or does it just come out that way?

CK: Both. I'm interested in art, and I think about the process of making art. It's part of my personality, my experience of the world, so it ends up in the movies. It's where my head is.

iW: The characters age several decades. I get the impression the shoot was rather intense.

CK: It was very hard. It was very hot. We shot in the summer in New York in an armory, in Bedford-Stuyvesant during a heat wave. There were times when the prosthetics guy had to come in and poke pin holes in Phil's costume cause it was bubbling, because the sweat had nowhere to go. It was awful. Samantha [Morton] also had to contend with it.

iW: You have used Catherine Keener more than any other actor.

CK: She's in three movies, one just a cameo, in "Adaptation." I myself didn't cast her in "Being John Malkovich." I told her during "Synecdoche" (in which she plays Haden's wife, Adele,who abandons him) that I want to put her in every movie. She's real, she's very truthful, she's very present when she's performing. It feeds the actors that she's working with. If you're really in a scene, you are by definition generous. Phil loves her, he loves working with her. It was really helpful to him to work with her. She's fun and lovely.

iW: What is it that distinguishes Hoffman?

CK: He can't do anything that isn't truthful. He won't allow himself. He works really hard. His commitment is complete. If he doesn't understand something, he won't do it. When he's crying in a scene, which he does a lot in this movie, it's like he's going through it, and of course the camera records that. It hurts. And that's what I needed for this character, and I got it.

iW: Wasn't Spike Jonze originally scheduled to direct the film?

CK: Spike was making another movie, and we could not wait for him. Moving from screenwriting to directing was stressful, but I enjoyed it. We shot most of it in 45 days. A scene from Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York." Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

iW: What is your background, at least in the arts?

CK: I started out when I was a little kid thinking I wanted to be an actor. I read a lot of plays, did community theater and summer stock. I also had a Super-8 movie camera as a kid and made a lot of super-8 movies. I originally went to college to study acting, but I couldn't do it. After my first year I transferred to film school and studied film production. I did a horror movie, I did a stop-motion animation of Boots Walking. But I was really interested in comedy.

I started writing and performing sketch comedy in high school. I think I was heavily influenced by Monty Python, and other stuff that I thought was self-referential.

iW: Would you refer to your humor as Jewish?

CK: I'm Jewish, and my family is Jewish. I was very interested in Woody Allen when I was growing up, but I don't think of myself as a Jewish writer. I'm more from suburbia, American suburbia. I'm more from the '70s than I am from Judaism

iW: Can you say something about your mental process when you are writing?

CK: I often have a theme in mind when I'm starting. I know that I want everytihing to be in a world of, say, evolution, or guilt. But also I do a lot of things intuitively. I'm not often consciously aware of what I'm doing. It's like in a dream: There's something going on that's powerful but you don't know exactly why. As I'm writing, though, I start to see connections, and themes I didn't see, and that sparks other things. So then I go back and rewrite things or alter them. It's a combination of intuition and a lot of finessing. It becomes a combination of the rational and the irrational. I always go in circles. I have OCD to a certain extent, so I tend to do a lot of circular thinking. I think I do have OCD a bit.

iW: What about the dreamlike quality, especially in "Synecdoche, New York?"

CK: I think dreams are metaphors. Everything you do in writing is metaphorical. So it seems like the same arena to me.

iW: In Cannes journalists were asking about Hazel's (Morton's) house being on fire, which wasn't "explained." Tthey wanted a concrete answer.

CK: I like for people to figure things out for themselves. It's not like I have the right answer, but if I have a visceral reaction to something, I'm sure that other people will, too. And there are a lot of different things you can react to. It's like a Rohrschach kind of thing. I try when I'm writing to leave enough "space" for people to have their own interpretation, and not to direct it toward one conclusion. Then the audience would not be reacting, because they are being preached to or lectured at. I don't have that much to say that I think people should listen to me.

I think it's good when someone comes to a book or a movie and interacts with it. It's the difference between an illustration and a painting. An illustration serves a specific purpose, and a painting is something you can immerse yourself in.

iW: Do you go frequently on sets, for films in which you are the screenwriter, to uphold an author's rights?

CK: It's not really combative. They won't change anything in the script without asking me, and then I'll make the changes if I agree to them. I spend a lot of time in preproduction working with them, and a lot of time in postproduction.: editing, music, all that sort of stuff. Casting. On the set there's not a lot for me to do.

iW: Of the directors you've worked with, who do you think has better ttransposed your scripts to the screen?

CK: I can tell you that George Clooney is my LEAST favorite person. He's like this really charming guy who pretends he's your best friend. I had written him a 17-page note (about changes that should be in "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind"). He didn't make the alterations. I was horrified when I saw the film. Someone can change things, as long as I'm involved in making the decisions.

iW: "Synecdoche, New York" is marked by a high degree of scatological references.

CK: I think there are things that aren't represented in movies that are a big part of everyone's life. This is a movie about health and about the body , so I wanted to have the body represented, and that was the way to do it. It was in keeping with the character to have this sick relationship with his bowel movement. I've had a lot of masturbation in my movies. It's not intentional, but it keeps coming up. And I thought, okay, I won't have any masturbation in this movie, but I will have feces.

You're dealing with the body, and you're dealing with bodily functions. We romanticize everything about people in movies, and I decided that one of the things I don't like in movies is that people feel alone with their bodily functions in the real world, as if people in the movies don't do these things. We had a lot of fun making the different artificial feces in the prop department.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol

Skeleton FilmWorks


'Synecdoche, New York' is another piece of Charlie Kaufman's soul
That's why every critical word stings him. 'I feel very vulnerable,' he says.
By Rachel Abramowitz; Los Angeles Times

Charlie Kaufman, a diminutive 50-year-old screenwriter with a thatch of uneven curly hair, is all but swathed in existential terror. He's in the midst of barnstorming the world, promoting his long-awaited directorial debut, "Synecdoche, New York," a rite of passage somewhat akin to a root canal for the famously shy auteur.

You'd think given the originality of his films, such as "Being John Malkovich" (about a puppeteer who discovers a portal into John Malkovich's brain) or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (about a love affair complicated by a memory-erasing machine), that Kaufman wouldn't care what anybody thinks. But he does. Since playing at the Cannes Film Festival six months ago, "Synecdoche" has polarized critics. There's been much praise for what A.O. Scott of the New York Times termed "its seamless alternate reality," yet there's also been sniping about the film's opacity and air of gloom. The film's lack of universal acclaim and the fact that it took so long to find its distributor (Sony Pictures Classics) have left Kaufman jangled and upset.

"I feel very vulnerable," he says, as he waits for lunch in a French bistro in Los Feliz. So vulnerable that he's actually talking about quitting screenwriting.

This film, which opened Friday, "is really personal," he says. "I feel embarrassed for even doing this in the world. I put this thing, that is like me, my soul, in the world, and I just feel like it's trampled. It makes me feel like I don't want to do this anymore. I certainly don't want to try to sell them, but I don't want to make them anymore either."

He insists he's not kidding. "It's not a threat," he says. "It's just me trying to figure out what I'm going to do next. I need a job. I need to figure out what I'm going to do to pay my mortgage."

It's slightly depressing to hear a dreamer like Kaufman speak so prosaically. His name is practically an adjective in Hollywood, synonymous with a comically depressed inversion of reality, where people's interior lives are externalized for all to see. He won an Oscar for "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and was nominated twice more. He is one of the few first-time directors to get final cut. Yet even Charlie Kaufman has to eat. He's spent the last five years on "Synecdoche." Even with a cast of actors' actors led by Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Synecdoche," which cost more than $20 million, may or may not make money for its investors.

The film's commercial prospects weigh heavily on Kaufman, who doesn't want to end up like another visionary, Orson Welles, reduced to hawking wine. "Why am I trying to seduce how many millions of people for this thing to be worthwhile to the people who invested?" he asks, despairing over how the making of cinematic art devolves into "this business crap. Hollywood Oscar watch . . . this thing that people want to rip down because it's gotten too successful. It seems heartless to me. It's not based on anything to do with anyone's heart. It has to do with anger. Everybody is really angry all the time. It makes me angry," Kaufman adds with frustration. "I don't want to be angry."

Viewers have to piece it together

"Synecdoche, New York" is like a sprawling garden of Kaufman's mind, filled with a jumble of wondrous sights amid human ugliness and a continual preoccupation with death. The film is completely original and memorable -- as long as you like movies that make you think (and haven't had too much wine at dinner).

On the plot level, it's about a struggling theater director in Schenectady, N.Y., Caden Cotard, whose artist wife abandons him partly in disgust for his banal imagination (which seems to consist of a penchant for restaging classics) and takes along their 4-year-old daughter. Unexpectedly freed from monetary worries by a "genius" grant, Caden moves to New York, where he creates a simulacrum of real life in an abandoned warehouse. It's an apartment building housing actors playing Caden and the various women Caden loves in a continual play that lasts for decades. And, oh yes, Caden is perpetually obsessed with illness and dying.

A "synecdoche" is a grammatical term meaning the part for the whole, like referring to headlights to describe a car driving down the road. The title might refer to the constantly mutating theater piece as the physical manifestations of Caden's psychological state. Or the term might refer to Caden, as an alter ego, or kind of synecdoche of Kaufman himself.

Kaufman does not care to elucidate, except to say that, "There's nothing written that's not autobiographical. By that, I mean 'Transformers' too."

He also does not care to explain any of the oddities of the film, like why one character lives in a house that is perpetually burning but never burns down. "I don't explain things," says Kaufman. "The whole point is to make the experience of the person watching [the film] as individual as that could be. Your experience might be completely different than anybody else's in the audience." It's like "when you wake up from a dream and you have to interpret what the dream meant."

Contributing to the film's dreamlike feel is the fact that "Synecdoche" spans 50 years, and yet is filled with what Kaufman calls "temporal inconsistencies" that are intended "to put you off balance." For instance, only certain characters wear age makeup while others seem as dewy as their introduction on-screen. Time literally flies. In one scene, it is September when Caden wakes up, and Halloween by the time he finishes his breakfast. "There's a panicky quality to that," says Kaufman, "of time getting away from you and going faster and faster."

Paying his dues on $6 an hour

It's hard to imagine that Kaufman didn't pop out of the womb with his idiosyncratic worldview fully formed, but in fact, he was 30 before he began writing professionally. As a kid growing up in Long Island and Connecticut, he wanted to be an actor. That passion was thwarted during college, when he developed a fatal self-consciousness that made self-display impossible. "I started to get embarrassed and just couldn't do it anymore." He wound up studying film at New York University and eventually moved to Minneapolis where, at 30, he worked for $6 an hour as a receptionist at an art museum.

That was motivation enough to decide "to do whatever it takes" to become a professional writer. He sent a TV spec script to an agent he tangentially knew, and then called his office every week for a year and a half until the agent read and ultimately signed him. "It's not like me to do that," says Kaufman. "I take rejection really hard." He spent years grinding away in the world of TV comedy, writing for shows like "The Dana Carvey Show." When the work dried up, he wrote "Being John Malkovich," as a writing sample. Unlike his other films that tilt toward absurdist comedy, "Synecdoche" lacks what Kaufman calls "an escape hatch," a jokey high-concept device like the brain portal in "Being John Malkovich" that "gives you distance and makes it OK even if you're dealing with subjects that are serious and upsetting."

He didn't write those films as comedies to make them more commercial, though that might have been the effect. With the collapse of several independent distributors, including Picturehouse, times are certainly tough for the truly unconventional film. "I don't think 'John Malkovich' would get made now," says Kaufman. "In every aspect of life, in politics and [art], you will get more of what you're supporting, and all the other stuff will go away. I can't say that my movie is good, but I can say that it's sincere. It's sincerely made in a very unusual way in this culture without any concern for commercial viability."

He sighs. This is the bitter truth. "I'm going to have to pay the price for that."
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol

Skeleton FilmWorks


i think i liked it better when he/his voice was hidden.  maybe not though.


Oscar-winning scribe Kaufman debuts as director

Did you hear the one about the starlet who was so stupid she had sex with a screenwriter?

Charlie Kaufman doesn't find that old Hollywood joke funny.

The Oscar-winning scribe of 2004's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" says he's felt fulfilled as a writer, so he didn't feel the need to use that pursuit as a steppingstone to directing; plus, he's never seen those jobs "as a hierarchical thing the way people in the business do ... I think that they're very different jobs, and I don't think directing is more important than writing. I think that you could make an argument in the converse_ not that I would, but you could, but no one does."

Still, he's making his directorial debut with "Synecdoche, New York," starring Philip Seymour Hoffman as a theater director whose romantic and professional lives meld, mostly in awful ways.

In answer to whether he always wanted to direct, the 50-year-old Kaufman sounds like the protagonists in some of his films ambivalent, diffident, confident and yet, not: "I think yes, and then no, and then yes again."

He made super-8 films as a kid, then acted, and in film school he aspired to become a writer-director.

This opportunity cropped up because by the time Kaufman finished the script, Spike Jonze, who directed his screenplays for "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation," was committed to "Where the Wild Things Are." And Kaufman didn't want to wait to make "Synecdoche, New York."

Before tackling the task, he felt emotionally prepared and had no fear of failure.

"So, I thought, `If I don't care if I fail, then I'll do my best, and I'll do it. And whatever happens will be OK.' And that made it much easier to go into it. And then, the job was the job; it wasn't a big surprise to me what the job was I've been around movie sets a lot, I've done a lot of work in movies other than writing, so I know it. And I have worked with actors before, a lot."

He's been quite involved with most aspects of the production of four films the two with Jonze and two with Michel Gondry ("Eternal Sunshine" and "Human Nature").

Hoffman, the best-actor Oscar winner for 2005's "Capote," says the first-time director worked "like he's been doing it his whole life, really."

Also noting Kaufman's close collaborations with Jonze and Gondry, Hoffman adds: "He's been on the sets and he's had relationships with the actors on his movies before. And he's (been) involved with the editing. So I don't think he's foreign to any of it, really. And he didn't act that way, either."

Kaufman didn't care if he failed as a director because "in my writing I came to the sort of conclusion awhile ago that the only way to do anything interesting is to not see failing as a negative thing."

The only way to avoid failure is to do something that you know how to do already, he ways, "which is, as a writer, completely uninteresting."

"I always take projects that I don't know how to do. I always go in and say, `This is what I'm going to try to do; I haven't done this before.' And I accept the fact that it may not come out well. And this is a continuation of that.

"I think we see failure as a negative thing in our culture, and I don't see it as a negative thing. I think failure is a sign that you tried to do something that is challenging and you didn't know how to do, and that to me is a good thing. That's bold, that's adventurous ... you can actually come up with something new and interesting, which you can't if you keep doing the same thing over and over again."

To him, "success and failure are irrelevant" which is why "I don't write for an audience in mind, ever. I don't ever think about an audience, because then I'd be writing what I think they want me to write, so that I can be successful, as opposed to writing what I feel, which is brave and risky."

He would direct again since he liked the experience and liked having "ultimate control" over the project.

The original notion for "Synecdoche, New York" came from Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chairwoman Amy Pascal, who thought it would be interesting for him and Jonze to develop a horror film.

They told her that the issues of aging, loneliness and regret were the most frightening things to them, and while that didn't sound like a classically scary movie to Pascal, she indicated she would green-light whatever they did.

"I can't write genre stuff. I mean, I don't want to. I don't like adhering to some predetermined form in any way," says Kaufman, who wrote George Clooney's directorial debut, "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind." "I like giving my thoughts free rein and coming up with something that hasn't existed. So that (horror movie) was never going to happen.

"Maybe now that the economy is such a disaster, I'll be writing genre movies. Because I do need a paycheck," he says, adding: "I'm sadly not even joking."

Whether or not it ever comes to that, Kaufman maintains that even though his movies can serve as stream-of-consciousness Rorschach tests for moviegoers he intends his films to be accessible and entertaining.

Once he's finished with them, his movies are the audience's, not his like a painting that's hanging on the wall belongs to the world, no longer to the artist, he says.

"It's yours to interact with. That's what I'm trying to do. And that's what I've always tried to do, is to give people the space to have this interact with their life ... and ideally, in my mind, in different ways for different people or even different ways for the same person on different viewings like the way that you read a book when you're 16 and then read the same book again when you're 40. If it's a good book, it's a completely different book. I think that's an amazing thing that literature can offer."

As he discusses that protean process, he has in mind the great old staple of the high school canon, "The Catcher in the Rye."

"You know what? I still like it. It's just different. I'm not Holden anymore. I'm seeing Holden as `the other' now."

But the J.D. Salinger novel remains "beautiful because it speaks to people at that age in such a profound way," he says. "That is not a small thing."
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol

Skeleton FilmWorks


Having seen it five or so hours ago my gut reaction is that this is an absolute masterpiece and the more thought I give to it the more my appreciation grows.
I could tell that a lot of the people in the cinema thought it was just weird and when walking out a bloke behind me said 'well that really is a mind fuck isn't it?' but I felt connected and inspired throughout every minute. PSH is my favourite contemporary actor and he outdoes himself here. Kaufman has always made interesting and worthwhile films but I feel none more so than this. I had the best feeling in the pit of my stomach that intensified as the film continued and for the rest of the day I have been walking on air and so grateful to have a) seen the film and b) have, in film, a passion that I have for nothing else save my girlfriend and family.
In other words, it was really good.


Oh man, guys. Sometimes I love movies. And Michelle Williams. Just kidding, I always love Michelle Williams.

This is one of those movies that reminds you why you like movies. It's unfulfilling in the best, most deliberate way. That might bother some people, though. I don't know. We'll see. It's great.

One unfortunate thing is that it seems like Kaufman's way of trimming down the running time is by cutting some scenes as if they were episodes of Gilmore Girls directed by MIchael Bay. Oh well, I'm sure someday we'll see a version closer to what he originally intended.

I love the way a lot of the press about Kaufman and this movie end up with the writer thinking about the things Kaufman wants them to think about to the point that their articles just dissolve into livejournals. The best example being the article in Wired. Also, Roger Ebert's review that ends "This has not been a conventional review." (


Did I miss this? Or has it just been in NY/LA and film festivals?


Quote from: elpablo on November 07, 2008, 10:48:52 PM
Oh man, guys. Sometimes I love movies. And Michelle Williams. Just kidding, I always love Michelle Williams.

This is one of those movies that reminds you why you like movies. It's unfulfilling in the best, most deliberate way. That might bother some people, though. I don't know. We'll see. It's great.

One unfortunate thing is that it seems like Kaufman's way of trimming down the running time is by cutting some scenes as if they were episodes of Gilmore Girls directed by MIchael Bay.

I agree with everything you said...nothing short of a masterpiece piece of art so heart wrechingly sad and strangely unreal....

The scenes with the psychologist and his child Olive were hilarious and I believe the editing in the psychologists office was deliberate. Looking forward to the commentary.
The Beatles know Jesus Christ has returned to Earth and is in Los Angeles.

When you are getting fucked by the big corporations remember to use a condom.

There was a FISH in the perkalater!!!

My Collection


Quote from: Gamblour. on November 10, 2008, 07:46:16 AM
Did I miss this? Or has it just been in NY/LA and film festivals?
My somewhat-artsy theatre in the Midwest is showing it for one week starting on Friday.  I kinda feel like if we have it, most people should.



i'm pretty disappointed. this movie made me feel intensely sad, but not for any profound reason. i felt sad for the characters for being in such pain, but mostly for how much time and energy kaufman, who has produced some of my all-time favourite things, must've put into this.

the biggest problem with the film is that cotard is a talentless hack, and beyond that he's not an interesting character. he bullshits constantly and he's aware of it but so what? there is no secretly amazing person lying underneath all the insecurities this time. he's just a guy who can't get beyond himself. a guy who can't stop worrying about whatever it is he's worrying about. he doesn't know. he's too busy being worried. his life long crush is also not interesting at all.

there is nothing automatically good about being self-referential. this movie is self-referential in spades but SO WHAT? it's worth an odd chuckle or two and paints this really big confusing sad picture of cotard's life but so. what?

if cotard had been talented or honest in any way, this movie would've been far far more interesting. i'm kind of angry that kaufman made him so blatantly terrible at directing/creating things. it's such an easy thing to do. if cotard had it in him to make something good from the start of the movie i would've been able to care about his plight. and the movie probably would've said something about what it is to create art. all this says is it's hard to create something worth creating if you're completely devoid of honesty or self-confidence. duh.

here are some good things about it: it looks wonderful, the soundtrack is wonderful, and many of the performances are great despite the writing. there are also a lot of cool and genuinely interesting little ideas sprinkled throughout.

i don't know if i have it in me to give this thing another chance.. the feeling that kaufman messed up in such a massive way is so upsetting and frustrating. i probably will at some point because it's kaufman.


if one of you guys gets ahold of a torrent for this movie before this gets released in mexico or dvd , please be kind and post it over here . it's one of those very few movies i feel an unhealthy urge to see, where you think you'll be a better person if you do.
context, context, context.


I saw this a couple weeks ago and have been trying to process it since then and I'm not really sure if I can without a second viewing. I do know that this is one of the best screenplays of the year but it certainly feels like the direction, on occasion, got away from Kaufman. An intensely unpleasant film that left me feeling blindsided for a few hours afterwards (I sat alone in my car for about 20 minutes just going over the film in my head.) I have to give this film my adoration for calling its shot and swinging for the fences in every way shape and form imaginable. I'm really surprised more people on here haven't seen or written about this one yet. Seems right up our alley, for better or worse.
My assholeness knows no bounds.