QuoteFull of misgivings, a young woman travels with her new boyfriend to his parents' secluded farm. Upon arriving, she comes to question everything she thought she knew about him, and herself. Based on Iain Reid's acclaimed novel.
September 4.
Another transition story, Charlie? :ponder: :)
No comments on this? Looks awesome too me.
They have not started playing yet (https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0611adc7-77a6-48f1-a1a1-852171d53ce4)
Was lukewarm about anomalisa but I'm excited about this. Let's see.
Quote from: Axolotl on August 27, 2020, 12:02:38 PM
Was lukewarm about anomalisa but I'm excited about this. Let's see.
He didn't want to make Anomalisa. It was a short radio play with an idea that only works in that medium. The lukewarm result isn't surprising.
The new movie has received stellar reviews. But that could mean anything. I was excited. I'm still excited.
Comes out today
Freaking funny melancholy.
Plenty of nods and homages, and although the 'characters' cite their references there's bound to be more that went over my head.
Ouch. Heartbreak at home. On a farm
A lush, ominous spiral of memory, compassion, all that longing and knocking about your noodle that won't ever quit - you don't know why the memory or heart pang came up - beating back against time.
Will be a bit overlong for some, I assume, but Kaufman colors the film with plenty of stylistic interludes, glimpses into both 'characters' deteriorating sense of anchor in the blizzard tide and our endless want for distraction.
Almost couldn't finish this even though it felt way more significant than Anomalisa and and at least like it was made by the same guy who made Synecdoche NY, but without any of the latter's emotional richness, depth of meaning, humour and untrammeled ambition.
The constant cultural references felt pat and distracting even though I'm usually a sucker for when characters talk about movies and books i like (although they felt true to how newly dating people talk about such things). Even though it's an adaptation every interaction after the first half landed with such an ineffectual thud that they felt like the output of a poorly programmed Kaufman bot.
Gonna chalk its failures to the source material and my mood at the time of watching. Will maybe give it another try because I felt something was there but for now it just made me feel bummed out (and not in a good way).
I'll probably watch this tonight or tomorrow. I watched Eternal Sunshine last night to get into the spirit ... and man, what a great movie Eternal Sunshine is. One of my favourites (and I assume many others'). A notable thing about Eternal Sunshine is the practical effects. I feel like so many of today's films and shows are overwrought with crappy digital effects. They become so unwatchable. And people eat it up.
I have massive gripes about sound mixing too, and it seems people are having trouble with Tenet. I am super overly sensitive to the overdubbed "massive" sounds in shows and films these days to the point that I just shake my head and shut them off. It's a shame, but I can't stand insanely bogus sound effects, like a footstep that has unrealistic levels of bass or phone ringing that sounds like it's recorded in a deadened chamber way outside of the realm of the movie.
Sorry for the way off-topic rambling. Just erring my gripes and commending Eternal Sunshine. Not that I'm saying this one will have bad sound mixing, as it probably doesn't. I'm tempted to go back to Synecdoche before this one though as I'm going through some "older" favourites lately.
I... appreciated it. I know I'll need to watch it several more times before I'll really 'get' it—which isn't a problem in and of itself! Inherent Vice definitely required multiple viewings, as well—but my problem is, if a movie requires multiple viewings, then hopefully they're enjoyable, and I just didn't enjoy this enough to watch it a second time. There were moments I really liked, though. The car ride to the parents' house. Meeting the parents. The Tulsey Town visit. The dumpster full of Tulsey Town cups. The dancing at the end. But I felt like I was sitting through the most dreadfully boring scenes to get to these little moments of loveliness, and I can only imagine the scenes I was bored by the first time will be even more boring the second time.
I kind of wonder how long he'll get away with being given the money and resources and permission to make movies like this. I do appreciate that. And clearly a lot of thought went into this. I can't even give it a bad review, it just wasn't for me.
it's whatever for me right now, because it doesn't align with my current life perspective, so during some of it i'm in a state of complete disagreement, and during some of it i'm like okay enough already, and by the end i'm more than ready for the end. so my thoughts echo tooty and axo, but also i think wf is in possession of a full and healthy perspective. if the movie is there for you it's there for you, but i didn't need it, which is the way things go and well this movie would agree
you know it's fun to hear criticism against cassavetes but of course the same applies to this movie. in fact, dare i say, it applies to this movie more than cassavetes: you're not seeing the characters you're seeing kaufman. every bit of this movie is people acting according to the needs of kaufman. which isn't necessarily a criticism but an observation
About twenty minutes in it became clear what was ahead, and I started an internal debate: should I skip this for the moment?
I decided to man up and see the whole thing. I admired it but can't say I enjoyed it.
My hopes were perhaps too high since I'm reading Antkind and even though is pure Kauffman, and despair and sadness and confusion show themselves in every page, is also often hilarious. As in laughing out loud, non stop smiling hilarious. So for some reason I expected a similar vibe here, but apart from the Robert Zemeckis joke, most of the scenes are just dull.
I remember seeing Synechdoque NY back in 09 and not liking it yet deciding right there that I should see it a second time, which I did in the moment. That immediate second viewing made me feel it was a masterpiece. But I have never returned to it. Or Anomalisa (¨which I liked). I'll give it a second watch, maybe tonight, but damn, this guy really loves to test the audience's patience.
like with Shirley, and Buffet Froid, its perceived failures are failures of the viewer from the perspective of the creator's intention being achieved. this movie means to be what it is, and there's craft but there's art too
Quote from: jenkins on September 06, 2020, 02:39:39 PM
it's whatever for me right now, because it doesn't align with my current life perspective, so during some of it i'm in a state of complete disagreement, and during some of it i'm like okay enough already, and by the end i'm more than ready for the end.
Do you mind expanding on this? I don't know if you could "disagree" with the thematics (loneliness, memories, isolation, aging, wasted time, suicide). The film and characters seem to serve all of this through and through. On the other hand, I see how you could disagree with how technical choices were made for the film, meaning all the writing, direction, performance, editing, et cetera choices. I can understand too if what the film is exploring is just something you don't need right now and how you could shrug your shoulders at it and consequently have been bored throughout.
Edit: To clarify about Synecdoche, what I mean is that no attempt to "make conventional sense" of it has satisfied me (mine or otherwise) in the way that it can't be fit into a nice bow like this movie, I'm Thinking About Ending Things, can. And perhaps that's the point, or one of the points of Synecdoche -- that it defies typical criticism and interpretation.
I guess I'm more in line with WorldForgot's perspective. I actually wasn't bored by any of it -- though it is quite a long film with drawn-out car scenes. The only thing I guess I'm disappointed by is that once I realized what was going on with the "gimmick" or "twist" or whatever you want to call it, the narrative becomes kind of "boxed in" to that singular purpose -- though I think everything in the movie serves this well and allows for some complexity in exploring the aforementioned themes. But I'm just not sure I'll want to watch it again soon or that it "demands" I watch it again since I feel satisfied in understanding that point at least.
In terms of the multitude of the cultural references feeling distracting or somewhat contrived, that seems to be the point, as Jake is using these to construct the women and fantasy, and these reference points are his own intellectual touchstones and fascinations that never got to be used professionally or take on a bigger role or be shared with others enough in his life.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 07, 2020, 01:36:02 PMMy hopes were perhaps too high since I'm reading Antkind and even though is pure Kauffman, and despair and sadness and confusion show themselves in every page, is also often hilarious. As in laughing out loud, non stop smiling hilarious. So for some reason I expected a similar vibe here, but apart from the Robert Zemeckis joke, most of the scenes are just dull.
I remember seeing Synechdoque NY back in 09 and not liking it yet deciding right there that I should see it a second time, which I did in the moment. That immediate second viewing made me feel it was a masterpiece. But I have never returned to it. Or Anomalisa (¨which I liked). I'll give it a second watch, maybe tonight, but damn, this guy really loves to test the audience's patience.
I'm reading Antkind too right now (about 125 pages in) as I've been on a kind of Kaufman kick lately and also needed something to read. Oh boy am I glad I picked it up. It is indeed monstrously funny and I've caught myself grinning like an idiot and laughing out loud many times so far. And the story moves along too, which is to say the pacing is good, yet it has a level of length in the stream of consciousness and spoken ramblings of the protagonist, which becomes a joke in itself. I was giddy at the early mention of Christopher Nolan (you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read it) and the references kept coming in thereon.
Anyway, Synecdoche is one that I'm still baffled by and hasn't added up to much for me in the way that I'm Thinking of Ending Things came together and made sense. I'm still probably missing something with Synecdoche and none of the interpretations of it I've read have really satisfied me.
i disagree with, for example, its perspective on hope. i feel tired by the way it presents a relatively simple idea, time as fluid, as if it's a revelation. serving the theme doesn't mean that it's a very expanded theme in the first place and, as the movie states this way or another way, perspective is everything. so to phrase it in a simple way: i don't like how it approaches its themes, and i don't find it a particularly illuminating film. it has to touch your sense of self to work, and i'll have to find myself more at odds with the world to feel touched by this
That makes a lot sense, and actually helps me shed some light on my feelings about the movie too. I found the "fluid time" things trite too, but I suppose it works for me if you view it from Jake's perspective. Perhaps it is the point that the movie kind of beats you over the head with the mentioning of a simple concept of time, because this is how Jake understands it. He never got past rudimentary understandings and is projecting them onto his fantasy as something he wishes he could have engaged with but never got the chance. Perhaps I'm giving Kaufman/the book author too much credit, but this works for me whereas a lesser film would've pushed the simplistic time concept on the viewer from an omniscient narrative, i.e., the writer's/director's viewpoint, rather than from a character's. So the point of this aspect of the movie becomes that the concepts of time are not developed past anything elementary because the character never got the opportunity, in one way or another, to do such a thing.
That said, another gripe, actually, is that I didn't find the film particularly illuminating either, as you too didn't. Your perspective helped me make sense that I don't think it expanded well enough on its themes either, but mostly "presented" them (here's sadness, isolation, et cetera, and let's leave it at that, the story seems to say). And with the whole fantasy thing, the story did feel to be too much of a gimmick. The whole story being predicated on "this character is not real or is a part of a character's imagination" thing is tired to me by this point in film and narration and comes off as kind of sophomoric, especially for a novel.
By the way, jenkins, I decided to check out the old Synecdoche thread here because it's on my mind, and I do like your interpretation of it -- "Caden is obsessed with thinking about himself within this world. he doesn't like how things look and can't make them right, though we see him try ... what is there to find in one's misery? Kaufman explores this question as much as he can."
i like how you're further convincing me the guy sucks
this is a healthy conversation and csage97 is doing a fine job and just before i keep going on and on about this and that i can full circle the conversation by saying that the concept of misery doesn't appeal to me as it once did. i think it's far easier to wallow in misery than not wallow in misery. i believe that reality basically begs you to feel miserable, and the upper hand the human mind offers is an ability to feel otherwise. so the rejection of that within this movie makes me do the thing in which i roll my eyes so far back they become lodged in their sockets and you can only see the white of my eyes now, the pupils have vanished
I'm with the general consensus on this. Not great. In fact I feel sort of vindicated for disliking Synecdoche.
(SPOILERS)
Listen, I really enjoyed many of the scenes. But it's like jenkins said. I have a nagging suspicion that the whole thing is just simple ideas dressed up as if they're incredible revelations that can only be fully understood through a narrative with enough surrealist scaffolding. And I feel very mismatched with Kaufman's perspective, which I think comes from a place of darkness and does not actually offer much insight.
I miss the Charlie Kaufman of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. But I guess that was 20 years ago. There were some flashes of that person in this movie, but it ends up feeling profoundly tedious, and there's a joylessness that can't be escaped. Some ideas that should have been vital and moving (or at least interesting) fell flat in a way that did not seem intended. The dance sequence is a prime example for me; I cringed at the "wedding" part and just wanted to move on.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on September 08, 2020, 01:36:57 AM
I miss the Charlie Kaufman of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. But I guess that was 20 years ago.
It's really sad he seems to have decided he's done telling those kinds of stories. Those (as well as Eternal Sunshine) are perhaps all in my top ten. I loved them so much and they played a big role at the time in informing my burgeoning tastes in movies.
you know, i mean, it's the same guy: he adapted a book but made it his own voice
i was in a "why would you say that?" situation but i still support people supporting this movie. on a different day i would think differently about this movie, and suddenly everything i've said so far would be missing the point. misery loves company is a philosophical statement that means misery loves being understood, and this movie deserves to be understood as much as any other
Sorry if I backed you into a conversation you didn't want to have (although I don't totally get this impression, but my apologies just in case). This is one of my ultimate struggles with Kaufman's work, that it seems to be concerned with the self, all its self-reflexivity, and psychological consciousness to a point that gets dangerously close to narcissism. Not to say it is narcissistic, but it seems we're getting past that point in popular artistic criticism and exploration. And there are works in the past, pre-90s, that were more socially concerned. I dunno.
In any case, I agree with a lot of views here. Ultimately, the movie comes off as if the source material is one of those popular psychological gimmick things. Not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, because I did, but that's different from thinking it's a great movie, which I'm not sure about and probably don't think it is. The story itself felt like Gone Girl to me, which was another movie I enjoyed watching but felt had a level of depth that was in the ballpark of vapid. I chalk this up to the source material, really, though I think Kaufman handled it well and more or less did his own thing.
no you know everything is fine between us. i just didn't want to sound as if i was issuing the final statement about the movie. everybody should feel liberated to feel however they feel about a movie, is my basic belief
This movie has me wanting Kaufman to adapt House of Leaves as a four or three ep mini series or something. Letz playfully frustrate and beguile even more.
i would be so out the door, skip the whole bit. i don't want to be beguiled and frustrated i want to be relieved and lifted. i don't want to be assured i want to be assuaged. idk if life really is that complex. humans are simpler than they pretend to be, i think, while specifically discussing my own personal wants and needs
Man, this sounds like a "Must-Miss" for me... :yabbse-grin:
Really liked the new Kaufman, better and more important than Anomalisa but not as groundbreaking as Synecdoche. Reminded me of Lynch's wet dreams, especially Lost Highway at its less nightmarish.
The Eternal Sunshine remains his best screenplay imo, where he found the perfect balance between his sensibilities and being appeal to a wide audience.
to be young again. that's what i would sound like again
it's just an old man joke used in a general sense although it doesn't seem general, let me say it's not a direct statement but an inspired one
Quote from: pynchonikon on September 08, 2020, 04:48:06 PMReminded me of Lynch's wet dreams, especially Lost Highway at its less nightmarish.
I know what you mean. I don't mind surrealism, either. On paper I should like this.
Maybe it's that Lynch has a mysticism that appeals to me, but Kaufman wants to tell us about entropy and decay and hopelessness.
I find myself softening on this a bit after hearing Dana Stevens & guest discuss it in-depth:
https://slate.com/podcasts/spoiler-specials/2020/09/im-thinking-of-ending-things-spoiler
Still not a fan of Kaufman's bleakness, but what it's doing is kind of interesting.
SEVERE SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE AND BOOK
I'm sure some of this is obvious, but I think it's worth going over some basic truths of the movie:
The whole thing is a daydream of the janitor, who could be seen as an older version of Jake, or Jake is a younger version of him. The "young woman" is his fantasy girlfriend. Her identity shifts as his proclivities shift. She's always reading, embodying, or flat-out reciting things that he's interested in.
I do like how that interpretation colors their eventual meeting; he's overwhelmed to meet the actual physical embodiment of her.
Basic narrative things (the story of how they met, for example) also shift based on the media the janitor takes in (the Zemeckis movie). He can be seen as a writer who's fiddling around with story ideas as he goes about his menial job.
The title, of course, is actually about suicide. In the movie, the janitor appears to choose to freeze to death in his truck. In the book, apparently he cuts his throat.
i was like oh cool oh cool up until suicide. look, irl suicide is a complex topic with many angles. irl one should always be able to understand suicide. as for narratives, there's no cheaper ending than suicide. there's no easier perspective than suicide
so it doesn't help but hurt the movie, for me. Je t'aime, je t'aime is the only narrative i can think of that accurately conveys a suicidal sense of being, although i suspect i'm forgetting other movies that also do. in the overall sense it's a bad narrative move imo
SPOILERS
It's not suicide. It's dementia. The movie isn't actually clear about what happens at the end, there might not even be a death. Even if it certainly feels that way, yes.
The imagination is mixed with a deteriorating memory, sense of self, which is the matrix with which the movie is vibing. I didn't find it tedious, I was entertained. Both actors are fantastic in the car scenes: the editing also participates in creating a playful rhythm. I wasn't depressed at the end. It felt soothing.
Just not a fan of the parents: the actors and the scenes with them could have been better, even if they're just memories/anxietes and not persons. And the last scenes felt quite awkward: hard movie to end, I guess.
oh it's not surrealism it's dementia. well that is sadder, i'll give you that
SPOILERS
I don't have a strong opinion on this myself – was basically just parroting the interpretation from that podcast. They state as fact that, in the book, the janitor character does literally "end things" by cutting his throat. But yeah, perhaps that was a metaphor for dementia.
SPOILERS
Robin Williams committed suicide for similar reasons, after all. Suicide because you fear of losing your mind isn't the same as regular depression. That character seems too far gone to make an actual decision and that's probably why Kaufman changed it. So yeah, accidentally freezing to death is probably the case in the movie. But it doesn't matter to have an actual answer to this question. The movie definitely ends with some sort of disparition, which I found soothing.
And making a fragmented portrait that way, including texts and quotes and references as being a part of the self, is sociologically interesting. It's Kaufmanesque in the sense that he is interested in what he calls the "Unseen" in his novel and a certain sense of "oh well" aspect about mortality.
For those interested in trans analogies in his work, you can see the movie less as Jake inventing a girlfriend as Jake inventing a body in which he would be comfortable. You feel like nobody? Well. Get Some Body. The different names make me think of the period of time when trans women try to find the right name. And Jake exists as a character in this movie through her.
certainly dementia is a frightening state of being
everybody everywhere is interested in the unseen and mortality
she shapes Jake
Drenk i think you're doing a fine job of discussing the movie, and jb did a fine job of finding that podcast, and for me what it does is centralize the movie's state of sadness. so i'm less likely to rewatch it now, but if i do rewatch it i will better understand it
Great points, Drenk. "And making a fragmented portrait that way, including texts and quotes and references as being a part of the self, is sociologically interesting. It's Kaufmanesque in the sense that he is interested in what he calls the "Unseen" in his novel and a certain sense of "oh well" aspect about mortality" ... yes! I'm reading the novel right now too. And I agree about the actors in the car scenes. I think Kaufman handled all of this very well the more I reflect -- like you said, the sense of deteriorating memory, the self, the invention from imagination -- it's all part of the fabric and mix of the technique of the movie. It's what kept me interested and allowed the extended car scenes to work for me, and I adored the acting in these scenes. The relative unconventionality of all this in these extended car scenes was what kept me entertained. I loved it.
I think these points are nudging me back towards the other direction of my initial reaction -- which was that I really enjoyed it and there was plenty to love and think about with it. I still have a couple hangups about it, but hey, that's totally fine with me.
Quote from: Drenk on September 09, 2020, 11:40:50 AM
SPOILERS
And making a fragmented portrait that way, including texts and quotes and references as being a part of the self, is sociologically interesting. It's Kaufmanesque in the sense that he is interested in what he calls the "Unseen" in his novel and a certain sense of "oh well" aspect about mortality.
Partly articulates why I think House of Leaves might be best adapted in Kaufman's hands, though I haven't read Kaufman's novels.
Dialogue from this movie keeps popping up in my head, particularly I guess because I over intellectualize my reactions.
"Everything wants to live Jake. Viruses are just one more example of everything."
"Very nice parents, you chose well my friend."
"Wow is an all purpose exclamation. I just realized that."
i did think that in the long run liking this movie was the better bet. i multiple times expressed that other ways
The funny thing is that I really don't dig House of Leaves. :yabbse-grin:
SPOILERS
Quote from: Drenk on September 09, 2020, 11:40:50 AM
For those interested in trans analogies in his work, you can see the movie less as Jake inventing a girlfriend as Jake inventing a body in which he would be comfortable. You feel like nobody? Well. Get Some Body. The different names make me think of the period of time when trans women try to find the right name. And Jake exists as a character in this movie through her.
I'm not sure about the trans analogy but it does go some way towards explaining the thing that irked me most about all of this. I had been thinking - if Jake/The Old Man is the protagonist then why is everything presented from the female character's point of view?
It felt like a device for Kaufman to tell this story from a female perspective, which I liked. But then I was annoyed when Jake's story was resolved and she became secondary. So to say that He/Jake/The Old Man is speaking through her at least makes narrative sense, and doesn't abandon the character I assumed was the protagonist (her).
Perhaps I'll get more from it on a second viewing. I liked it. It often veered towards confusion rather than mystery. But I'm still thinking about it, so that's something.
The long car scenes were my favourite parts.
SPOILERS
Well, I agree that I found the ending awkward when the movie shifts from her to Just Jake, I lost the connection I had with the story and am left with a shell, the empty egg.
Quote from: Shughes on September 09, 2020, 06:26:03 PM
SPOILERS
Quote from: Drenk on September 09, 2020, 11:40:50 AM
For those interested in trans analogies in his work, you can see the movie less as Jake inventing a girlfriend as Jake inventing a body in which he would be comfortable. You feel like nobody? Well. Get Some Body. The different names make me think of the period of time when trans women try to find the right name. And Jake exists as a character in this movie through her.
I'm not sure about the trans analogy but it does go some way towards explaining the thing that irked me most about all of this. I had been thinking - if Jake/The Old Man is the protagonist then why is everything presented from the female character's point of view?
It felt like a device for Kaufman to tell this story from a female perspective, which I liked. But then I was annoyed when Jake's story was resolved and she became secondary. So to say that He/Jake/The Old Man is speaking through her at least makes narrative sense, and doesn't abandon the character I assumed was the protagonist (her).
Old Jake is inventing/constructing the women, and in many respects she IS thus Jake. She is both separate and a part of him. So to view the story from her perspective is still to view it from Jake's. Have you ever thought or daydreamed of how a potential or idealized partner would view you and your life? How a person you want to welcome into your life might react to your childhood home, your parents, your life? I confess I do this all the time.
That's at least my interpretation of it. The point where the invented woman (Jesse Buckley) becomes secondary is the point where Jake's fantasy intersects with his reality -- essentially where the fantasy ends. We come to the critical point where Jake must accept the falsehood of the fantasy and face his suicidal ideation in reality.
not to fuck your shit up, but the idea of the fantasy ending strays from the concept of dementia
it's okay bc your first paragraph slays and i'll quote it
QuoteSo to view the story from her perspective is still to view it from Jake's.
Justin Chang, my favorite contemporary movie critic, is pro-thismovie and points out that the cassavetes diss is taken from pauline kael. so the character is imagining the diss coming from a woman he admires (who doesn't admire kael?)
Oh, I personally haven't thought about the dementia angle much and actually hadn't until it was mentioned in this thread. I think I mentioned deteriorating memory but I'm not sure I view it from a reading of dementia, though I think it's totally possible and interesting. Dementia definitely hadn't occurred to me within my lens while viewing the film nor right after. My framework for interpretation was that an old-aged Jake invents/fantasizes/constructs a narrative of how part of his life could've been different, and wrestles with self-love (self-loathing or disappointment in himself?). That's why the narrative keeps changing (of course) but Buckley (the girlfriend) who's also an extension of him by virtue of his invention also has negative feelings toward Jake (himself).
I really can't recall what exactly was said during the Kael part and I'm not super familiar with Kael's work, so it's hard for me to piece together that part. But my working hypothesis is that Buckley's character was pieced together by Jake from things that he enjoyed as a younger self but never fully pursued (after all, he ended up staying in his parents' house and becoming a janitor at his local high school, never leaving the town). (He also was there for his parents' death, so this is why the age of the parents keeps changing. He's unsure of where exactly in the timeline to place this hypothetical partner played by Buckley.) You'll note that Buckley's occupation changes from quantum physics to poet and back, so she's being constructed and revised by Jake from moment to moment.
totally. so the dementia angle introduces a uncontrollable element to the narrative design. it is far different to write about a man who cannot control his thoughts than to write about one who can. suddenly nobody is in control, he is not in control of himself or his thoughts. suddenly he is not sad but gripped by the tragic hands of fate. suddenly he has nothing to do with who he is
about kael i mean he would remember kael and want to imagine it as something he heard in conversation. kael basically thought cassavetes was bullshit
Indeed, or there could be an early onset so there are doubts in the fabric of his memory. It could be the case that he is totally making up the hypothetical partner part (Buckley), but misremembering aspects of himself and his life (parents, interests, home). But this is kind of extrapolating without further evidence, to me. But it is possible to make a case. I'm working from the standpoint that his memory is fine, however, and the real crux of his pain is missed opportunity, missed potential, a stunted life, a life not realized, a life passing by and coming to a point where renewal is not possible. To me, this is part and parcel of his depression, which possibly influenced and stunted the course of his life, or if not, it's most definitely present in the "current" events of the film and integral to the suicidal ideation.
From what I remember of the Kael part, Jake was praising Cassavetes, and Buckley took on the character of Kael, a review he remembered that challenged his view. Another instance and exemplification of the very self-doubt that contributed to his hesitation in pursuing his interests and opportunities. This is what I remember from that part and how I interpret it, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
yeah i guess the topic of dementia is more arresting to me than sad man alone, because dementia covers the grounds of sadness and more. it addresses certain lapses in storytelling logic, which may be explained for in another way, such as through normal memory loss, but that's what i'm saying, i'm saying the specificity of dementia allows for the introduction of abnormal materials that shake up what's otherwise a relatively straightforward plot that lacks all that unseen and oh well stuff previously mentioned. it's true that dementia both makes the coherent chaotic and the surreal tangible, which is cool from a conceptual narrative perspective
but i'll skip mentioning dementia in friendly conversations if it's not a perspective supported by the movie
(continued spoilers)
Dementia is absolutely central to the movie. Personally though I think the janitor himself is pretty lucid till the end. I view the surreal shifts not as symptoms of dementia, but effects of his fleeting musings, influenced by his ever-changing preferences and interests, his restless mind, and in no small part his undeveloped talents and creative failures. (The bad paintings shamefully hidden in the basement are one example.) He's someone who's moved from one thing to another and never found success.
I would guess that he's haunted by seeing his parents experience dementia, and perhaps he wants to "end things" before it happens to him. (Which I guess means he probably has enough symptoms to know it's coming.)
i see i see. it's all snapping into place and you know it is a whole thing
after seeing it and discussing it and after time passed and upon careful consideration i'd rate it a 2/5
Quote from: csage97 on September 08, 2020, 12:01:15 AM
Quote from: Alexandro on September 07, 2020, 01:36:02 PMMy hopes were perhaps too high since I'm reading Antkind and even though is pure Kauffman, and despair and sadness and confusion show themselves in every page, is also often hilarious. As in laughing out loud, non stop smiling hilarious. So for some reason I expected a similar vibe here, but apart from the Robert Zemeckis joke, most of the scenes are just dull.
I remember seeing Synechdoque NY back in 09 and not liking it yet deciding right there that I should see it a second time, which I did in the moment. That immediate second viewing made me feel it was a masterpiece. But I have never returned to it. Or Anomalisa (¨which I liked). I'll give it a second watch, maybe tonight, but damn, this guy really loves to test the audience's patience.
I'm reading Antkind too right now (about 125 pages in) as I've been on a kind of Kaufman kick lately and also needed something to read. Oh boy am I glad I picked it up. It is indeed monstrously funny and I've caught myself grinning like an idiot and laughing out loud many times so far. And the story moves along too, which is to say the pacing is good, yet it has a level of length in the stream of consciousness and spoken ramblings of the protagonist, which becomes a joke in itself. I was giddy at the early mention of Christopher Nolan (you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read it) and the references kept coming in thereon.
Anyway, Synecdoche is one that I'm still baffled by and hasn't added up to much for me in the way that I'm Thinking of Ending Things came together and made sense. I'm still probably missing something with Synecdoche and none of the interpretations of it I've read have really satisfied me.
Well, i haven't come around to watch it again, so there's that. But Antkind is massively enjoyable if you can get into its vibe. The only thing I can compare it to is perhaps Gravity's Rainbow (never getting to that level of density, though). Humor is the perfect balsam for Kauffman's preoccupations.
i think it reminds you of that novel more than it's like that novel
here's the nytimes review (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/books/review/antkind-charlie-kaufman.html) for a cultural framing for those not reading it already. i did think you'd all flock to it so it's very on brand