It was a perfectly surreal scene on Church Street outside of Harvard Square’s historic Loews movie theater. With the area’s annual Oktoberfest in full swing, the street was jammed with vendors and performers. A man sang “My Blue Heaven” into a megaphone, and various passersby stopped to snap photos of the uniformed sailors who had settled, along with dozens of other revelers, onto the long red couch that had been installed along most of the length of the sidewalk for the occasion. The impressive line of people awaiting a preview screening of Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, New York – the celebrated screenwriter’s first outing as both writer and director – was comparatively staid, almost blending into the wild scenery. But those who did ditch the autumn carnival for the dark of the movie theater were met with visions considerably stranger (and worlds bleaker) than anything that they’d seen outside.
Synecdoche takes its name not only from the homonymous city but also from the literary term meaning to use a part to signify a larger whole, or vice versa. It follows the travails of Philip Seymour Hoffman as Caden Cotard, a regional theater director who is suddenly bestowed with a Macarthur Foundation Genius Grant and sets out to create a piece of theater that’s entirely honest, a part that signifies the largest of wholes—life, love, death, everything. Especially death. Caden is mortality-obsessed; he’s terrified that he is dying and still more terrified that he will die without making a genuine artistic contribution to his world and living up to the “genius” part of that grant.
Similar fears of finding oneself a has-been or never-was genius plague the characters in Wes Anderson’s films The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and it’s easy to see why such anxiety would crop up in the works of the filmmakers whose first really big cinematic splashes – the Rushmores and Being John Malkovichs that critics fall hard for – have positioned them as the hottest new things, and maybe geniuses too. And it’s hard not to see Kaufman, who famously wrote himself into Adaptation, in Caden, whose theater production quickly grows so self-reflexive that it threatens to swallow itself. In one striking moment, Caden wanders through the warehouse where his play has set up shop – and interminable rehearsals and casting changes will fill his and many other lifetimes – and directs hordes of actors, reminding a cameraman that he’s not just shooting a given scene; he’s in it.
But to read the film as simply a reflection of Kaufman’s fears and preoccupations would be to deny that they’re our fears and preoccupations too, and that would be dishonest. Caden is profoundly afraid that he is dying, but, as the film frequently reminds us, everyone is dying. Samantha Morton’s wide-eyed box office girl Hazel, the most prominent of the many women who move in and out of Caden’s life, literally lives in a house on fire. Figuratively, so does everyone else.
Synecdoche is often a funny and unapologetically tinged with the absurd and the surreal, but it also focuses so unrelentingly on mortality, creative frustration, romantic confusion, desperation, and isolation that it could trigger a panic attack. Just as Caden wants his play to be about everything, so Synecdoche overflows with ideas, most of them worrying. Time moves in intentionally disorienting fashion from the outset (I wondered if an early, startlingly Ed Wood-like jump from morning to night was an accident and decided that it probably was not.), with some characters aging with dizzying rapidity while others remain incongruously young. (Appropriately, early scenes of the film find Caden directing a regional production of The Death of a Salesman with young actors as Willy and Linda Loman.) Supporting characters grow sick, grow old, and die while Caden is still focused on how many breaths he has left, how much time he has to finish his masterpiece. And in one of Kaufman’s most effective and understated touches, a crumbling, near-apocalyptic future vision of New York sits on the film’s periphery, with Caden too busy navel-gazing to pay it much heed.
It’s a lot. It’s a heavy film and a long one, and it’s absolutely exhausting. The performers do well in bringing humanity to their characters (Poor Catherine Keener, playing the miserable wife again, makes the most of her opportunities to imbue the character with a bit of heart.). Hoffman is asked to shoulder a great deal and does strong work here. But it may be the actors whose characters lighten the mood who fare the best: Peter Friedman as an awkwardly funny doctor, Daniel London as not the brightest of regional theater actors, the reliable Hope Davis as a therapist with vampy lipstick a troubled brow. Michelle Williams’ sweet-natured Claire is missed when she disappears from the film, and Tom Noonan, as the smiley, method non-actor Sammy Barnathan, gets the chance to be first funny, then haunting. (By contrast, Jennifer Jason Leigh gets the short shrift with the vaguely menacing Maria, the most sketchily rendered of the film’s females, who has implied affairs with Caden’s wife and daughter.)
Late in the film there’s a funny wink (swipe?) at The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’s mouthful of a title when Caden toys with calling his forever-in-progress would-be masterpiece The Obscure Moon Lighting an Obscure World. Hazel tactfully warns him that that might be a little too much. Synecdoche, New York is almost certainly too much, a film about art being consumed by ambition that is (perhaps ironically, perhaps purposefully) consumed by its own ambition. It’s long-winded, and weird enough to be accused of being overly obscure, but so vocally obsessed with its own themes that it might also be accused of being ham-fisted. In patches, it’s probably guilty of both. It’s also the kind of film that needs digesting and likely rewatching, but the thought of rewatching such a draining film is one that is, I’ll candidly admit, rather daunting.
So I suppose that Synecdoche isn’t likely to have the crossover appeal of most of Kaufman’s films, the kind that brings mainstream moviegoers into the arthouse fold. But it’s not a film to be unthinkingly dismissed, and it won’t be by those with an interest in odd-duck pictures that go for broke. (One can envision Synecdoche embarking upon the savaged-then-salvaged trajectory of many a cult film.) In some critic’s future is an essay placing Synecdoche within Kaufman’s larger body of work. That Kaufman has such an oeuvre to speak of (and that it’s likely to grow with films more successful than this one) is a key place where he and Caden diverge.
Review by
Victoria Large
Posted on
16 October 2008
Source
Sony Pictures Classics 35mm print
Read
4465 times
Comments
6
RT @FilmComment: Ben Gazzara, Peter Falk, and John Cassavetes on the Dick Cavett Show, back when talk shows were awesome: http://t.co/vswY1EJ9
Comments 6 total / Submit Comment
Chiranjit on 16 October 2008 at 12:43 PM Website
I was able to attend a screening of Synecdoche at TIFF in September and I thought it was easily the most demanding and complicated film that I watched during the week. Of course, its grueling nature makes it difficult to recommend it to anyone, but I found it to be quite impressive in terms of ambition. Something to keep in mind while watching the film, which may help to create a greater appreciation or understanding of what Kaufman is attempting to accomplish (or it could make people more frustrated), is that the film was apparently Kaufman’s attempt to make an unconventional horror movie ‚Ķ which actually makes this review quite appropriate during our “31 Days of Horror” feature.
Quincy on 10 December 2008 at 2:25 PM
I don’t know if you were being serious or not, but you were right – this film actually did literally cause me to have a panic attack. At the time I thought I was having some kind of breathing problem, but I learned after a doctor’s appointment what was really happening. I thought it was an awful movie, like a two-hour interminable nightmare. And I loved all his other movies so far.
Nathaniel on 9 July 2009 at 9:19 PM
Synecdoche is definitely a difficult movie to like, indeed at the festival screening I attended the owner of the cinema challenged the packed house to come out saying they actually liked the film (which I did). That wouldn’t stop me from recommending it, I would just advise people to be aware of what they’re in for. Possibly what endeared the movie to me the most is my own existential struggle, my own search for meaning. I saw reality in the mix of banality and beauty, fear and courage and the ultimate alienation of Caden from himself and his constructed reality. Sometimes it all feels like too much, you know, and we need to be able to accept that as part of life.
Eric on 12 October 2009 at 3:35 PM Website
@Quincy — An awful movie? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are just wrong.
Kaufman’s film is easily the best movie of the year, perhaps the decade. I’ve never found a movie so easy to love. I often hear terms like, “complex,” “confusing,” “maddening,” “incoherent,” etc., in reference to this film. This type of response seems utterly insane to me. This was the most illuminating, insightful, profound, crystal clear movie I literally have ever seen. Why is it so hard to penetrate such a welcoming, and easy to grasp work of art? Don’t be tripped up by Kaufman’s myriad symbols. Contrary to seemingly popular belief, symbols and allegory are there to increase understanding, not decrease it. And when viewed with the right mindset, “Synecdoche” achieves that result like no other film ever has. An utter unequivocal masterpiece.
bifferspice on 24 January 2011 at 4:58 AM
this is one of the best films of recent years, and maybe of not so recent years too. ambitious, far-reaching, difficult, flawed, it is all of these things, but it is powerful, involving, accomplished, affecting and utterly wonderful. the performances are incredible, the themes universal, and it made me feel like possibly no other film has ever done. i couldn’t believe the issues he addressed in a single film, and i am in absolute wonder that someone of the quality of kaufman exists. and that his film flops and he is wondering what he is doing wrong. this is his masterpiece and i rank it among the best movies i have ever seen. i implore people to see this, even though it requires more than one viewing. watch it once, read as much about it as you can, and then watch it again. it is incredibly rewarding, and to see a film like this fail amongst the dross and sequels and prequels and remakes that bring in the dosh, i find depressing. we criticise hollywood for its lack of originality, risktaking and ambition, and then this comes along and we don’t even want to watch it. well i do want to watch it, and i want to praise kaufman from the rooftops for reminding me what the best of filmmaking can be about. that this was his directorial debut makes a mockery of the talents of most seasoned filmmakers. this is a dizzying, terrifying, exhausting and emotional triumph of a film.
bifferspice on 24 January 2011 at 4:58 AM
this is one of the best films of recent years, and maybe of not so recent years too. ambitious, far-reaching, difficult, flawed, it is all of these things, but it is powerful, involving, accomplished, affecting and utterly wonderful. the performances are incredible, the themes universal, and it made me feel like possibly no other film has ever done. i couldn’t believe the issues he addressed in a single film, and i am in absolute wonder that someone of the quality of kaufman exists. and that his film flops and he is wondering what he is doing wrong. this is his masterpiece and i rank it among the best movies i have ever seen. i implore people to see this, even though it requires more than one viewing. watch it once, read as much about it as you can, and then watch it again. it is incredibly rewarding, and to see a film like this fail amongst the dross and sequels and prequels and remakes that bring in the dosh, i find depressing. we criticise hollywood for its lack of originality, risktaking and ambition, and then this comes along and we don’t even want to watch it. well i do want to watch it, and i want to praise kaufman from the rooftops for reminding me what the best of filmmaking can be about. that this was his directorial debut makes a mockery of the talents of most seasoned filmmakers. this is a dizzying, terrifying, exhausting and emotional triumph of a film.