TIFF: Synecdoche, New York Review
Synecdoche, New York
Written and Directed by: Charlie Kaufman
Starring: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Emily Watson, Michelle Williams, Samantha Morton, Jennifer Jason Leigh
There are very few Hollywood screenwriters working today who might be considered household names, and even fewer still whose name alone can actually sell a movie. This is one of the many reasons why Charlie Kaufman is such an anomaly in the movie world. The man who wrote Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is arguably more famous than the directors who brought these movies to the big screen. With that in mind, it only makes sense that he should move on to directing movies himself, and that’s exactly what he has done with Synecdoche, New York.
This movie originally started out as another directing gig for Spike Jonze, and if you remember the old rumours about Jonze and Kaufman supposedly working on a horror movie together, well… guess what? This is that same movie. Apparently Kaufman’s idea of horror has nothing to do with ghosts or serial killers, but rather simple themes of loneliness, growing old, and dying. I guess we shouldn’t have expected him to stoop down to the level of a mere slasher flick anyway.
Now I know a lot of people have really been looking forward to Kaufman’s directorial debut, myself included, but I still had a nagging fear that handing the reins over to a mad genius like Charlie Kaufman might not be such a good idea. Could he keep it coherent and focused, while still maintaining the creative visuals and quirky tone he is known for? Well, I’m here to tell you that although Synecdoche, New York has its moments of brilliance, overall it is one of the most inpenetrable and frustrating movies I have seen in a very long time.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is Caden Cotard, a playwright living in Schenectady, New York (which sounds a lot like “synecdoche” if you’re pronouncing it right), who was just awarded a huge grant to put on the most important production of his life. At the same time, however, his wife Adele (Catherine Keener) leaves him and takes their daughter Olive to Germany where she can pursue her art career. Cotard is confused and upset, and finds himself starting to go a little crazy as the stress in his life builds. He has flings with a couple of other women in his life, eventually remarrying to actress Claire (Michelle Williams). But as his new play starts to get more and more ambitious, turning into an epic life-long project, his real life relationships are ultimately put to the test.
The first half of this movie had me hooked. It looks great visually, and showcases a lot of the little Charlie Kaufman absurdities and unexplained phenomenon that I love in his films. For example, Samantha Morton’s character buys a house in the movie that is literally on fire, and stays that way throughout the entire film, treated like just another mundane real estate detail (kind of like this movie’s version of the 7 1/2th floor from Being John Malkovich).
There is a funny running gag involving a self-help book written by Cotard’s psychiatrist that seems to update itself on the fly. And of course, there is Cotard’s play itself, which eventually starts to become a self-perpetuating feedback loop of his life, with actors playing himself and others around him, replaying scenes we’ve just seen on screen ten minutes prior. A lot of this stuff is classic Kaufman; clever and silly and just weird enough to come across as refreshing.
The real problems set in once Hoffman’s character starts to lose his grasp on reality. Not only is Catherine Keener mostly out of the picture at this point, but it becomes increasingly difficult to decipher what is real anymore. Time passes and he gets married to Claire, but it happens so fast that it seems like it’s just a figment of his imagination. Sometimes we are presented with things that are supposed to be a mere daydream, only to find out later that they actually happened.
I hate to say it, but the movie really just slipped away from me over the last 45 minutes or so. I found myself staring blankly at the screen as things got progressively more and more confusing. The tone becomes rather bleak, but without knowing what is real or not, any connection to the characters is lost. I found it difficult to take anything seriously. Kaufman tries to layer together all these metaphors about life and growing old, but I couldn’t get a handle on any of it and eventually my brain just shut off. A second viewing may clear up some of my questions, but I really don’t think it would salvage the film.
An obvious comparison for me is David O. Russell’s I Heart Huckabees, which I also had trouble deciphering as a whole. However, I think I Heart Huckabees is more enjoyable on a mere surface level than Synecdoche, New York is, and doesn’t get as convoluted either. (Incidentally, Jon Brion did the score for both films.)
The movie is still worth watching for the performances, particularly Philip Seymour Hoffman who is always adept at bringing neurotic and tortured characters to life. Catherine Keener, Michelle Williams and Samantha Morton are all on top of their game as well. There are some clever little laughs sprinkled throughout, but once the movie begins its slow descent into madness, the P-word comes to mind (Pretentious. Yeah, that’s right I said it!).
I suppose I did enjoy the sheer audacity of some of Kaufman’s vision, and I will still look forward to his next project. But for me, Synecdoche, New York misses the mark in a big way, which is all the more disappointing because it started off so promising. On the other hand, I don’t think many people will be surprised to hear this particular outcome, because let’s face it — we all knew it was a distinct possibility. — Sean
SCORE: 
Recommended If You Like: Being John Malkovich, I Heart Huckabees, Lady in the Water
Comments (13)
Good review, but I hope you will talk about it on the podcast once Greg and Jay have also seen it. It sounds like it will provide enough discussion and I’m curious if Jay will like it, because you recommend it to people who liked Lady in the Water.
Posted by Bas on September 10th, 2008You recommend it to people who liked Lady in the Water? Then nobody will like it.
Posted by Matt on September 10th, 2008Exactly my point.
Mostly it just reminded me of Lady in the Water because it was this ambitious thing that just borders on lunacy. It doesn’t have the same fairy tale feel or anything.
Posted by Sean on September 10th, 2008I liked Lady in the Water! And anything with Philip Seymour Hoffman in it is worth a look, so I’ll be checking out this ambitious, looney movie that everybody will hate.
Posted by Bas on September 10th, 2008I wasn’t a big fan of Being John Malkovich, and I didn’t like Spotless Mind at all (haven’t seen Adaptation, though I would like to), so I doubt I’ll get around to seeing this. If it’s as good as Lady in the Water though, I might have to check it out.
Posted by Henrik on September 10th, 2008I remember seeing a clip of this on rotten tomatoes and it had this terrible music, and that’s when i thought it wasn’t gonna work. Did it have a good score?
Posted by Drew on September 10th, 2008The movie’s got 99 problems but a score ain’t one. I thought Jon Brion did a decent job with it. It didn’t really stand out or anything, but it was okay.
Posted by Sean on September 10th, 2008lol, well played, Sean.
Posted by Matt on September 10th, 2008Jon Brion did it? I’m going to have to go re-watch that clip because i love him, his punch drunk love score is one of the best ever in my opinion. now that i go back and re-read your review i notice you mention him.
Posted by Drew on September 10th, 2008I’ll still see it definetly. Lots of movies that everyone said were super confusing, I watched and had no problem with, so maybe this’ll be the same.
Posted by Alex R. Cronk-Young on September 10th, 2008I’m going to submit that anyone who doesn’t understand this movie should take an introductory course in English Literature, followed by a close look at their own life. The movie is flawless, funny, heartbreaking and true.
Posted by chrispy on September 12th, 2008cross-posted at RowThree:
Synecdoche NY is a 4/4 from me.
Initially after watching it I simply was wowed that this was actually made. It seemed impossible that someone somewhere actually put hammer to nail to make these sets, that it was written and edited and put together. Something like this just feels so alien, like it just came to be and got put on screen somewhere. Its impossible to think of Kaufman somewhere saying ‘and action’ or picking certain takes over others. I mean its cinematic, but it didn’t feel like I was watching a movie. Does that make sense?
So I sat around for quite a while afterwards trying to figure out if it meant anything or nothing, because normally the artier films have an easier time pissing me off, as theres a line for me that if crossed, I can turn on an arty film so fast. I’m not fun at OCAD shows…
So I think overall in the end if the movie is about anything, its really about control. I mean it seems kind of obvious when I pieced it together and I guess I’ll venture around to see if theres any reviews that agree with me on this, but on one hand you have Adele who makes microscopic paintings, which though are incredibly detailed given how small they are, are still a little loose and stylized. She’s looked at and is praised as a master of her field. She stays in control while not strangling her work with extreme details and perfection.
Caden on the other hand, makes his universe bigger and bigger and bigger, its completely out of his control, his subjects keep making their own decisions and only make the meta go deeper and deeper, but Caden can’t stop obsessing over all the details and making his vision absolutely perfect, and since at the end he has to let someone else take over for anything to move forward, for it to end and for everyone and him to die, if theres any message at all to the film its pretty much in praise of Adele’s balance, that you can have these lofty aims but at the same time you have to leave enough leash for it to breathe and take on its own abstract qualities…
which is kind of like the movie itself, extremely ambitious but not without its looseness. And even things that seem like non sequitors such as the house constantly on fire, fit into my understanding of the movie. Caden is attracted to her, and while she works with him she personally lives within chaos and (eventually) dies from it. Call it some degree of opposites attract, and maybe why Caden keeps longing for Adele long after she’s gone. Michelle Williams on the other hand completely buys into what Caden is doing until she can’t take it anymore, it wasn’t healthy for her.
So maybe I’m full of shit and as pretentious as so many people find this movie, but thats what i managed to glean from it in the couple hours since watching it, in a theater where of 11 people, I was the only one left watching by the end. I think I was completely alone by the time the Zeppelin showed up on screen.
one more little thing
the name
Caden Cotard
from wikipedia:
The Cotard delusion or Cotard’s syndrome, also known as nihilistic or negation delusion, is a rare neuropsychiatric disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that he or she is dead, does not exist, is putrefying or has lost his/her blood or internal organs. Rarely, it can include delusions of immortality.
seem about right?
Posted by Goon on November 25th, 2008with specific regard to your review Sean:
“I found myself staring blankly at the screen as things got progressively more and more confusing. The tone becomes rather bleak, but without knowing what is real or not, any connection to the characters is lost.”
I can see how this would happen, but did it also happen to you during the final act of Adaptation? Because to me thats so much of the movie, I didn’t necessarily feel I needed to connect to Hoffman’s character. Maybe I was, maybe I wasn’t, but it became to me more about resolving THE story rather than HIS story, what I liked about the movie was a big bigger and more about my experience than anything else by the end, enjoying the meta and what it may be saying, if anything. Kind of like how the end of Adaptation says more about the story than the characters, who get dramatically changed in that meta commentary about mainstream hackery.
Besides, I dont think you’re supposed to like Hoffman’s character, he is incredibly selfish and like he says, everyone is the lead in their own story. He’s a solipsist and all his friends and family are props.
As for confusing, i didnt necessarily feel confused, but when you have that many feedback loops, yes, I did squirm in my seat, but not in a bored way or annoyed way.
Posted by Goon on November 25th, 2008Leave a Reply