It's too divisive to be universally recognised as a masterpiece. I loved it , and wanted to show it to my gf the day after I watched it as I wanted to see it again and be able to discuss it with someone . She hated it lol. I think it's amazing. Each to their own I guess
@@jw7073 I have never understood the hate some people have for this movie. I totally understand not enjoying it due to its presentation but I wonder that when people call it terrible etc, its down to them refusing to accept/engage with the themes being dealt with that triggers such distaste. It pretty brutal after all.
Watched this film a while back and it blew me away, it's such an important film and it really captured the struggle of the human condition yet it's so undervalued, with another phenomenal performance from the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman
Synecdoche New York moved me deeply the first time I saw it, and it felt like a true masterpiece the third time I watched it. When Kermode is this wrong it's just bewildering.
Augh, I wanted to agree with Kermode! S,NY is glorious. It's a sort of surreal-realism self-absorbed mash leavened with humour and knocked back with breathtaking despair and loneliness. I can see Kermode's comment that it could be shorter, but I love every part of it like a friend---I don't think I could stand to see any of it go. I watched without trying to outwit it and was stunned by the beauty of its central message: everyone is the protagonist in their own story, and everybody's fucked up.
@@kooale After a decade your guess is as good as mine :p but I think I meant that I wasn't trying to unpick it as I went but just immerse myself in the story. Kind of like I let the film just guide me by the hand without worrying where we were going. ... This is especially easy to do because I'm not terribly good at analysing films at the best of times. Apologies if my answer isn't as interesting as the mystery of the original statement, but that's my recollection/guess!
i thought this movie was great. i found it somewhat depressing the first time round. but the second time i began to notice so many new things. and realized there were so many clues that paid off in inventive, unpredictable ways later on. i especially loved the girl's diary that continued on through the rest of her life, with entries that came after his having found the diary. also, how slippery time was, his first breakfast spanned a few months by what i saw.
Circumstances being that this film was the product of one writer, really dont see how this film could have been any other way. The changes Mark suggests would mutilate it.
"Synecdoche New York" is a movie I love and I've watched it 5-6 times. I'm always fascinated by the way months pass in the first ten minutes...and you may miss it if you're not paying attention. And what about Tom Noonan's appearance the first time Hoffman goes outside. Kaufman is a "thinking man's director." ❗❗❗
You're a top bloke for uploading this. Cheers! But I disagree with Kermode here. Saying it's like being inside Charlie Kaufman's head for two hours would be more a compliment to the film and I think he did a great job with his directorial debut. I suppose I don't mind self-indulgence as much as the good Doctor.
SNY is, admittedly, a difficult movie to enjoy. It's uncompromising. It's relentlessly dark and pessimistic. There no laughs, easy or otherwise. Kaufman offers no comfort, no red carpet to the "solution" of this film. But I don't see how you can deny the greatness and genius here. It's amazing.
@@Randomuser2329 Hysterically funny? Not so I noticed. There is a great deal of droll irony and observational humor, but this is about as far from a comedy as could be.
"There no laughs....." OMG there are so many laughs in this film, from the earliest scene with Phil in the bath room stating his waking feelings. His wife's tiny paintings are Peter Sellers/Pink Panther funny! The scene in a German cafe in which American/expat Jennifer Jason Leigh speaks with a thick faux German accent is a laugh riot, a comedic highlight in her career I would think! THIS IS AN EXTREMELY FUNNY, tragic, very serious film!
how come nobody speaks of this movie being absolutely hilarious, the first time I saw it on TV, I laughed my head off, the second time I watched it, I laughed even harder, it is a masterstroke of comedy, it has become my absolute favourite movie ever, nothing else out there compares to it, I have seen Mark Kermode speaking highly of some totally crap movies, shit happens.
It's amazing. When he criticizes a film like Transformers or The Hangover, he's a snob who only likes european arthouse films. When he criticizes arthouse films, he's a narrow minded idiot. Hmm. Fuck, the guy can't catch a break.
Definitely agree with this. I think that the film would lose something sublime and special at its core from being cut down by an editor. That said, I can definitely understand that it's one of those films that is never going to appeal to everyone.
Everytime I get to the end of this film my mindstate is profoundly altered in a way no other film could achieve, honestly the most personal film I've ever seen. It's not supposed to entertain the viewer neccessarily, it's supposed to comment on the human condition and the mysteries of a modern life. This reviewer is very close minded, however maybe this movie's only for a specific sort of person.
Caden is vainly attempting to create a perfect piece of art in order to transcend himself from his mortality and escape death. His piece envelops his entire existance and in the process he essentially wastes his entire life. It's the old "I'd rather live a single life than tell a thousand stories" idea. What I took away from the film 3 or 4 years ago was that you're not really in control of your life. You can make decisions but ultimatley life is larger than a single person and their personal dilemas, desires and beliefs: This is what Caden was too scared to admit. More specifically, the creative process cannot be used to escape reality forever.
@@yushamush9849 thanks for explaining, that's the first time I've ever heard someone actually explain it. I guess that's a neat idea with the not being able to escape death via art thing - I don't agree, but agreeing or not doesn't make it a good or bad concept. I can see that now. I guess I just hated Caden and his experiences enough that it didn't come through for me. Just seemed like I was following this annoying guy around and wished the film wouldn't. Still don't get exactly how it shows you're not in control. He's a creepy drip who gives up too easy. Quite pathetic (I think that was part of the point of his character). So like... of course he doesn't succeed in life. He's stupid, cowardly and unlikeable. That's his doing, not some universal fate ceiling.
@@Torthrodhel You think you can escape death via art? Also, he was successful. His work was well received and he was awarded a genius grant as a result. I think the point of his character is that he couldn't succeed enough and that his bitterness stemmed from the fact that he wasn't able to let go of his egotistical pursuit of perfection. Thinking about it now, it's kind of about the concept of comercial success too, and how there can never be enough to satisfy the pursuer. Some people aren't good at living, or aren't especially happy doing so, so they try to control their reality by surrounding themselves with their creations - different types of people have other methods of doing the same thing. I think Charlie Kaufman (writer) is one of those people and that the film is a cautionary tale for the scared, confused and desperate.
Hmm. I almost agree with him, I can see the validity of a lot of what he says, the first two thirds of the film did seem to drag, but the final third had a massive emotional payout for me, and I'm not sure it would have been so emotional had not the first parts spent so much time leading up to it. It's the way the unreality comes in, a trickle of the surreal here and there, then reality starts to fall apart, until we're left with only the question of what it is to be a doomed individual in a world of doomed individuals. All in all... I don't know, I'd probably give it four and a half out of five, which seems odd considering how much of it I didn't like. But taken as a whole... it's brilliant.
This is one of my most favourite films, but I understand I probably have a niche taste. There are some movies that I might not like but I still understand "there's a lot to dive into" when it's possible.
Unlike Mr Kermode, I totally engaged with the characters. Caden’s regret, sadness and fear are mine too. Yet, each time I watch this film I feel liberated, grounded in the realisation that time is precious. The plot is thick and overlapping? so is life. The film’s title is confusing and convoluted? So are the titles Caden proposes for his endlessly evolving play. Surely these are a deliberate reflection of our own struggle to find titles for our own little plays, the meaning of our life.
Studying English literature is vastly different from studying semantic theory. I'm not surprised Kermode has never encountered it. It's the kind of thing you'd expect a Linguistics PHD to know, not an English PHD.
How can he call himself a film critic with had brain dead “don’t know don’t care” attitude at the end towards a film imbued with the heart and soul and genius of not only Kaufman but every actor, including PSH. Not even mentioning Hoffman proves how little he understands film. I could watch his character pain a wall for three hours … or better yet clean his ex wife’s room and love every second of it. It’s genius in an undeniable way.
i think that the writer of this film figured out that if he could be ambiguous and general with everything, including the vagueness of the titled, someone or anyone could possibly find meaning in the film and connect that with life. its like grasping for straws in the air. but it works, because i too connected all of that with real life. but it works. tho it shouldnt. ahh fuck its 4 am
You know when you have a lot thoughts on a film but can't quite express them. I think Mark Kermode has gone a pretty good job of summing up how I felt about it whilst watching.
No, sin-eck-duh-key is the proper pronunciation. Also they taught that word to us in my eighth grade English class. Kermode is someone with a great vocabulary. I'm not sure why he wasn't familiar with that word and why he made such a fuss about it. It's pretty easy to figure out how the title applies to the film. The giant warehouse (part of New York) represents New York itself (the whole) since the play is recreating the world that exists outside of it.
The difference between a very good movie and a great movie: I watched Synecdoche, NY twice to see if I wasn't getting it. I could watch Being John Malkovich over and over and not be bored.
i can understand why mark wouldn't like it the film isn't for everyone when i first saw it i didn't hate it but i did feel a bit confused and disappointed that i didn't like it as much as others but since then the film has grown on me with time and it is a film you get more out of with repeat viewings
Charlie Kaufman IS a great screenwriter, apart from the fact that his films are about unresolved anxiety. And there ARE films about resolved anxiety. Everything from Moon to Star Wars affirm freedom and courage. Films like being John Malkovich are really funny but Adaptation was SO needlessly terrified. It's good when a writer actually understands love and mythology and can get it across.
I'm new to Kaufman and found Anomalisa very interesting, so interesting I watched Synecdoche the following night. Whilst there were numerous scenes I liked it didn't quite hold my attention in the same way as the more recent film, I found myself checking how long there was to go a couple of times, it felt like the film's point had been made and the last half hour was laborious. Still it was better than 99.9% of the crap Hollywood churns out, I think Adaptation is going to be next.
Literally couldn’t agree more. Everything he says in this review is straight facts and I don’t know why people pretend this film is so good. Mr Kermode is completely correct
I love Charlie Kaufman's writing and I wasn't keen on SNY first time round but after second viewing I began to love it and now think it's his best. However after my third viewing I found a really interesting blog about the film which opened my eyes to some other viewpoints. For those interested it's at : italkyoubored DOTwordpressDOTcom
It's pretty shocking that Mark Kermode, P.H.D. in English Literature, didn't know what 'synecdoche' meant before reviewing this film. How he went ten years studying English without encountering that word is beyond me. You don't have to be an 'Oxbridge English Professor' to know what that word means...
No, it isn't shocking at all. Yes, Kermode has a PhD, but not in lexicography. Researching a Phd in English does not require you to memorise the contents of the OED. I too have a PhD in a humanities subject, but I also had to look up the definition of Synecdoche, simply due to the fact that it is a relatively obscure word that seldom turns up in written work, and almost never in everyday speech. I suspect this is partly why Kaufman choose to use it in his film - as another form of abstraction and obfuscation. In my time as a doctoral researcher, by far the worst literature I read was the kind that hid behind jargon, obscure language and convoluted sentences. In common with films, if someone has something of significance to say, they do not need to hide behind stylistic tricks, obscure language and obscurantism. This film was simply a self-indulgent mess. Worse than that, it was excruciatingly boring.
What Mark is saying about a “script doctor” to somehow umpire Kaufmans mind is missing the point of the plot. The basic plot of the film is a man creating a play that never ends. Then Baudrillard and all the metaphysical stuff is thrown in too but the very basic crux of the film is about Caden (Kaufman) and his unmediated battle with his own creative desire/desperation to find truth.
SYNECHDOCHE: when a small part represents the whole / a singular name is given to numerous individuals. E.G; can I have your daughter's hand / Didn't England do well / Hello Cleveland!
my definition of a synecdoche: "Liverpool won the champions league", Liverpool the football team, not the entire population of the city of Liverpool, ha ha.
KingMinosxxvi, judging by your grammar and punctuation, you really _are was_ a lit. major. PS. Many high-school students know what "synecdoche" means, Mr. Lit. Major.
Sad to say, but I'm with the good doctor on this one. I'm a big fan of Charlie Kaufman, and loved Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine, and especially Adaptation, which is one of my favourite movies ever. Syneccdoche is, conceptually speaking, very interesting. But the execution was messy and incoherent. Kaufman is one of the most original screenwriting talents of the modern era, but, on this evidence, he's no director. The tone of the movie was so relentlessly flat and downbeat that it obscured heart of the material, and despite the fact that the running time is a little over two hours, it felt like an endurance test. I enjoy experimental, abstract movies, but I had to fight the urge to give up on this one at several points. Maybe the problem is that Kaufman had too many ideas, and being the director, was determined to film his screenplay exactly. A more seasoned director (albeit one who is sympathetic to the material) could have probably made some judicious cuts to the material, but retained the conceptual heart of piece. It would have been interesting to see how it would have turned out with either Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry at the helm. Writers nutoriously have difficulty in "killing their darlings". Often, a collaborator is needed to bring out the best in the material.
I understand people are angry with this review, but I think Kermode was very eloquent with why he didn’t like it. The film is self indulgent. The film is downbeat with incredibly unlovable, if relatable sadly to many, characters. People are allowed to dislike it for those reasons.
This is a great movie that people don't want to think about because movies are generally perceived (by the American public at least)as a form of escapism, not something worth contemplating. I personally think anyone who doesn't understand this film, emotionally and/or intellectually, is a complete moron. And, by the way, synecdoche is just a word. Don't get hung up on it. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means.
Agree with Kermode here - the film, although it looked great, is clearly a stroke of genius when it comes to storytelling, was never able to involve me. While I thought that should have been the point of the film. Everything feels so distant and disconnected and you lose track of everything and it ends up being exactly as Mark says; don't know, don't care.
@@Torthrodhel I think the movie is incredible to look at and the themes it touches on apparently resonate with many others - it's also told in a convoluted manner that somewhat breathes an air of great expertise to me - Kaufman has done brilliant work, most of us will agree. But you are right, since writing that comment two months ago I have retracted my opinion even more and I would not use the same words again to describe the movie. It's not as "clear" as I said. And most of it is lost on me either way.
@@jasontodd7499 hey I look like a fool by default and am perfectly comfortable with the situation. But I've still no earthly idea why people call this film a masterpiece. Maybe you with your anorak of immunity to foolishness can explain it to us? Would sure like to comprehend what's supposed to be so special about it.
This was within my top 5 most favourite films. I just watched it again since seeing it for the first time 7 years ago, and I have to say I agree with Kermode on a lot of what he says. I want to say that the ideas are amazing, the script was probably good but the worst part of the movie was the direction. Every scene with the therapist was obnoxious, why did she cut him off every time Caden talks? Why did his daughter think that Caden had a homosexual relationship? Why did his daughter think it's ok to be a lesbian but it's unacceptable for her dad to be gay?, and why did he have to apologize to her?, why did she not accept his apology? The only major theme with this is that Caden is supposed to be misunderstood, every person in the movie only briefly listens to Caden, if they listen to him at all (except for maybe Sammy). This connects with the first two doctors, who both misunderstand him when asks for clarification. "You need to see a ophthalmologist" "a neurologist?" "no ophthalmologist, is your hearing alright?" Doctor 2: "You need to see a neurologist" "a neurologist?" "a brain doctor" "I just thought you said Urologist". The whole first section could make a great sitcom. I feel like the scenes and sequences hang together so loosely that they start to feel like a million red herrings, which give way to a hint of a connecting theme. There's probably an amazing 90 minute movie inside the 120 minute mess.
A very interesting assessment. I feel that a lot of people who love this movie (I really liked it too tbh, but saw it once), love it so passionately because of how messy this is. Even that becomes a metaphor for life. While this is not exactly an experimental film, I can see why these type of very niche films draw an intense following, often stemming from the same aspects that are being criticized being reflected differently by the fans.
I think he got this right, I got irritated with this film after a while, despite really enjoying the little creative flourishes interspersed throughout. The scene with the vicar is my favourite bit, I think.
A very interesting, clever film, but an exhausting, unrewarding first watch. I like deeply layered films that require rewatches to fully get, but I still expect some degree of satisfaction for the first time round. Lesser directors have made better films because they understand that through line, Kaufman plain misses it.
Hey Mark, everything you criticise about this movie is everything I like. If it was made more "accessible" then you'd lose me.
Fancy seeing you here
Thank you salad fingers
Thank you
Cool
Th'fth th'fth fth fth fth '
I really believe that in ten years time this film will have been reassessed and it'll be considered a masterpiece
It's already considered a masterpiece
Six to go! Just watched it, was just as terrible as Mark says!
It's too divisive to be universally recognised as a masterpiece. I loved it , and wanted to show it to my gf the day after I watched it as I wanted to see it again and be able to discuss it with someone . She hated it lol. I think it's amazing. Each to their own I guess
@@jw7073 I have never understood the hate some people have for this movie. I totally understand not enjoying it due to its presentation but I wonder that when people call it terrible etc, its down to them refusing to accept/engage with the themes being dealt with that triggers such distaste. It pretty brutal after all.
No
Watched this film a while back and it blew me away, it's such an important film and it really captured the struggle of the human condition yet it's so undervalued, with another phenomenal performance from the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman
Synecdoche New York moved me deeply the first time I saw it, and it felt like a true masterpiece the third time I watched it.
When Kermode is this wrong it's just bewildering.
Probably my favourite movie of all time. I’ve never seen anything that explored the human condition so completely.
I can understand being completely overwhelmed by this film (I think everyone is the first time they see it) but that doesn’t make it any lesser to me
SNY improves with each viewing; it's a masterpiece..
I'm obsessed with this film, I feel like Kauffman reached genius status with this film...apparently it was booed at cannes! wtf?
Cannes gonna Cannes
Cannes is a joke
Mark kermode didn't like the film. So be it. If you don't agree, it doesn't affect your enjoyment.
I loved this film, emotional and full to the brim with imagery and metaphors.
Underrated film, gets better every time you see it
If every medium was written to be more accessible then it would fail to move forward as an art form
Augh, I wanted to agree with Kermode! S,NY is glorious. It's a sort of surreal-realism self-absorbed mash leavened with humour and knocked back with breathtaking despair and loneliness. I can see Kermode's comment that it could be shorter, but I love every part of it like a friend---I don't think I could stand to see any of it go. I watched without trying to outwit it and was stunned by the beauty of its central message: everyone is the protagonist in their own story, and everybody's fucked up.
Each life is every life
" I watched without trying to outwit it ..." Extremely interesting statement. Elaborate please.
@@kooale After a decade your guess is as good as mine :p but I think I meant that I wasn't trying to unpick it as I went but just immerse myself in the story. Kind of like I let the film just guide me by the hand without worrying where we were going. ... This is especially easy to do because I'm not terribly good at analysing films at the best of times.
Apologies if my answer isn't as interesting as the mystery of the original statement, but that's my recollection/guess!
"Straight to the heart of the periphery"
That would be a great album title ha
:)
i thought this movie was great. i found it somewhat depressing the first time round. but the second time i began to notice so many new things. and realized there were so many clues that paid off in inventive, unpredictable ways later on.
i especially loved the girl's diary that continued on through the rest of her life, with entries that came after his having found the diary.
also, how slippery time was, his first breakfast spanned a few months by what i saw.
I’d like to have seen Ebert and Kermode debate this one out
Annoying title?
The title is epic!
Circumstances being that this film was the product of one writer, really dont see how this film could have been any other way. The changes Mark suggests would mutilate it.
"Synecdoche New York" is a movie I love and I've watched it 5-6 times. I'm always fascinated by the way months pass in the first ten minutes...and you may miss it if you're not paying attention. And what about Tom Noonan's appearance the first time Hoffman goes outside. Kaufman is a "thinking man's director." ❗❗❗
‘All the good stuff gets lost in the waffle’ what waffle? None of this film is filler the whole film is intentional amd specific
i totaly agree this movie is fabulous
why is no one talking about the fact that this somehow quickly disintegrated into an argument over porridge
That’s what you’re here to do
And defining a word in the title. Two tedious minds at work
How can you get an opinion 'wrong' ?
Films, like all art, are subjective. You liked it, he didnt. End of.
Maybe not wrong, but lazy, flabby, impatient, careless, dismissive, disrespectful - yes.
You're a top bloke for uploading this. Cheers!
But I disagree with Kermode here. Saying it's like being inside Charlie Kaufman's head for two hours would be more a compliment to the film and I think he did a great job with his directorial debut. I suppose I don't mind self-indulgence as much as the good Doctor.
SNY is, admittedly, a difficult movie to enjoy. It's uncompromising. It's relentlessly dark and pessimistic. There no laughs, easy or otherwise. Kaufman offers no comfort, no red carpet to the "solution" of this film. But I don't see how you can deny the greatness and genius here. It's amazing.
@@Randomuser2329 Hysterically funny? Not so I noticed. There is a great deal of droll irony and observational humor, but this is about as far from a comedy as could be.
"There no laughs....." OMG there are so many laughs in this film, from the earliest scene with Phil in the bath room stating his waking feelings. His wife's tiny paintings are Peter Sellers/Pink Panther funny! The scene in a German cafe in which American/expat Jennifer Jason Leigh speaks with a thick faux German accent is a laugh riot, a comedic highlight in her career I would think! THIS IS AN EXTREMELY FUNNY, tragic, very serious film!
I think its pretty funny
How does he manage to not even get the literal plot points right? What a careless review. Jesus, man.
What did he get wrong?
The movie is not entertainment, it is a very accessible art house.
TriP. We're already there
One of my favorite critics gets my favorite film completely wrong. That alone is fascinating.
how come nobody speaks of this movie being absolutely hilarious, the first time I saw it on TV, I laughed my head off, the second time I watched it, I laughed even harder, it is a masterstroke of comedy, it has become my absolute favourite movie ever, nothing else out there compares to it, I have seen Mark Kermode speaking highly of some totally crap movies, shit happens.
As a point of reference, Kermode gave Spectre a glowing review.
It's amazing. When he criticizes a film like Transformers or The Hangover, he's a snob who only likes european arthouse films. When he criticizes arthouse films, he's a narrow minded idiot. Hmm. Fuck, the guy can't catch a break.
Simon eats porridge every morning, the shock and horror... You'd never have thought with such a vibrant personality...
Definitely agree with this. I think that the film would lose something sublime and special at its core from being cut down by an editor. That said, I can definitely understand that it's one of those films that is never going to appeal to everyone.
Everytime I get to the end of this film my mindstate is profoundly altered in a way no other film could achieve, honestly the most personal film I've ever seen. It's not supposed to entertain the viewer neccessarily, it's supposed to comment on the human condition and the mysteries of a modern life. This reviewer is very close minded, however maybe this movie's only for a specific sort of person.
What does it actually say about the human condition? I got absolutely no message from it. I didn't think anyone bothered to put one in there.
Caden is vainly attempting to create a perfect piece of art in order to transcend himself from his mortality and escape death. His piece envelops his entire existance and in the process he essentially wastes his entire life.
It's the old "I'd rather live a single life than tell a thousand stories" idea.
What I took away from the film 3 or 4 years ago was that you're not really in control of your life. You can make decisions but ultimatley life is larger than a single person and their personal dilemas, desires and beliefs: This is what Caden was too scared to admit.
More specifically, the creative process cannot be used to escape reality forever.
@@yushamush9849 thanks for explaining, that's the first time I've ever heard someone actually explain it. I guess that's a neat idea with the not being able to escape death via art thing - I don't agree, but agreeing or not doesn't make it a good or bad concept. I can see that now. I guess I just hated Caden and his experiences enough that it didn't come through for me. Just seemed like I was following this annoying guy around and wished the film wouldn't.
Still don't get exactly how it shows you're not in control. He's a creepy drip who gives up too easy. Quite pathetic (I think that was part of the point of his character). So like... of course he doesn't succeed in life. He's stupid, cowardly and unlikeable. That's his doing, not some universal fate ceiling.
@@Torthrodhel You think you can escape death via art?
Also, he was successful. His work was well received and he was awarded a genius grant as a result. I think the point of his character is that he couldn't succeed enough and that his bitterness stemmed from the fact that he wasn't able to let go of his egotistical pursuit of perfection. Thinking about it now, it's kind of about the concept of comercial success too, and how there can never be enough to satisfy the pursuer.
Some people aren't good at living, or aren't especially happy doing so, so they try to control their reality by surrounding themselves with their creations - different types of people have other methods of doing the same thing. I think Charlie Kaufman (writer) is one of those people and that the film is a cautionary tale for the scared, confused and desperate.
@@yushamush9849 it's more I'm not convinced either way.
Come on, synecdoche is a word every high school student knows. At least here in Italy.
just watched the film. Genius. Like Kermode but he got this one wrong. The beauty of the film is in its 'waffle'
Holy shit I will never understand a critic who thinks MORE STUDIO INTERFERENCE would be better??!? Bro what!?! How in the fuck are you a lover of film
Hmm. I almost agree with him, I can see the validity of a lot of what he says, the first two thirds of the film did seem to drag, but the final third had a massive emotional payout for me, and I'm not sure it would have been so emotional had not the first parts spent so much time leading up to it. It's the way the unreality comes in, a trickle of the surreal here and there, then reality starts to fall apart, until we're left with only the question of what it is to be a doomed individual in a world of doomed individuals.
All in all... I don't know, I'd probably give it four and a half out of five, which seems odd considering how much of it I didn't like. But taken as a whole... it's brilliant.
Isn't _Being Charlie Kauffmann_ just _Adaption._
This is one of my most favourite films, but I understand I probably have a niche taste. There are some movies that I might not like but I still understand "there's a lot to dive into" when it's possible.
Movies too good for y'all 😉
Unlike Mr Kermode, I totally engaged with the characters. Caden’s regret, sadness and fear are mine too. Yet, each time I watch this film I feel liberated, grounded in the realisation that time is precious. The plot is thick and overlapping? so is life. The film’s title is confusing and convoluted? So are the titles Caden proposes for his endlessly evolving play. Surely these are a deliberate reflection of our own struggle to find titles for our own little plays, the meaning of our life.
Say you don't understand Synecdoche New York without saying you don't understand Synecdoche New York.
This film is long, and i wouldn't call it a nice or pleasant experience. But it is a really good film
Studying English literature is vastly different from studying semantic theory. I'm not surprised Kermode has never encountered it. It's the kind of thing you'd expect a Linguistics PHD to know, not an English PHD.
How can he call himself a film critic with had brain dead “don’t know don’t care” attitude at the end towards a film imbued with the heart and soul and genius of not only Kaufman but every actor, including PSH. Not even mentioning Hoffman proves how little he understands film. I could watch his character pain a wall for three hours … or better yet clean his ex wife’s room and love every second of it. It’s genius in an undeniable way.
i think that the writer of this film figured out that if he could be ambiguous and general with everything, including the vagueness of the titled, someone or anyone could possibly find meaning in the film and connect that with life. its like grasping for straws in the air. but it works, because i too connected all of that with real life. but it works. tho it shouldnt. ahh fuck its 4 am
Just watched it and cannot recall the last film (or if ever) a film has simultaneously grated me, compelled me to roll my eyes, and moved me.
That's what greatness in art does - it doesn't strike at only one level of your consciousness.
You know when you have a lot thoughts on a film but can't quite express them. I think Mark Kermode has gone a pretty good job of summing up how I felt about it whilst watching.
No, sin-eck-duh-key is the proper pronunciation. Also they taught that word to us in my eighth grade English class. Kermode is someone with a great vocabulary. I'm not sure why he wasn't familiar with that word and why he made such a fuss about it. It's pretty easy to figure out how the title applies to the film. The giant warehouse (part of New York) represents New York itself (the whole) since the play is recreating the world that exists outside of it.
The difference between a very good movie and a great movie: I watched Synecdoche, NY twice to see if I wasn't getting it. I could watch Being John Malkovich over and over and not be bored.
Sean Ferrante yeah u r ryt great films are rewatchable
That's okay, you like pop. You like it sweet and simple!
i can understand why mark wouldn't like it the film isn't for everyone when i first saw it i didn't hate it but i did feel a bit confused and disappointed that i didn't like it as much as others but since then the film has grown on me with time and it is a film you get more out of with repeat viewings
Charlie Kaufman IS a great screenwriter, apart from the fact that his films are about unresolved anxiety. And there ARE films about resolved anxiety. Everything from Moon to Star Wars affirm freedom and courage. Films like being John Malkovich are really funny but Adaptation was SO needlessly terrified. It's good when a writer actually understands love and mythology and can get it across.
Yms is gonna have a field day if he ever listened to this review ;D
It's a very interesting movie in a lot of ways. It's just that simply watching is doesn't do much.
He's so right about this shit
Where is Mark Kermode and what have you done with his body?
I'm new to Kaufman and found Anomalisa very interesting, so interesting I watched Synecdoche the following night. Whilst there were numerous scenes I liked it didn't quite hold my attention in the same way as the more recent film, I found myself checking how long there was to go a couple of times, it felt like the film's point had been made and the last half hour was laborious. Still it was better than 99.9% of the crap Hollywood churns out, I think Adaptation is going to be next.
+Tom Wilko Adaptation is great! Enjoy :)
Roger Ebert considered Synecdoche New York the Best movie of the decade
Ebert also considered Crash the best film of 2005, so there's that
Crash is good m8
And he after that changed his mind and said the Best was "Me and You and Everyone We Know"
Ricardo Correia he also thought home alone 3 is the best home alone
Its a rare time that I disagree with Mark's assarement. The Angel delight/porridge debate was fantastic!
DFK DFC. Yes.
I accidentally watched this, walked to the wrong screening, supposed to see a Terminator film...
what did you think about it?
@@numberl6 i stayed so guess I found it interesting, and I'd normally see films of people losing their minds :) (science of sleep, eternal sunshine)
Yeah, but that's the point. The movie is a mixed Synecdoche of mixed metaphor
Literally couldn’t agree more. Everything he says in this review is straight facts and I don’t know why people pretend this film is so good. Mr Kermode is completely correct
I love Charlie Kaufman's writing and I wasn't keen on SNY first time round but after second viewing I began to love it and now think it's his best. However after my third viewing I found a really interesting blog about the film which opened my eyes to some other viewpoints. For those interested it's at : italkyoubored DOTwordpressDOTcom
It's pretty shocking that Mark Kermode, P.H.D. in English Literature, didn't know what 'synecdoche' meant before reviewing this film. How he went ten years studying English without encountering that word is beyond me. You don't have to be an 'Oxbridge English Professor' to know what that word means...
No, it isn't shocking at all. Yes, Kermode has a PhD, but not in lexicography. Researching a Phd in English does not require you to memorise the contents of the OED. I too have a PhD in a humanities subject, but I also had to look up the definition of Synecdoche, simply due to the fact that it is a relatively obscure word that seldom turns up in written work, and almost never in everyday speech. I suspect this is partly why Kaufman choose to use it in his film - as another form of abstraction and obfuscation.
In my time as a doctoral researcher, by far the worst literature I read was the kind that hid behind jargon, obscure language and convoluted sentences. In common with films, if someone has something of significance to say, they do not need to hide behind stylistic tricks, obscure language and obscurantism.
This film was simply a self-indulgent mess. Worse than that, it was excruciatingly boring.
What Mark is saying about a “script doctor” to somehow umpire Kaufmans mind is missing the point of the plot. The basic plot of the film is a man creating a play that never ends. Then Baudrillard and all the metaphysical stuff is thrown in too but the very basic crux of the film is about Caden (Kaufman) and his unmediated battle with his own creative desire/desperation to find truth.
There's no such word as "sin-ek-dock."" No idea why Mark keeps bringing up a pronunciation which isn't correct.
SYNECHDOCHE: when a small part represents the whole / a singular name is given to numerous individuals.
E.G; can I have your daughter's hand / Didn't England do well / Hello Cleveland!
Is Mark Kermode really calling someone else self indulgent?
my definition of a synecdoche: "Liverpool won the champions league", Liverpool the football team, not the entire population of the city of Liverpool, ha ha.
im was a lit major..ive never come across it.
KingMinosxxvi, judging by your grammar and punctuation, you really _are was_ a lit. major.
PS. Many high-school students know what "synecdoche" means, Mr. Lit. Major.
This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is 8 1/2 for people who rightly identified 8 1/2 as rubbish.
Stephen Lewis I'd say 8 1/2 is the better film, though both are good
The film is like "every reason to commit suicide rolled in one big indigestible package" lol :/ ?
2:07 the reason he doesn't get this film. By the way, I still love Kermode, so don't bash.
Sad to say, but I'm with the good doctor on this one. I'm a big fan of Charlie Kaufman, and loved Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine, and especially Adaptation, which is one of my favourite movies ever. Syneccdoche is, conceptually speaking, very interesting. But the execution was messy and incoherent. Kaufman is one of the most original screenwriting talents of the modern era, but, on this evidence, he's no director. The tone of the movie was so relentlessly flat and downbeat that it obscured heart of the material, and despite the fact that the running time is a little over two hours, it felt like an endurance test. I enjoy experimental, abstract movies, but I had to fight the urge to give up on this one at several points.
Maybe the problem is that Kaufman had too many ideas, and being the director, was determined to film his screenplay exactly. A more seasoned director (albeit one who is sympathetic to the material) could have probably made some judicious cuts to the material, but retained the conceptual heart of piece. It would have been interesting to see how it would have turned out with either Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry at the helm. Writers nutoriously have difficulty in "killing their darlings". Often, a collaborator is needed to bring out the best in the material.
Your statement is exactly why I both appreciate and dislike Synecdoche
I understand people are angry with this review, but I think Kermode was very eloquent with why he didn’t like it.
The film is self indulgent. The film is downbeat with incredibly unlovable, if relatable sadly to many, characters. People are allowed to dislike it for those reasons.
I think hand in marriage doesn't fit. Surely it's reference to the rings part of the marriage ceremony..
This is a great movie that people don't want to think about because movies are generally perceived (by the American public at least)as a form of escapism, not something worth contemplating. I personally think anyone who doesn't understand this film, emotionally and/or intellectually, is a complete moron. And, by the way, synecdoche is just a word. Don't get hung up on it. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means.
" Look it up in the dictionary..." Bravo! These guys are paid to do a job, yes? JHC!
All the triggered art students in the comments, shouting down a critic’s opinion of a film 🍿
it's an obscure word. Quite obscure.
I think Mark wasn’t actually that hard on the film or on Kaufman himself. I mean, I really liked it
the movie is way better than this review. It's a master piece in fact
I agree with Kermode, though I think I like it quite a bit more. The second half of the movie gets to overwhelming for me.
God, its not very often I disagree with a Kermode review so much.
Agree with Kermode here - the film, although it looked great, is clearly a stroke of genius when it comes to storytelling, was never able to involve me. While I thought that should have been the point of the film. Everything feels so distant and disconnected and you lose track of everything and it ends up being exactly as Mark says; don't know, don't care.
Why's it genius though? What's genius about it exactly? I don't see it.
@@Torthrodhel I think the movie is incredible to look at and the themes it touches on apparently resonate with many others - it's also told in a convoluted manner that somewhat breathes an air of great expertise to me - Kaufman has done brilliant work, most of us will agree.
But you are right, since writing that comment two months ago I have retracted my opinion even more and I would not use the same words again to describe the movie. It's not as "clear" as I said. And most of it is lost on me either way.
It's a masterpiece. You both look like fools.
@@jasontodd7499 hey I look like a fool by default and am perfectly comfortable with the situation. But I've still no earthly idea why people call this film a masterpiece. Maybe you with your anorak of immunity to foolishness can explain it to us? Would sure like to comprehend what's supposed to be so special about it.
@@jasontodd7499 ah thanks for this constructive feedback.
lose the porridge bit
This was within my top 5 most favourite films. I just watched it again since seeing it for the first time 7 years ago, and I have to say I agree with Kermode on a lot of what he says. I want to say that the ideas are amazing, the script was probably good but the worst part of the movie was the direction.
Every scene with the therapist was obnoxious, why did she cut him off every time Caden talks? Why did his daughter think that Caden had a homosexual relationship? Why did his daughter think it's ok to be a lesbian but it's unacceptable for her dad to be gay?, and why did he have to apologize to her?, why did she not accept his apology?
The only major theme with this is that Caden is supposed to be misunderstood, every person in the movie only briefly listens to Caden, if they listen to him at all (except for maybe Sammy). This connects with the first two doctors, who both misunderstand him when asks for clarification. "You need to see a ophthalmologist" "a neurologist?" "no ophthalmologist, is your hearing alright?" Doctor 2: "You need to see a neurologist" "a neurologist?" "a brain doctor" "I just thought you said Urologist".
The whole first section could make a great sitcom.
I feel like the scenes and sequences hang together so loosely that they start to feel like a million red herrings, which give way to a hint of a connecting theme. There's probably an amazing 90 minute movie inside the 120 minute mess.
A very interesting assessment. I feel that a lot of people who love this movie (I really liked it too tbh, but saw it once), love it so passionately because of how messy this is. Even that becomes a metaphor for life.
While this is not exactly an experimental film, I can see why these type of very niche films draw an intense following, often stemming from the same aspects that are being criticized being reflected differently by the fans.
Wrong, but interesting.
asderc1 Not essentially wrong either. Just another way of looking at it.
not first
Don't know, don't care. Reviewers should stick to writing their thoughts down because when they try articulate them it's unbearable.
Kermode Kermode Kermode Kermode
Oops, meant to vote up but pressed down...
I think he got this right, I got irritated with this film after a while, despite really enjoying the little creative flourishes interspersed throughout. The scene with the vicar is my favourite bit, I think.
Kernmode & Mayo are the best
This is such a great review . Just sums up my experience about the movie
A very interesting, clever film, but an exhausting, unrewarding first watch. I like deeply layered films that require rewatches to fully get, but I still expect some degree of satisfaction for the first time round. Lesser directors have made better films because they understand that through line, Kaufman plain misses it.
Lol, look at all the triggered Kaufman fanboys in the comments.
“It was too challenging for me so I didn’t like it”
There, translated it for you.
The film's fucked. But it's beautiful all the same.
Saw it twice, didn’t understand it twice. 2 out of 10.