This is probably your best (& most visually absurd & hilarious) video yet... yet I don't know how well it will connect with the larger audience... much like the movie you talk about. And there's nothing wrong about that. Loved it. 10/10.
This is one of the best review channel on YT. Its like Nerdwriter started doing movie reviews. Hopefully people wake up to its brilliance soon. It feels "surreal" to be part of the ~7K subs
as a musical theatre major myself i was pleasantly surprised and felt so smart understanding the parallels between jake and jud kaufman laid out in the movie
I believe the most important theme in the film is perspective. The idea that all of your life and everything you feel is tinged by your past experiences and pre existing ideas. When Jake says that there is no objective reality, how there's no color in the universe and only in our brains. Like the paintings Lucy shows to his parents, a sad place with no sad person because we are the person looking out at the scene. "Anything a place makes you feel is about you and not the place". While the book provides a technically "correct" interpretation and you really could explain the whole film since all the absurdities and minute details and even the editing choices are very specific and play into that one story, it's left ambiguous because it's about experiencing the film, which has themes of the fear of aging, loneliness, struggling to connect, self loathing, the fear of sharing yourself with another person, the intimacy of being part of a family over time. These themes are all clear in the film, and Kaufman wants you to experience it your own way. He's one the few artists I will let be as pretentious as he wants because he's very sincere and his work is so good. The story is incidental to the feeling to Kaufman. Though upon multiple rewatches the story becomes clear and the film becomes an engaging and very clear psychological unraveling on one particular character. It's existential, and it's awesome.
So I read some of your comments arguing against the perspective that our female lead is "invented" because it makes the film less interesting. I have to disagree with that. As a woman, the slow realization that her identity is entirely malleable, morphing to fit whatever narrative Jake wants or needs, was horrifying and entirely relatable. Jake's need to construct narratives, to fit his life into poetic and analyzable moments, extends to her as well. She is, of course, not entirely "fake", she resists Jake at every turn, and has her own perspective that we follow, but eventually his need for control prevails. She morphs and shifts and follows him (to the barn to hear poignant tales about farm life, to eat ice cream in the middle of a blizzard, into the school house) because that is the story he is trying to tell and she becomes whatever he needs (a poet, a painter, a film critic, an expert on rabies) in whatever scene he is attempting to play out. Jake seems to be capable of understanding life only through media, and he forces everything to fit into that framework. And she becomes what he needs, as many women do in their relationships. I think this is a compelling reading, which does not negate the absurdism of the film. Her being a construct of Jake's/the janitor's "mind" (whatever that means in this kind of film) does not make her not "real" (whatever that means in this kind of film) and that seems to be as much "the point" as the breakdown in communication, or the horror of meeting a significant other's parents.
That's definitely a more compelling framing than "I can relate to a sad old man"! But comes with the same fundamental issue: If she is a construct of their minds, what is happening in the scenes where she is by herself? Because even if she follows him, as you say: she has her own perspective... but how does that fit into the idea? If we're making a point about how women are shaped to fit the needs of the men (and maybe we are!), how does giving her any kind of agency actually fit into that? To take that to its logical conclusion, she would straight-up disappear the moment she's out of his sight, right? He's definitely not concerned with what's happening to her when she's not right there with him. But if she's a composite of different women he's actually dated, then we're in something different. Lucy was a rabies expert; Amy was a physicist, etc. Heck, she's also Paulene Kael and Eva H.D. And I think your point about everything being filtered through the lens of media is significant, because, ya know, his song is from Oklahoma, speech from A Beautiful Mind, etc. It all fits better as being a composite than a pure construct. I see where you're coming from and I think that's a genuinely interesting reading and if I believed that Kaufman had followed the book in making her not an actual person, this would make me think it's less bad than I might otherwise have... but I just don't believe that's what happened.
The whole thing was a reflection by the janitor of his life in his own head as he cleaned the school. Regrets, fantasies, fears, memories, and mainly the desire to be loved and appreciated.
Finished the movie, gathered my thoughts, read about the novel, then came here to hear your thoughts. Personally I instantly interpreted this as a trans story, with Jake and his girlfriend being a simultaneous existence. While the novel doesn’t entirely allow this perspective thanks to a more straight forward ending, I think the film allows for this.
While Charlie Kaufman has never done anything that makes me think that was the intended meaning, intention is irrelevant and I think that's a fascinating read on it.
@@TheWeekIReview Intention is absolutely not irrelevant, but it is also not the most relevant thing, and this video I think expresses that view on several occasions. However, I do still think that this film absolutely supports a trans reading of the narrative.
@@mkmcnicoll I mean its both right? death of the author and all that? You can enjoy & interpret something without ever knowing the intent. I personally LOVE knowing the intent vs what I got/others got from something but that doesn't solidify it as always relevant in every situation I think :p idk @mishakeet also I read the book & haven't seen the movie but even from that perspective I love the trans reading!! especially (this was the book idk if they kept this in) the photos she sees that "look just like her" on Jake's parent's walls. I was really surprised that the movie doesn't have a concrete end meaning since the books is VERY spelled out almost to a point I felt the author didn't trust the reader to understand anything >>; VERY clearly laid out in the end.
I love his analyses of all the films, except this one. I think this one is simply Jake fantasizing. I think the script makes it all clear, almost immediately. There’s room for how to interpret some imagery, but the basic story is an old dude contemplating suicide under the guise of his personified fantasy contemplating leaving him.
There's a third list: Films I have seen, but not until way too late. You: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK. Me: ETERNAL SUNSHINE ON THE SPOTLESS MIND (earlier this year)
I can tell you put some effort and love into this review. I loved this movie and feel like I am in the minority on this one. You earned a subscriber for sure.
i'm thinking of watching more of your videos. Thank you for sharing your insights, especially with respect to context. You created a space for me to explore the film again without telling me what to think about it.
It really feels like you (both) had a lot of fun with this review, great work! P.s. I have recently found your channel, caught up on the past years worth of content and have NOT seen Eternal Sunshine. This will be rectified this weekend. Keep up the great work!
Mostly me. She did not particularly enjoy being involved, but I appreciated the assists in the intro and of course her cameo! Welcome! Glad you've been enjoying. And yeah, see Eternal Sunshine. It's hella good.
So, I finally got around to watching this movie and in struggling with the end (I did not particularly like the feeling of perspective change from hers to his at the end) - and not knowing that you had done a review of it (thanks, RUclips algorithm) - I went and watched a bunch of other "explained" channels. I found out the book's ending and that the young woman wasn't real in it. And I kinda accepted that ending. But then I finally found your video in all of its production value glory and your interpretation, and my thought process was flipped on its head yet again. And now, I definitely need to rewatch it. Coming to my point of this comment, a question: in your interpretation, who is the janitor? Is he the cautionary tale that keeps Jake from letting the young woman finish her thought out loud?
Heck yeah! I think seeing him as a cautionary tale of what could happen to Jake if he doesn't take control of the situation (or what he thinks control is) makes a lot of sense. This is really one of those movies where it feels like whatever you think the most interesting interpretation is is the correct one. "She's not real" must be the wrong interpretation, because that's stupid and Charlie Kaufman is better than that. Ya know?
I love Kaufman and a love your reviews so I was very excited to this video since I saw your Kaufman Marathon on Letterboxd ... And man what a incredible video, probably my favorite ... I love your style and how your reviews are so unique
I'm thinking of (I thought) the same thing as you when I saw the title of the videos with the expression: endind explained. Thats not the point. Great review! I loved the movie too.
I was really involved in the first hour or so, but somehow I finished the movie with a bitter taste in my mouth. I think the final act didn't resonate with me at all. I love the way you bring the spirit of the movie into your reviews tho, it's really great and I appreciate the effort. also, the youtube auto-transcription tool is pretty scary, it even got zeitgeisty right, believe it or not
This review was almost as self indulgent and pretentious as the film itself. To me the movie is a cinematic embodiment of an art student smelling their own farts. They purposely reduce the dialogue to such niche topics to make their audience feel stupid, then turn around and treat the audience like they’re stupid. Like we weren’t able to deduce 20 minutes into the film that this is going on in the janitors head in some way, then leave that as some sort of big reveal?? It was a vainglorious pseudo-intelligent erratic 2.5 hr piece of garbage. “Leaving room for interpretation” is not an excuse for lazy plot. Two golden film rules, don’t treat your audience like they’re stupid, and don’t make them feel stupid. Somehow this film seems actively trying to achieve both. I wanted so bad to like this movie, on paper I should love it, but every minute made me cringe more and more.
Synecdoche New York was life changing for me. I was traveling the world and hadn't been to the cinema in 3 months. I arrived in Sydney and immediately grabbed a ticket. I loved Kaufman and couldn't wait to see what he would do when unleashed with no mediating director to censor his more wild impulses (like the original Adaptation script which had a Yeti in the climax.... a friggin mythical creature). Long story short I left the theatre and went to see it again immediately... which I've done only one other time in my life (with Independence Day... judge me... I dare you). And the movie was profound and funny and painful and everything that I wanted it to be and more and at the end I cried and went back to see it again because I like to laugh and cry and feel existential dread on repeat and now I'll follow Kaufman off a cliff into oblivion because he's the writer I wish I could be... I also like I'm Thinking of Ending Things and your review is great.
As a first theatrical experience in months, what a way to come back! I have no doubt that whatever I see in theaters next will be a huge disappointment, especially by comparison. I have never seen a movie at a theater twice in one day. I think I've done it in general twice, though I don't actually remember what the second one was: the first was the original Crank (speaking of wild rides). Thank you!
Oh man, 3 screenings In one day was standard operating procedure back when I had too much time and a cineworld card (£10 per month for as many screenings as you want). I’ll never forget the epic marathon in 2003 that was Punch Drunk Love, Final Destination 2 and The Pianist... what a day.
Loved this video, amazing work with the editing. Unfortunately I disagree that any attempt to explain the narrative missed the point. While all interpretations are valid, there is one that can be considered “correct”. Normally I wouldn’t believe this, but with this movie understanding the framing allows even more meaning to be extracted from it. Because in the end, “i’m thinking of ending things” is a movie about self-reflection and suicide. (More context with spoilers in comments)
This movie is about the thoughts of Jake (old as a janitor) before he decides to kill himself by freezing in the car. The young woman (Lucy among other names) is imagined by Jake as reflects on his life, and imagines how it could have been if he had asked this girl out during trivia. There are definitely other factors within in the film that can be interpreted in other ways, but understanding this part I believe is vital to understanding the themes of the film.
I said to someone else but I'll repeat here: the idea that Lucy is not "real" makes this movie infinitely less interesting, because it makes her into literally nothing. In fact, Kaufman has explicitly rejected that one aspect of it, so your version of "correct" isn't, actually. He says she's "real," because how do you write a story centered around a character who's not? What "real" means is debatable, and I think it's far more likely that she's a composite if she is not, in fact, a single person. But, think through the implication of "she's imagined": so every single scene that's just of her is... what? From whose POV do we see her trying to find Jake after he goes upstairs? No one's! So your argument is that the film is actively wasting our time by having us see the world through the perspective of someone who doesn't exist? I hate that. (The book is more or less about the thing you said. But Kaufman changed the story for a reason.) I'm not interested in some old man being sad about his life because oh imagine what could have been if only there were A Lady. Dude's a simp and I don't care.
@@TheWeekIReview What makes the work of Kaufman unique and special is the weight he gives to the world of the interior, of the mind. Where in the work of others the story or character being revealed as a dream or imagined can be seen as a cop-out, a cheap trick, here it is an invitation to a new level of understanding. The world of thoughts and imagination occupies the day of most of us. In its own way it is very real. The intersection of the imagination with the physical realities of an entire lifetime is where this movie exists. On first watch, Lucy was for me the protagonist of this story. And I loved the movie - its look, its tone, its mysteries and surprises. But at the end it couldn't quite gel for me, I knew that I was missing something. So I did look for the opinions of others, for more background from people who had read the book. For explanations. And on second (and third) watch, I saw everything as a product of the old janitor's mind. While it is clear that the filmmaker welcomes the full range of interpretation from viewers, knowing that framework allows (for me anyway) much more to click into place. I do have some similarities to old Jake. His dreams and frustrations and regrets do resonate with me when the movie is viewed through his experience. I can't just dismiss him for a character who is younger and more expressive, who, on the surface, is more interesting. Being a product of memory and imagination doesn't diminish Lucy. She demonstrates the force of the world of the mind, how even those in our head take on their own individuality, can become 'real' even as they shape shift constantly. I believe that in this movie and in the entire world of Kaufman's movies, being free of the restraints of "reality" doesn't make Lucy nothing. Instead, she's elevated by existing in a place that artistically fascinates the creator of this world.
This is based on a false assumption that the framework of the movie is the same as the book, despite the fact that Kaufman made explicit and clear changes the narrative of the book that make any assumptions based on its contents fundamentally irrelevant. I read the synopsis to the book because I was curious, saw that the whole thing was fake, and thought "Well I sure am glad the movie didn't do that, because that sucks!" You're also ignoring what I said above: *But, think through the implication of "she's imagined": so every single scene that's just of her is... what? From whose POV do we see her trying to find Jake after he goes upstairs? No one's! So your argument is that the film is actively wasting our time by having us see the world through the perspective of someone who doesn't exist?* If most of the scenes are Jake imagining how events could have gone had he been able to be there to experience them, that's fine. I do that all the time. It's less interesting than her being real and them having conversations wherein they're failing (real hard) to communicate, but it's fine, and the movie is fine, I guess. However, if Jake is imagining the experiences this fictional person had wandering around his house while she's looking for him, then there's no "real" anchor for anything that's going on. It's just a bunch of nothing because Kaufman wants to waste our time. And if that's the case, then this movie is actually bad.
I don't really understand the POV statement. From whose perspective is the film seen when she's repeatedly descending the same flight of stairs? From whose perspective do we view the janitor, especially when he is shown at moments when the conversation in the car reflects his place in the world? There is an anchor when the film is viewed from the other perspective. That anchor is the old janitor. Anyway, this film is worth viewing again while trying to see it as an expression of the janitor's thoughts. I have watched it that way twice, and certainly didn't find it fake or actually bad. For me, it has more coherence and greater resonance when viewed that way. The inclusion of Oklahoma makes more sense. But it's all open to interpretation and everyone brings something different to their viewings.
The stilted dialogue in this film was so tiresome. I had to take 4 or 5 breaks to slog through this. Say x" sigh. Wait. Sigh, "nonreaction," "long tirade or reciting of something interesting," sigh, sigh, none reaction. Next topic.". If they cut down the pauses and sighs, we'd of had to add some fluff or jokes to pad the run time of this 2 1/2 hour movie.
@@RogueAstro85 I'd beg to differ. Surrealism and imitating life don't really seem like the same thing, and I feel that's unfair to his other films that are much better than this one
I'm kinda conflicted about this movie but I know I enjoyed the experience of watching it and that's more important I guess... This is the best review of it I've seen so far tho.
It's funny you mention films that you know you need to see but never got around to and then mentioned Eternal Sunshine, thats one of those movies for me (okay I saw it once but I fell asleep so it doesn't count). But I never took it as Jake being able to read her mind, only because he asks her multiple times what she's thinking, and even prods when she deflects the question. I know on a higher level that he can obviously read her mind because she's not a real person. I definitely think this is a better movie to discuss than it was to watch (after the ice cream shop it kinda lost me). Also loved the style changing in this video!
Eternal Sunshine is good af. This actually undercuts something I say in the video: but he knows what she's thinking and he wants her to talk to him about it, and she just doesn't want to talk to him. And at first, he's open to talking to her about it, but at some point that changes, and then he starts to shut it down any time she thinks or really says anything that might be "serious." (I only acknowledge the latter attitude, and I probably should have mentioned the change. Oh well.) Also: I vehemently reject the "She's not a real person" interpretation (an earlier draft of this went into that a bit, but I decided against it), because it just makes the movie a lot less interesting. That's explicitly the twist in the book, but Kaufman said point blank that he thinks of her as "real" and wouldn't have made a movie about her if she wasn't. What "real" means is potentially up for debate, and if you want to take it all literally, then I think the most "logical" interpretation is that she's a composite of all the girls that he brought home to his parents, etc... but I don't find that to be super interesting either. I think it's far more effective if it's simply two people in a nonsense world of communication failures because life is pain and nothing matters so we might as well enjoy ourselves (aka absurdism).
I think both interpretations of her "realness" are equally valid. And I agree that her being a person is the far more interesting take. For me it felt like she drifted in and out of personhood at different points in the story. I think the ice cream shop is a good example of her definitley being real.
I liked this review but its also really frustrating because there IS a book that makes meaning of why these random things happen and I know that this film is open to interpretation but completely disregarding the book also bothers me. I feel very conflicted about so many things from the film to ppls reactions, but art can be like that
Charlie Kaufman actively changed the story to make it not the book because he didn't want the story to be the book's story. The idea that the book unlocks the meaning of the movie is built on a faulty premise.
I'm not gonna watch this video yet or read the comments as I haven't seen the movie, but I'm guessing this video is at least partially a backlash against all of those "THE ENDING OF X EXPLAINED" videos, and if so, I 100000000000000000000000000% agree. People making pretentious 20 minute videos about the Mad Men finale and shit. C'mon!
idk dude I get it you have thorough knowledge of like six other movies this guy directed but that's really not what I'm here to hear about? Retitle your vid "Kaufman's interesting directorial journey leading up to this one" or something
I love your reviews! Definitely a unique video I just made a review kind of/explanation of the movie, it's only my second video and it's a tough movie to start with! I definitely enjoyed the film though I'd appreciate it if anyone checked it out and gave me their honest opinion!
oh, how wrong I was about this movie😅expecting just the "spooky" stuff- I' m gonna blame the trailer for that haha (and the fact that I didn't taken into consideration the director previous work)🙈🤦♀️ "it's a story to be experienced"-favorite part of the review :) and yeah, usually I'm not a fan of this approach but for Kaufman s films, I think that this is the best approach. After the credits rolled, I found myself feeling melancholic and then full of hope (for some reason).That was my experience with the movie, I really enjoyed it!💙 Also I appreciate the "stuff happening" in the video, and the parallel between Ionesco's absurd and Buñuel's. Love theatre and I find myself resonating with Ionesco's absurd, especially in "The Lesson". Thanks for another enjoyable and informative review!✌🌼
Someone told me this was one of their favorite movies and that it was a scary movie. Well I watched it and it sucked and it wasn't scary at all. This movie is a pile of garbage.
@@TheWeekIReview nooooo XD ahahah I'm joking ofc but yeah try trimm it at a lower point, it will look a hundred times better. Anyway love the channel awesome content! :D Really loved your take on this one. For me the first section of the movie is so hypnotic! Her voice, the rhythm....loved it!
This is probably your best (& most visually absurd & hilarious) video yet... yet I don't know how well it will connect with the larger audience... much like the movie you talk about.
And there's nothing wrong about that. Loved it. 10/10.
Hell yeah!
Love the constantly changing names for the main character throughout the review. Great touch.
10:30 that background gives me “Synecdoche, New York” vibes
I’m thinking of stanning
Dope
Being a cinephile seems a really empty endeavor
This is one of the best review channel on YT. Its like Nerdwriter started doing movie reviews. Hopefully people wake up to its brilliance soon.
It feels "surreal" to be part of the ~7K subs
Well thank you! I also hope that.
you deserve so many more subscribers, the production value of your videos is always such a delight
Well thank you!
im so glad someone said this! such a cool movie and it's kind of a bummer seeing everyone trying to explain it all easily.
as a musical theatre major myself i was pleasantly surprised and felt so smart understanding the parallels between jake and jud kaufman laid out in the movie
I believe the most important theme in the film is perspective. The idea that all of your life and everything you feel is tinged by your past experiences and pre existing ideas. When Jake says that there is no objective reality, how there's no color in the universe and only in our brains. Like the paintings Lucy shows to his parents, a sad place with no sad person because we are the person looking out at the scene. "Anything a place makes you feel is about you and not the place".
While the book provides a technically "correct" interpretation and you really could explain the whole film since all the absurdities and minute details and even the editing choices are very specific and play into that one story, it's left ambiguous because it's about experiencing the film, which has themes of the fear of aging, loneliness, struggling to connect, self loathing, the fear of sharing yourself with another person, the intimacy of being part of a family over time. These themes are all clear in the film, and Kaufman wants you to experience it your own way. He's one the few artists I will let be as pretentious as he wants because he's very sincere and his work is so good. The story is incidental to the feeling to Kaufman. Though upon multiple rewatches the story becomes clear and the film becomes an engaging and very clear psychological unraveling on one particular character. It's existential, and it's awesome.
So I read some of your comments arguing against the perspective that our female lead is "invented" because it makes the film less interesting. I have to disagree with that.
As a woman, the slow realization that her identity is entirely malleable, morphing to fit whatever narrative Jake wants or needs, was horrifying and entirely relatable. Jake's need to construct narratives, to fit his life into poetic and analyzable moments, extends to her as well. She is, of course, not entirely "fake", she resists Jake at every turn, and has her own perspective that we follow, but eventually his need for control prevails. She morphs and shifts and follows him (to the barn to hear poignant tales about farm life, to eat ice cream in the middle of a blizzard, into the school house) because that is the story he is trying to tell and she becomes whatever he needs (a poet, a painter, a film critic, an expert on rabies) in whatever scene he is attempting to play out. Jake seems to be capable of understanding life only through media, and he forces everything to fit into that framework. And she becomes what he needs, as many women do in their relationships.
I think this is a compelling reading, which does not negate the absurdism of the film. Her being a construct of Jake's/the janitor's "mind" (whatever that means in this kind of film) does not make her not "real" (whatever that means in this kind of film) and that seems to be as much "the point" as the breakdown in communication, or the horror of meeting a significant other's parents.
That's definitely a more compelling framing than "I can relate to a sad old man"! But comes with the same fundamental issue: If she is a construct of their minds, what is happening in the scenes where she is by herself? Because even if she follows him, as you say: she has her own perspective... but how does that fit into the idea? If we're making a point about how women are shaped to fit the needs of the men (and maybe we are!), how does giving her any kind of agency actually fit into that? To take that to its logical conclusion, she would straight-up disappear the moment she's out of his sight, right? He's definitely not concerned with what's happening to her when she's not right there with him.
But if she's a composite of different women he's actually dated, then we're in something different. Lucy was a rabies expert; Amy was a physicist, etc. Heck, she's also Paulene Kael and Eva H.D. And I think your point about everything being filtered through the lens of media is significant, because, ya know, his song is from Oklahoma, speech from A Beautiful Mind, etc. It all fits better as being a composite than a pure construct.
I see where you're coming from and I think that's a genuinely interesting reading and if I believed that Kaufman had followed the book in making her not an actual person, this would make me think it's less bad than I might otherwise have... but I just don't believe that's what happened.
The whole thing was a reflection by the janitor of his life in his own head as he cleaned the school. Regrets, fantasies, fears, memories, and mainly the desire to be loved and appreciated.
Boring.
@@TheWeekIReview Having a logical narrative and also having a greater meaning are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Finished the movie, gathered my thoughts, read about the novel, then came here to hear your thoughts.
Personally I instantly interpreted this as a trans story, with Jake and his girlfriend being a simultaneous existence. While the novel doesn’t entirely allow this perspective thanks to a more straight forward ending, I think the film allows for this.
While Charlie Kaufman has never done anything that makes me think that was the intended meaning, intention is irrelevant and I think that's a fascinating read on it.
@@TheWeekIReview Intention is absolutely not irrelevant, but it is also not the most relevant thing, and this video I think expresses that view on several occasions. However, I do still think that this film absolutely supports a trans reading of the narrative.
@@mkmcnicoll I mean its both right? death of the author and all that? You can enjoy & interpret something without ever knowing the intent. I personally LOVE knowing the intent vs what I got/others got from something but that doesn't solidify it as always relevant in every situation I think :p idk
@mishakeet also I read the book & haven't seen the movie but even from that perspective I love the trans reading!! especially (this was the book idk if they kept this in) the photos she sees that "look just like her" on Jake's parent's walls. I was really surprised that the movie doesn't have a concrete end meaning since the books is VERY spelled out almost to a point I felt the author didn't trust the reader to understand anything >>; VERY clearly laid out in the end.
lol no
I love his analyses of all the films, except this one. I think this one is simply Jake fantasizing. I think the script makes it all clear, almost immediately.
There’s room for how to interpret some imagery, but the basic story is an old dude contemplating suicide under the guise of his personified fantasy contemplating leaving him.
It's really not.
There's a third list: Films I have seen, but not until way too late. You: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK. Me: ETERNAL SUNSHINE ON THE SPOTLESS MIND (earlier this year)
Quarantine for me has been me loading up that third list real hard!
I can tell you put some effort and love into this review. I loved this movie and feel like I am in the minority on this one. You earned a subscriber for sure.
Hell yeah!
I’m thinking I loved this movie.
Hell yeah!
It's obvious janitor is hake and she is an imaginary girlfriend.
i'm thinking of watching more of your videos. Thank you for sharing your insights, especially with respect to context. You created a space for me to explore the film again without telling me what to think about it.
You should definitely watch more of my videos.
It really feels like you (both) had a lot of fun with this review, great work!
P.s. I have recently found your channel, caught up on the past years worth of content and have NOT seen Eternal Sunshine. This will be rectified this weekend.
Keep up the great work!
Mostly me. She did not particularly enjoy being involved, but I appreciated the assists in the intro and of course her cameo!
Welcome! Glad you've been enjoying. And yeah, see Eternal Sunshine. It's hella good.
I like the production of the review and you point of view. Keep going.
So, I finally got around to watching this movie and in struggling with the end (I did not particularly like the feeling of perspective change from hers to his at the end) - and not knowing that you had done a review of it (thanks, RUclips algorithm) - I went and watched a bunch of other "explained" channels. I found out the book's ending and that the young woman wasn't real in it. And I kinda accepted that ending.
But then I finally found your video in all of its production value glory and your interpretation, and my thought process was flipped on its head yet again. And now, I definitely need to rewatch it.
Coming to my point of this comment, a question: in your interpretation, who is the janitor? Is he the cautionary tale that keeps Jake from letting the young woman finish her thought out loud?
Heck yeah!
I think seeing him as a cautionary tale of what could happen to Jake if he doesn't take control of the situation (or what he thinks control is) makes a lot of sense. This is really one of those movies where it feels like whatever you think the most interesting interpretation is is the correct one. "She's not real" must be the wrong interpretation, because that's stupid and Charlie Kaufman is better than that. Ya know?
I love Kaufman and a love your reviews so I was very excited to this video since I saw your Kaufman Marathon on Letterboxd ... And man what a incredible video, probably my favorite ... I love your style and how your reviews are so unique
Glad it lived up to your expectations!
ooh I’m pumped for this one
I'm thinking of (I thought) the same thing as you when I saw the title of the videos with the expression: endind explained. Thats not the point. Great review! I loved the movie too.
I was really involved in the first hour or so, but somehow I finished the movie with a bitter taste in my mouth. I think the final act didn't resonate with me at all.
I love the way you bring the spirit of the movie into your reviews tho, it's really great and I appreciate the effort.
also, the youtube auto-transcription tool is pretty scary, it even got zeitgeisty right, believe it or not
That's fair. A shame, but fair!
And thank you!
Did it really? Wow, that's impressive as heck.
This review was almost as self indulgent and pretentious as the film itself. To me the movie is a cinematic embodiment of an art student smelling their own farts. They purposely reduce the dialogue to such niche topics to make their audience feel stupid, then turn around and treat the audience like they’re stupid. Like we weren’t able to deduce 20 minutes into the film that this is going on in the janitors head in some way, then leave that as some sort of big reveal?? It was a vainglorious pseudo-intelligent erratic 2.5 hr piece of garbage. “Leaving room for interpretation” is not an excuse for lazy plot. Two golden film rules, don’t treat your audience like they’re stupid, and don’t make them feel stupid. Somehow this film seems actively trying to achieve both. I wanted so bad to like this movie, on paper I should love it, but every minute made me cringe more and more.
Synecdoche New York was life changing for me. I was traveling the world and hadn't been to the cinema in 3 months. I arrived in Sydney and immediately grabbed a ticket. I loved Kaufman and couldn't wait to see what he would do when unleashed with no mediating director to censor his more wild impulses (like the original Adaptation script which had a Yeti in the climax.... a friggin mythical creature). Long story short I left the theatre and went to see it again immediately... which I've done only one other time in my life (with Independence Day... judge me... I dare you). And the movie was profound and funny and painful and everything that I wanted it to be and more and at the end I cried and went back to see it again because I like to laugh and cry and feel existential dread on repeat and now I'll follow Kaufman off a cliff into oblivion because he's the writer I wish I could be... I also like I'm Thinking of Ending Things and your review is great.
As a first theatrical experience in months, what a way to come back! I have no doubt that whatever I see in theaters next will be a huge disappointment, especially by comparison. I have never seen a movie at a theater twice in one day. I think I've done it in general twice, though I don't actually remember what the second one was: the first was the original Crank (speaking of wild rides).
Thank you!
Oh man, 3 screenings In one day was standard operating procedure back when I had too much time and a cineworld card (£10 per month for as many screenings as you want). I’ll never forget the epic marathon in 2003 that was Punch Drunk Love, Final Destination 2 and The Pianist... what a day.
The edition was amazing and really funny. Thank you
Loved this video, amazing work with the editing. Unfortunately I disagree that any attempt to explain the narrative missed the point. While all interpretations are valid, there is one that can be considered “correct”. Normally I wouldn’t believe this, but with this movie understanding the framing allows even more meaning to be extracted from it. Because in the end, “i’m thinking of ending things” is a movie about self-reflection and suicide. (More context with spoilers in comments)
This movie is about the thoughts of Jake (old as a janitor) before he decides to kill himself by freezing in the car. The young woman (Lucy among other names) is imagined by Jake as reflects on his life, and imagines how it could have been if he had asked this girl out during trivia. There are definitely other factors within in the film that can be interpreted in other ways, but understanding this part I believe is vital to understanding the themes of the film.
I said to someone else but I'll repeat here: the idea that Lucy is not "real" makes this movie infinitely less interesting, because it makes her into literally nothing.
In fact, Kaufman has explicitly rejected that one aspect of it, so your version of "correct" isn't, actually. He says she's "real," because how do you write a story centered around a character who's not? What "real" means is debatable, and I think it's far more likely that she's a composite if she is not, in fact, a single person. But, think through the implication of "she's imagined": so every single scene that's just of her is... what? From whose POV do we see her trying to find Jake after he goes upstairs? No one's! So your argument is that the film is actively wasting our time by having us see the world through the perspective of someone who doesn't exist? I hate that.
(The book is more or less about the thing you said. But Kaufman changed the story for a reason.)
I'm not interested in some old man being sad about his life because oh imagine what could have been if only there were A Lady. Dude's a simp and I don't care.
@@TheWeekIReview What makes the work of Kaufman unique and special is the weight he gives to the world of the interior, of the mind. Where in the work of others the story or character being revealed as a dream or imagined can be seen as a cop-out, a cheap trick, here it is an invitation to a new level of understanding. The world of thoughts and imagination occupies the day of most of us. In its own way it is very real. The intersection of the imagination with the physical realities of an entire lifetime is where this movie exists.
On first watch, Lucy was for me the protagonist of this story. And I loved the movie - its look, its tone, its mysteries and surprises. But at the end it couldn't quite gel for me, I knew that I was missing something. So I did look for the opinions of others, for more background from people who had read the book. For explanations. And on second (and third) watch, I saw everything as a product of the old janitor's mind. While it is clear that the filmmaker welcomes the full range of interpretation from viewers, knowing that framework allows (for me anyway) much more to click into place. I do have some similarities to old Jake. His dreams and frustrations and regrets do resonate with me when the movie is viewed through his experience. I can't just dismiss him for a character who is younger and more expressive, who, on the surface, is more interesting.
Being a product of memory and imagination doesn't diminish Lucy. She demonstrates the force of the world of the mind, how even those in our head take on their own individuality, can become 'real' even as they shape shift constantly. I believe that in this movie and in the entire world of Kaufman's movies, being free of the restraints of "reality" doesn't make Lucy nothing. Instead, she's elevated by existing in a place that artistically fascinates the creator of this world.
This is based on a false assumption that the framework of the movie is the same as the book, despite the fact that Kaufman made explicit and clear changes the narrative of the book that make any assumptions based on its contents fundamentally irrelevant. I read the synopsis to the book because I was curious, saw that the whole thing was fake, and thought "Well I sure am glad the movie didn't do that, because that sucks!"
You're also ignoring what I said above: *But, think through the implication of "she's imagined": so every single scene that's just of her is... what? From whose POV do we see her trying to find Jake after he goes upstairs? No one's! So your argument is that the film is actively wasting our time by having us see the world through the perspective of someone who doesn't exist?*
If most of the scenes are Jake imagining how events could have gone had he been able to be there to experience them, that's fine. I do that all the time. It's less interesting than her being real and them having conversations wherein they're failing (real hard) to communicate, but it's fine, and the movie is fine, I guess.
However, if Jake is imagining the experiences this fictional person had wandering around his house while she's looking for him, then there's no "real" anchor for anything that's going on. It's just a bunch of nothing because Kaufman wants to waste our time. And if that's the case, then this movie is actually bad.
I don't really understand the POV statement. From whose perspective is the film seen when she's repeatedly descending the same flight of stairs? From whose perspective do we view the janitor, especially when he is shown at moments when the conversation in the car reflects his place in the world? There is an anchor when the film is viewed from the other perspective. That anchor is the old janitor.
Anyway, this film is worth viewing again while trying to see it as an expression of the janitor's thoughts. I have watched it that way twice, and certainly didn't find it fake or actually bad. For me, it has more coherence and greater resonance when viewed that way. The inclusion of Oklahoma makes more sense. But it's all open to interpretation and everyone brings something different to their viewings.
The stilted dialogue in this film was so tiresome. I had to take 4 or 5 breaks to slog through this. Say x" sigh. Wait. Sigh, "nonreaction," "long tirade or reciting of something interesting," sigh, sigh, none reaction. Next topic.". If they cut down the pauses and sighs, we'd of had to add some fluff or jokes to pad the run time of this 2 1/2 hour movie.
that was the point
@@EcoMythos And it was exceedingly effective at boring me.
@@rob5541 That's life.
Kaufman's works tend to imitate life. If it's not for you then that's cool, but his pacing is actually refreshing for some people.
@@RogueAstro85 I'd beg to differ. Surrealism and imitating life don't really seem like the same thing, and I feel that's unfair to his other films that are much better than this one
I'm kinda conflicted about this movie but I know I enjoyed the experience of watching it and that's more important I guess... This is the best review of it I've seen so far tho.
Heck yeah!
Eternal is EASY top 5. Another that WRECKED my emotional state … why do I gravitate to depression
It's funny you mention films that you know you need to see but never got around to and then mentioned Eternal Sunshine, thats one of those movies for me (okay I saw it once but I fell asleep so it doesn't count).
But I never took it as Jake being able to read her mind, only because he asks her multiple times what she's thinking, and even prods when she deflects the question. I know on a higher level that he can obviously read her mind because she's not a real person.
I definitely think this is a better movie to discuss than it was to watch (after the ice cream shop it kinda lost me).
Also loved the style changing in this video!
Eternal Sunshine is good af.
This actually undercuts something I say in the video: but he knows what she's thinking and he wants her to talk to him about it, and she just doesn't want to talk to him. And at first, he's open to talking to her about it, but at some point that changes, and then he starts to shut it down any time she thinks or really says anything that might be "serious." (I only acknowledge the latter attitude, and I probably should have mentioned the change. Oh well.)
Also: I vehemently reject the "She's not a real person" interpretation (an earlier draft of this went into that a bit, but I decided against it), because it just makes the movie a lot less interesting. That's explicitly the twist in the book, but Kaufman said point blank that he thinks of her as "real" and wouldn't have made a movie about her if she wasn't. What "real" means is potentially up for debate, and if you want to take it all literally, then I think the most "logical" interpretation is that she's a composite of all the girls that he brought home to his parents, etc... but I don't find that to be super interesting either.
I think it's far more effective if it's simply two people in a nonsense world of communication failures because life is pain and nothing matters so we might as well enjoy ourselves (aka absurdism).
I think both interpretations of her "realness" are equally valid. And I agree that her being a person is the far more interesting take. For me it felt like she drifted in and out of personhood at different points in the story. I think the ice cream shop is a good example of her definitley being real.
I liked this review but its also really frustrating because there IS a book that makes meaning of why these random things happen and I know that this film is open to interpretation but completely disregarding the book also bothers me. I feel very conflicted about so many things from the film to ppls reactions, but art can be like that
Charlie Kaufman actively changed the story to make it not the book because he didn't want the story to be the book's story.
The idea that the book unlocks the meaning of the movie is built on a faulty premise.
Where the synecdoche ny video bro???
if u suffer from depersonalization do not watch this i promise u or if u suffer from any type of anxiety this will fuck with u
I really enjoy that your videos always look so clean idk haha also i love your diction. About the movie: Kaufman is really not for me...
Well thank you! That's a shame, but to each their own etc.
Amazing video
I love this film, but my god it’s weird, and very confusing.
Your camera angles!! LOL fab
This video was amazing!
Thank you!
HYPEEE
Loved the movie and this video 🖤
I’m thinking of this movie every day and loving it more and more
9.9/10
What's a 10 for you?
The Week I Review
synecdoche New York
The Week I Review Also There will be blood and the handmaiden
Interesting.
I'm not gonna watch this video yet or read the comments as I haven't seen the movie, but I'm guessing this video is at least partially a backlash against all of those "THE ENDING OF X EXPLAINED" videos, and if so, I 100000000000000000000000000% agree. People making pretentious 20 minute videos about the Mad Men finale and shit. C'mon!
Partially!
(This video is a lot of things.)
Can you like... make a time stamp where you actually start the review of this movie
0:00
idk dude I get it you have thorough knowledge of like six other movies this guy directed but that's really not what I'm here to hear about? Retitle your vid "Kaufman's interesting directorial journey leading up to this one" or something
I mean, that sounds like your problem, not mine.
Are you going to watch The Third Day on HBO? Its sooooooo creeeeepy! yiKES!
You're nuts. In a good way.
I'll take it!
I love your reviews! Definitely a unique video
I just made a review kind of/explanation of the movie, it's only my second video and it's a tough movie to start with! I definitely enjoyed the film though
I'd appreciate it if anyone checked it out and gave me their honest opinion!
oh, how wrong I was about this movie😅expecting just the "spooky" stuff- I' m gonna blame the trailer for that haha (and the fact that I didn't taken into consideration the director previous work)🙈🤦♀️
"it's a story to be experienced"-favorite part of the review :) and yeah, usually I'm not a fan of this approach but for Kaufman s films, I think that this is the best approach. After the credits rolled, I found myself feeling melancholic and then full of hope (for some reason).That was my experience with the movie, I really enjoyed it!💙
Also I appreciate the "stuff happening" in the video, and the parallel between Ionesco's absurd and Buñuel's. Love theatre and I find myself resonating with Ionesco's absurd, especially in "The Lesson".
Thanks for another enjoyable and informative review!✌🌼
Someone told me this was one of their favorite movies and that it was a scary movie. Well I watched it and it sucked and it wasn't scary at all. This movie is a pile of garbage.
Love the channel but plz don't trim your beard at the jaw line ahah don't be that guy XD
You're literally 15 years too late. I've been shaving my beard the same way... the whole time.
@@TheWeekIReview nooooo XD ahahah I'm joking ofc but yeah try trimm it at a lower point, it will look a hundred times better. Anyway love the channel awesome content! :D Really loved your take on this one. For me the first section of the movie is so hypnotic! Her voice, the rhythm....loved it!