Unpronounceable Masterpieces in the Age of Angst and Nice

 

If ever there was proof that great art is made for the ages but not necessarily for its age, it lies in the fact that you haven't seen Synecdoche, New York. 

By "you" of course I don't mean the few people who actually sought out Charlie Kaufman's unjustly unsung masterpiece when it was briefly in the theaters, or rented it after (the picture has made a paltry $3.08 million since its American release last October), but the general 2009 "you," i.e. the public.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't catch up with the film until just this weekend, despite my love of Kaufman's work (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind being one of the great romantic comedies of the decade and Adaptation one of the greats, period).  I meant to see it last Fall, and then it was gone, and then life got in the way, but it's not as if I wasn't informed.  My friend Manohla Dargis told me to see it, after writing a full-on rave review of the picture in the NY Times that began:

To say that Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York is one of the best films of the year or even one closest to my heart is such a pathetic response to its soaring ambition that I might as well pack it in right now.

Manohla wasn't entirely a stone alone in her rapture, with colleague Roger Ebert starting his review:

I think you have to see [Synecdoche] twice. I watched it the first time and knew it was a great film and that I had not mastered it. The second time because I needed to. The third time because I will want to. It will open to confused audiences and live indefinitely.

He was right about the confused audiences.  I'm concerned about the "indefinitely."  Having been moved to laughter and tears by this brave, sprawling howl of a movie, one of the most impressive first features by a director in recent memory, I'm confounded.  How is it possible that such a major work came and went with barely a ripple of recognition in its wake?

The ad campaign didn't help (the poster suggests it's a movie about skyscrapers).  My friend and fellow story analyst Doug, a Synecdoche believer, blames part of the film's dim reception on its title.  What would possess people to go see something they couldn't pronounce (it's syn-EK-duh-kee) and didn't know the meaning of? (Synecdoche: using part of something to refer to the whole thing, e.g. all hands on deck.) 

Doug also observed that the film "demands participation" on the part of its audience.  Right.  Synecdoche, New York isn't so much a spectacle you watch as an experience that takes over your consciousness.  Kaufman has always been primarily concerned with the workings of the mind, and in the mid-section of this movie, as you enter the mind of its protagonist, theater director Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman),the very fabric of time and space seems to expand and evaporate, the question of what's "real" and what isn't becomes largely irrelevant, and you're left contemplating... well, the meaning of life and death, essentially.

Not what's considered popcorn fare -- which may account for the level of hostility that greeted the film in many critical quarters.  Those who didn't get the movie trashed it with a particular passion, the indignation of a confused viewer who's been forced, against his/her will, to think.  Explain this! reviewers cried, as if every movie is supposed to be abundantly clear, linear and immediately comprehensible.  The outrage was inevitably coupled with accusations of elitist arty pretentiousness, as if there were something inherently despicable in Kaufman's attempt to go after something unabashedly left of center.

The film follows the attempt of a theater director, convinced that he's dying of an unidentified disease, to understand his life story by creating a theatricalized version of it -- a gargantuan work that ultimately overtakes and subsumes his life.  I won't pretend to claim that I "understand" Synecdoche, just as I wouldn't make the same claim when standing in front of a Rothko painting, watching Pina Bausch dance or listening to Thelonius Monk.  I can say I feel the movie, and that it speaks to me, even if I can't articulate exactly what I'm hearing.  But isn't that the way art is supposed to work?

Though it recalls Fellini's 8 1/2 , Woody Allen, and bears traces of Kaufman's collaborator Spike Jonze, Synecdoche is unique: sui generis.  And I can totally understand someone disliking the film for its difficulty, for its decay-obsessed, existential bummer bent.  It viscerally evokes a psychedelic trip, the aura of a nightmare, and how it might feel to lose one's mind.  What, that doesn't sound like date movie fare to you?

Musing on Synecdoche's failure to find its audience, I found one answer on the front page of this past Sunday New York Times' "Style" section.  Alex Williams' article cites a cultural shift, in which nice has returned as a newly popular attitude:

That amiable guys and uncomplicated sweethearts could be today’s pop heroes is one sign of an outbreak of niceness across the cultural landscape — an attitude bubbling up in commercials, movies and even, to a degree, the normally not-nice blogosphere.

“We are now in an age of nice,” said Eric G. Wilson, an English professor at Wake Forest University, who... sees no end of smiley faces. He cites as avatars of a new niceness the Obama administration, which has been criticized for being too friendly to some repressive world leaders; advocates of political correctness who still hold sway in many public forums; and the director-writer-producer Mr. Apatow, whose era-defining comedies feature “nice guys who finish first — a great hope for non-threatening puerile males,” Mr. Wilson said.

Makes sense, doesn't it, after a scary economic collapse, in the midst of ongoing terrorist paranoia, two endless wars overseas and general domestic angst, that we might be in the mood for a little bit of  kindliness?  Well, Kaufman's vision in Synecdoche, albeit deeply compassionate, is many things, among them dark, despairing, anxious, bitter, pained, fearful, and absurd (as in, mordantly hilarious), but one thing it assuredly is not is nice.

Synecdoche was released in a cultural moment of reigning upbeat escapism (that Times page features an article on People Magazine, citing "20- and 30-something [celebrities] falling in and out of love, aging boomers growing out of and into their clothes" as the subject of this past year's most popular covers).  Given that aging and death looms large in the movie, it's safe to say that when it came out, it wasn't exactly... in synch.

Same as it ever was, when you consider how the history of the arts is littered with the corpses of creators who didn't live to see their enduring works get their due.  But Charlie Kaufman is alive and well, thank goodness, so see Synecdoche, New York if you'd like to support art that isn't aimed at the cover of People.

Given that the film's protagonist is a writer/director, it's left me mulling over questions like: How do you know when you're writing for yourself so much that you're not speaking to anyone else?  Does a work have to achieve commercial success to be validated as "good?"  When is "working through a personal issue" a viable basis for creating a project and when does that approach defeat you?  If a screenplay falls in a forest and nobody shoots it, was it a vision worth having?

It's the kind of stuff that keeps a scribe up at night, and I'll wager that Synecdoche, New York -- the stuff that fever dreams are made of -- will be fueling such creative insomnia for many, many years to come.

Comments

[Muffin MacGuffin]

Agreed! Cannot believe this didn't even get nominated for best original screenplay or best director. I guess it wasn't as good as Benjamin Button.

[Laura Deerfield]

I admit to not having seen it yet, despite Eternal Sunshine being one of my all-time favorite films. And not because I shy from dense films that are meant to provoke and explore rather than answer questions... but because even fans of the film have described it as depressing. "Decay-obsessed, existential bummer." I'd rather watch Kieslowski's Red again.

[Laura Deerfield]

To clarify, I'd say it sounds like a movie that becomes a complex exploration that in the end alienates, instead of pushing past the darkness to find connection. If I'm wrong, then I'll reconsider. I'm tempted to watch it anyway, but I think it would simply frustrate me.

[Chris]

I made the wise decision to see it by myself, and while it's frustratingly out the window in terms of what we'd identify as a "movie" it is certainly an amazing example of exactly what art should be: challenging, moving, a bit confusing, even a bit frustrating, but definitely attempting to speak in some way.

It's certainly not a film you can discuss in scenes, but more like a picture. You've got to take it all in.

[Michael Newton]

They needed a poster with some floating heads, that would have brought in the crowds. Haven't seen it yet, but have wanted to since it's brief release. This should give me the push I needed, thanks.

[JamminGirl]

I saw it, well atleast halfway through before I decided it felt pointless. I like Kaufman's love for realism in his films, but I feel his films are about his constant examination of his 'purpose and place in the world' and after awhile it can get quite tiresome.

The motif for the film was dark and the tone depressing. Now I don't know about anyone else, but there better be a really good reason for me to pay money to sit through a film like that. It should have a point and a very important one. Synechdoche, 45 minutes in, lacked that. I had to leave it.

I think he's talented, but he needs to work out his therapy sessions offscreen.

[E.C. Henry]

Great insightfull attempt showing Charlie Kaufman some love for his misunderstood movie, "Synedoche, New York." To my shame I haven't seen this film yet. Did see it Hollywood video the last time I was there but I went for "The Wresler" and second helping of "Slumdog Millionaire" (which I liked even more the 2nd time) instead.

What I think "Synedoche, New York" suffers from the most is a lack of promotion. This show needs to be promoted more and explained in trailers to wet people's appetites. Moreso, for a show as apparently difficult to explain as this show was (by the Seattle Times review and even all the ajectives you used Billy) it is clear to me that CHARLIE KAUFMAN needed to be involved in the trailers and promototional stuff. Let the artist choose how to best wet the appetite for a mass audience on his art. Would LOVE to hear Charilie speak on that subject...

IF I was involved in the trailer promo, I think you need to hit the audience with the high concept Charlie was playing with, then showoff the cast he's going to screw with in exloring that concept. Next show intro clips of the likes of Phllip Seymore Hofffman, Catherine Keener, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michelle Williams, Hope Davis. Just seeing that combined star power alone gathered under the roof of one movie SHOULD have garnered a better box office then 3 million.

Charlie Kaufman's art is a study in high concept sown in, then played out. Fun brain candy that NEEDS a trailer, as opposed to say "Terminator: Salvaion" which you know going in what it's all about: bad robots fighting desperate post-apocapse people.

Don't you find that frustrating, Billy? The shows that really need good trailers, don't have them. And the ones that should have no trailer, like "Terminator: Salvation," have 'em up the gazzo.

Anyway, great post. Thanks for the reminder. Will rent "Synodoche, New York." The next time I'm at the Bonney Lake Hollywood video. I will support one of the best high concept writers working in America today!

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

[J]

I wasn't interested in paying $12 New York City dollars to see this film, but I'm sure I'll rent it.

Lots of times, with Kaufman, I have to rewind.

Hence the renting.

[Christina]

I read the screenplay - every last word of the 150+ page thing. I found it an engrossing read and could follow it. (Kind of reminded me of David Foster Wallace's novel, "Broom of the System with its surreal elements.) My conclusion when I finished it was that it would either be a Heaven's Gate or a masterpiece. Glad to hear it's the latter. I definitely need to see how he realized that script.

[mernitman]

Muffin: Right -- the eminently meaningless Button...

Laura: But there's an uplift (kinda)! Really there is. I mean, proceed at your own risk, of course, but I don't believe alienation is its ultimate destination.

Chris: Yup. And what's wrong with that?

Michael: Floating heads, yes -- perhaps with smiley faces?

JamminGirl: And that's what makes horse racing. Taste is taste!

Though I'll note that not getting through the whole of it leaves you critiquing the movie in the abstract, i.e. you're saying "it's not for me," as opposed to having an informed assessment of what it's actually about.

EC: "Fun brain candy needs a trailer" -- I love that. And it's true.

J: Rewind works well with this one.

Christina: Only cost $21 mil, so it can't be considered a "Gate." Nonetheless some people do excoriate the movie... I think if you liked the script, you'll really like what he did with it.

[Simone White]

I loved this film I loved this film I LOVED THIS FILM!
I saw it in the cinema in New York in January and came home to LA raving, looking for it here to take my man to see it, turns out it was gone or never even showed. We watched in on dvd, he fell asleep. I STILL LOVE THIS FILM! One thing I didn't see you mention was the acting, among others, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely amazing.

[Simone White]

and the cinematography!
I just read some of the comments here, it's so funny that people think it's depressing, I thought it was funny and uplifting and beautiful and sad. bittersweet. and what's this about promotion? the only promotion I needed was to be walking past the sunshine cinema on houston and see the name charlie kaufman. what we need is more theatres willing to play something other than blockbusters.
Too often I read a great review about some "indie" film, I search for showtimes in LA and all I get from moviefone or yahoo is "this film is not showing in your area", no explanation, when will it be here, did it already leave. ok fine, you can watch it on dvd, but you know it's not the same. watching synechdoche ny on the big screen was epic.

[mernitman]

Simone: I wish I had seen it on the big screen! Yes, Hoffman is amazing, but then so is the entire cast. And I personally did find it uplifting, ultimately. In fact now you're making me want to watch it again...

[Wes]

Any movie that has an ending that is oddly uplifting is winner in my book and this has one of the best.

[Robert]

I thought that your blog was very informative,covering the topic well.
Sometimes it takes someone to make a thought provoking film, which are granted for some a bit hard going, but entertainment in any field should not always follow the pattern you expect, realism is good but can be heavy, but never disapointing, when it is done right!