Synecdoche, New York

Charlie Kaufman, 2008

5/5

This is one of those films that after you process, it, it changes you. You want to tell your other movie-lover friends to go see it so you can gauge their reaction. They ask you “what’s it about?”. That’s the challenging task. “Okay, so it’s about a struggling playwright played by Philip Seymour Hoffman”. They reply “That’s it? That sounds kind of boring”. Your brain rattles, trying to come up with a better way to describe the film. “Okay, so it’s about a struggling playwright who works on an ambitious project after getting substantial funding and is able to recreate a miniature New York inside a massive warehouse that he purchases”. Closer. More descriptive, but no, that’s still not it. Maybe this is just another one of those films that you say “Just go see it.”

Synecdoche is one of those films sort of difficult to really discuss upon first viewing. It almost demands rewatching. The attention to detail, the exhausting carefulness that Kaufman clearly puts into his film. It’s one of those films that after looking back on it a few days later, there’s a dream-like quality to it. There is lingering imagery. Life and death. The fear of death, the neverending clinging to one’s mortality. Hypocondria, paranoia of being ill or falling ill. Parental pressures, the fear of losing your family or struggling to live without your family by your side. Career insecurities, self-doubt on the creative level. It’s also an examination of the American marriage, or at least a focus on a fading relationship. Complacency, marital boredom. Love lost, wandering eyes, jealousy. Kaufman is a genius when it comes to taking everyday life and completely manipulating it. Sometimes he is just toying with it slightly, with a minor hallucination. At others he is bending the world in different shapes and forms. He is an artist with a lot to say, and there’s not enough room in the massive warehouse to store it all. Hoffman’s Caden character is one of the more complex characters to come out of 21st century cinema. As he seems to grow more and more disconnected from reality, his artificial world seems to grow more elaborate. There are certainly people out there who will watch a film like this and pick it apart. It’s a complicated film. At times probably over-complicated. But that’s sort of what Kaufman has done with his screenwriting, so why would he not do the same thing while sitting in the directors’ chair? Nobody but Kaufman could conceivably make a movie quite like Synecdoche. He turns parts of upstate New York and New York City into an urban mind-field. The final result is some kind of surreal hybrid of Vanilla Sky, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. And who wouldn’t want that?

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012

4/5

My immediate reaction to this film is the same as my reaction to "There Will Be Blood": I knew i liked it, just not exactly sure how to explain why. Just like "Blood" it is Paul Thomas Anderson doing a character study on a flawed person... or many people. You get the feeling that The Church of Scientology provided some inspiration to Anderson for his two hour + runtime. You basically see a charismatic Cult leader in action as he wows crowds and hopefully indoctrinates some new followers from city to city. During these nomadic sequences you watch as they struggle to find footing and maintain credibility within their following, and to create some formative principles for the group that will have a long-standing impact.

I wonder if this is the style that Anderson will pursue in his film-making at this point forward. This is a long journey from Boogie Nights and Magnolia. Those films seemed heavily stylized and you just don't see that visual element in his last two films. Its strange, because Magnolia and Boogie Nights were also character driven, but not with the many layers of the onion as you see in There Will Be Blood and The Master.

Phoenix's character is a lonely drifter named Freddie Quell who is introverted, yet aggressive. He is un-grounded. I wondered during the film whether or not he suffered from PTSD. This could contribute to his primal nature, that at times is disturbingly stripped of any sense of etiquette. His has little boundaries, if any. His character acts on id impulses without a sense of consequence. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character Lancaster Dodd is intelligent, yet devious. His character possesses that "it factor" that creates this magnetic energy that his followers gravitate to. He can get up, cocktail in hand, and give a humorous and concise speech that has everyone in the crowd attentive and wanting more. These characters are so complex that I find myself a day later still thinking about them. You got to see them develop in a sense, but there was no fragmented beginning, middle or end to the film. Its certainly a stream of consciousness from PT Anderson. If he continues to make films like this, I'll be right here waiting.