Thoughts of ‘Synecdoche’ and David Lynch

Had an interesting e-mail dialogue about film with my favorite young critic, Nathan Weinbender. Here it is (in only a slightly edited form):

Hey, Dan: Have you managed to see “Synecdoche, New York” yet? If so, what were your thoughts on it? I saw it last Friday, and I think I need to see it again before I can even determine if I liked it or not … which I think is a good sign.

P.S. I liked “Australia,” too.

Hey, Nathan: I liked “Australia” despite … well, “Australia,” which I think I made clear .

As for “Synecdoche,” I wish it had been directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry . I think it’s a fascinating story, filled with some really quirky effects (the burning house, Tom Noonan lurking) and brightened by some great acting. But I think Kaufman can’t help but let Hoffman’s character fall into some self-pity that’s a bit offputting. Also, I couldn’t help think that if I had read the screen play with that final bit of stage direction – “Die.” – I would have thought of it as a shattering ending. Visually, though, Kaufman didn’t capture that same feeling.

I liked much of it, just didn’t think that Kaufman got the most out of some fairly interesting material. Well worth watching, though. Maybe a couple of times.

Hey, Dan: Movies like “Synecdoche, NY” really baffle me, though, because you can’t really apply a simple star or letter rating to it. I mean, I can’t even answer the basic question, “Did I like this film?” And the fact that so much of the film is arbitrarily confusing sometimes gets on my nerves. If every single image in “Synecdoche, NY” had a specific meaning or metaphorical context, then that seems a bit pretentious, no? But if there are images or scenes or characters in the film that merely exist to be surreal, then what purpose do they serve to the story except to muddle it? That’s the quandary with movies like this.

But I think “Synecdoche, NY” is, in the end, a worthwhile movie, and although I may not have liked it, I admired it tremendously (once again, how do you express that in terms of stars? how many would you award it?). In very simple terms, it is the story of a man who doesn’t know what he wants out of life, and he keeps building and building more and more distractions, hoping that eventually his existence will be vindicated. A very basic theme, but Kaufman has found a new way to express it, and that is what’s refreshing about the movie.

By the way, have you seen David Lynch’s “Inland Empire?” Another movie that is unlike anything I’ve seen, but all the worse because of it.

Hey, Nathan: I can’t argue with anything you’ve said. In fact, you capture the heart of my problem with the film. In terms of the images and their meaning, that’s where I think Jonze and Gondry are stronger directors.

As someone much closer in age to Hoffman’s character, I feel his angst probably – not necessarily but probably – more than you do. Yet I still found myself wanting to slap him at time and say, “Toughen up, pal!” That kind of angst can bring you to your knees, but it veers close to a whining kind of self pity.

Re. Lynch, that’s a great comparison. It would take a whole book for me to explain why I think “Mulholland Drive” is a masterpiece while “Inland Empire” feels like an inert piece of derivative and boring crap. Every artist reaches the point where he begins repeating himself, and not every Lynch movie is great (or even good), but “Inland Empire” was truly disappointing. “Mulholland Drive,” by contrast, creeped me out in the very best sort of way.

That’s it. Tune in next week when Nathan and I tackle something really interesting. “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” maybe?