I'm Thinking of Ending Things (3/5 Stars)

 

I saw “I’m Thinking About Ending Things”, the new movie written and directed by Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Synecdoche New York), without reading any reviews about it. Strange things occurred all over the place. Still I believe I grasped the basic concept of what was happening. My guess was that an old janitor at the local high school was reminiscing (and revising) a memory he had a long time ago when he brought a girl he liked back home to meet his parents for the first time. I was close. After I saw the movie I read an review/interview with Mr. Kaufman in which it was revealed that everything but the janitor going about his day at the school was entirely imagined. There was no memory the janitor was revisiting. The whole thing was a daydream.

 

Is that a spoiler? I’m not sure. A spoiler generally refers to revealing a detail of a plot too early. In this movie, the basic concept is never revealed. You can only guess at it. Furthermore, I’m not sure knowing what the concept is will change how you view the movie a second time. There is much in this movie that is just strange and is hardly justified by the movie’s concept. There is a dog that appears and disappears randomly, a mysterious basement that isn’t so mysterious, a dinner meal that is never eaten. In the third act, the movie delves into ballet and animation. Even now, when I know what was happening, I could not tell you why most of the strange choices were necessary. They appear to be arbitrary to me.

 

This is the sort of argument I would level against a David Lynch film, but I have also like some of what David Lynch has done (the Twin Peaks tv show in particular). And I liked the movie The Lighthouse last year, so strange happenings by themselves are not a complete turn off to me. However, there is a problem with static scenes that simply go on too long to be anything but boring after a while. There are two scenes that take place entirely in a car. Each must be at least fifteen minutes long and contain nothing but dialogue. Kaufman changes the camera angle a bunch of times, but that is not enough. After a while one cannot stave off the feeling that nothing has happened for an exceptionally long period of time.

 

The concept when finally understood (I recommend reading articles that explain this movie either before or after seeing it) is very sad. Apparently, this old janitor never got far in his love life because he was always so terrified at bringing a woman home to his depressing farm to meet his weird parents. Even his imaginary girlfriend (here played by Jessie Buckley, his imaginary self is played by Jesse Plemons) does not seem to like him. Even though she is a creation of his mind and implanted with various bits of culture he has picked up over the years (landscape painting, Pauline Kael movie reviews, his favorite poem), she can’t help want to end the relationship, thus the title. I can’t help but think of Fight Club, which was about a man who so loathed himself that his imaginary friend wanted and proceeded to beat the shit out of him.

 

I’m not about to tell Charlie Kaufman to stop being so depressing. (Surely solitary high school janitors deserve movie as much as anyone else.) However, it may be a good idea for him to stop directing his own screenplays. His best movies employed such inventive directors as Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). They brought a colorful energy to Kaufman’s writing that is sorely missing from the bland palette of Kaufman’s own directorial visions (Synecdoche New York and Anomalisa). Perhaps if Kaufman went back to only writing his movies, he could find more time to make more of them. I note that Kaufman has only made two movies in the past decade. That is not nearly enough with someone with so much raw talent.

Anomalisa (3/5 Stars)

Back in 2008, when I reviewed Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” I wondered if he would retire. I mean what more could he say? (By the way isn’t it amazing that I can refer to a review I wrote eight years ago?) When I heard that he was coming out with a stop-motion animation movie this year, I saw a glimmer of hope that the idea was just crazy and ambitious enough to not be a let down from his previous masterpiece. Well, it was inevitably a let down. The worst thing had to be that I had to wait eight years to see it. If he had spent a year or two making this in between bigger projects I would have been totally content. But the prospect of waiting several more years for him to create something else after this movie is rather painful. I guess what I’m saying is that I want more, Charlie Kaufman. “Anomalisa” wasn’t enough. Give me more!

Michael Stone, a graying middle-aged man voiced by David Thewlis, has just landed in Cincinnatti to speak at a customer service convention. He is big stuff in the area. Several times his book is referred to as the cause of a 90% boost in efficiency. Not that the movie cares much about customer service. The choice has been made it seems for ironic purposes. Michael Stone is suffering from some kind of strange mental problem. Everyone he meets has the same face and the same voice (Tom Noonan’s). Even when he calls home he hears over the phone the same voice for his wife and son.  

The hint for what is happening is in the name of the hotel he is staying at: Fregoli. He has what is called a Fregoli delusion: wherein the sufferor sees the same face and voice for every person he meets. The one exception is a woman he meets named Lisa, voice by Jennifer Jason Leigh. She is an anomaly, hence the title: Anomalisa. He immediately falls in love.

It does take awhile for this to be set up. The first half of the movie attempts to establish the dullness of this man’s life and accomplishes the task. In the second half he meets Lisa, they involve themselves in a not so torrid love affair, and the very next day over breakfast her face and voice tragically turns into Tom Noonan’s.

At that point I was rather interested in what was happening. In particular, there is a dream sequence that is funny and exciting. But too bad, the movie ends with no third act or resolution. Some more astute friends of mine observed that the Fregoli delusion was just a metaphor for his sad relations with women. I noted with some disappointment that this mundane explanation was more likely than my apparent misunderstanding that the movie was literally about the Fregoli delusion. I feel it would have been a more interesting movie if it were literally about the Fregoli delusion. Oh, well. 

I really hope it will not be another eight years for the next Charlie Kaufman movie to come about.

Synecdoche, New York 10/26/08

It struck me as odd that I walked out of this movie wondering whether it was just good or one of the best movies ever made. The problem, like all of Charlie Kaufman's stories, is that there is nothing to compare it to. So I can't say that it is like this movie or that one. I can't say if you liked this movie, than you're bound to like Synecdoche, or if you disliked such and such then you will really hate it. Reviews are at their best comparative. I watch a film and decide whether it fits, shorthands, or supersedes its genres and rules. I pass on that knowledge to help others decide whether they want to spend $12 and two hours of their time watching it. But what can I do when a movie stands alone? I can honestly say that I have never seen anything like it. That even Kaufman's previous incredibly original works (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) are only vaguely similar, and still only in matters that are coincidental. (i.e. They all take place in New York). I can say this, I cannot imagine the movie being any better. I cannot conceive of any wrong choices. Each scene was something I had never seen before. I can describe what I felt. I laughed at many parts. I wore a grin through many supposedly depressing scenes. I felt a terrible sadness at certain points. And during the final scenes my mouth was held open by awe at what I was witnessing. I have no idea how long the movie was. I completely lost track of time. 
I suppose now I should try to explain it, although I fear the entire point of the movie was to present something beyond explaining. Synecdoche is defined as "a part representing the whole or the whole representing a part." The movie is about the ambitious folly of a play director named Caden, played brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Caden deals with synecdoche's as a career. A stage is a synecdoche of a life just like a movie based on actual events is a synecdoche of those events. Caden may be a synecdoche of Kaufman. The women in this movie may be synecdoche's of women in Kaufman's life. This review is a synecdoche of the movie. It may be argued that no matter how hard I try I will not be able to capture the true essence of the movie in this review. Much like how Caden will not be able to capture the true essence of life in his plays. Even if, like in this movie, he built a life-size version of New York inside a warehouse, had tens of thousands of extras, and a budget that apparently has no bounds. 
At the same time, Caden is dying. He doesn't know how but he is. Organs fail on him mysteriously. He suffers a seizure. His body revolts in humiliating and painful ways. He wants to do something of significance. Something that is true and right before he leaves this world.
Moreover, Caden has trouble with his 1st marriage (Catherine Keener). He has trouble with his second marriage (Michelle Williams). He has an unrequited love affair with a third woman (Samantha Morton). And he loses his daughter, who he forever remembers as a four year old, to devious people in a faraway land. Everything is slowly slipping away. He's waging several losing wars on several different fronts. The film is mired in depression and there is much talk about death. We witness no less than four or five funeral scenes. Years evaporate between scenes. Slowly everybody Caden knows dies. 
The film starts off in reality but somewhere near the middle the line starts getting blurry. About two thirds of the way through we can no longer tell what's going on. Scenes repeat themselves once, then get played again in the warehouse. They never seem exactly right. Caden throws great effort around. He has an endless sea of post-it notes. At one point he muses 'I don't know why I make it so complicated.' In the end he no longer has the ability to keep the play alive on his own. He casts somebody to be him and then goes off and takes the role of an extra. A war somehow breaks out on the set. Caden walks down the New York streets he built. Bodies are strewn everywhere. All the extras have died. My God what have I done?
Why on earth would anyone like a film described like this? Because every scene, every exchange, every line of dialogue, every performance belies the somber mood and depressing atmosphere. Caden can't seem to make a perfect play, but Charlie Kaufman can make a perfect movie. I have never seen a more ambitious, epic, or original film about failure. It is hard to tell how people will take this movie. I picture everyone exiting the theater stunned, not knowing what they have just witnessed. Maybe they will nitpick about certain degrading elements that are true to every life. Maybe they will give up and say 'that can't happen. What am I watching?' These are good questions and totally defensible arguments. I myself am at a loss of what to think at times. Even Charlie Kaufman has refused to discuss what the movie 'means.' 
This movie should get nods for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Take your pick from Samantha Morton, Catherine Keener, Emily Watson, Dianne Wiest, etc.) Best Production Design, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing, etc. Having said that, I would not be surprised, and I wouldn't blame anyone, if it received no nominations at all. I can only assume it is going to take ten to fifteen years for this movie to sink into mass consciousness. Somebody out there is going to have to write a synecdoche that describes concisely what the movie means and put forth an argument that allows it to gain mass appeal. That might take awhile. It might never happen.