We threw it on the other day (part of our beloved Netflix instant queue), and proceeded to sit there, mouths agape, for two hours trying to figure out what the heck was going on. Not that it wasn't enjoyable or that the acting wasn't good - the cast is packed with top notch actors I always love watching (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Diane Wiest, Catherine Keener) and they all do some beautiful work in this film... But dang. This is some weird cinema. And I cannot claim to understand it. I can't even begin to explain to you the 'plot'.
But the nice thing about movies like this is that they make you ask questions, and who better to ask than the internet?
So the internet tells me this is a Charlie Kaufman project, which explains a lot (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovich, Adaptation). Okay, so this is a movie about the brain. This guy loves to tackle the brain: how little we understand of it, but how we're constantly trying to tame or control it when really we are completely hopeless in those efforts because our hearts are more powerful. (Wow, that sounds kind of intelligent... maybe I understand more than I think... what do you think, brain?)
The internet also tells me the definition of "Synedoche":
syn·ec·do·che[si-nek-duh-kee]
from Greek synekdoche (συνεκδοχή), meaning "simultaneous understanding".
a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special
e.g.,
"Legs" as a nickname
"The White House" referring to the executive branch of the United States government
"John Hancock" for a signature
"Bug" for any kind of insect or spider
So how does that help me understand "Synecdoche, New York"? To be honest... not very much at all. Maybe if I saw it again I'd understand better. Me and my brain will definitely be thinking about it for a while, trying to figure it out. But what I DO know for sure now is the meaning of 'synecdoche', and so do you.
And if you are in the mood to watch a winding, monstrous puzzle of a flick with missing pieces and no answers I would recommend this one - as long as you don't mind experiencing some mild hypochondria for a few days.
2 comments:
This is all why I frigging love Charlie Kaufman, and try (usually failing miserably) to emulate his style when I can. No, I didn't get it all either. His stuff is always on the cusp of "making sense," then it kinda' splinters off and becomes unrecognizable (Eternal Sunshine is one of the few that has a semi-coherent beginning, middle, and end...but even then...y'know...).
I loved Synecdoche, New York, because it was so unpredictable without becoming a big ol' useless non-sequitor. I was constantly aware of the writer (like Adaptation), which made me lose track of trying to make sense of the plot, and I just focused on the odd twists that would kinda' splinter off at certain points. I admit, I didn't try to force the whole movie to make sense, I just enjoyed the ride from beat-to-beat.
Then again, Scott Tobias (my favorite Onion reviewer) wrote a pretty awesome article about it: http://www.avclub.com/articles/synecdoche-new-york,38324/ I mean...sure...there's all that stuff too...
That's a great article - thanks for linking it.
I like Charlie Kaufman too, for a lot of those same reasons. But this one just seemed to blow all the others out of the water in the "what the heck did I just watch" category. And I had the same experience - just go for the ride and don't try to fit the pieces together because you will drive yourself crazy and throw the puzzle in the bin.
And now that I'm thinking about it more I found myself missing some of the 'joy' that you can find in Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine (if you can call it that... crushing, painful joy?). Synecdoche is just a little *too* grim for me. I like grim to a degree, but I have a feeling I'm probably one of those annoying, Amelie-Rube-Goldberg folks that Scott Tobias mentions. :)
Post a Comment