Skip to main content

You're the only other person in the world.

Anomalisa
(2015)

(SPOILERS) As with all Charlie Kaufman’s films, there’s brilliance in Anomalisa, points where he pins down the neurotic fragility underpinning our (individual) reality. This picture in particular is determined to make life additionally difficult for itself, however, by assuming the manner of its protagonist as a more remote, less accessible piece than, say Adaptation or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a state of affairs compounded by the uncanny stop motion animation. Anomalisa is slow, hypnotic, arresting, but while often profound in its insights, like the malaise of its central character it isn’t profoundly affecting.


Kaufman’s starting-point was the Fregoli delusion, whereby an individual may perceive others to be one person in disguise, and from such cerebral beginnings come cerebral, rather than emotive, filmmaking. He wrote Anomalisa initially as a radio (or sound) play, with the same cast of David Thewlis (as self-help author Michael Stone) and Jennifer Jason Leigh (as Lisa Hesselman, whom Stone meets at a conference and perceives to be different and special), with the other parts are all played by Tom Noonan. The puppets reflect this; Michael and Lisa are distinctly sculpted, but Noonan’s characters, reflecting Michael’s perception that everyone else is the same, are cast from the same mould but with different appliances (the features resemble a disconcerting amalgam of Imelda Staunton and Cillian Murphy).


Not a whole lot happens; Michael arrives at a hotel (The Fregoli), experiences various annoyances, attempts to hook up with an old flame, then meets Lisa, whom he seduces. But it’s the minutiae of these mundane or otherwise events that command attention. And, as is always the case with Kaufman, lurking within is the very real fear that something may be seriously awry with existence itself, as expressed through the antic aspect of a disturbed mind (a mind that exerts influence over others in its delusion). Most striking here are the moments where Michael appears to become aware of his nature as a puppet, an entity without true freewill, so giving substance to his fear, and so momentarily wrapping us in his mind-set.


Thewlis, a mere near-quarter of a century ago, wrapped us in another warped mind, that of Johnny in Naked, and if Michael Stone is much more subdued and repressed, he is no less disordered. In particular, his sexual gambits show him, above and beyond his persistent dismissiveness and short temper with others, to be entirely self-serving and manipulative. Married with a son, he shamelessly attempts to engineer a one night stand with Bella, the woman he deeply hurt when he abandoned her a decade before. All the time he bemoans how there is something wrong with him, but is his objectification of others the symptom or the cause? He quickly forgets about Bella when he comes across Lisa, but in turn, once he has had his satisfaction, the lustre wears off, and her features resolve into that pervasive identikit state.


The use of puppets, and eerily naturalistic puppets at that, is something of a stroke of genius, even if it was borne of circumstance rather than express intent (it was suggested by co-director Duke Johnson). Parts of Anomalisa, such as the unidealised intimate sex scene, are quite staggering, while others, such as the extended dream sequence, are already uncanny because the whole film is, and so attain an additional power.


If Michael ultimately reduces his experience to some rather banal statements (“What is it to be human, what is to be alive?” he asks his audience at the seminar), one might assume Kaufman’s ruminations and perpetual crisis of existential doubt result from an essentially atheistic position, since the self-involved appeals often bear a passing similarity to vintage Woody Allen. But while Kaufman is noncommittal (he merely passes opinion that “God is no kind of anthropomorphic entity, if he exists” which seems entirely reasonable), one nevertheless gets the impression that his characters are alone, isolated and bereft in their worlds, and the only sustenance the questionable soul can gain is fleeting contact with another. And, if they use and discard another, what difference does it make, because, after all, they are all alone, isolated and bereft in their world? Stone is fatigued with life, and nothing brings him joy, certainly not his wife and child (for whom he buys a Japanese sex doll because he can’t be bothered to make an effort with his shopping; notably his son is learning his father’s ulterior, possessive traits), and lust provides only a brief respite.


One might complain that Kaufman himself is an immensely intricate, self-involved one-trick pony; that he never says anything else. But then, if his engine is one of the discontented artist, unhappy with the illusion life consistently serves and unable to retrieve the truth within, without or wherever pertaining to it, finding a glimmer of light or hope would be to dampen his fuse (oh, for his earlier, funnier films!)


Anomalisa becomes particularly despondent (not that it isn’t enough anyway) if we conclude that “Lisa” is actually the Japanese sex doll (the one he presents to his son, mysteriously dripping with ejaculate) and his illicit encounter is actually no more than a particularly sweaty wet dream. Kaufman doesn’t like to provide answers to his content, no doubt because the mystery is part of the package, and the unadorned truth is much less thought-provoking (in this case, it may also be because both possibilities are equally valid – that the restored Lisa he sees as “her” letter to him is narrated, is also real). I think what separates Kaufman out, is that he manages to restate his abiding themes in different and contrasting contexts, and it’s usually only as one contemplates them with hindsight that the similarities converge. Perhaps, if he got to make more than one film every eight years, we’d become heartily sick of him going on and on and on again, but as it is, come 2024, his next picture ought to be every bit as rapturously received.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.

Have you betrayed us? Have you betrayed me?!

Blake's 7 4.13: Blake The best you can hope for the end of a series is that it leaves you wanting more. Blake certainly does that, so much so that I lapped up Tony Attwood’s Afterlife when it came out. I recall his speculation over who survived and who didn’t in his Programme Guide (curious that he thought Tarrant was unlikely to make it and then had him turn up in his continuation). Blake follows the template of previous season finales, piling incident upon incident until it reaches a crescendo.