Skip to main content

That’s what’s so refreshing. Knowing that you don’t know is the first and the most essential step to knowing.

Synecdoche, New York
(2008)

(SPOILERS) I’d seen all Charlie Kaufman’s other pictures – yes, even Human Nature – and greatly enjoyed most of them – no, not Human Nature – yet had contrived to avoid Synecdoche, New York. Something about it just didn’t appeal. Perhaps it was the writer-director element, the feeling that unfiltered Kaufman might just be a little too rich. Or perhaps it was that the concept, even by his standards, seemed like a lot of hard work, the rewards for which would likely be familiar by this point. Unfortunately, I was proved largely correct. For all its virtues – a fine cast, fitfully inspired explorations of the unravelling of the mind/being and with it, greater reality and its assumed underpinnings – the film is a sombre, indulgent slog. As Jonathan Rosenbaum observed, “it seems more like an illustration of his script than a full-fledged movie, proving how much he needs a Spike Jonze or a Michel Gondry to realise his surrealistic conceits”. This is true. Kaufman never quite finds a satisfying way to visualise his conceit or do so in a manner that reflects the power of his ideas.

This piece is only partly about Synecdoche, though. In part, it is also about the highly tangential reading/ viewing that finally led me to check it out. Which, when I get onto it, will make the review of the film itself highly tangential. But my reaction. It wasn’t a clean response, where one can clearly hold up the ideas of its originator and reflect upon them. Synecdoche is revealed more as a blurry melange of existential ruminations, on life and death and what happens in between, and in particular on the idea of autonomy, or our innate lack thereof by virtue of limitations, be they self-imposed or otherwise. To the extent that we can be living our own rote commentary even as we may convince ourselves we are actively engaging. None of this felt very tidily or coherently framed, though. Because the film simply isn’t very tidy. Like its protagonist’s great project, it’s an unwieldly, ungraspable behemoth.

In establishing detail, Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Caden Cotard bears a passing resemblance to your classic Woody Allen hypochondriac (exemplified in Hannah and Her Sisters) but devoid of the light relief Allen brought to his best dramedies. Allen’s “What’s if all for?” (per Crimes and Misdemeanours) existential angst is reframed here as “For nowt”, with even fundamental artistic expression bereft of real inspiration; Caden is simply engaged in imitation of ever less manageable proportions, as his decision to mount a production of his life (and the lives of those around him) takes on the proportions of infinite regression (wherein the picture is – not coincidentally ironically – at its most inspired, as actors are employed to portray the actors portraying the subject characters). There’s a very strong kernel here, but as Kaufman delivers it, it rarely fails to translate in an offputtingly pseudy manner.

That kernel is suggested by the title (Synecdoche – whereby a part represents the whole, or vice versa) and in Caden’s mooted internal title (Simulacra; less so Infectious Diseases in Cattle). But if Kaufman’s inspiration isn’t in question, the film too often feels like a flabby reworking of familiar themes as he blends dream, reality and senses of self and purpose. I can give credit to the Jungian interpretation of the picture as expressed through Caden’s vague “four steps to self-realisation” but not so much something as on-the-nose and unnuanced as Hazel (the ever-amazing Samantha Morton) buying and living in a burning house, despite knowing it will kill her.

In complete fairness, though, Roger Ebert’s review offers a coherent take on the picture that almost had me thinking it deserves the benefit of the doubt. That it’s about “human life and how it works”, fine. But “Think about it a little and, my god, it's about you. Whoever you are… Here is how life is supposed to work. We come out of ourselves and unfold into the world. We try to realize our desires. We fold back into ourselves, and then we die… To do this, we enact the role we call "me," trying to brand ourselves as a person who can and should obtain these things”. Most incisively, Ebert observes:

In the process, we place the people in our lives into compartments and define how they should behave to our advantage. Because we cannot force them to follow our desires, we deal with projections of them created in our minds. But they will be contrary and have wills of their own. Eventually new projections of us are dealing with new projections of them. Sometimes versions of ourselves disagree. We succumb to temptation -- but, oh, father, what else was I gonna do? I feel like hell. I repent. I'll do it again.

It's a persuasive analysis. But for me, the wash of projections as Catherine Keener exchanges places with Michelle Williams, as Jennifer Jason Leigh is reported to be having a relationship with Caden’s eleven-year-old daughter (a few scenes later a tattoo-ridden performance artist brought to voyeuristic ruin), and as Caden’s timeframes become confused and jumbled, quickly becomes tiresome. In contrast, the mental meltdown of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the biographical playfulness of Adaptation were giddily entrancing. That said, I was generally more ambivalent about Synecdoche than irritated by it. Its worst crime is that it just sort of hangs there, any internal momentum slopped on the floor very early on.

But how I got onto the film. I came across an interview(s) with “Z”, also going by XabnondaX, on truthscrambler.com, in which he offers an outspoken take on the nature of reality and where we currently find ourselves in relation to it. It makes for a counterpoint to other ex-secret projects confessions from the likes of Aug Tellez and Donald Marshall, both as a rebuke and endorsement of certain themes. Z calls them out as (partially) fantasists while in turn taking credit for originating various staged theatre in the alternative field (the secret space programme? That was Z. “I wrote 20 and back!”. Famous song lyrics? That was Z). Marshall’s celebrity cloning centres are fantasy, but “We all have clone bodies that are working in the real world, the underworld”. Aug is dangerous, yet Z promotes the same basic last cycle/last chance despair of an eternally repeating narrative.

Z’s perspective is, by and large, much more coherent than Aug’s (well, it could hardly be less so), but nevertheless leaves huge question marks, not just in terms of internal consistency but also the fundamental poser of any such character emerging from the woodwork: how can you even begin to trust what they say, however apparently autonomous? How can they trust what they are saying? Particularly when, as Z responds to CW Chanter on being asked this very thing, “When you know, you know”.

Z referred to Synecdoche as “an amazing movie” in its representation of this reality, whereby “we have the opportunity to play a character playing a character” and that, paraphrasing Shakespeare, “our entire world is a schematic stage”. The full ramifications of this are not entirely evident, beyond basic principles of recurrence, however. And that the world according to Z is mostly populated by simulacra, rather than real ensouled individuals (or should that be enspirited?) Most of us are, effectively, NPCs (albeit he takes issue with that term), and there are actually only 144,000 (since revised to 169,000) real souls out there, or here. Z considers his view one of “benevolent elitism”, in which most of the remainder of bodies – he doesn’t actually say useless eaters, but he probably wouldn’t disagree with such a description either – are surplus to requirements. Fortuitous then, that controlling intelligence, our gnostic creative mother principle figure Sophia, en route to total destruction – via a singularity somewhere around 2045, unless the 144,000 win out and persuade her to stop dragging her heels and get on board with the originally intended programme – will be purging a significant number of them.

Z readily recognises the “treacherous territory” of this subject, even as he comments that most of the hallowed 144,000 “are currently shitheads”. At one point in his conversation with Chanter, he appears to be suggesting that membership of this select band is potentialised for everyone (“This is a competition to the death”). However, he later ameliorates this to the much more inclusive (for anyone out there reading or listening to him) “I don’t believe that anyone that is inside themself debating this stuff isn’t part of the 144,000, because only the 144,000 care”. Which is pretty much the script delivered to anyone debating whether they will be along for the ride when it comes to ascending to 5D, unsure whether they fall into service to self or service to others.

The 144,000 thing isn’t just the stuff of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah Witnesses. It has also gained currency in Devon Elon Madgy’s personality cult, and the number’s importance has been interpreted in a range of different ways (for example, that it represents the ascended masters returning right now to help the Earth’s transition at a crucial time). Perhaps there’s some basis to it, but readings of Revelation, like those of Nostradamus, remain very much in the eye of the beholder. Z’s tack cannot help but foster a feeling of superiority and exclusivity in anyone who embraces it. It would be a surprise if such a perspective didn’t dilute basic empathy (unless you subscribe to the Church of the Subgenius, of course). And on a practical level, it’s slightly disconcerting that Z, who professes to be “probably the most targeted individual on the world”, should have as his mission statement a desire to unite as many of the 144,000 as possible. Because, however commendably minded that may be, if he’s receiving that kind of concerted attention, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that any actions he takes would also place them in the spotlight.

I was minded of Rudolf Steiner in both similarities to and divergences from Z’s perspective. Both attest to soulless humans among us on the planet (well, I’m not sure Z thinks we’re on a planet, so let’s call it the Earth plane); Steiner said there would only be more coming in. Like Steiner, Z is prone to finding spiritual exclusivity reflected in physical qualities, although I suspect they reach rather different conclusions of who is better based on eye colour. Both place little emphasis on God in the equation (Z considers God entirely retooled as the 144,000; Steiner tends to resist a single presiding influence, thus far in existence, but also sees humanity, actualised, achieving status in the hierarchy of deities). Both affirm the inevitability of transhumanism, and the key being who is coordinating that process and to what ends.

Steiner, however, while he considered the possibility that humanity may fail (in part due to the various influences of Lucifer, Ahriman and Sorat) foresaw multiple ages and epochs ahead for the Earth, so would surely have disavowed the idea that we’re on the last of (nearly) forty billion repeated spin cycles trying to get out of this mess (Z’s take on resets, ascribing to them periods of no more than two 150 year cycles, isn’t entirely removed from the mudflood reset hypothesis that has snowballed in popularity over the last couple of years). Nor did Steiner relate the root cause of everything to Sophia welching on the original deal; indeed, in stark contrast to Z, she upholds an ideal of purity and wisdom.

Kaufman’s subsequent study in disassociation, Anomalisa, worked much better for me, even though, if anything, it probably doubles down on the unremitting bleakness. He has a genre detour coming up with I’m Thinking of Ending Things for Netflix (isn’t everything now?), as well as being one of six credited writers on forthcoming disaster Chaos Walking. They represent his first material adapted from another author since Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Inevitably however, both feature as key elements the undercutting of assumptions about the nature of reality, personal or societal. Perhaps Z will give them a rave.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for