Skip to main content

How can a picture of a field be sad without a sad person looking sad in the field?

I’m Thinking of Ending Things
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Like Terrence Malick, Charlie Kaufman appears to have crossed the threshold into self-parody. His adaptation of Iain Reid’s 2016 novel brings out absolutely the worst in him, such that he’s trapped in a causal loop of incontinent doodles, espousing on familiar obsessions with existence, time, relationships and meaning (or lack thereof), all wrapped in a bow of self-reflexive, acutely self-conscious weirdness. The difference on this occasion is that he brings a rather rote gothic-horror unease to the proceedings, which makes I’m Thinking of Ending Things seem all the more facile in its repetitions.

Because this is the same Kaufmann who suggested a serial killer movie The 3 in which the killer was all the characters (in Adaptation). Which in premise was startlingly similar to the following year’s shlock thriller Identity. Which, in turn, is at times off-puttingly similar in its faux-dream/memory/subjective trappings and causal incoherence to I’m Thinking of Ending Things. With some sub-Lynch warping of character thrown in. For other “It’s all gone a bit weird” exercises stretched out to endurance-test lengths, see Aronofsky’s mother! and The X-FilesTriangle (and the movie Triangle, which is quite good). Even The Fantastic Journey’s nightmare house episode Riddles. Which is to say, this isn’t anything new.

Kaufman, of course, delivered something along these lines to vastly superior effect in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The distinction being, there you were engaged by the characters beyond a mere intellectual interest. Here, Kaufman is so set on deconstructing his substitutes and being playfully perverse/ sinister/ elusive that any pretence at real involvement with the outcome quickly falls away. By the halfway mark, I’d established that I’m Thinking of Ending Things wasn’t going to yield anything valuable or rewarding. Simultaneously, however, if one were so inclined, it would be easy to claim it to one’s bosom as a deep and meditative rumination and exploration of the human spirit. Or the subjugation and affliction thereof. Or some such cobblers.

Because I don’t have much patience with a narrative structured in such a wilfully oblique manner. Oblique, and yet thunderingly obvious. Variety called I’m Thinking of Ending Things didactically morose” and I can go with that. It’s desperately one-note, repetitious in its characterisation, oddity and theme. And essayistic, with Kaufman unable to resist showing off in his obsessions, digressions and pet peeves.

From the off, we’re alerted to fringe strangeness when we’re privy to an old man observing our main couple, Jessie Buckley’s unnamed character and Jesse Pemon’s Jake, set off to visit his parents. And Buckley’s interior monologue makes it clear that things are decidedly off between her and Jake. But it’s only when they arrive at the family farm that it becomes evident Kaufman, per his source material, will not be following a coherent narrative, or one in which mysteries deliver satisfyingly coherent answers. Jake’s mother (Toni Collette) and father (David Thewlis) continually shifting back and forth in age throughout the young couple’s stay, with scenarios shifting with them; neither Buckley nor Jake proves entirely cognisant of this.

Her key notes change too (she is variously studying virology, physics and gerontology, employed as a waitress, and possesses talents for poetry, painting and in-depth film criticism). The family dog keeps appearing at the door wet, like a glitch in the matrix (later, we see a skip full of their discarded iced drinks at Jake’s old school, rather recalling the pile of dead Melissa Georges in Triangle). She becomes confused by a childhood photo of Jake on the wall – later, like Jake, she professes “I grew up on a farm” – which she thinks is actually her.

Quite quickly, it becomes evident that the janitor is an older version of Jake, but during the house visit I began to think every character might be interchangeable or combinations of older/ younger messed-up versions (the Tulsey Town girls are evidently mocking him because he’s a lowly janitor from their school). That I had no particular yen to disentangle this says a lot about how limp its “puzzle” is. Particularly when it comes to enacting their relationship through the medium of dance.

Whether or not everyone is Jake/janitor in Kaufman’s take, the novel makes it clear that Buckley and Jake are the same person – she was simply someone he failed to ask out, so he wrote about her at some indeterminate point to make their relationship “real”. So in this context, Buckley functions as something of an NPC becoming self-aware, if you like. In the movie, janitor Jake dies in his snowy car or doesn’t (there’s an engine sound over the end credits), but the pervadingly despondent tone makes it clear: life is pretty sour, and likely only amounts to anything through the fractured subjectivity of one’s own mind. “There is no objective reality” says Jake at one point, operating as a typically sunny solipsistic Kaufman surrogate. This is a film where one doesn’t need much to assume “Other animals live in the present. Humans cannot. So they invented hope” is the authorial position.

The picture, filmed in early 2019, manages to yield its share of (unintentional) topicality. “Viruses are monstrous” suggests Jake. Buckley replies “Everything wants to live, Jake. Viruses are just one more example of everything”. Bechamp might disagree with that, but it’s interesting how a conversation such as this – I’m not going to accuse the eccentric Kaufman of predictive programming – takes on additional significance it otherwise wouldn’t.

Indeed, Kaufman evidently thinks “Even fake, crappy movie ideas want to live” – like Bob Zemeckis ones, presumably, or those from Billy Crystal, who is a nancy – is the rub of this discussion. It’s certainly entirely in tune with his inherently disenchanted snobbery. He later has Buckley reciting a vast glob of Kael’s review of John Cassavetes’ A Woman Under the Influence (Jake has a volume of Kael’s collected reviews in his untouched childhood bedroom). Kaufman is persistently scornful of his adopted medium, movies being “pre-interpreted for us. And it infects our brains”. Such casual brainwashing is reinforced by lines like “Maybe we’re all just programmed, right?” and “I wonder what it must be like to be a sheep”. One can find a disorganised resonance here, if one wishes.

There are things to like. The performances are all first rate. I enjoy Thewlis dissecting Buckley’s pseudy artistic pretensions (regarding imbuing emotions on landscape paintings). Her derisory dismissal of most people – “Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation” – before adding “Oscar Wilde” made me laugh. Kaufman’s observation of petty disputes (the distinction between assertion and assertation – “They’re both words”) and the morass that is the constant monitoring of one’s acceptable language (“when homosexuality was considered a pathology” she is forced to elaborate after Jake questions her implication). These are classic Kaufmanisms, caught in the quagmire of life, language and society where a man liking musicals immediately suggests a sexual preference and romantically singing Baby It’s Cold Outside elicits “You’re gonna quote a rape song at me?

Kaufman's insistent referentiality to other texts and mediums as filtered through Jake's fantasy – Indiewire has it that "Jake... has so fully absorbed the media surrounding him that it seems to govern every aspect of his reality" – is all well and good, except that it doesn't really seem very different to the writer-director's standard schtick. I'll admit that I didn't spot Jake's acceptance speech was a lift from A Beautiful Mind, but I rather think that's in my favour.

I’m Thinking of Ending Things seems the most fitting of Kaufman titles, ostensibly about a breakup, but being Kaufman, we know what it’s really about. As the animated porker says to the naked janitor, “Someone has to be the pig infested with maggots, right?” Someone has to be Charlie Kaufman, right?



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?