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

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

Look out the window. Eden’s not burning, it’s burnt.

Reign of Fire (2002) (SPOILERS) There was good reason to believe Rob Bowman would make a successful transition from top-notch TV director to top-notch film one. He had, after all, attracted attention and plaudits for Star Trek: The Next Generation and become such an integral part of The X-File s that he was trusted with the 1998 leap to the big screen. That movie wasn’t the hit it might have been – I suspect because, such was Chris Carter’s inability to hone a coherent arc, it continued to hedge its bets – but Bowman showed he had the goods. And then came Reign of Fire . And then Elektra . And that was it. Reign of Fire is entirely competently directed, but that doesn’t prevent it from being entirely lousy.