Synecdoche, New York (2008)
Director: Charlie Kaufman | Rated: R | Review date: 13-Jan-2010
Synecdoche, New York is the film directorial debut for Charlie Kaufman, who’s wrote such acclaimed pieces as Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. One thing is clear after viewing this cinematic gem: Mr. Kaufman has the eerie ability to transfer his deep and profound writing onto the screen. This film is unlike anything I’ve seen in quite some time. The obscure and often bizarre visuals almost resemble a David Lynch-like world of imagination and physical metaphors.
The film stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as Caden Cotard, a great theater director who’s life seems to be slowly falling apart. After his wife (Catherine Keener) leaves him with their daughter, Caden wins a genius award and soon embarks out to create his theatrical masterpiece that he hopes will be the most true thing he’s done. His life becomes wrapped up in his production as his set starts to resemble a life size replica of New York City and with all of his acquaintances becoming characters. As the frequent time transitions go by, often within the blink of an eye, Caden is still found dealing with the same life issues and transferring them into his creation.
The most mesmerizing aspect of this film for me was the theater set. In a seemingly limitless warehouse, it is often forgotten that many of the locations were actually taking place on the set. Equally interesting an amusing, the actors on set begin to slowly merge their real lives with those of their characters, often forgetting they are in a play. This whole theatrical concept was extremely original and intriguing and gave plenty of elements for one to mull over long after the movie ends.
Synecdoche, New York is a movie about life in general. It follows a man in his attempts to figure out his own existence, causing us as viewers to examine our own. Relationships, love, life, and perhaps most prevalent, death, are the main themes of this film that are often told in dark yet comical tones. This is surely not a side-splitting comedy, but there are many moments that are so bizarre and unpredictable that provide plenty of laughs and confused amusement. The film is one that can, and probably should, be watched more than once to be able to grasp all of the different points and subtleties provided.
Overall the film is a great start for Kaufman’s directing résumé and yet another testament to why Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of the greatest thespians of our era.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Nic on January 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm, and is filed under DVD, Full, Review. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.












about 7 months ago
Great film, just watched it but I was under the impression the entire time that the whole piece was a metaphor. The broken down old warehouse is his mind which hosts an endless cast of characters. One has to wonder if the “Play” is only a stream of paranoid thoughts of what could happen while his wife and daughter are in Berlin. Any husband would dream twisted fantasies if his wife and daughter went to a foreign country without him. Most parents would be sick to the stomach if their daughter tattooed their whole body. I think this is just one of the endless amount of paranoid thoughts the “Director” had if his wife never came back to him. Another example is the dialogue of adelle seemingly talking to someone and mentions “Thanks for the fuck.” I believe this is also him being paranoid of her finding another lover. The ear piece giving the feedback at the end is in my humble opinion his intuition. His death is the destruction of his fears. When he wakes up he will realize that he is not dying but only about to embark on a fascinating adventure and will greet his wife and olive with open arms.
Just my two cents. I could be wrong. Either way it was still a great flick. May have to watch it again.
about 7 months ago
I don’t believe there’s a right or wrong analysis for this piece. I think you’re absolutely right as far as most of the meanings behind things. I don’t believe the main idea of this film was to distinguish between what was ‘real’ or not, but just to study human behavior and the mind. Obviously once the woman was touring the burning house, we know this is certainly a more imaginative diorama. Thanks for the input.