I don't know quite understand that... Since when should an artist be 'kept on a leash'. Why would stifling someone make their work better? They work is their work, if you don't like it who has the right ro change it into what they think the work should be? Who has the right to hold a leash and tell Kaufman they understand what is 'good' more than he does? That's a really pretentious comment..
I respect your position, but I disagree with the statements 'utter apparent lack of discipline in story editing' and 'its JUST weird to be weird in a very arrogant way'. Its apparent that Kaufman was striving to create specific, yet perpetually nebulous, experiences for his audience; he doesn't spend years of his life writing something 'weird' for the sake of weird (based on interviews etc). I think its wrong/shortsighted to reduce it down to such a simple statement. Everything is intentional.
You know what - you're right... It is intentional. I still think the movie is a ridiculous mess. It's what happens when some one like Kaufman is not kept on a leash.
This movie is an immense artistic statement - and yes! Everything is intentional, nothing is ever made weird just to be weird, and if it was, it would be more "in our face - weird"
This film means quite a lot to me, and viewing it the first time was one of my single most powerful emotional experiences. So, I'd like to offer my own opinion on those things you speak against.
Of time jumping around, I don't get how it's a problem. It never moves backwards, save for a pair of flashbacks. It's disjointed because that's what people experience. Time flies, where did the day go? We don't have is a reference for how much time is passing most of the time, but we don't need it.
Another complaint is the degrees of absurdity. From my viewings, I find that all of it is either deeply meaningful (the burning house) or wholly necessary to the plot (the stage). It's not just absurdity for its own sake; it all seeks to deliver a message.
There is some ambiguity from time to time, but that becomes clearer on second and third viewings.
You talk about pacing in the latter part of the movie, but I think that was deliberate. There's the practical reason that a lot's going on so it needs to be slow in order to let you catch up without missing anything. And there's the more important artistic reason: this film is a reflection of life, and life's pacing sucks most of the time. Just like 2001: A Space Odyssey, the pacing helps it to feel more real, and here it acts as something of a counter to all the surreal/absurd elements.
It's like he's trying to hold a mirror up to real life. Okay I get it... I'm watching a synecdoche of a synecdoche
Endless iterations upon iterations.
A fractal of a fractal of a fractal of a fractal.
Yes there was a stage in my life where that was really fascinating - but I've "outgrown" it so to speak.
But to me, you can only do so much with it. It takes more creativity to derive some small truths than to just hold up a mirror. A tack on the wall does that for me.
First let me clear the air... I hated Transformers!!! I was merely making the astute observation that more man hours went into crafting the look of Transformers than went into making this film and if we judge a film's merit based on how many hours went into making it, then Transformers ought to be good.
And why should a reviewer's cred be based on how "lock step" he is with the rest of the reviewers?
I do not approve of your understanding of art. Art like Synecdoche comes from a very personal and unique effort. If it is exploration you want you should be mesmerized by this. Instead you waste your time being bothered by the pacing and the "inaccessibility".
This is what it is in the end. The resulting opportunity for experience. And you can enjoy it if you really want to. Yes, it takes effort, but if the motivation is there then nothing can stop you from enjoying a piece like this.
If you can do that with an arbitrarily defecated piece like that, what can you do with something hundreds of people kept working on for years..? And these people are interesting on their own too. Such people put so much thought and so much energy into this movie, they publicly shared so much of themselves. This is no ordinary product. Get as much out of it as you can, I'd say, because there is a lot to get...
You know what's also a great piece of art... Transformers. I hated it at first, but so many people worked on that movie and each one them interesting and fascinating... so much thought and so much energy.
That was certainly no ordinary movie.
I did one time bring myself to see Battlefield Earth... I thought it was garbage... but then again SO many people worked on that movie.
So much you can get if you just applied the same rules to all movies.
You know you're being silly. You know that Synecdoche is different from those movies on many different levels. At the very least you know that Synecdoche contains much more intelligence and that it is an original piece.
I just watched your review again. The only critique in your review is that it's an overkill. Based on what criteria? But anyway, forget it. You're too deep into your "Filmmaker IQ" thingy. I think you're not focusing purely on the artwork on its own.
I saw and enjoyed Transformers too. Yes it is an artwork, and as an animator I was also interested in the movie for technical reasons too. True, it's a lot of effort. But it's a somewhat common type of effort in today's culture. That's where Synecdoche differs from the Iron Mans and Transformers or whatever. It's a rare type of magnificent effort that went into it. Not so much related to technology, but human intellect directly.
...was that you seem to have a certain criteria on which you judge a movie, even a capitalistic criteria maybe. Can you say that when a film makes 1 Billion dollars or if it just makes 1 Million, that this doesn't affect your "Filmmaker IQ" score?
I came here to watch this video because you posted on IMDB boards, saying that "money does matter". If not that, what is your criteria for saying whether or not a movie is good? Your feelings?
well i didn't really get a hint of too much self indulgence. I see more self indulgence in the insane hollywood money making movies. He wrote a story through abstract means and went about shooting it the way he thought fit. Its cool if you dont like it or didnt get it all, i sure didnt, but thats not to say there aren't still things to figure out on a second viewing. Besides for a directional debut it was pretty impressive
(and enjoyed it) were emotionally impacted, but not in a Diane Keaton kind of way, but more of a need for a drink, after being confronted in such a way.
The brilliance of this film can definitely be misinterpreted or undermined after one viewing.
as pieces of the complex puzzle are put together. It's the kind of movie that makes you think, (or at least made me think) "wow it's relieving to know someone else thinks like that" in regards to Caden, who is perpetually afraid he is going to die. A great example of film that looks into life in a way which most people don't like to confront, the idea of the inevitability of death, and I found most who watched the film
This is probably the most insightful comment on the matter I have received (outside the insults and snubs which are more revealing of the poster than the film itself).
I can't say in my own personal life I've had to confront my out death that much. I have experienced the death of a parent and I've dealt with all the baggage that brings.
But ultimately I take a complete opposite view of Caden when it comes to life.
There's still that whole Russian doll mess to contend with.
Olive dies that I really felt an emotional impact. However on the second viewing of the movie, not being pre-concerned with the timeline again, you pick up on the minute details. One such example would be seeing Caden's doppelganger's trench coat in the scene where he's sitting on the bench and Hazel arrives.
There's a lot of complexity in this film, and I can see how it could be easy to interpret it as 'overkill', but again, I think it's imperative to view more than once,
Not to belittle this film... but all major films have an incredible amount of minute details that the art department puts into a film.
On a major set, everything, from the wardrobe to the coffee cups to the newspapers sitting on the table, has to be put there deliberately.
Even something as inane as "Hitchcock" would have those details... does it mean something - most of the time it means something to the art department but maybe not translated to the viewer.
Though I totally respect your opinion on this movie, I do disagree on your rating of 3.8. However it should be noted that this is a film in which there is no middle ground. People either love it or hate it.
Firstly, this is a film which must be seen several times to get the full impact. The first time I watched the film I found myself trying to figure out the pace of the film, how time was moving, and lost myself in that so it wasn't until *spoiler*
Thanks for respecting my opinion. You do have to realize that for me a 3.8/10 is a moderate dislike for the film, only 1.2 from being "on the fence".
I haven't seen it since the original viewing, but I think my main gripe would be pacing. It felt like it had serious pacing problems. towards the second half.
As for multiple viewings, I think you're right. But I have so little precious time, and so many other great movies out there that I just really can't bring myself to put time into this one.
That review was completely shallow, it's what I'd expect from some 16 yr old high school girl. Or a business major. But, I can understand why you can't understand any of the films symbolism. You review with a monkey, and have IQ in your name. Implying that you: A think you give 'smart' reviews, and B, you think that IQ measures something. I'll let you in on a secret, IQ does not measure intelligence at all, and most scholars have known this for years.
Understanding the film's symbolism does not mean I care one ioata about this bloated self righteous movie or even the bloated self righteous people that go around saying how important this piece of garbage is.
And by the way... have I made any reference to IQ outside of the name of the WEBSITE that's upsetting to you in some way?
Or are you compensating for something the big boys did to you when you were little?
And by that I mean what they did to you last week.
Ummm, what the big boys did to me? Anyway, It doesn't matter if you mention it, simply including the term 'IQ' has implications, which make your site, or whoever's site it is, seem pompous and uneducated as they don't actually understand that IQ doesn't measure intelligence at all. Furthermore, how is this film self-righteous? It is a character study which has philosophic underpinnings, such as solipsism, existentialism, etc. It doesn't prescribe how to live, it merely examines an individual
Also, I'm sorry if you like your films spelled out for you. It's difficult to think critically for yourself, how dare someone ask me to read/watch something multiple times to understand the themes and implications behind said themes. Should we have told Heidegger that his philosophical writings are arrogant and unworthy of our time becasue they are difficult to read and understand? Perhaps twilight is more your cup of tea. If you dislike the film, fine, but provide some intelligent reasons.
I have provided the "intelligent" reasons why I dislike the film... it's your arrogance and pomposity that can't respect them as intelligent.
Actually, you're a classic example of the arrogance. You create a world around yourself and you can't stand anything that might contradict it. You look at the name of the site and see what you want to see. You assign values to me that aren't there. Everything has to fit YOUR little world.
Funny how my two most controversial reviews are this and Saw V...
Your reasons for the disliking are "... odd ball crap, and we are lost in his confused screens, and plot fatigue sets in ..." and "... an udder lack of discipline in story editing ..."
While I understand where these criticisms come from, I find it absolutely mind boggling that someone can complain about complexity in film making when we have so many stupid action films in the US.
My own world view? Well considering I'm really just a misanthropic nihilist, I can't really be contradicted.
They are your views, and after all this is just subjective. You can say what ever you want, but just because you have an opinion doesn't mean I can't assault that opinion. I am arrogant, and I don't accept just anything. Projecting my own little world? All we have is our own little worlds subjectively interpreting external existence through our sensory receptors. I don't see how that's an insult, other than that implying that you'd rather be communal than individual.
You're right, you have the perfect right to assault my opinion, just like I have the right to assault yours.
I accept that being called arrogant to some one who is arrogant is no insult. Of course.
What I am suggesting is you think you're smarter than you really are. Not to mean it as a "whip it out and see who's bigger contest" but you lack the humility of some one who is genuinely trying to understand the world and our existence.
To hell with it, that's what a nihilist would say... so emo
I was about to apologize for insulting you and your opinion, but then you called me an 'emo' like some 14 yr old.
Science is not about humility, it is about ruthless examination and trying to disprove everything until it seems plausible. If I didn't carry the same scrutiny into the other aspects of my life I'd be a hypocrite. And film snob? Maybe, I do enjoy said action films however, I just can't stand the tired stories, constant cliche's and Hollywood endings.
I will leave it at that for now, I'm just arguing over subjectivity for no real reason. I will concede that my attack at your "unintelligent reasons for disliking the film" was childish and unfounded. I still think you're opinions are shallow, and typically American though, but I'm not all that sure why I decided to vocalize it originally.
I should apologize for calling you "emo" but we both know your handle "Bloodrazor666" screams it louder than any goth 14 year old who stumbled on Daddy's copy of Nietzsche.
What I won't do is apologize for my "shallow typical American" viewpoints to someone who is obviously too shallow to comprehend the vast diversity of opinions and viewpoints my country allows. We have dumb action movies AND dumb art movies.
Again - typical Emo reaction - I hope you've learned something about yourself here.
well, are art films better then commercial films? it depends on what you want to get out of it. Commercial films are a joy ride, you don't absorb any answer/attempt of an answer to existential / universal questions; they are merely stimuli. Art films should make you think or feel in a deeper sense. I will probably watch the film tomorrow. But there is something annoying with evil geeks that want to take over the world: everything is already explained to them, so, why care about art?
I think anyone can be touched by this movie if they approach it on a dream level of exaggerated emotions, you just have to not roll your eyes and allow yourself to connect. this is art he spent years on not to just make himself or hipsters feel smart.
yeah I would because it's touched me like no movie has before. So much so that I've gone back three more times and counting. I wasn't touched based on name value, I was touched on a thoughtful meditation on what it is to be alive. The final ten minutes where the (purposefully) self-absorbed lead finally empathizes and feels other people's plights before he died was heartbreaking and I broke down in tears.
I'll try to make an intelligent argument on one thing that you said without everyone getting into hissy fits:
you say that its weird just to be weird that its mental masterbation and I just want to ask you if you honestly believe that? Caden is clearly a bit of a standin for Kaufman and its obvious that he is trying to get at something honest and true here. whether he suceeds or fails is a point of opinion, but I dont think it fair to say that its weird just to be weird im running out of words!
First of all, thanks for not getting into a hissy fit!
Yes I honestly believe that Kaufman is purposely trying to be obtuse here.
We don't know what Kaufman's intentions were. If you want to be believe he's writing about himself, you can do that and add another layer to the Russian Nesting doll.
For me it adds nothing.
I wonder if you took Kaufman's name off the picture completely, would there be anybody left to defend this movie so emotionally?
Some people HATE The Smiths. Others fall to their knees in praise when theyre played. The majority of those that dislike them just dont dig the somber, self-depricating lyrics/music. yet some live by it. Its artistic preferences. Kaufmans body of work is the same. Many cant stand his "woah is me" storytelling, but others admire & adore it. I personally loved this film, but you dont really dig him. Thats cool, but this movie follows the footsteps the types of despaired narratives hes established
I more or less like Kaufman's other works but I think the problem is story editing for this one. I really think if Kaufman edited down a layer of story in the end of the second act, this movie would be much better. "Woah is me" is okay by me (these reviews are "woah is me") but I think story arc needs to be intact - here I think it gets out of hand.
yeah but think of it as a Lynchian experience. It did get crazy, but in a David Lynch sort of way, it fit together. S,NY is indeed rough around the edges but I personally left feeling satisfied. maybe its because im such a kaufman fan, i refuse to look for flaws, so i am biased, but this film def isnt for everyone. i enjoyed the mindfuck. perhaps your response was the intended reaction.
Okay, now I really hate to drag commercialism in here, but I have to. This is Kaufman's first directorial job. This film cost about $20 million to make and in the 8 weeks it's been out, it's earned only $2.4 million. It's not part of the Oscar bunch that gets thrown out there around Christmas - and on top of that, a lot of people, myself included, did not care for the movie.
Just saying it's rotten to be in Kaufman's shoes right now. That's just too bad.
This is a very shallow review that doesn't bother engaging with the movie on its own terms. I loved the film. I don't see what's so hard to "get" per se. It's definitely confusing and convoluted, but it's confusing and convoluted in a funny, thematically relevant way.
And enough people have clearly gotten something substantial out of it that it cannot be simply masturbation. There's something there, and you just didn't see it because it's a subjective movie that you have to work with to get something out of. I'm not going to call you stupid for not going along with it, because it's a challenging film, but the contemptible way you're talking to people who disagree with you about an inherently divisive movie is not suggestive of a man of intelligence.
I do love the fact that you equate "getting this movie" with having a "high intelligence" - talk about shallow. And still no one addresses my review points... hmm... rather suspect for a bunch of intellectuals.
But I'm sure time will prove me right. This film will sink into cinematic obscurity (if it hasn't already).
And please try to keep it to 500 characters. If you edit your comments down to fit... well you'll have done more editing than Kaufman did...
While we're talking about facts we love, I love the fact that you didn't even understand what I said and thought I was calling you stupid because you didn't get the movie. I was calling you a prick that is possibly stupid because you parade your supposed intelligence around, even in your name, and yet in your responses to dissenting voices in the comments are so closed-minded that you seem to think that any experience people had with this movie contrary to yours is somehow counterfeit.
Except there's no "E" in "LIAR" and I was merely stating your opinion rather than my own. If you keep shooting yourself in the foot like this there isn't going to be much of a foot left very soon.
And I did a search and came back with a lot of crap about Jesus and nothing about you. Do you have a Christ complex? I'd just like to point out that Christ didn't go around smugly waving stuffed animals to distract people from noticing his inadequacies as a person.
This is fun. Do you realize there's no difference between Synecdoche "Intellectuals" and the legions of Saw fans who sent me crap for hating their franchise. Makes you think... well not you personally because I'm absolutely convinced you do little or any of that.
I don't think you did a "Gospel John" search on YouTube which leads me to believe you are incapable of following directions too.
And yes, I know how to spell LIAR as evident in my first post... but I forgot you don't know how to read.
And no, I will not let an arbitrary character count limit what I have to say. The Internet is infinite. The series of tubes is not going to get clogged up. While we're on editing, this could be shortened significantly if you cut out all the unfunny stuff, which leaves us with your analysis, which isn't really an analysis that can be argued with, because it isn't really analysis. Those soulless, brainless eunuchs that replaced Ebert and Roeper gave it more substantial review than you did.
mental masturbation? is that why so many people leave the theater after seeing this film feeling depressed and philosophically confused about their lives? because their minds just jizzed all over their brains? you might want to watch the movie again.
I think I know why I'm getting all this hate mail... It's because I made a review where an INTELLIGENT person gave Synecdoche a bad review.
You film snobs can't stand it when someone who has film literacy pans a movie only "intellectuals" get... so you have to believe that I, the brave soul who speaks the truth to the naked emperor, is a stupid hill billy. Sorry folks, you either need to accept I'm right, or you're an intolerant small minded coward... and in that case, who's the Hill Billy now?
Read roger eberts review if you want to hear a proffesional, and objective rendition and review of this film.However like any type of art; paintings and music- just because you don't understand how it is done and exactly what the author is saying does not take anything away from its richeness, symbolism, emotions and thoughts it evokes. Read roger eberts review if you want to hear a proffesional, and objective rendition and review of this film.
First of all, it's YOU that's dismissing what you don't understand... and that is my brilliant review. You dismiss my rating because you don't understand it... you HYPOCRITE!
I read Ebert's review before writing my own. He sees what he wants to see, something he's been very guilty of lately. I don't have that problem... I went into this film with great interest and left... well watch the review for my feelings :)
Just because you are missing pieces to a puzzle does not make the puzzle crap. Probably only ht emost brilliant minds (or a philosophy major) can make sense out of it the way in which most would like to. However like any type of art; paintings and music- just because you don't understand how it is done and exactly what the author is saying doe snot take anything away from its richeness, symbolism, emotions and thoughts it evokes.
3.8 WTF? People are so quick to dismiss what they don't understand. I can't imagine the horrible cheesy films that you praised more than this one. This movie is a masterpiece and it's complexity is probably only a small fraction compared to life's complexity. Admire this beautiful portrait of life and stop trying to make sense out of it in a linear, cause/effect fashion.
Good synopsis of the film. I subscribed and then quickly Unsubscribed when you gave this Brilliant piece of art 3.8. That's like calling the Sistine Chapel a child's first goofy buttfaced attempt at oil painting. Synecdche, New York is BRILLIANT! However I'm feeling more and more that it's meant for highly intelligent people of the future, since very few seem to Get It, and label it weird for the sake of being weird. Nooooo! Neither is 2001: A Space Odyssey weird for the sake of being weird.
Oh man, you're like most people who couldn't understand this brilliant film and dismiss it has overindulgent fluff, which is simply too bad because it's pure Greatness. But hey, Brilliant art isn't for everyone.
This film is non-coherent, messy, and void of any actual story.
That said, I loved it. You're wrong, it doesn't exist just so people can feel part of some 'exclusive club' that you speak of, but rather as sort of a visual abstract poem that deals with love, loss, desperation, life, and finally death.
Your review doesn't surprise me. This movie doesn't click well for some people, it's understandable. Perhaps you can revisit it on DVD and finally be able to appreciate it for what it is
What I've learned in the past few days is I don't care an ioata about what a film is "about" instead I only care about execution. Does the film do what it sets out to do?
Like I said in my review... the first 40 minutes are terrific - I was prepared to give it high points. Then the meter started going down.... down... down...
STORY EDITING!!!
It's Kaufman and this undisciplined editing that makes it impossible to "appreciated it for what it is". Even poems need editing
First off, using Calculus on someone that used to go by the wrestling name of Big Daddy Derivative ain't going to work... be prepared to have me rip apart your analogy in the ring.
Calculus and all mathematics is based on rather simple logical connections. Synecdoche is not based on any logic whatsoever.
See here's where our disagreement lies. You really dig Kaufman's excellent outer wear. You like his lotus kimono and flower patterned ruffles. I see the reality - Kaufman is stark naked.
Oh please, you're not sorry. Movies like this exist for people like you to feel better about themselves because you're in a special exclusive club of people that "get it". Truth is this movie is not meant to be understood. Anybody that says he understands it is fraud.
But you know what YOU don't understand?? Sarcasm doesn't translate in written comments - so I will thank you for compliment!
Oh please... we both know the what you don't know could fill a library. What I don't know would fill a much smaller and much more boring library.
That doesn't excuse Kaufman from blathering on and on in his incoherent movie. Trust me, there are a lot of films out there worth studying, far deeper, and with stronger story editing than this stinker.
he holds a toy-moneky next to his ear.
i guess hes american
RHDB17 3 weeks ago
honestly gospel john you are not looking in the important area of the film.
MarioChubuscus 9 months ago
This is simply, a terrible review.
cavan132 1 year ago
I don't know quite understand that... Since when should an artist be 'kept on a leash'. Why would stifling someone make their work better? They work is their work, if you don't like it who has the right ro change it into what they think the work should be? Who has the right to hold a leash and tell Kaufman they understand what is 'good' more than he does? That's a really pretentious comment..
fiddlingsteve 1 year ago
I respect your position, but I disagree with the statements 'utter apparent lack of discipline in story editing' and 'its JUST weird to be weird in a very arrogant way'. Its apparent that Kaufman was striving to create specific, yet perpetually nebulous, experiences for his audience; he doesn't spend years of his life writing something 'weird' for the sake of weird (based on interviews etc). I think its wrong/shortsighted to reduce it down to such a simple statement. Everything is intentional.
fiddlingsteve 1 year ago
@fiddlingsteve
You know what - you're right... It is intentional. I still think the movie is a ridiculous mess. It's what happens when some one like Kaufman is not kept on a leash.
FilmmakerIQReviews 1 year ago
@FilmmakerIQReviews "Kept on a leash"??.. Come on!
SayidShazeen 1 year ago
@fiddlingsteve I totally agree with you.
This movie is an immense artistic statement - and yes! Everything is intentional, nothing is ever made weird just to be weird, and if it was, it would be more "in our face - weird"
SayidShazeen 1 year ago
Comment removed
fiddlingsteve 1 year ago
Perhaps you should drop the stuffed monkey and be really happy my good sir.
migzo8 2 years ago
Have you changed your mind yet?
LJStalker1 2 years ago
This film means quite a lot to me, and viewing it the first time was one of my single most powerful emotional experiences. So, I'd like to offer my own opinion on those things you speak against.
Of time jumping around, I don't get how it's a problem. It never moves backwards, save for a pair of flashbacks. It's disjointed because that's what people experience. Time flies, where did the day go? We don't have is a reference for how much time is passing most of the time, but we don't need it.
MimbrateKnight 2 years ago
Another complaint is the degrees of absurdity. From my viewings, I find that all of it is either deeply meaningful (the burning house) or wholly necessary to the plot (the stage). It's not just absurdity for its own sake; it all seeks to deliver a message.
There is some ambiguity from time to time, but that becomes clearer on second and third viewings.
MimbrateKnight 2 years ago
You talk about pacing in the latter part of the movie, but I think that was deliberate. There's the practical reason that a lot's going on so it needs to be slow in order to let you catch up without missing anything. And there's the more important artistic reason: this film is a reflection of life, and life's pacing sucks most of the time. Just like 2001: A Space Odyssey, the pacing helps it to feel more real, and here it acts as something of a counter to all the surreal/absurd elements.
MimbrateKnight 2 years ago
Seriously, thanks for posting an alternative viewpoint without first insulting me.
I appreciate it - you're only 1 in a very small handful.
Now I'm not going to disagree with what has meaning to you because of course that is going to be very subjective.
But for me one common strain that Kaufman tends to just berate to death is the whole notion of story within a story.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
It's like he's trying to hold a mirror up to real life. Okay I get it... I'm watching a synecdoche of a synecdoche
Endless iterations upon iterations.
A fractal of a fractal of a fractal of a fractal.
Yes there was a stage in my life where that was really fascinating - but I've "outgrown" it so to speak.
But to me, you can only do so much with it. It takes more creativity to derive some small truths than to just hold up a mirror. A tack on the wall does that for me.
Hold the mirror that is.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
Here's some constructive criticism for you.
You're a retard.
First let me clear the air... I hated Transformers!!! I was merely making the astute observation that more man hours went into crafting the look of Transformers than went into making this film and if we judge a film's merit based on how many hours went into making it, then Transformers ought to be good.
And why should a reviewer's cred be based on how "lock step" he is with the rest of the reviewers?
Seems pretty retarded to me...
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
@FilmmakerIQReviews Guy pointed out some strong true argument towards you, and this is your answer? You just proven his point.
atemlos2585 1 year ago
I do not approve of your understanding of art. Art like Synecdoche comes from a very personal and unique effort. If it is exploration you want you should be mesmerized by this. Instead you waste your time being bothered by the pacing and the "inaccessibility".
This is what it is in the end. The resulting opportunity for experience. And you can enjoy it if you really want to. Yes, it takes effort, but if the motivation is there then nothing can stop you from enjoying a piece like this.
sadunkal 2 years ago
I do not approve of your understanding of movies until I realized... You're absolutely right.
Today, I applied your definition of art and I stared at dog crap that some unruly neighbor strategically laid on my lawn.
O my how those 2 hours flew by.
Fascinating really. If you make the effort... I mean really make the effort... god - what an enjoyment.
Yes it takes effort, but if you're in the proper state of mind... nothing can stop you from enjoying staring at shit for a couple hours.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
That's an improvement. Now think about it:
If you can do that with an arbitrarily defecated piece like that, what can you do with something hundreds of people kept working on for years..? And these people are interesting on their own too. Such people put so much thought and so much energy into this movie, they publicly shared so much of themselves. This is no ordinary product. Get as much out of it as you can, I'd say, because there is a lot to get...
sadunkal 2 years ago
You know what's also a great piece of art... Transformers. I hated it at first, but so many people worked on that movie and each one them interesting and fascinating... so much thought and so much energy.
That was certainly no ordinary movie.
I did one time bring myself to see Battlefield Earth... I thought it was garbage... but then again SO many people worked on that movie.
So much you can get if you just applied the same rules to all movies.
Unfortunately I do that... and I get hate mail
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
You know you're being silly. You know that Synecdoche is different from those movies on many different levels. At the very least you know that Synecdoche contains much more intelligence and that it is an original piece.
I just watched your review again. The only critique in your review is that it's an overkill. Based on what criteria? But anyway, forget it. You're too deep into your "Filmmaker IQ" thingy. I think you're not focusing purely on the artwork on its own.
sadunkal 2 years ago
Purely on artwork?? Do you realize how much effort went into Transformers?? Each of those robots is a marvel of artistic ingenuity.
How many hours spent by so many people to make that movie!
Although I really didn't like Transformers, there is just as much art and craftsmanship in that movie as in this.
It's just YOU who is not open to the artistry of the blockbuster for some reason or another -probably arrogance.
But I guess staring at fecal matter for that long will do that to you.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
That's not what I meant.
I saw and enjoyed Transformers too. Yes it is an artwork, and as an animator I was also interested in the movie for technical reasons too. True, it's a lot of effort. But it's a somewhat common type of effort in today's culture. That's where Synecdoche differs from the Iron Mans and Transformers or whatever. It's a rare type of magnificent effort that went into it. Not so much related to technology, but human intellect directly.
What I meant about your focus was...
sadunkal 2 years ago
...was that you seem to have a certain criteria on which you judge a movie, even a capitalistic criteria maybe. Can you say that when a film makes 1 Billion dollars or if it just makes 1 Million, that this doesn't affect your "Filmmaker IQ" score?
I came here to watch this video because you posted on IMDB boards, saying that "money does matter". If not that, what is your criteria for saying whether or not a movie is good? Your feelings?
sadunkal 2 years ago
crap? i think with Kaufman you should expect unconventional film making. You're insane
phantomdoodler 2 years ago
Unconventional yes... but self-indulgence... that's too much.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
well i didn't really get a hint of too much self indulgence. I see more self indulgence in the insane hollywood money making movies. He wrote a story through abstract means and went about shooting it the way he thought fit. Its cool if you dont like it or didnt get it all, i sure didnt, but thats not to say there aren't still things to figure out on a second viewing. Besides for a directional debut it was pretty impressive
phantomdoodler 2 years ago
Sorry, my comment was supposed to be linear, I forgot youtube has character limits, ha.
tangerinehippie 2 years ago
(and enjoyed it) were emotionally impacted, but not in a Diane Keaton kind of way, but more of a need for a drink, after being confronted in such a way.
The brilliance of this film can definitely be misinterpreted or undermined after one viewing.
tangerinehippie 2 years ago
as pieces of the complex puzzle are put together. It's the kind of movie that makes you think, (or at least made me think) "wow it's relieving to know someone else thinks like that" in regards to Caden, who is perpetually afraid he is going to die. A great example of film that looks into life in a way which most people don't like to confront, the idea of the inevitability of death, and I found most who watched the film
tangerinehippie 2 years ago
This is probably the most insightful comment on the matter I have received (outside the insults and snubs which are more revealing of the poster than the film itself).
I can't say in my own personal life I've had to confront my out death that much. I have experienced the death of a parent and I've dealt with all the baggage that brings.
But ultimately I take a complete opposite view of Caden when it comes to life.
There's still that whole Russian doll mess to contend with.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
Just to add... my favorite example of dealing with death (and because I love comedies), is Woody Allen's "Life and Death"
For a better exploration into the navel gazing activity that is overthinking death, I can't think of a better film.
It reminds you that we're all going to die... might as well go with the flow.
I think I might watch that again today :)
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
maybe only the monkey should talk.
shalashaskalives 2 years ago
He would be throwing feces at this movie... he has even less patience than I do.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
Olive dies that I really felt an emotional impact. However on the second viewing of the movie, not being pre-concerned with the timeline again, you pick up on the minute details. One such example would be seeing Caden's doppelganger's trench coat in the scene where he's sitting on the bench and Hazel arrives.
There's a lot of complexity in this film, and I can see how it could be easy to interpret it as 'overkill', but again, I think it's imperative to view more than once,
tangerinehippie 2 years ago
Not to belittle this film... but all major films have an incredible amount of minute details that the art department puts into a film.
On a major set, everything, from the wardrobe to the coffee cups to the newspapers sitting on the table, has to be put there deliberately.
Even something as inane as "Hitchcock" would have those details... does it mean something - most of the time it means something to the art department but maybe not translated to the viewer.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
Though I totally respect your opinion on this movie, I do disagree on your rating of 3.8. However it should be noted that this is a film in which there is no middle ground. People either love it or hate it.
Firstly, this is a film which must be seen several times to get the full impact. The first time I watched the film I found myself trying to figure out the pace of the film, how time was moving, and lost myself in that so it wasn't until *spoiler*
tangerinehippie 2 years ago
Thanks for respecting my opinion. You do have to realize that for me a 3.8/10 is a moderate dislike for the film, only 1.2 from being "on the fence".
I haven't seen it since the original viewing, but I think my main gripe would be pacing. It felt like it had serious pacing problems. towards the second half.
As for multiple viewings, I think you're right. But I have so little precious time, and so many other great movies out there that I just really can't bring myself to put time into this one.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
WOW! You are so the wrong person to review this film.
strangeworth 2 years ago
WOW! Like I haven't heard that before.
Face it, the film isn't good. If you liked it - great - please go on enjoying it.
Just get over it already.
FilmmakerIQReviews 2 years ago
wow. you're really gay. quit talking to a stuffed monkey, and why do you have a random picture of a male model in a bathing suit? gay.
wannabroosky22 3 years ago
That review was completely shallow, it's what I'd expect from some 16 yr old high school girl. Or a business major. But, I can understand why you can't understand any of the films symbolism. You review with a monkey, and have IQ in your name. Implying that you: A think you give 'smart' reviews, and B, you think that IQ measures something. I'll let you in on a secret, IQ does not measure intelligence at all, and most scholars have known this for years.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
Understanding the film's symbolism does not mean I care one ioata about this bloated self righteous movie or even the bloated self righteous people that go around saying how important this piece of garbage is.
And by the way... have I made any reference to IQ outside of the name of the WEBSITE that's upsetting to you in some way?
Or are you compensating for something the big boys did to you when you were little?
And by that I mean what they did to you last week.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Ummm, what the big boys did to me? Anyway, It doesn't matter if you mention it, simply including the term 'IQ' has implications, which make your site, or whoever's site it is, seem pompous and uneducated as they don't actually understand that IQ doesn't measure intelligence at all. Furthermore, how is this film self-righteous? It is a character study which has philosophic underpinnings, such as solipsism, existentialism, etc. It doesn't prescribe how to live, it merely examines an individual
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
Also, I'm sorry if you like your films spelled out for you. It's difficult to think critically for yourself, how dare someone ask me to read/watch something multiple times to understand the themes and implications behind said themes. Should we have told Heidegger that his philosophical writings are arrogant and unworthy of our time becasue they are difficult to read and understand? Perhaps twilight is more your cup of tea. If you dislike the film, fine, but provide some intelligent reasons.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
I have provided the "intelligent" reasons why I dislike the film... it's your arrogance and pomposity that can't respect them as intelligent.
Actually, you're a classic example of the arrogance. You create a world around yourself and you can't stand anything that might contradict it. You look at the name of the site and see what you want to see. You assign values to me that aren't there. Everything has to fit YOUR little world.
Funny how my two most controversial reviews are this and Saw V...
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Your reasons for the disliking are "... odd ball crap, and we are lost in his confused screens, and plot fatigue sets in ..." and "... an udder lack of discipline in story editing ..."
While I understand where these criticisms come from, I find it absolutely mind boggling that someone can complain about complexity in film making when we have so many stupid action films in the US.
My own world view? Well considering I'm really just a misanthropic nihilist, I can't really be contradicted.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
They are your views, and after all this is just subjective. You can say what ever you want, but just because you have an opinion doesn't mean I can't assault that opinion. I am arrogant, and I don't accept just anything. Projecting my own little world? All we have is our own little worlds subjectively interpreting external existence through our sensory receptors. I don't see how that's an insult, other than that implying that you'd rather be communal than individual.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
You're right, you have the perfect right to assault my opinion, just like I have the right to assault yours.
I accept that being called arrogant to some one who is arrogant is no insult. Of course.
What I am suggesting is you think you're smarter than you really are. Not to mean it as a "whip it out and see who's bigger contest" but you lack the humility of some one who is genuinely trying to understand the world and our existence.
To hell with it, that's what a nihilist would say... so emo
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
And since you brought it up, "udder (sic) lack of story editing..."
How can I complain about complexity in film when there's all these mindless action films?
That's a common cry of the film snob. Which action films are you referring? Is anyone forcing you to see them? If so, you should hire a lawyer.
I don't judge movies on their intentions - I judge them on what they do. Does it work? I don't need to rehash what Synecdoche did and didn't do.
BTW, Shakespeare also wrote action sequences.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
I was about to apologize for insulting you and your opinion, but then you called me an 'emo' like some 14 yr old.
Science is not about humility, it is about ruthless examination and trying to disprove everything until it seems plausible. If I didn't carry the same scrutiny into the other aspects of my life I'd be a hypocrite. And film snob? Maybe, I do enjoy said action films however, I just can't stand the tired stories, constant cliche's and Hollywood endings.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
I will leave it at that for now, I'm just arguing over subjectivity for no real reason. I will concede that my attack at your "unintelligent reasons for disliking the film" was childish and unfounded. I still think you're opinions are shallow, and typically American though, but I'm not all that sure why I decided to vocalize it originally.
Bloodrazor666 3 years ago
I should apologize for calling you "emo" but we both know your handle "Bloodrazor666" screams it louder than any goth 14 year old who stumbled on Daddy's copy of Nietzsche.
What I won't do is apologize for my "shallow typical American" viewpoints to someone who is obviously too shallow to comprehend the vast diversity of opinions and viewpoints my country allows. We have dumb action movies AND dumb art movies.
Again - typical Emo reaction - I hope you've learned something about yourself here.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
well, are art films better then commercial films? it depends on what you want to get out of it. Commercial films are a joy ride, you don't absorb any answer/attempt of an answer to existential / universal questions; they are merely stimuli. Art films should make you think or feel in a deeper sense. I will probably watch the film tomorrow. But there is something annoying with evil geeks that want to take over the world: everything is already explained to them, so, why care about art?
sergiost 3 years ago
I think anyone can be touched by this movie if they approach it on a dream level of exaggerated emotions, you just have to not roll your eyes and allow yourself to connect. this is art he spent years on not to just make himself or hipsters feel smart.
afacewithaview 3 years ago
yeah I would because it's touched me like no movie has before. So much so that I've gone back three more times and counting. I wasn't touched based on name value, I was touched on a thoughtful meditation on what it is to be alive. The final ten minutes where the (purposefully) self-absorbed lead finally empathizes and feels other people's plights before he died was heartbreaking and I broke down in tears.
afacewithaview 3 years ago
I'll try to make an intelligent argument on one thing that you said without everyone getting into hissy fits:
you say that its weird just to be weird that its mental masterbation and I just want to ask you if you honestly believe that? Caden is clearly a bit of a standin for Kaufman and its obvious that he is trying to get at something honest and true here. whether he suceeds or fails is a point of opinion, but I dont think it fair to say that its weird just to be weird im running out of words!
afacewithaview 3 years ago
First of all, thanks for not getting into a hissy fit!
Yes I honestly believe that Kaufman is purposely trying to be obtuse here.
We don't know what Kaufman's intentions were. If you want to be believe he's writing about himself, you can do that and add another layer to the Russian Nesting doll.
For me it adds nothing.
I wonder if you took Kaufman's name off the picture completely, would there be anybody left to defend this movie so emotionally?
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Some people HATE The Smiths. Others fall to their knees in praise when theyre played. The majority of those that dislike them just dont dig the somber, self-depricating lyrics/music. yet some live by it. Its artistic preferences. Kaufmans body of work is the same. Many cant stand his "woah is me" storytelling, but others admire & adore it. I personally loved this film, but you dont really dig him. Thats cool, but this movie follows the footsteps the types of despaired narratives hes established
4jonah 3 years ago 2
Awesome Comment 4Jonah!
I more or less like Kaufman's other works but I think the problem is story editing for this one. I really think if Kaufman edited down a layer of story in the end of the second act, this movie would be much better. "Woah is me" is okay by me (these reviews are "woah is me") but I think story arc needs to be intact - here I think it gets out of hand.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
yeah but think of it as a Lynchian experience. It did get crazy, but in a David Lynch sort of way, it fit together. S,NY is indeed rough around the edges but I personally left feeling satisfied. maybe its because im such a kaufman fan, i refuse to look for flaws, so i am biased, but this film def isnt for everyone. i enjoyed the mindfuck. perhaps your response was the intended reaction.
4jonah 3 years ago
Okay, now I really hate to drag commercialism in here, but I have to. This is Kaufman's first directorial job. This film cost about $20 million to make and in the 8 weeks it's been out, it's earned only $2.4 million. It's not part of the Oscar bunch that gets thrown out there around Christmas - and on top of that, a lot of people, myself included, did not care for the movie.
Just saying it's rotten to be in Kaufman's shoes right now. That's just too bad.
Still, appreciate the comment!!
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
This is a very shallow review that doesn't bother engaging with the movie on its own terms. I loved the film. I don't see what's so hard to "get" per se. It's definitely confusing and convoluted, but it's confusing and convoluted in a funny, thematically relevant way.
discosanchez 3 years ago
And enough people have clearly gotten something substantial out of it that it cannot be simply masturbation. There's something there, and you just didn't see it because it's a subjective movie that you have to work with to get something out of. I'm not going to call you stupid for not going along with it, because it's a challenging film, but the contemptible way you're talking to people who disagree with you about an inherently divisive movie is not suggestive of a man of intelligence.
discosanchez 3 years ago
Nor is reviewing movies with a fucking monkey suggestive of a MENSA-worthy IQ, come to think of it.
discosanchez 3 years ago
Just returning the favor "sir". :)
I do love the fact that you equate "getting this movie" with having a "high intelligence" - talk about shallow. And still no one addresses my review points... hmm... rather suspect for a bunch of intellectuals.
But I'm sure time will prove me right. This film will sink into cinematic obscurity (if it hasn't already).
And please try to keep it to 500 characters. If you edit your comments down to fit... well you'll have done more editing than Kaufman did...
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
While we're talking about facts we love, I love the fact that you didn't even understand what I said and thought I was calling you stupid because you didn't get the movie. I was calling you a prick that is possibly stupid because you parade your supposed intelligence around, even in your name, and yet in your responses to dissenting voices in the comments are so closed-minded that you seem to think that any experience people had with this movie contrary to yours is somehow counterfeit.
discosanchez 3 years ago
Yeah! We finally agree. People that say they get this movie ARE LIARS with a capital "LIE".
And you want to know what's really ironic... Kaufman wanted it incomprehensible. It's suppose to be like life - there are no easy answers.
My next review will be so incomprehensible that only the very cool and smart people will "get" it. So in your case you're out of luck.
BTW, do a YouTube search for "Gospel John" and then come back and apologize for being an intolerant superficial prick.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Except there's no "E" in "LIAR" and I was merely stating your opinion rather than my own. If you keep shooting yourself in the foot like this there isn't going to be much of a foot left very soon.
And I did a search and came back with a lot of crap about Jesus and nothing about you. Do you have a Christ complex? I'd just like to point out that Christ didn't go around smugly waving stuffed animals to distract people from noticing his inadequacies as a person.
discosanchez 3 years ago
This is fun. Do you realize there's no difference between Synecdoche "Intellectuals" and the legions of Saw fans who sent me crap for hating their franchise. Makes you think... well not you personally because I'm absolutely convinced you do little or any of that.
I don't think you did a "Gospel John" search on YouTube which leads me to believe you are incapable of following directions too.
And yes, I know how to spell LIAR as evident in my first post... but I forgot you don't know how to read.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
And no, I will not let an arbitrary character count limit what I have to say. The Internet is infinite. The series of tubes is not going to get clogged up. While we're on editing, this could be shortened significantly if you cut out all the unfunny stuff, which leaves us with your analysis, which isn't really an analysis that can be argued with, because it isn't really analysis. Those soulless, brainless eunuchs that replaced Ebert and Roeper gave it more substantial review than you did.
discosanchez 3 years ago
mental masturbation? is that why so many people leave the theater after seeing this film feeling depressed and philosophically confused about their lives? because their minds just jizzed all over their brains? you might want to watch the movie again.
JoshNetsky 3 years ago
Guess you don't know what mental masturbation is. :)
Kaufmaniacal Mental Masturbation... That's Kaufman committing a mental act that only he enjoys and accomplishes nothing.
C'mon people, do I really need to explain Masturbation to YouTubers???
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
I think I know why I'm getting all this hate mail... It's because I made a review where an INTELLIGENT person gave Synecdoche a bad review.
You film snobs can't stand it when someone who has film literacy pans a movie only "intellectuals" get... so you have to believe that I, the brave soul who speaks the truth to the naked emperor, is a stupid hill billy. Sorry folks, you either need to accept I'm right, or you're an intolerant small minded coward... and in that case, who's the Hill Billy now?
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
The one holding the monkey.
CaptainRyannn 3 years ago
Thanks for 100% totally proving my point!
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Read roger eberts review if you want to hear a proffesional, and objective rendition and review of this film.However like any type of art; paintings and music- just because you don't understand how it is done and exactly what the author is saying does not take anything away from its richeness, symbolism, emotions and thoughts it evokes. Read roger eberts review if you want to hear a proffesional, and objective rendition and review of this film.
filref 3 years ago
Hit a nerve there Filref didn't I?
First of all, it's YOU that's dismissing what you don't understand... and that is my brilliant review. You dismiss my rating because you don't understand it... you HYPOCRITE!
I read Ebert's review before writing my own. He sees what he wants to see, something he's been very guilty of lately. I don't have that problem... I went into this film with great interest and left... well watch the review for my feelings :)
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Just because you are missing pieces to a puzzle does not make the puzzle crap. Probably only ht emost brilliant minds (or a philosophy major) can make sense out of it the way in which most would like to. However like any type of art; paintings and music- just because you don't understand how it is done and exactly what the author is saying doe snot take anything away from its richeness, symbolism, emotions and thoughts it evokes.
filref 3 years ago
3.8 WTF? People are so quick to dismiss what they don't understand. I can't imagine the horrible cheesy films that you praised more than this one. This movie is a masterpiece and it's complexity is probably only a small fraction compared to life's complexity. Admire this beautiful portrait of life and stop trying to make sense out of it in a linear, cause/effect fashion.
filref 3 years ago
Good synopsis of the film. I subscribed and then quickly Unsubscribed when you gave this Brilliant piece of art 3.8. That's like calling the Sistine Chapel a child's first goofy buttfaced attempt at oil painting. Synecdche, New York is BRILLIANT! However I'm feeling more and more that it's meant for highly intelligent people of the future, since very few seem to Get It, and label it weird for the sake of being weird. Nooooo! Neither is 2001: A Space Odyssey weird for the sake of being weird.
MattieCooper 3 years ago
For the record, I like 2001 - the ending does take a huge leap into the surreal but it's just the final section.
But you're right, Synecdoche, New York is like a child's first goofy buttfaced attempt at making an art film - on that point I totally agree with you!
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Oh man, you're like most people who couldn't understand this brilliant film and dismiss it has overindulgent fluff, which is simply too bad because it's pure Greatness. But hey, Brilliant art isn't for everyone.
MattieCooper 3 years ago
This film is non-coherent, messy, and void of any actual story.
That said, I loved it. You're wrong, it doesn't exist just so people can feel part of some 'exclusive club' that you speak of, but rather as sort of a visual abstract poem that deals with love, loss, desperation, life, and finally death.
Your review doesn't surprise me. This movie doesn't click well for some people, it's understandable. Perhaps you can revisit it on DVD and finally be able to appreciate it for what it is
CaptainRyannn 3 years ago
Thanks for comment!
What I've learned in the past few days is I don't care an ioata about what a film is "about" instead I only care about execution. Does the film do what it sets out to do?
Like I said in my review... the first 40 minutes are terrific - I was prepared to give it high points. Then the meter started going down.... down... down...
STORY EDITING!!!
It's Kaufman and this undisciplined editing that makes it impossible to "appreciated it for what it is". Even poems need editing
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
How can I be hiding?? I'm the one that did the review!
Fact is the movie was still a mangled totally undisciplined piece of self absorbed garbage.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
First off, using Calculus on someone that used to go by the wrestling name of Big Daddy Derivative ain't going to work... be prepared to have me rip apart your analogy in the ring.
Calculus and all mathematics is based on rather simple logical connections. Synecdoche is not based on any logic whatsoever.
See here's where our disagreement lies. You really dig Kaufman's excellent outer wear. You like his lotus kimono and flower patterned ruffles. I see the reality - Kaufman is stark naked.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Oh please, you're not sorry. Movies like this exist for people like you to feel better about themselves because you're in a special exclusive club of people that "get it". Truth is this movie is not meant to be understood. Anybody that says he understands it is fraud.
But you know what YOU don't understand?? Sarcasm doesn't translate in written comments - so I will thank you for compliment!
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago
Oh please... we both know the what you don't know could fill a library. What I don't know would fill a much smaller and much more boring library.
That doesn't excuse Kaufman from blathering on and on in his incoherent movie. Trust me, there are a lot of films out there worth studying, far deeper, and with stronger story editing than this stinker.
FilmmakerIQReviews 3 years ago