Review: Synecdoche, New York (2008) **** 1/2
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Michelle Williams and Tom Noonan in Synecdoche, New York
One of the great pleasures of going to the movies is watching an artist set caution aside to make something big and powerful and true. Whether or not they completely succeed is sometimes beside the point. In the case of Synecdoche, New York, Oscar-winning screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has assembled a large, talented and fully committed cast for his directorial debut and he swings for the fences. The result is a moving, multi-layered and fascinating cinematic puzzle to be watched and enjoyed over and over again.
Theater director, father and disappointing husband Caden Cotard believes he’s dying. He is of course, but then we all are. None of us know how or when it will happen and neither does Caden, but death is a fact and it’s troubling him. Ordinarily caught up in the day-to-day minutia of his own life (things like the changing color of his daughter’s stool or the fact his wife has lost interest in him), signs of The End have recently begun cropping up all around him. Every message his middle-aged body sends his brain is one of doom. Every ache and every twitch is an ominous sign his days are numbered. Examining the obituary column every morning as though he expects to find his own name, death is an itch that Caden scratches and the more he scratches the more it itches.
With his own imagined demise looming, the sense that his life hasn’t amounted to anything important is magnified. It’s a growing void inside of him and to fill it, he sets out to do something big and something real, something that will plumb the key questions of human existence, something that will find meaning where there is only mystery and comfort where there is only the cold inevitability of our own fate. To that end, Caden decides to write a play.
What begins as a simple production soon blossoms into a detailed replica of Caden’s life staged inside of what looks like an enormous abandoned airship hangar. With actors to play the parts of all the people he knows, the play is a springboard from the banal external reality of his unsatisfying existence into the increasingly convoluted maze of his inner life.
As Caden’s obsession grows, so does his project. It’s like a giant microscope turned on something that can’t be seen, but instead of bringing the world into clearer focus, it merely opens up a whole new universe previously unimagined. Every layer he peels back reveals another beneath it. Reality begins to fray at the edges and warp while time seems to speed up. A month feels like a day and a year feels like a week as he ages and the decades accelerate past in a series of highlights and lowlights. He’s like astronaut Dave Bowman hurtling through the stargate on his own internal odyssey.
By the time actors are hired to play the actors playing the real people in the play, clearly things have spun out of control and Caden’s life folds in on itself like a Mobius strip where illusion becomes reality and vice versa. Grasping at the threads of his existence and trying to understand them even as they slip through his fingers, he’s digging a hole in dry sand, every scoop causing another to fill in somewhere else.
The problem as one of the characters points out is that Caden has never really looked at anyone but himself. It’s an undeniable and sometimes infuriating fact and yet, bound up in the seeming futility of his massive, inwardly looking endeavor, he ultimately breaks through to the other side where he comes to a profound understanding: as he says himself, he learns that no one is an extra, but that we are all leads in our own stories. It’s a perception that unites us with every other person who has lived (or will live) the great human drama. It means we are all a part of something bigger than ourselves and that we need not be alone.
This all sounds like heavy business, and it is. In broad strokes, Synecdoche, New York is about nothing less than life and death. It’s about creation and procreation. It’s about perpetuating yourself and leaving an imprint on the world. It’s about the fight against the inevitable and the struggle for significance along the way. As such, the gloominess of Caden’s (and Kaufman’s) worldview threatens at times to overwhelm the film. Fortunately, it’s not all deadly serious. Throughout, there is Charlie Kaufman’s abundant and reliably dry wit. This is a funny film and the humor goes a long way to ameliorating some of the underlying darkness.
Another key to the film’s success is how it eases us into the madness by starting with the perfectly ordinary and relatable before slowly giving way to the increasingly weird. The strangeness creeps in around the edges and the gradual transition between reality and imagination feels perfectly natural.
Aiding this seamless shift is a talented cast of actors who play the whole thing with a completely straight face. No matter what happens, the characters respond matter-of-factly, often amusingly so. To a man the cast is outstanding, but it all starts with the great Philip Seymour Hoffman who breathes life into lead character Caden Cotard. As he grows from middle to old age, Hoffman captures all of Kaufman’s trademark obsessions and paranoias while making them human and believable. He keeps Caden a sympathetic character even as he spirals further and further into obsession.
Catherine Keener is also great as Caden’s wife Adele, a painter who bristles at the domestic life she’s found herself trapped in. Keener has an offhand way of conveying brutal honesty that somehow anesthetizes the sting even as your jaw drops at the horrible things she says. She’s a hard character to warm up to, but it’s easy to empathize with her spiritual ennui.
As Hazel, the slightly skewed box office girl who flirts relentlessly with Caden, Samantha Morton is fantastic. She’s impishly appealing in a role that asks her to be a sort of guide between the real and the unreal. Her character is the first to begin to depart from what seems like ordinary behavior, but Morton makes it feel almost normal.
As Claire Keen, beautiful Michelle Williams effortlessly transforms from an idealistic young actress into a more hardened and cynical woman. She seems to represent the consequences of Caden’s obsession and her tone reflects that of the film, growing increasingly dark from a wide-eyed and slightly daffy beginning. Claire gives herself completely to Caden in more ways than one, but he blindly and selfishly uses her up. However, as played by Williams, she isn’t just a stock victim character. She’s given an inner life of her own.
I could easily go down the list ticking off all the terrific performances that breathe life into Charlie Kaufman’s words (Hope Davis and Dianne Wiest are standouts in small but memorable parts), but I’ll cut it short. Though I wondered going in whether he would prove himself as capable a director as he is a writer, suffice it to say that Kaufman has given himself a major leg up through perfect casting. He also clearly created an atmosphere in which the actors could trust him completely.
While some will be put off by the lead character’s narcissism and those who lead unexamined lives will likely find Synecdoche, New York impenetrable, the rest will find an entertaining, probing and totally unique cinematic experience. Kaufman’s earlier films were sometimes tripped up by their own cleverness. They hid behind an archness and an unwillingness to take themselves seriously that sometimes let the viewer off the hook. However, with Synecdoche, New York, Charlie Kaufman has delivered his most honest, rawly personal and unshakeable film to date. Though it asks a lot of its audience, it’s fully worth the effort, returning tenfold the pleasure.
Synecdoche, New York. USA 2008. Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman. Cinematography by Frederick Elmes. Score composed by Jon Brion. Edited by Robert Frazen. Production design by Mark Friedberg. Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Emily Watson, Dianne Wiest, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Hope Davis and Tom Noonan. 2 hours 4 minutes. MPAA rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity. 4.5 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: Catherine Keener, Charlie Kaufman, Dianne Wiest, Emily Watson, Frederick Elmes, Hope Davis, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jon Brion, Mark Friedberg, Michelle Williams, Robert Frazen, Samantha Morton, Synecdoche New York, Tom Noonan
Related Posts: - ‘Synecdoche’ Clips
- The Spirit Award Nominations
- Gotham Awards: Cry Me a ‘Frozen River’
- ‘Synecdoche, New York’ Nears Distribution Deal
- Sony is Ducky with ‘Synecdoche’
Wow. I didn’t read one word, but I know you don’t throw that many five-sided symbols after a title unless you really mean it.
I’ll avoid the insane conversation to follow and wait in anxious pain for a few more weeks until I can see it for myself…
Just to make sure I go into this as clear as possible, I haven’t read any spoilers or even.. hell, seen a trailer, but the fact you reviewed it this glowingly gives me a lot of hope.
I love Kaufman’s work.
I’m not going to read this until after I’ve seen it but the 4-1/2 stars caught my eye immediately. :-)
Glad this film lived up to your expectations and that you enjoyed it.
Hey old friend, it’s been a long time. What a great idea to post this on FB. It caught my eye immediately and gave me a great reason to pull up your blog (made easier by the handy link from your post on FB.)
Great review. I would love to see the movie with you - it looks like this is one you would see again, a few times over.
I know this isn’t your primary intent in your writing, but you have to realize how incredibly intimate an experience it is to read your reviews. I feel like I am sitting on my patio, Manhattan a la Craig in hand, enjoying a priceless conversation among good friends.
Keep up the passion. In me you have an avid, although somewhat sporadic, groupie.
This is just great. After initial skepticism (I think like you, Craig) I’ve become quite interested in seeing this one. And I’m glad that Kaufman didn’t pull an Alan Ball/Towelhead number.
Life sucks, then you die. Ultimately, that’s what I got out of it. Well, that, and a lot of interesting tidbits on the relationship of artists to their work that I’ll never actually think about again.
I never feel like Kaufman is ever talking about real life. Just the version of real life that he reads about in books.
But a good review of the film.
I saw the film on Saturday night, and decided at that point it would also get four and a half stars from me. I concur with the parameters of this film, and am prparing my own review which will by and large support a number of the excellent points Craig brings out here. The lead character’s “narcissism” is in keeping with the film’s theme, which one of the commenters, K. Bowen and virtually the entire critical establishment have put forth. (life sucks, then you die)
The film is extraordinarily moving, and it’s a multi-layered puzzle without question, one that repeated viewing will surely enhance. This is a very fine review that painstakingly takes a most successfully stab at the film’s themes and craftsmanship.
I see this at a festival near me on the 13th of November, so I have to wait a little while, but your review sure makes me believe it is more than worth the wait! Nice review buddy.
I’ve been thinking about this one ever since I read the script, and I still hadn’t figured out how to write about it nearly as clearly or insightfully as you did here. Well-done, Craig, really good review. I can understand why people would be hesitant to read the review before seeing the film, but I’m positive everyone will want to read it afterwards, if only to help make sense of what was just seen.
I think you hit it on the head.
By the way, as Dargis brought up in her review, Caden’s last name is not exactly unintentional:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
Ahhh…Ms. Dargis. I hear she loved the film and her review is the first place I’m going now that I’ve written my own.
Good to see you again as always, Peter. I definitely want to see SNY again, but soon I will be up to my ass in the AFI film festival. Perhaps afterward?
KB I think Kaufman is talking about life not as it exists in books, but as it exists in his head. And it’s a version that I happen to strongly identify with. I get where you’re coming from though and I can see why, as you said in the Watercooler thread that RGM worked for you more. SNY is kind of inscrutible and not as instantly emotionally resonant. It’s buried in layers (which I think Kaufman peels away as he goes along) where RGM is pretty raw and out in the open.
Craig, “In his head” is about right. As I said in the other thread, this film really is like reading James Joyce. It has the very detailed thoughts on aesthetics, the relationship between life, memory, and art, and I find a lot of that interesting. It’s when he tries to say something meaningful about life outside of his head that he stumbles, IMO.
Part of this, I suppose comes to down to my own personal artistic bearings and perceptions. I’ve published a couple short stories here and there - no big whoop or anything. But when i was young and unpublished, I knew little of real life, and I was writing imitations of other writers, pretty cerebral, very literary fare that I can look back on now as an artifiicial understanding of life. It wasn’t until I started writing about things around me, and still being able to record it in odd and different ways, that people started to publish me.
Watching the reputedly shy Kaufman, while he’s clearly bright and incredibly creative, I still feel like he’s retreated so thoroughly into his head that to him life is still an artificial construct. And it leaves a bad taste for me.
That makes a lot of sense. I guess I see his films as attempts by an obsessively internal person to break out of it. I’m not looking for original perspectives on the outside world, I’m looking for guidance on how to get out of my own head…if that makes any sense.
Would love to read this, Craig, but I’m not even going to flirt with your review. SNY feels like the kind of film that demands an untainted mind when you sit down to write out your thoughts on it.
Untainted is the best.
Ugh…I started wading into the “body of criticism” of this film yesterday including the amusing but totally clueless Rex Reed review and it just took the wind out of my sails. There are many people who hated this thing. Must…rally…..
Now, you knew from the start a great many people were going to dismiss it as pretentious, intentionally obscure codswaller, including a percentage of critics. Opinions are subjective, but I’d wager that theirs is also simply easier. You’re the type who enjoys delving back into the material to figure out what’s there or not there, and why. It’s challenging material that demands that kind of thorough and contemplative evaluation while simultaneously taunting viewers to be repulsed by its imagery, strangeness and inaccessibility.
I had a roommate once of a deeply artistic temperament who would always say few people had the courage or abilities to understand her on anything but a superficial level. That’s easily an off-putting, narcissistic statement, but in her case, I think it also happened to be true, as she was one of the most amazing people I ever met underneath the veneer she presented to the world.
I see Kaufman’s body of work, and this film in particular, in much the same way. Whether its worth a viewer’s time and energy to go deep, entirely subjective, in my opinion, and something probably better discovered and experienced than explained to those who scoff at it. It’s most definitely not for everyone.
Yeah, Kaufman’s work is always going to attract a large segment of people who are going to call BS on it.
My fear though is that there is really no there there and I’m just making an ass of my self for thinking I’ve found it. That’s how my mind works, sadly. I should just be happy I enjoyed it.
One word that keeps coming up in discussions of Kaufman in general is solipsistic, but I see a guy who is trapped in his own head and desparately wants to get out. He is solipsistic, but doesn’t want to be.
“He is solipsistic, but doesn’t want to be.”
Man, that sounds familiar.
This perhaps is why we identify with the man.
Um…help? I think I’d need to see this another 4-5 times to really get down to the bottom of it. As it is, I’m stupid enough to not have known what Cotard’s Syndrome was before just having found out right now after the movie. That would have helped, of course….
You can’t say this movie is anything but a dizzying work of art.
Back for more soon.
Great to read your initial reaction Daniel. Think about reading the script, it works by itself and with such a film is a handy companion piece.
I love Craig’s review, and Manohla’s. You both seem to have such great affinity with the work. And I too hadn’t known about Cotard Syndrome until jennybee (via Manohla) alerted me to it. I don’t think this is critical to understanding the work but it does underscore the possible interpretation of the principal character’s experience as delusional pathology rather than solely reflective of a fictional magic realist/absurdist reality.
Daniel’s reaction is fairly widespread I think. I won’t pretend I was able to put all the pieces together, but it all made a certain sense and I was never confounded by the sense that I didn’t know what was going on.
I think it’s almost time to revisit it and yes, to read the screenplay.
Ryan Adams has that screenplay Craig, and he sent it on to me, but I’m assuming you already have it.
I have decided to take on the review of it today for WitD. (SNY) I cannot hope to match your eloquence, but I will give it my best shot. I can’t remain a coward forever.
Dan I’ll be watching for your piece.
Saw it, loved it, not quite ready to review it yet, but I can’t get that “Little Person” song out of my head, the very same head that is buzzing uncontrollably after having witnessed pure ambition and defiance of the limitations of artistic expression incarnate. Seriously.
Yeah! Glad it worked for you Nick. What’d you think of Michelle Williams? What am I saying? You loved her I know you did.
Hahah Sam. It’s a daunting task, isn’t it?
I’m sure you will be fine.
Hell yeah I loved her! She was so gorgeous and so mature, cannot wait to see her take centre stage in Wendy and Lucy!
I have totally written my review now, but I am too afraid to let others read my completely muddled words, definitely one of the most difficult films I have ever tried to review.
I know the feeling. If I’d had a moment to think about this one, I might have held it instead of rushing it out.
With a movie like this though, it’s hard to be wrong. A lot of people might disagree with you but it doesn’t mean anything.
For me, I just don’t think that my thoughts would change or become any clearer without seeing it a second time, which I cannot do until much later this month, so I though what the heck, seeing it again would be great though.
I definitely want to see it a couple more times
Definitely, and just to make it more interesting, I want to see it with different people each time just to hear what I am sure can only be a vast array of opinions and thoughts different to my own from a whole bunch of people. Should be fun, at the very least.
Oooh, not sure I’m ready to see it with other people.
Nick I have to agree with Craig there. If we take some of our “friends” to see this we may wind up friendless. LOL!!!!
I have a friend name Larry Weise, who told me that SNY “was the worst film he’s ever seen in his entire life.” Of course, dear Larry loves films like SAW and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, so I can’t quite bridge any gaps, but this is a very challenging film. Craig’s review and your own have really tackled the film’s more difficult themes with refreshing and winning insights.
I kind of don’t begrudge people who don’t dig this kind of movie. I don’t understand it exactly, but I’ll live.
This is a terrific review, Craig, and you did a great job of expressing how the film made you feel, what you thought of it, and how you were still processing it–and how you still are. I think that is wonderful. I’m just about to reply to your comment at CCC about Synecdoche, New York, but I do think the film is one marinated in great (admittedly dark) humor but finally concludes with melancholic longing. It is an especially challenging–but rewarding–film and one I suspect we’ll be long talking about.
As I said at CCC, I admired your willingness to try to get at the meat of it. I was a little more comfortable dealing with the film on a more surface layer, but hopefully I was able to dig deeper into how it impacted me.
I’ve been hesitant to see it again as I often am with movies I’m really taken by. I always fear I will be disappointed.
Wow, well I haven’t read Alexander’s or Sam’s positive reviews yet, but like Nick’s, your review really opened this up a bit for me. I had all of these thoughts going on but the lens in my brain was too fogged up to get it down on paper.
“It’s like a giant microscope turned on something that can’t be seen, but instead of bringing the world into clearer focus, it merely opens up a whole new universe previously unimagined.”
That’s the kind of writing I’m talking about.
Well I didn’t so much as review it as I just made note that I saw it, but clearly reviews like this are indefensible against the attacks of those questioning the greatness of the film.
I have no idea what to say about this movie right now but as I sat in the theater, I began to develop a fear that all of this, everything we know and experience, is the result of some script Charlie Kaufman is writing. Then I thought that eventually he’ll grow tired of writing this never-ending series of absurdities we call life and when that happens, we’ll all…just stop…existing.
Yeah, after reading Ebert’s, Dargis’, and our own Alexander’s reviews and giving Craig’s thoughtful examination two perusals plus reading all the comments here and at Mr Coleman’s site, I’ve come to the conclusion I’ll have to see the movie a second time to decide if I like it or dislike it. I do agree that it’s far more complex and layered than I expected and its possible that some minor issues with my theater experience may have distracted me from groking the movie in a more satisfactory manner.
Definitely unlike anything else I’ve seen this year though.
Finally I got to see this film. I liked it — maybe not as much as Craig, but that may be because I usually place a high emphasis on emotional engagement, which for me didn’t occur too much until near the end.
After one viewing, I find SNY interesting, well-crafted, well-acted. I appreciate it more than I love it.
I don’t think it’s necessary to painstakingly deconstruct the thing to really “get” it. Though there’s plenty of action to analyze, I tend to think that too much focus on detail might prove to be a distraction.
This is a wonderful first effort at directing.