Being Charlie Kaufman
March 22, 2004 6:10 PM Subscribe
Being Charlie Kaufman : Screenplays, Articles written for National Lampoon, Unproduced TV Scripts, and Discussions of his Films.
you're insane! the 'middle' was some of the greatest movie-making I've ever seen! I can't recommend Eternal Sunshine enough... and Gondry is king in my book, god bless him.
posted by n9 at 6:36 PM on March 22, 2004
posted by n9 at 6:36 PM on March 22, 2004
FWIW, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has gotten really great reviews.
I loved it. But, I kept wanting to make Mark Ruffalo into Johnny Knoxville. Maybe it was the glasses. To me, it was a sweet story on the nature of love. And Kate Winslet was fantastic.
posted by ColdChef at 6:38 PM on March 22, 2004
I loved it. But, I kept wanting to make Mark Ruffalo into Johnny Knoxville. Maybe it was the glasses. To me, it was a sweet story on the nature of love. And Kate Winslet was fantastic.
posted by ColdChef at 6:38 PM on March 22, 2004
n9, well that's the problem. I go to movies primarily for the story. I don't go for the "movie-making". Story first. Presentation second. Gondry got it backwards.
Like this Salon reviewer, I wanted to watch a love story about Joel and Clementine and got a "Look what i can do!" bunch of "filmmaking" that I couldn't have cared less about.
As I emailed to the reviewer, it's often been said that drama is extraordinary events happening to ordinary people. It's unfortunate that Gondry (and I suppose Kaufman, though I can't imagine any other director fucking it up quite this way) didn't have the balls/bravery/confidence/courage to appreciate that love itself can be an extraordinary event which many audience members are desperate to see done well. "Special effects" are a lot more common.
I'm not against stylized filmmaking--I think Requiem for a Dream is one of the best films of the last decade--but it should complement the story not detract from it.
I'm not saying the film isn't worth seeing. It is. However, it could have been a masterpiece. Instead, it's just kind of a masterpiece bracketing a film that's too busy being eye candy to have any lasting effect on one's heart.
posted by dobbs at 6:52 PM on March 22, 2004
Like this Salon reviewer, I wanted to watch a love story about Joel and Clementine and got a "Look what i can do!" bunch of "filmmaking" that I couldn't have cared less about.
As I emailed to the reviewer, it's often been said that drama is extraordinary events happening to ordinary people. It's unfortunate that Gondry (and I suppose Kaufman, though I can't imagine any other director fucking it up quite this way) didn't have the balls/bravery/confidence/courage to appreciate that love itself can be an extraordinary event which many audience members are desperate to see done well. "Special effects" are a lot more common.
I'm not against stylized filmmaking--I think Requiem for a Dream is one of the best films of the last decade--but it should complement the story not detract from it.
I'm not saying the film isn't worth seeing. It is. However, it could have been a masterpiece. Instead, it's just kind of a masterpiece bracketing a film that's too busy being eye candy to have any lasting effect on one's heart.
posted by dobbs at 6:52 PM on March 22, 2004
good movie. and good site, Coldchef -- Kaufman's very interesting a writer, if inherently anti-cinematic (how do you actually film something that goes on inside somebody's head? -- just check out those Kaufman-written bombs: the Clooney movie, Human Nature). and probably, Malkovich and Adaptation are both overrated.
but the scripts are so original that in cookie-cutter year-2004 Hollywood you can't blame people for swooning over Kaufman.
I'm just sorry the ELO song in the trailer is not in the movie that's all
posted by matteo at 6:59 PM on March 22, 2004
but the scripts are so original that in cookie-cutter year-2004 Hollywood you can't blame people for swooning over Kaufman.
I'm just sorry the ELO song in the trailer is not in the movie that's all
posted by matteo at 6:59 PM on March 22, 2004
Oh, one more thing: I think Kaufman's a great writer. However, more important is his integrity as a screenwriter. I believe he is the only contemporary screenwriter (and may be the first in history) to have director-approval of who makes his scripts. He's also the only screenwriter ever who has it in his contract that no director can have a "a film by" or "a [filmmaker's name] film" credit on anything he writes. That alone will ensure that I put down the $ to see his films as soon as they open. The man's a hero to screenwriters everywhere. Here's to hoping he starts some trends, business-wise.
posted by dobbs at 7:17 PM on March 22, 2004
posted by dobbs at 7:17 PM on March 22, 2004
contrast with alan moore! (or robert rodriguez :)
i'm excited about a scanner darkly :D croghan -> soderbergh -> linklater <->gilliam/cronenberg!?
posted by kliuless at 7:35 PM on March 22, 2004
i'm excited about a scanner darkly :D croghan -> soderbergh -> linklater <->
posted by kliuless at 7:35 PM on March 22, 2004
Cheers, ColdChef. I saw ESOTSM last night, and thought it was pretty good (and nice performances, including Elijah Wood). I thought the 'who did what to who at what point' angle could have been tweaked a lot more, but anyway; as others have said, it might not be genius all the way, but you know you're not going to get standard Hollywood pap either.
The only negative point was the Jim Carrey fan club section of the audience who insisted on finding it a slapstick comedy for the first 30 mins or so and guffawed at everything. That stopped after a while though.
posted by carter at 9:16 PM on March 22, 2004
The only negative point was the Jim Carrey fan club section of the audience who insisted on finding it a slapstick comedy for the first 30 mins or so and guffawed at everything. That stopped after a while though.
posted by carter at 9:16 PM on March 22, 2004
If Eternal Sunshine had come out before Being John Malcovich, I would have gone out and shaved my head and joined the Chuck Kaufman cult. But it didn't, so I'm not going to. Not a second time.
Kaufman is simply the most exciting thing to happen to screenwriting since Todd Solondz.
Eternal Sunshine, like Being JM, is more than just an inventive approach to story, it's a meta-examination of storytelling, itself. I realize that it's not for everyone, but those who dig this kind of thinking will be dancing out of the theater.
Almost redeemed Jim Carrey. Almost.
posted by squirrel at 9:23 PM on March 22, 2004
Kaufman is simply the most exciting thing to happen to screenwriting since Todd Solondz.
Eternal Sunshine, like Being JM, is more than just an inventive approach to story, it's a meta-examination of storytelling, itself. I realize that it's not for everyone, but those who dig this kind of thinking will be dancing out of the theater.
Almost redeemed Jim Carrey. Almost.
posted by squirrel at 9:23 PM on March 22, 2004
I've heard someone say that apparently the story idea was Gondry's, and he hired Kaufman to develop it and write the screenplay. Anyone know if that was truly the case?
posted by Vidiot at 10:47 PM on March 22, 2004
posted by Vidiot at 10:47 PM on March 22, 2004
Vidiot, not sure who came up with it but Gondry does get a story credit at the head of the movie. I'm in the middle of reading the script and it's very different from the movie though no doubt an early draft.
Did anyone else notice that David Cross referred to Joel's mother as "Mama Carrey" instead of "Mama Barish" or was I just hearing things?
posted by dobbs at 11:09 PM on March 22, 2004
Did anyone else notice that David Cross referred to Joel's mother as "Mama Carrey" instead of "Mama Barish" or was I just hearing things?
posted by dobbs at 11:09 PM on March 22, 2004
I think Kaufman is overrated, and once you figure out what's going on, "Eternal Sunshine" turns into just another predictable Hollywood romance. (review)
Does anybody remember the Gondry/Kaufman collaboration Human Nature? What a disaster.
posted by muckster at 12:01 AM on March 23, 2004
Does anybody remember the Gondry/Kaufman collaboration Human Nature? What a disaster.
posted by muckster at 12:01 AM on March 23, 2004
I'm not against stylized filmmaking--I think Requiem for a Dream is one of the best films of the last decade--but it should complement the story not detract from it.
That was an excellent and most disturbing movie. I can think of no other case in my life where a movie was both one of the best edge-of-the-seat movies I ever watched and when once it was over the idea of seeing it again gives me swaty palms and triggers my fight or flight reflexes -- where are the doors.
I am very grateful to have seen it. I never want to see it again. Powerful stuff.
posted by jester69 at 5:13 AM on March 23, 2004
That was an excellent and most disturbing movie. I can think of no other case in my life where a movie was both one of the best edge-of-the-seat movies I ever watched and when once it was over the idea of seeing it again gives me swaty palms and triggers my fight or flight reflexes -- where are the doors.
I am very grateful to have seen it. I never want to see it again. Powerful stuff.
posted by jester69 at 5:13 AM on March 23, 2004
dobbs, I'm not sure what you're on about. I thought the middle of the film wasn't packed with special effects. They were certainly there, but not to the point of getting in the way of the story, from my view. Whenever something happened, it was consistent -- it's not as if something different happened every time the characters played through a scene.
The few really obvious "special effect" moments that stuck with me were the standard Gondry distortion of perspective and size ones, which actually melded well with what was being presented. I actually walked out of the theater amazed that at no point were there any magic realism moments -- see Bjork's "Human Behavior" video or parts of Human Nature if you're unsure what I'm talking about.
Also, did anyone else notice that ever line David Cross had seemed to be a non-sequitir even though it was all in context? It was good stuff.
posted by mikeh at 7:26 AM on March 23, 2004
The few really obvious "special effect" moments that stuck with me were the standard Gondry distortion of perspective and size ones, which actually melded well with what was being presented. I actually walked out of the theater amazed that at no point were there any magic realism moments -- see Bjork's "Human Behavior" video or parts of Human Nature if you're unsure what I'm talking about.
Also, did anyone else notice that ever line David Cross had seemed to be a non-sequitir even though it was all in context? It was good stuff.
posted by mikeh at 7:26 AM on March 23, 2004
Instead, it's just kind of a masterpiece bracketing a film that's too busy being eye candy to have any lasting effect on one's heart.
I couldn't disagree more. I've been thinking about it since I saw it at a sneak preview a week ago. And Edelstein over at Slate says it's the best movie in a decade.
For those who are interested, here's a copy of the screenplay, which has a different ending.
posted by onlyconnect at 7:29 AM on March 23, 2004
I couldn't disagree more. I've been thinking about it since I saw it at a sneak preview a week ago. And Edelstein over at Slate says it's the best movie in a decade.
For those who are interested, here's a copy of the screenplay, which has a different ending.
posted by onlyconnect at 7:29 AM on March 23, 2004
(Of course screenplay is also available via ColdChef's link, with some clicking.)
posted by onlyconnect at 7:33 AM on March 23, 2004
posted by onlyconnect at 7:33 AM on March 23, 2004
That was an excellent and most disturbing movie. I can think of no other case in my life where a movie was both one of the best edge-of-the-seat movies I ever watched and when once it was over the idea of seeing it again gives me swaty palms and triggers my fight or flight reflexes -- where are the doors.
cf. House of Mirth, with Gillian Anderson. What an ton of bricks that was to be hit with. Quite possibly the best movie I never, ever want to sit through again.
posted by blueshammer at 7:53 AM on March 23, 2004
cf. House of Mirth, with Gillian Anderson. What an ton of bricks that was to be hit with. Quite possibly the best movie I never, ever want to sit through again.
posted by blueshammer at 7:53 AM on March 23, 2004
maybe i'm spoiled, since i live in an area that shows some of kaufman's biggest influences in theatres. still, nothing quite spells "buzzkill" like seeing the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie three days before catching adaptation. if you're doing shots for every bunuel reference in the latter, you're sauced half an hour in.
okay, maybe this is something of an exaggeration, but two or three scenes are taken wholesale from discreet charm.
having seen many of his influences, kaufman to me seems like someone who is less a strikingly original talent than a writer who can arrange his influences well.
also, i find that kaufman's issues with women leave a foul taste -- lotte in the cage, donald calling susan orlean a frigid bitch, etc.
posted by pxe2000 at 8:33 AM on March 23, 2004
okay, maybe this is something of an exaggeration, but two or three scenes are taken wholesale from discreet charm.
having seen many of his influences, kaufman to me seems like someone who is less a strikingly original talent than a writer who can arrange his influences well.
also, i find that kaufman's issues with women leave a foul taste -- lotte in the cage, donald calling susan orlean a frigid bitch, etc.
posted by pxe2000 at 8:33 AM on March 23, 2004
I will never quite understand the desire to get all verby in panning a film. But that's me.
Perhaps the folks who thought there was no story are more of the linear narrative bent. In my mind there is nothing, nothing more rotten about movies than the eforced linear narrative, because it is a sham. There is nothing at all about life on this planet that has the straight through the book charm of a Dickens novel or 97% of all Hollywood movies.
The second sham about almost all movies is that they seek to present an unbroken illusion of visual reality. A film attests that these things have/will/could/ought to happen in the real or some imaginary space. Novelists learned about 300 years ago that this really doesn't work very well when you are trying to wrestle with the big ideas. A book works much better when it is presented as a text that explains where it came from. Thus the practice of braketting a narrative and later on the practice of a self-referencing narrative (for example Mr. Vonnegut sipping on a black and white in the hotel lounge of Breakfast.) These are devices to remove the artificiality of the 'realist' novel's premise, and thus it's supposed lack of energy and it's triteness.
These devices when used well are not 'anti-story.' Many would argue that only by disconnecting a film from the usual, simplistic and un-real devices used in filmaking can you create a work where you can face the 'real' with the audience and make a actual reaction in the them. "Actual" in this case meaning to touch them, make them feel uncomfortable, make them have a situation with themselves that moves them, changes them. Which is the goal of many artists in making their work.
I really think that this film is a stellar, stellar example of a work that does all this and does it so well that you don't think about it while you are watching.... while *I* was watching I was transported totally. I walked out of the theatre in love with the world. I mean, what more could you ask for. I think that some people might just get in their own way when it comes to films like this.
posted by n9 at 8:59 AM on March 23, 2004
Perhaps the folks who thought there was no story are more of the linear narrative bent. In my mind there is nothing, nothing more rotten about movies than the eforced linear narrative, because it is a sham. There is nothing at all about life on this planet that has the straight through the book charm of a Dickens novel or 97% of all Hollywood movies.
The second sham about almost all movies is that they seek to present an unbroken illusion of visual reality. A film attests that these things have/will/could/ought to happen in the real or some imaginary space. Novelists learned about 300 years ago that this really doesn't work very well when you are trying to wrestle with the big ideas. A book works much better when it is presented as a text that explains where it came from. Thus the practice of braketting a narrative and later on the practice of a self-referencing narrative (for example Mr. Vonnegut sipping on a black and white in the hotel lounge of Breakfast.) These are devices to remove the artificiality of the 'realist' novel's premise, and thus it's supposed lack of energy and it's triteness.
These devices when used well are not 'anti-story.' Many would argue that only by disconnecting a film from the usual, simplistic and un-real devices used in filmaking can you create a work where you can face the 'real' with the audience and make a actual reaction in the them. "Actual" in this case meaning to touch them, make them feel uncomfortable, make them have a situation with themselves that moves them, changes them. Which is the goal of many artists in making their work.
I really think that this film is a stellar, stellar example of a work that does all this and does it so well that you don't think about it while you are watching.... while *I* was watching I was transported totally. I walked out of the theatre in love with the world. I mean, what more could you ask for. I think that some people might just get in their own way when it comes to films like this.
posted by n9 at 8:59 AM on March 23, 2004
I will never quite understand the desire to get all verby in panning a film. But that's me.
I will never understand why people who love a movie can't accept that there are people who don't. But that's just me.
These devices when used well are not 'anti-story.'
It's the "used well" part that we're in disagreement on in this case.
In my mind there is nothing, nothing more rotten about movies than the eforced linear narrative, because it is a sham.
Enforced? By whom? Off the top of my head: Pulp Fiction, 21 Grams, Stardust Memories (one of my all time favorite films), Rashomon, 8 1/2, Boiling Point, The Limey, Ninth Configuration, Slaughterhouse 5, Talk to Her, Elephant, 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance, Memento, The Night Porter, Point Blank, Who's That Knockin' on my Door (another fave), Mulholland Drive (and another), All That Jazz,... these movies all have fractured narratives to some extent. What "enforced" linear structure are you referring to?
The second sham about almost all movies is that they seek to present an unbroken illusion of visual reality.
I don't understand. With few exceptions all films present a broken illusion of visual reality. Unless the entire film is in real time, it has to. One of the main purposes of editing is to expand and contract time--certainly not something that's part of our outside-of-movies visual reality. Regardless, how is it a sham? Once you include the word "'illusion" it's difficult to argue anything's a sham. Movies no more present reality than does any art form. The good ones refract or reflect or illuminate reality, but present it? Hardly.
Many would argue that only by disconnecting a film from the usual, simplistic and un-real devices used in filmaking can you create a work where you can face the 'real' with the audience and make a actual reaction in the them.
Sorry, but this sounds painfully like Film Theory 101 or a rehash of something out of a Bordwell and Thompson book.
I really think that this film is a stellar, stellar example of a work that does all this and does it so well that you don't think about it while you are watching....
That's fine. But many (myself included) will disagree with you. Don't flatter yourself by thinking it's because we're incapable of understanding non-traditional cinema or story-telling techniques. We simply disagree.
You didn't think about the techniques while they were being used. That's pretty much all I saw for the middle portion. In my viewing, I saw characters spouting pointless dialogue so that Gondry could play with perspective or make things vanish. There was nothing subtle about what he was doing and personally I found it distracting from the story.
Perhaps the folks who thought there was no story are more of the linear narrative bent.
Or maybe they just have different tastes than you have.
Perhaps my opinion will change upon repeat viewings. Perhaps yours will as well. In the mean time, we'll have to agree to disagree.
posted by dobbs at 1:22 PM on March 23, 2004
I will never understand why people who love a movie can't accept that there are people who don't. But that's just me.
These devices when used well are not 'anti-story.'
It's the "used well" part that we're in disagreement on in this case.
In my mind there is nothing, nothing more rotten about movies than the eforced linear narrative, because it is a sham.
Enforced? By whom? Off the top of my head: Pulp Fiction, 21 Grams, Stardust Memories (one of my all time favorite films), Rashomon, 8 1/2, Boiling Point, The Limey, Ninth Configuration, Slaughterhouse 5, Talk to Her, Elephant, 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance, Memento, The Night Porter, Point Blank, Who's That Knockin' on my Door (another fave), Mulholland Drive (and another), All That Jazz,... these movies all have fractured narratives to some extent. What "enforced" linear structure are you referring to?
The second sham about almost all movies is that they seek to present an unbroken illusion of visual reality.
I don't understand. With few exceptions all films present a broken illusion of visual reality. Unless the entire film is in real time, it has to. One of the main purposes of editing is to expand and contract time--certainly not something that's part of our outside-of-movies visual reality. Regardless, how is it a sham? Once you include the word "'illusion" it's difficult to argue anything's a sham. Movies no more present reality than does any art form. The good ones refract or reflect or illuminate reality, but present it? Hardly.
Many would argue that only by disconnecting a film from the usual, simplistic and un-real devices used in filmaking can you create a work where you can face the 'real' with the audience and make a actual reaction in the them.
Sorry, but this sounds painfully like Film Theory 101 or a rehash of something out of a Bordwell and Thompson book.
I really think that this film is a stellar, stellar example of a work that does all this and does it so well that you don't think about it while you are watching....
That's fine. But many (myself included) will disagree with you. Don't flatter yourself by thinking it's because we're incapable of understanding non-traditional cinema or story-telling techniques. We simply disagree.
You didn't think about the techniques while they were being used. That's pretty much all I saw for the middle portion. In my viewing, I saw characters spouting pointless dialogue so that Gondry could play with perspective or make things vanish. There was nothing subtle about what he was doing and personally I found it distracting from the story.
Perhaps the folks who thought there was no story are more of the linear narrative bent.
Or maybe they just have different tastes than you have.
Perhaps my opinion will change upon repeat viewings. Perhaps yours will as well. In the mean time, we'll have to agree to disagree.
posted by dobbs at 1:22 PM on March 23, 2004
okay, dobbs, but while you're bent on poking at n9 for failing to allow for other points of view, recognize that you did exactly the same thing when you said that the "film [was] too busy being eye candy to have any lasting effect on one's heart." Didn't affect your heart, sure, but it has clearly moved others.
The memory scene under the quilt, for example, which is where Joel starts begging for his memories not to be erased, really sticks in my mind. The regret there is almost tangible. This movie does wonderful things in exploring regret -- regret for missed opportunities, regret for chances not taken with love, regret for chances taken but muffed up. And it explores the idea that a personality can be fractured enough to make a decision about love, and then view it from another angle and completely reevaluate things. I think these are things the narrative structure here allowed the film to do that wouldn't be accomplished by a more straightforwards storytelling without making the movie 17 hours long.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:51 PM on March 23, 2004
The memory scene under the quilt, for example, which is where Joel starts begging for his memories not to be erased, really sticks in my mind. The regret there is almost tangible. This movie does wonderful things in exploring regret -- regret for missed opportunities, regret for chances not taken with love, regret for chances taken but muffed up. And it explores the idea that a personality can be fractured enough to make a decision about love, and then view it from another angle and completely reevaluate things. I think these are things the narrative structure here allowed the film to do that wouldn't be accomplished by a more straightforwards storytelling without making the movie 17 hours long.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:51 PM on March 23, 2004
onlyconnect, fair enough. However, I thought I was stating my pov, not condescending to others because of theirs, which is how I took n9's comments. Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive on the topic--I've had more than my fair share of arguments (many of which I've gone on to regret) with profs and other film lovers about the nature of narrative. In this case, I simply didn't appreciate the ease of a dismissal of "you simply didn't understand." Perhaps I over reacted.
To your second paragraph: I agree with you. There were many scenes in the film which were lovely and very touching, which is why I stuck around till the end. But to my recollection (and I could be wrong--I will see the film again on dvd), none of those scenes had anything whatsoever to do with Gondry's wizardry. The scene you're referring to is exactly why I disliked the film--because those scenes were so fantastic that I wanted more of them. The nature of regret--the function of love--these are the themes of the film. These themes are not (to me) explored by the vanishing of fence posts or words on the spines of books. The emotion and tension of the story was competing with the visual when I, for one, couldn't give a shit about the fence posts and the books. I wanted to watch how love and regret affect the characters. I got that... to some extent. But the hint of them that came with what I was shown promised a much deeper exploration--instead, time that could have been used to affect me was spent repeating over and over visual tricks which--once gotten out of the way--did not need to be dwelled upon. As Mamet once wrote, "You don't need to do any beat twice. We've already gone down the stairs. We don't need to go down them again."
As I said in my first post, I think people should see the film (that's saying a lot these days). However, my disappointment comes from the fact that it could have been a film that people must see. To me, it fell short of that.
posted by dobbs at 5:15 PM on March 23, 2004
To your second paragraph: I agree with you. There were many scenes in the film which were lovely and very touching, which is why I stuck around till the end. But to my recollection (and I could be wrong--I will see the film again on dvd), none of those scenes had anything whatsoever to do with Gondry's wizardry. The scene you're referring to is exactly why I disliked the film--because those scenes were so fantastic that I wanted more of them. The nature of regret--the function of love--these are the themes of the film. These themes are not (to me) explored by the vanishing of fence posts or words on the spines of books. The emotion and tension of the story was competing with the visual when I, for one, couldn't give a shit about the fence posts and the books. I wanted to watch how love and regret affect the characters. I got that... to some extent. But the hint of them that came with what I was shown promised a much deeper exploration--instead, time that could have been used to affect me was spent repeating over and over visual tricks which--once gotten out of the way--did not need to be dwelled upon. As Mamet once wrote, "You don't need to do any beat twice. We've already gone down the stairs. We don't need to go down them again."
As I said in my first post, I think people should see the film (that's saying a lot these days). However, my disappointment comes from the fact that it could have been a film that people must see. To me, it fell short of that.
posted by dobbs at 5:15 PM on March 23, 2004
Maybe I misunderstood your quarrel with the film. I thought you didn't like the whole central conceit of it -- I thought you found the mind-erasing procedure idea gimmicky and distracting from the story. For me, this idea was central to my enjoyment of the film. You don't get the scene under the quilt, followed by intense regret, without the central conceit because normally it's too hard to show that sort of reevaluation of a relationship without descending into icky flashback territory. We get a story basically told backwards, with commentary from the present, for a reason that makes thematic sense to the audience. Not just the story, but meaningful commentary on the story by the two people who were involved in it. Lovely.
But maybe you have no problem with most of that, and really only just minded the special effects. As you say, fair enough. All I can say is, the effects I noticed I found almost poetic -- the blurring of the faces, the picket fence that toppled like a row of dominoes, the beachhouse that crumbled as the affair was ending/beginning. Maybe I'm not as big a film buff as you and am not as conscious of technique. (Fwiw, Slate has done an interesting article about how the film's approach to memory and memory loss jibe with modern science.) After movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings, though, I really didn't think any of this was excessive. Again, you're allowed your own reaction; I just had a different one.
I might have been less moved if there had been more wizardry and less depth to the story, so I will give you that. But for me there was plenty to chew on about the nature of love and mating, and I think the film accomplished great things. But, you know, peace.
posted by onlyconnect at 9:07 PM on March 23, 2004
But maybe you have no problem with most of that, and really only just minded the special effects. As you say, fair enough. All I can say is, the effects I noticed I found almost poetic -- the blurring of the faces, the picket fence that toppled like a row of dominoes, the beachhouse that crumbled as the affair was ending/beginning. Maybe I'm not as big a film buff as you and am not as conscious of technique. (Fwiw, Slate has done an interesting article about how the film's approach to memory and memory loss jibe with modern science.) After movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings, though, I really didn't think any of this was excessive. Again, you're allowed your own reaction; I just had a different one.
I might have been less moved if there had been more wizardry and less depth to the story, so I will give you that. But for me there was plenty to chew on about the nature of love and mating, and I think the film accomplished great things. But, you know, peace.
posted by onlyconnect at 9:07 PM on March 23, 2004
I thought you found the mind-erasing procedure idea gimmicky and distracting from the story.
No, I just found the way the filmmakers communicated the mind-erasing too gimicky. Memory as it relates to love and intimate experiences is one of my favorite themes and in fact it was at the center of my own most personal project. My complaint is that once the concept is established it became the focus, rather than the vehicle, so to speak.
I'm trying to think of another film to use as example or analogy to better explain what I mean but it's such a fine line between presentation and idea that it's difficult. A perhaps ridiculous parallel can be drawn to any good horror movie. Take Jaws, for instance. The filmmaker establishes the shark in the first sequence and the shark is only re-introduced to the narrative when most dramatic. The hunt for the shark is the crux of the story. But how often is the shark actually on screen? Not very long. In the 125 minute film, the shark's onscreen for maybe 15 mins (if that). Yet we know it's a movie "about a shark". But for the other 110 minutes we learn about these characters thanks to the vehicle that is the shark. What I wanted, and what I expected based on the pre-credit sequence of ESotSM--and what I thought would have made a more powerful film--was a story where the memory loss was the shark and the effects of that memory loss and the characters trying to overcome it were the hunt.
Perhaps I'm an idiot for "wanting" anything from a film. However, that want had to come from somewhere. I think it came from the tone / characters / pace / interaction--the promise--of the first 7 or 8 mins of the film.
I won't argue that the script had unique (for hollywood) things to say aboout love, life, and leaving, so to speak, and that these things were presented in "interesting" ways. I just don't think "interesting" is necessarily a good enough reason to go with something.
Different strokes...
posted by dobbs at 10:56 PM on March 23, 2004
No, I just found the way the filmmakers communicated the mind-erasing too gimicky. Memory as it relates to love and intimate experiences is one of my favorite themes and in fact it was at the center of my own most personal project. My complaint is that once the concept is established it became the focus, rather than the vehicle, so to speak.
I'm trying to think of another film to use as example or analogy to better explain what I mean but it's such a fine line between presentation and idea that it's difficult. A perhaps ridiculous parallel can be drawn to any good horror movie. Take Jaws, for instance. The filmmaker establishes the shark in the first sequence and the shark is only re-introduced to the narrative when most dramatic. The hunt for the shark is the crux of the story. But how often is the shark actually on screen? Not very long. In the 125 minute film, the shark's onscreen for maybe 15 mins (if that). Yet we know it's a movie "about a shark". But for the other 110 minutes we learn about these characters thanks to the vehicle that is the shark. What I wanted, and what I expected based on the pre-credit sequence of ESotSM--and what I thought would have made a more powerful film--was a story where the memory loss was the shark and the effects of that memory loss and the characters trying to overcome it were the hunt.
Perhaps I'm an idiot for "wanting" anything from a film. However, that want had to come from somewhere. I think it came from the tone / characters / pace / interaction--the promise--of the first 7 or 8 mins of the film.
I won't argue that the script had unique (for hollywood) things to say aboout love, life, and leaving, so to speak, and that these things were presented in "interesting" ways. I just don't think "interesting" is necessarily a good enough reason to go with something.
Different strokes...
posted by dobbs at 10:56 PM on March 23, 2004
Look, I am sorry to quibble endlessly with you, but I just don't agree.
The thing that gets tiresome about shark movies is the same shark comes up and rips off a leg or an arm in the same sharky way, and it gets old unless you use it sparingly, and in doing so build tension with it.
But ESotSM is not a shark movie and the special effects did not get tiresome for me in the same way. First, I disagree with you that they became the focus of the film. To me, the memories themselves were the focus, and the moments with the special effects functioned as bridges or narrative clues, signifying the end of each memory and telling the audience that Lacuna had caught up with Joel and Clementine.
Second, I'd be surprised if the special effects hijinks (with the exception of the man-baby, perhaps) took up more than 15 minutes of the film. Most of the film was made up of the memories themselves, not the collapsing fencepost moments, which took, like, seconds.
Third, it's not like they did the same special effect over and over. One minute Joel is moving from a dark room with the lights shutting off like some malfunctioning airport runway, the next minute he's a man-baby. I'm not sure what Mamet would make of Kaufman going down the man-baby stairs, but I'd be surprised if his complaint would be along the lines of, "oh no, not the man-baby stairs again."
(I take it from your earlier comments that you didn't like that particular scene. I thought it offered some helpful comic relief when the movie was starting to look pretty dark while showing us that angsty adult Joel was also an angsty toddler.)
Anyway, clearly we're not going to convince one another. Just offering another perspective.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:45 AM on March 24, 2004
The thing that gets tiresome about shark movies is the same shark comes up and rips off a leg or an arm in the same sharky way, and it gets old unless you use it sparingly, and in doing so build tension with it.
But ESotSM is not a shark movie and the special effects did not get tiresome for me in the same way. First, I disagree with you that they became the focus of the film. To me, the memories themselves were the focus, and the moments with the special effects functioned as bridges or narrative clues, signifying the end of each memory and telling the audience that Lacuna had caught up with Joel and Clementine.
Second, I'd be surprised if the special effects hijinks (with the exception of the man-baby, perhaps) took up more than 15 minutes of the film. Most of the film was made up of the memories themselves, not the collapsing fencepost moments, which took, like, seconds.
Third, it's not like they did the same special effect over and over. One minute Joel is moving from a dark room with the lights shutting off like some malfunctioning airport runway, the next minute he's a man-baby. I'm not sure what Mamet would make of Kaufman going down the man-baby stairs, but I'd be surprised if his complaint would be along the lines of, "oh no, not the man-baby stairs again."
(I take it from your earlier comments that you didn't like that particular scene. I thought it offered some helpful comic relief when the movie was starting to look pretty dark while showing us that angsty adult Joel was also an angsty toddler.)
Anyway, clearly we're not going to convince one another. Just offering another perspective.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:45 AM on March 24, 2004
dobbs: I find it interesting that you felt that I was addressing you when I posted earlier. Well I suppose it was nice to be your strawman. Good luck with everything!
posted by n9 at 6:14 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by n9 at 6:14 AM on March 24, 2004
onlyconnect, yeah, I'm sure neither of us will convince the other. As I said, the Jaws analogy isn't a great one, just the first one that popped in my head. Had the shark in Jaws been on screen the whole middle movie (whether that be a fin, the whole thing, the tail, a ripple in the water, whatever), I wouldn't have cared about the characters. That's my prob with ES. Once the memory machine's on his head, the movie (to me) became about escaping the memory loss (as shown by the special effects, in whatever form they took) rather than what happens to a relationship as a result of the memory loss. Instead of how will the memory loss change these characters it became "Run from the memory loss machine!" (Whether that running be physical or "mental"--get to another, deeper memory.)
You're right, though. We should just agree to disagree.
n9, yeah, whatever.
posted by dobbs at 8:51 AM on March 24, 2004
You're right, though. We should just agree to disagree.
n9, yeah, whatever.
posted by dobbs at 8:51 AM on March 24, 2004
Okay, you're right. I'm convinced.
*letters from post drop off of page like a beaded necklace, breaking*
Nope, looks like I still disagree. I don't think the film was ever about "what happens to a relationship as a result of the memory loss." But I challenge you to find another film where the entire relationship is replayed and the characters talk meaningfully about each part to one another, reinterpreting their entire history with the benefit of hindsight. Because "memory as it relates to love and intimate experiences" is a favorite theme of yours, I'd think you'd be fascinated by this, and yet, no.
I won't post again, though, so the last word is yours, if you want it.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:43 AM on March 24, 2004
*letters from post drop off of page like a beaded necklace, breaking*
Nope, looks like I still disagree. I don't think the film was ever about "what happens to a relationship as a result of the memory loss." But I challenge you to find another film where the entire relationship is replayed and the characters talk meaningfully about each part to one another, reinterpreting their entire history with the benefit of hindsight. Because "memory as it relates to love and intimate experiences" is a favorite theme of yours, I'd think you'd be fascinated by this, and yet, no.
I won't post again, though, so the last word is yours, if you want it.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:43 AM on March 24, 2004
I'd think you'd be fascinated by this, and yet, no.
onlyconnect, I am fascinated by it. Doesn't mean I can't be disappointed in it as well. To me, the biggest disappointments in film or any art come from the near misses. Who was it that said, "Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are 'it might have been.'"? That sums up my thoughts on the film.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
posted by dobbs at 6:46 PM on March 24, 2004
onlyconnect, I am fascinated by it. Doesn't mean I can't be disappointed in it as well. To me, the biggest disappointments in film or any art come from the near misses. Who was it that said, "Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are 'it might have been.'"? That sums up my thoughts on the film.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
posted by dobbs at 6:46 PM on March 24, 2004
dobbs: 9 out of 33 posts describing all the reasons why he *doesn't* like the movie.
such is the interweb.
posted by n9 at 5:37 AM on March 28, 2004
such is the interweb.
posted by n9 at 5:37 AM on March 28, 2004
wtf n9? so, if my posts were in favor of the movie you'd deem it okay for me to speak? get over yourself.
posted by dobbs at 5:47 PM on March 28, 2004
posted by dobbs at 5:47 PM on March 28, 2004
Sunshine: Yeah, I noticed that "Mama Carrey" thing, also! Nobody else in the group I saw it with did, so it's nice to come here and be reassured. *8) Odd.
I thought it was a good movie, but not up to the "best of the decade" sort of fanfare. Got me thinking about story and presentation and so on. What would it have been like if the only time-bending tricks had been inside his memory (all the "real-world" scenes presented in the right order)? Hard to say.
posted by davidchess at 5:17 PM on April 4, 2004
I thought it was a good movie, but not up to the "best of the decade" sort of fanfare. Got me thinking about story and presentation and so on. What would it have been like if the only time-bending tricks had been inside his memory (all the "real-world" scenes presented in the right order)? Hard to say.
posted by davidchess at 5:17 PM on April 4, 2004
A bit late to be posting here, I know - but has anyone else read the original screenplay?
Does anyone know who chopped the 50-years-later business (I think it was a good decision to get rid of it; I'm just curious as to whether it was kaufman's choice...)
posted by dmd at 6:50 PM on April 4, 2004
Does anyone know who chopped the 50-years-later business (I think it was a good decision to get rid of it; I'm just curious as to whether it was kaufman's choice...)
posted by dmd at 6:50 PM on April 4, 2004
« Older The Grace Of Wrath | Or maybe it would be better to not ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Regardless, I just saw his latest movie. Beautiful beginning and ending. Horrible middle; I almost walked out more than once. Oh, if only a different director had done it. The middle was a music video without the music.
posted by dobbs at 6:31 PM on March 22, 2004