Synecdoche isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s a puzzle constructed with so much energy and imagination that it would be easy to mistake it for one. There’s no exaggerating the scope of Kaufman’s ideas here. Any attempt to try and summarize the film is pointless because, like any great and multi-layered work, it is what it is. If you want to fill in the rest of that sentence, you’ll need to see it for yourself.
Here’s what I can say for certain. The story starts in one place and finishes in quite another. Like a spiral of deeply neurotic plotting, the movie begins on a fairly level plain (Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a hypochondriac theatre-director with urges of infidelity for a co-worker played by Samantha Morton) but as the film progresses, the story gradually spins deeper and deeper into Kaufman lunacy. (The first signpost is when Samantha Morton purchases a house that is already on fire and then moves in as flames surround her). Time itself becomes malleable as the film leaps forward by years and Kaufman begins to stuff the story with more and more outrageous ideas.
By the time the film hits running speed, I found myself expecting one scene or another to be revealed as a dream or fantasy; however everything that happens is real for the characters. Kaufman cranks the meta-fiction meter until the fourth wall has been entirely blown out, and there are literally actors playing actors playing characters playing actors playing characters. Furthermore, a complex warehouse-sized set that Hoffman’s character has constructed for his “play” includes sets of the locations around the warehouse and also the warehouse itself (which includes a further replica of the warehouse and so on and so on). By the final act, the film has hit the mental dexterity of staring into infinite mirrors. It’s dazzling to unravel and virtually every disparate element works.
A lot of people left this movie scratching their heads and grumbling down the aisle. I can understand the feeling but found there was no shortage of enjoyment in the tangled chaos of Synecdoche. Still, despite the intellectual exercise, it’s not that hard to understand. I look forward to jumping back into Kaufman's bizarre meta-world again.
***
Toronto Stories ~ A mixed bag really. As an anthology of stories that unfold in Toronto, the film provides a lovely postcard of the city, and there’s a lot of fun to be had in recognizing familiar street corners and store fronts. However, as it relates to the “Stories” portion of the title, the film is a little uncooked. There are four vignettes of varying quality, all connected by the conceit of a young boy who has arrived to Toronto, escaped custody at Pearson Airport and wanders the city, unable to speak English.The stories as follows: in the first, two kids explore a local urban legend in a Riverdale park (which turns out to be not interesting at all). In the second (titled The Brazilian) Sook-Yin Lee plays one half of a pair of strangers who connect and try to navigate a new relationship. This segment is most notable for Lee’s courage showing the full monty (read the title again and understand what step she takes to impress her new man). The third segment is about a window washer who gets inadvertently tangled up with an old friend who has escaped prison to get revenge on an ex-girl-friend. And finally, in the last and most engaging section, Gil Bellows plays a homeless man who discovers the missing young boy from the airport and embarks on a mission to rescue the child. This section works by having the highest stakes and the greatest amount of emotional commitment (the first thing only skim the surface).
Overall, an interesting film which works half the time.
***
Unmistaken Child ~ Absolutely remarkable. I expected this documentary to tell an interesting story, but wasn’t prepared for something quite this rich and emotional. What looks to be a straight-forward plot (relatively speaking) about a Buddhist monk searching for the reincarnation of his Lama teacher turns out to be less about religious dogma and much more about the friendship between two monks.
There are two levels of emotional content here, both captured from a fascinating fly-on-the-wheel perspective. The
first is the journey of the central monk, who was the principle student of the Lama now believed to be reincarnated. The senior monk was a revered teacher (and father figure) who raised the junior monk from boyhood. Through the anecdotes he shares, it’s clear that there was deep friendship and affection shared between both men and that the young monk regards his quest as the most important task he could ever undertake (he describes it as “thousands and thousands of times more important” than his own life). What’s more: finding the reincarnated child sets up a beautiful cycle as the student becomes the teacher and carries the young boy in the same way he was once carried. (Shots of the two together, like uncle and nephew are striking. Also noteworthy is a scene in which the older monk shows the younger protege photographs of his former identity).The second current of emotion is that run by the parents who learn that their young son holds a greater calling; the discovery means a tremendous honour, and terrific emotional burden. After all, releasing the child to the monastery means they may never see him again (or at the very least, not until he is much older). The camera is gentle and respectful in the scenes between parents and child but captures all of the feeling that passes as the parents make their difficult choices. In all these scenes, it's remarkable how mature the child has already become.
But I have to say it again: what a freaking story!! At times, I found myself actually hoping that someone might take this incredible journey and turn it into a more traditional feature film, not to improve on the characters themselves (which are already rich and engaging), but just so that we might better appreciate the vibrant spectacle of the Buddhist religion (robes, ornaments, etc) and the deep beauty of Tibet and India. (The film seemed to be shot on video which did a good enough job, but often seems to undersell what must be truly dazzling imagery to the naked eye.)
This is an uncommon story that is as mysterious as it is miraculous. I marvel that the film maker was entitled to this level of coverage. I couldn’t have been more satisfied.
***
Is There Anybody There? ~ A charming British comedy about the friendship between a young boy who lives at his parents’ old-age home and a retired magician (Michael Caine) who stays there. And from that simple synopsis, you can probably figure out the rest of the film all by yourself.
This movie holds about as many surprises as a slow train arriving in Saskatchewan. All of the third act pay-offs are set up in plain formula language in the first half of the movie and as a result, I found this to the be the first film of the Film Festival (it’s #27 for me) to genuinely challenge my wakefulness. Michael Caine is very good as the grumpy former magician, but isn’t given much to do beyond the obvious range of old-people emotions (alternately grumpy and sad/lonely, in an effort to alienate or endear himself to the young protagonist.)
I really wish I could have liked this more.
No comments:
Post a Comment