I first saw it when I was about 28 and loved it. Have people's tastes changed too much to watch a film like this?
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
I think there'll always be an audience for a film like this, but it may indeed be growing smaller & smaller as times change.
shareSeveral of the film's "current events" references (Girl in car with Ted Kennedy, Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan, Shah of Iran, Albert Spear, etc.) are way too dated and of minor cultural interest now, so some of the narrative will have little, if any relevance to those under 30.
Ben
aka Toadrunner. "The Road is life." -Jack Kerouac
I'm 28 and I loved it.
It's a movie made in 1981, so yes, it will have a few references that relate more to that time than to today. However, these don't take up much of the narrative at all, and we can fill in the blanks with similar issues from our own generation.
The cultural problems they're REALLY talking about have only become worse and more relevant over the decades. This is a movie far ahead of it's time.
[deleted]
I was about to say yes then I realized I am 33 now.
shareI'm 23, and I loved it... I'm in a place in my life where I just graduated from college (I studied Fine Arts) and I feel insecure not just about my future but also about my present life.
Time itself is a very strange thing, why can I feel so relieved and related to this movie that was filmed almost 20 years ago, with a different context and where characters are also older than myself? I'm not even from the US, I can't even speak english properly but I just felt this film has no time... nor did it appear as a confrontation between two people on their perspectives of life, but I could also relate to both of them, as I watched I agreed with Andre as much as I agreed with Wally
I don't know if my post made sense, I feel a little cloudy because i just finished watching the movie plus my english skills doesn't really help... the point was that yes, I'm under 30 and I loved it, and I'm sure many of my friends would love it too.
Being from England, I often have a bit of a hard time understanding the "American" way of viewing things. I found much of interest in this film, but when I came back after a good twenty minutes in the loo, it seemed like nothing at all had happened while I was gone.
Does this film, perhaps, require a more subtle mind than mine to mine its hidden gems?
Frankly, if my friend hadn't urged me to ask this question, I'd hardly inflict myself upon this board, because some movies are made for some, while others are made for others. And I respect all opinions, whether or not they are disagreeable.
Since this is a filmed conversation, nothing really happens. Andre disappears for a number of years, his friends and acquaintances think he has had a breakdown (or mid-life crisis), and Wally asks him what did he do during that time. Andre recounts various experiences. There is no conventional plot.
Like a conversation you might have with friends, you may have to take a trip to the loo and catch up when you get back. By the end of the movie the Wally and Andre reflect on all the anecdotes and sum up their points of view.
There are some hidden gems, but the film isn't just about the ideas. It's also about the art of conversation, how two people from different perspectives can explore ideas. They find some common ground, agree on some things and disagree about others. They remain friends.
In 1981, audiences hadn't seen anything like this before. Movies like Mindwalk, Before Sunrise, Waking Life owe a lot to My Dinner with Andre.
There is a story arc. Wally comes to have a better understanding of his friend. Andre has his fundamental beliefs challenged but if anything it deepens his friendship for Wally. Two men start the evening with formal civility and end with an affirmation of personal intimacy. This leads Wally into a final review of his place in the world.
Not a conventional arc, but an arc nonetheless.