There's nothing visual with this. It's really just a filmed play. There aren't many camera setups. There isn't any character arch. It seems weird that they would hire a good director to take charge of something so simple.
shareIt took a gifted, sensitive director to create that simplicity & make it feel natural & organic, to make it work without calling attention to it working.
A character arc? No & yes. It begins as more of a slice-of-life movie, engaging the viewer in thought & speculation. But it's also a midlife movie, in which two men reassess not only their lives thus far, but their hopes & fears for the future, and most importantly of all, their friendship. How they talk with one another is just as important as what they talk about.
The literary critic Lionel Trilling said that a classic is a work that grows as you grow, I've seen this film many times since it first came out, and I always take away something new from it. It grows as I grow, it changes as I change, over time.
I'm also reminded of Ingmar Bergman's quote about the human face being the most gripping image a film can offer. This film offers that in plenty, not just their faces, but the gradual unveiling of their innermost feelings, fears, and dreams. And so, of our own innermost feelings, fears, and dreams. At least, that's what I get from it. Just my own response, of course.
This seems like an Ingmar Bergman film more than a Louis Malle film. This was essentially a filmed play. It didn't need the visuals. Bergman was a master of filming movies that looked like plays. He had a history of directing plays. But Louis Malle just seems like an odd choice.
shareApparently Wally & Andre sent the script to Malle, among several other directors, and he was not only interested, he was avid to direct it. I think he takes an unobtrusive but subtle approach, and it works well for this film. After many viewings, I can sit back at times & see how carefully he uses the camera in barely perceptible ways. Other directors might have been tempted to do more; he wisely chose to do as little as possible, or at least as little as could be obviously seen.
Of course, this is one of my favorite films, so I'm naturally prejudiced in its favor. :)
According to Woody Allen in his book "Apropos To Nothing" ...
Wally Shawn wrote the play "My Dinner With Andre" and wanted Woody to play his part.
I first was introduced by Juliet Taylor to Wally Shawn for a part in Manhattan. He played Keaton’s ex-husband, whom she’s always describing in these overpowering and sexually aggressive terms, and Wally’s persona is not like that. He’s quiet and thoughtful, naturally amusing. When we shot his scene in Manhattan the crew couldn’t stop laughing. He’s a great actor and a wonderful playwright, and he wrote this movie My Dinner with Andre, a two-hander, and the director, Louis Malle, asked me to play the man opposite Andre Gregory, but I just didn’t have the professional dedication to memorize the long speeches. Anyway, in the end Wally played the role and so much more brilliantly than I could have.Allen, Woody. Apropos of Nothing (pp. 219-220). Arcade. Kindle Edition.