MovieChat Forums > Synecdoche, New York (2009) Discussion > My theory on the film

My theory on the film

posted 8 years ago by gpwiseguy8
3 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this film for the first time, and I was absolutely blown away. Never has a film resounded with me on such a level. After a few minutes of processing my thoughts, I believe I have conjured my theory/interpretation of Synecdoche, New York. I believe that the entire film is somewhat of a hay dream, a "life flashing before your eyes" sequence. Except in this case, Caden, in the final moment before his suicide, is imagining the life he would have had had he chose to live on. That is why everything is so representative and surreal throughout the movie (Hazel's burning house, the endless cast of his play, the entire concept of the play, etc). That second encompasses the greater part of a theoretical lifetime, filled with loneliness and sorrow. But right before the end of his sad, pathetic existence, at the end of this nightmare that would have been his life, is an epiphany. Caden sees what he could have done with his life, how wonderful it could have been. But it was too late; he had already pulled the trigger. It took death for Caden to see what there was in life, but he would never experience it. There was no going back, no changing his mind; Caden was dead.

[–] MaxRenn2 8 years ago

I think that reading too much into it as a "suicide" thing or a "life flashing before your eyes" is going the wrong way. This is not the kind of movie where it's a big mystery as to what is actually happening, and Kaufman is not necessarily inviting the viewer to have such theories. He's not making this a puzzle movie. When you hear dialogue like "Why did you [kill youself]?" or "Caden Cotard is a man already dead," it's not as if Caden is physically dead (he was stopped before he jumped, as he tells Sammy, and he certainly did not shoot himself as you say). It's all just a metaphor, and you have to consider that the film is in part an absurdist comedy that exists in Kaufman's own fantasy land of idosyncrasies. What is or isn't "reality" in the film is not as important as the themes concerning the drive to create meaningful art about the reality of being human.

[–] thomaskellar21 8 years ago

His take wasn't wrong by any means. The movie is meant to be interpreted by each individual. That's why Kaufman doesn't say himself what it's all about. I don't necessarily agree with the original post either, but there are some good points. The film is so complex. There are a lot of things that can give a lot of different interpretations off. It's really a beautiful film.

[–] montrossboc-1 8 years ago

To me, this film is taking place in another dimension's version of earth. PSH keeps saying how there MILLIONS of people on this planet, so it is certainly not taking place on our planet, so the rules are obviously not the same. And it is kind of portrayed like Paris is a 3 to 5 hour train ride from where PSH is.

I think it is a brilliant film, although it takes awhile to pick up steam.

I certainly can understand why some film fans can't understand it, or are frustrated by it.

It is truly not my type of film, but the strangeness of it insisted I watch it a 2nd and 3rd time, at which point I realized this was not our planet Earth, and I started to realize some of the rules of their planet.

Short Cut, Draw Blood