I thoroughly disliked Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, mainly because it was too sloppily constructed for me to enjoy it. Is this movie along the same lines, enough where I would hate it as well?
A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.
Most likely. This one gets real surreal.
shareIt's not that I don't like surreal movies. Actually, my favorite movie is Mulholland Dr., and all of David Lnch's movies take me to another place, if you will. But I think that's the problem. I find Lynch's surrealism to be so good, that Kaufman's surrealism comes off as ameteurish, and even childish, in comparison.
It may also be that different minds appreciate different kinds of surrealism, but I have no proof of that.
The real reason I disliked ETOTSM is because, compared to a fragmented masterpiece such as Inland Empire, this seemed too "sloppy." I disliked every character, and some of the scenes inside Joel's mind looked as i they were thrown in for no other purpose than to throw my mind off balance (which they did, like when Elijah Wood's eyes were upside down).
With that in mind, will I like Synecdoche New York, or is it too similarly structured to ETOTSM for my tastes?
A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.
I like Synecdoche a lot more than Eternal Sunshine and I'm also a fan of Mulholland Dr. I don't know what to tell ya, just give Synecdoche a try.
shareDon't take this personally OP, but I don't understand how you can hate ESOTTM, and like Mullholland Drive, especially when your main gripe with ESOTTM was that it is too "sloppily constructed."
Event though the discourse of sunshine isn't linear, the movie is actually chronologically seamless. Perhaps you would enjoy the movie if you were given some context. Kaufman spent years writing this film, making sure that Clem and Joel's relationship was be presented truthfully and logically, and thus he pays careful attention to detail in the dynamics of their relationship. He is said in interviews that he has dates assigned to all of their encounters:
Check this out, it might help: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/faq#.2.1.7
I would never guess of fan of Mullholland and Synecdoche to be critical of construction! Both of those movies, to me, epitomize wonderfully conceived whose execution leads to confusing/inconsistent construction and narrative problems.
Don't worry, I don't take it personally. I realize that my opinion as posted on this thread may lead you to believe that I'm prejudiced against ETOTSM for a poorly backed-up reason. But in the time since I posted here, I have thought long and hard about why I don't like the film, and I have come up with a much better reason than "It's the wrong kind of trippy."
I have discovered that I have a major problem with all of the movies I have seen based on Kaufman's screenplays (Being John Malkovich, Sunshine, and Synecdoche, NY). My opinion of each of these movies in general varies (I did enjoy the other two), but the problem I have is this: each of these movies have protagonists who have unhealthy emotional relationships primarily driven by the "undeniable" urge to get laid, and they ruin their lives with it without even realizing their mistake.
Examples:
*Cameron Diaz's character in BJM is completely ridiculous in her psychotic need to screw her husband's mistress through the body of an A-list movie star. I can accept the premise easily enough, but I'm offended as a viewer that we're supposed to sympathize with and root for someone with such a deranged moral, emotional, and psychological compass. I mean, she turns into a lesbian? Who decided that people can "unlock" another side of their sexual orientation?
*Same with the main guy in SNY. He acts as if adultery couldn't possibly be the reason he is ruining his own life. Cheating on his wife and multiple girlfriends to fill voids in his life (and sanity) is not considered socially or morally frowned-upon behavior in the movie, and the audience is not taught the lesson that the protagonist deserves to learn.
*In Sunshine, the main characters had no depth, and I gave them no sympathy. I was upset with Kirsten Dunst's character because she resembled Diaz in BJM: only concerned with the insane kind of love, the kind that is addicted to sex and makes her obsess over the old scientist guy. Also, when she "deus ex maxchina"s her way out of the movie by sabotaging the mind-wiping process on Jim Carrey, I felt that the movie cheated my out of 100 minutes of my life. If you're going to throw trippy sci-fi crap into a movie, make sure it serves a purpose. By disposing of it right at the end, I feel like it had no purpose other than to show how irrational Carrey's and Winslet's characters were, which isn't even the message the movie tries to get across. The film wants us to root for these characters when they have no redeeming traits.
I hope this clarifies my feelings about Kaufman's screenplays. I'm sure this will spark a whole lotta arguing, but this is how I feel.
A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.
Raincoats,
I think you're onto something interesting about Kaufman's protagonists - the trend seems pretty obvious now that you've pointed it out. One can also add in Nicholas Cage as Kaufman in Adaptation, as a character who's driven largely by the desire to get laid.
This isn't terribly surprising - we're all spurred by our obsessions, and insecurity about sex must be one of Charlie Kaufman's. All writers have themes that show up persistently throughout their work.
I disagree with you about Cameron Diaz in Malkovich. First, I'm not sure she's meant to be someone we root for - the "straight man" in the movie is John Cusack, who Diaz's character ends up screwing over in a royal way. Secondly, it's not unheard of for people to "unlock" an aspect of their sexual orientation that had previously sat unacknowledged. I, for one, have no trouble imagining a woman "coming home" to Catherine Keener...
As for SNY and Cotard's adultery - the first instance only happened after his wife, to all appearances, lost all interest in him and left for Germany, so his marriage had effectively ended before his attempt with Hazel. He does seem indiscriminate in his relationships, and inattentive to the people he's in relationships with. While there wasn't a great emphasis in the movie that adultery is uniquely bad, it's part of the larger theme that was laid out most explicitly by the priest at the simulated funeral towards the end of the movie - every decision you make can end up screwing you, and you may not even know until decades after the fact; maybe never.
Tim Robey's review in the Telegraph summed the message up: "it's not enough to be clever, or funny, or to work hard, or even to come up with as big and tough and "truthful" an idea as this protagonist's, because we're all left broken, old, and desolate in the end.
Who we love ... matters more."
I think that even if you find that you hate the film, you'll find it an interesting experience. You'll either appreciate and admire it, or hate it in a memorable way.
It's definitely not one of those films where, a week later, you think to yourself, "I know I wasted two hours of my life on that film, but I can't remember a thing about it other than I was bored."
Personally, I'm in the middle on liking the film. I'd say it falls somewhere between great art and a noble failure.
I don't know how to put this, but your post just made sense to me. I am almost convinced by your words alone that what you said is true, about either my admiring it or memorably hating it. Never thought about it that way, but I feel like one of those choices will definitely happen. Thank you, everyone, for your input, but especially yours, steve.schonberger
A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.
On my movie rating scale, this movie got an 8. I found it pretty interesting throughout. One thing about it is, I thought the movie felt longer than any other that I had ever seen. Not a bad thing, mind you, but 124 minutes of this felt like it dwarfed the real longest movie I have ever seen (Return of the King). Also, this movie honestly got me scared a little of getting old and my mind/world/both becoming as deranged as the main character's was. I'm 17. *shiver*
Needless to say, I liked it more than ESotSM.
A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.
I'm pleased that my statement that you'd either find the film admirable or a memorable failure was useful. That's not something I'd say about a lot of films. (Another example that comes to mind is one Michel Gondry did after Eternal Sunshine, titled The Science of Sleep. I regarded it a memorable failure, with wonderful visuals, but the story seemed to lose focus. Since you didn't like Eternal Sunshine, I'd guess you'd dislike it.)
I find it interesting that you liked the film, but thought it felt even longer than it was. I guess the fact that it was thought-provoking kept you engaged. It certainly wasn't candy. (I don't mean that candy is necessarily bad. The last film I saw, Date Night was definitely candy, but I thought it was pretty good candy.)
I thought of some really long films worth mention. There's a four-hour cut of Das Boot that's fantastic. Unless you have a really strong aversion to war movies, the long version will really grab you, particularly if you can catch it at an art house theater or on a really great home theater. (It deserves a big screen and surround sound.) It really sucked me in, and time passed quickly.
Perhaps the ultimate in long films is The Human Condition, a three-part Japanese film set during World War II. Part one is 208 minutes, part two is 183 minutes, and part three is 196 minutes. The main character is a conscientious objector who begins the war doing alternative service managing a labor camp in China. It's considered a classic of anti-war films.
(I think I'm violating IMDB bulletin board rules slightly by mentioning other films, but I don't think I'm going too far out of line.)
i think it seems so long because there are sooooo many scenes. there isn't really a long scene in the whole movie, it's more like a collection of snapshots. so you feel like your taking in many more "events" than in a normal 2 hr movie.
shareI thought Eternal Sunshine was pretty awful but this I found to be quite fascinating I must say. Although it did seem long, it was very, very interesting.
shareIf you disliked Eternal Sunshine you'll despise this.
sharei disagree. these two films are way different from each other in my opinion. i honestly didn't like eternal sunshine, for it's dominated by content regarding "love" and everything seemed too compulsive. but this film, it feels different. we can probably summarize it by "the truth hurts". i don't want to reveal too much but it is exploring a much deeper substance. it's a matter of taste after all, so i'd recommend everyone to give this film a try, even they despise other works related to this film in any way.
share[deleted]