Showing posts with label Charlie Kaufman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Kaufman. Show all posts

Friday, 20 March 2026

Synecdoche, New York (5 Stars)


"Synecdoche, New York" is one of the most ambitious, disorienting and emotionally punishing films of the 21st century; less a conventional narrative than a sustained immersion into consciousness, memory and decay.

Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman, the film follows theatre director Caden Cotard, played with extraordinary vulnerability by Philip Seymour Hoffman. At first, his problems seem recognisable: a failing marriage, a distant child and a growing catalogue of unexplained illnesses. What begins as a character study soon expands into something far more abstract and unsettling.

After receiving a MacArthur Fellowship, a seemingly unlimited grant, Caden embarks on a theatrical project of total realism. He rents a vast warehouse in New York and constructs a full-scale replica of the city inside it, populating it with actors who play real people, including actors who play the actors themselves. As the project grows across years, then decades, the boundary between representation and reality collapses. Time becomes unstable, identities blur and Caden loses any fixed sense of self.

Kaufman’s central idea, that art is both an attempt to capture life and an admission of its impossibility, unfolds through increasingly recursive layers. The warehouse becomes a physical expression of the mind: obsessive, self-referential and incapable of completion. Each attempt at authenticity pushes Caden further from it. The more detailed the simulation becomes, the less meaningful it feels.

Hoffman anchors the film emotionally. His Caden is not an eccentric visionary but an ordinary man overwhelmed by existence. His physical decline mirrors his inner disintegration, and the film’s emphasis on bodily decay, illness, ageing and fragility, gives it the texture of existential horror. Death is not distant here; it is constant and mundane.

The supporting cast, including Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams and Catherine Keener, reinforces the film’s shifting emotional terrain. Relationships begin, transform and dissolve without resolution. People drift in and out of Caden’s life with dreamlike abruptness; time seems to accelerate beyond comprehension.

Visually, the film moves from muted realism into quiet unreality. Spaces subtly distort, timelines overlap and the warehouse expands into something impossible. Kaufman avoids spectacle; the surreal elements emerge gradually, which makes them more disturbing.

What makes the film so challenging is its refusal of catharsis. There is no clear arc, no resolution and no comforting conclusion. Instead, it confronts the viewer with difficult ideas: that life exceeds understanding, that identity is unstable and that the search for meaning may itself be futile. Yet there is also a kind of tenderness. Even flawed, incomplete attempts at connection, in art or in life, are all that remain.

Over time, the film has come to be regarded as a modern masterpiece, though it remains divisive. Some find it deeply moving, others find it alienating or oppressive. Both responses feel appropriate. Kaufman is not aiming for entertainment; he is attempting to mirror the overwhelming complexity of being alive.

In the end, "Synecdoche, New York" lingers. It unsettles and gradually reshapes how one thinks about time, art and mortality. Few films demand so much; fewer reward that effort so completely.

Success Rate:  - 4.4

Sunday, 31 December 2023

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)


This is my last film of the year. It's one of the best films I know, in third place in my top 100 films list. I had another film in my list planned, but I changed my mind after hearing about the death of Tom Wilkinson yesterday. The cause of his death hasn't yet been named, but his family says that it was unexpected. A heart attack? Maybe.

The eulogies are already pouring in. They name his memorable films, usually starting with "The Full Monty". Most of them don't even mention "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". That's unfortunate, since it's his best film, but it's understandable, because he didn't play the main role. Or is it understandable? He only had a supporting role in "The Full Monty" as well.

I've written about "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" seven times, but I haven't included photos of him in any of the reviews. I'll make up for it now. It's a twisted love film between Joel Barish (Jim Carrie) and Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet), but there's also a love story between Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) and Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), most of it off screen.


Dr. Howard Mierzwiak has invented a machine that can selectively erase memories. He uses it to help people forget loved ones. He's had an affair with Mary that almost wrecked his marriage, so he used the machine to make her forget their affair. The procedure works, even though Mary still works in his practice as his assistant. What he didn't consider is that if she forgets that she was attracted to him she might fall in love with him a second time.


Is a one-way memory erasure enough? When she adoringly looks at him, how can he not be reminded of the hours of passion he shared in her arms?

It's a wonderful film, one of the best films I've ever watched. The trouble is that it's a complicated film. I remember seeing it the first time in the cinema in 2004. It took me about half an hour to understand what was happening, and it wasn't until I watched it again on DVD that I began to understand the subtleties. It's two stories being told at the same time, one in the correct order, the other in reverse chronology. These two stories interact with one another, making the film even more complicated. I could tell by my son Benjamin's reactions that he didn't understand the film. I'll have to watch it with him again.

Tom Wilkinson
5 February 1948 – 30 December 2023

Farewell to a grand actor. He's sadly missed. I'll have to watch some more of his films next week. Maybe even "The Full Monty".

Success Rate:  + 1.6

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Thursday, 17 November 2022

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)



It's Thursday again? I asked that question when I watched my last film, but the answer is different this time. It really is Thursday. What a coincidence!

This is one of my favourite films, third in my top 100 list. I've watched and reviewed it a few times. In the past I've concentrated on the film's philosophical aspects. Today I'll apply it to myself.

In 2002 I married someone, a beautiful young woman called Nicola. It was my second marriage, and I expected things to be better the second time round. I was wrong. It was Hell. We had one year of happiness and three years of suffering. It was all about drugs. A year after the marriage one of Nicola's friends stayed with us for a few days. Her boyfriend, Alexis Thomas, was a drug dealer. He said that Nicola should try crack, just once, to see what it's like. When it comes to drugs there's no such thing as "just once". She was hooked immediately.

At first she enjoyed smoking crack. After a while she realised it was harmful to her, and she wanted to stop, but she couldn't. I felt it was my duty to help her, but I couldn't. Her setbacks became my setbacks. In late 2006 there was a turning point. One evening she rang Alexis to tell him she wanted to buy crack from him. I locked the doors, took away her key, and I said I wouldn't let him in. She threatened to call the police and tell them I'd hit her. I thought she was bluffing, but she really did it. When the police came she was lying on the floor in the living room, saying she was too injured to get up after I'd been beating her.

The police arrested me. I was put in a cell briefly, but then they let me out and said that it was obvious from the start that I hadn't hit her. There were no bruises, and the telephone cable (landline) was too short for her to reach from her position lying on the floor. They'd only arrested me to keep the peace. The police station was too far away from my home, so I had to stay until morning. I sat playing chess with a police officer all night. When I got home Alexis had already left, but she was high on crack.

That incident scared me. If it happened again, the police might believe her next time. I didn't want a criminal record, so I gave up trying to help her and planned to leave her as soon as possible.


That brings me to the film. Would I want to forget Nicola? Would I want to erase her from my memory? (I'm assuming that my readers have seen the film and know what I'm talking about). My answer is a clear No. We had some beautiful times together, times which I never want to forget. Admittedly, the good times were few, but I'd like to hold on to them.

What about the bad times? There were many, many bad incidents in our marriage. The one I named above wasn't even the worst, even though it was the one that persuaded me to leave her. Some of my friends know more details, and they're shocked. Nicola made me suffer terribly, and I consider marrying her to be the worst mistake of my life. But do I want to forget what happened? In a way I do. They were things that no man should have to experience. On the other hand, remembering these experiences protects me from similar mistakes in the future. If I'd erased Nicola from my memory, I might have met her again a year later and got into a relationship with her again. Or maybe not. As far as I know, she's never overcome her addiction to crack. I would never have fallen in love with a drug addict. But I still like to remember the bad times as a warning. I try not to think about them. I push the memories into the back of my mind, but they're still there if I need to remember.

In 2012 my friend Brian Farmer was murdered. Four suspects were arrested, three men and a woman, but they weren't named until the trial began. One of my friends said to me, "I think the woman is Nicola". As it turned out, it wasn't her, but it shows how bad her reputation was.

In the film Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst) begins as a strong supporter of the memory erasure technique, and she ends up rejecting it. She was right to change her mind.

Saturday, 11 September 2021

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)



Today is the 11th of September. The day is most commonly known as 9/11, based on the (illogical) American order of Month-Day-Year. Most people are talking about the event that took place 20 years ago today. I acknowledge it, but I prefer not to dwell on bad things in the past. I want to concentrate on positive things, such as films. I posted something about the 9/11 attack on the 10th anniversary, but I deleted the post a few months later because I was getting abusive anonymous comments. It's one of the few blog posts that I've ever deleted.


I don't know how well known this film is among my younger readers. It was a box office success when it was released in 2004, but nowadays it's rarely shown on television. That's a question I'd like to ask any of my readers under 30: have you seen this film? Leave your answer in the comments box.

The name is quite a mouthful, unusually long for a film title. The longest title in my personal collection is "The Incredibly Strange Creatures who stopped living and became Mixed-Up Zombies". In Germany the title has been shortened to "Don't forget me". I admit that the German title is more relevant to the film's content, but the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman wanted a long title. It's claimed that his first title suggestion was 18 words long, but I haven't been able to verify this. The final title is a quote from Alexander Pope's poem "Eloisa to Abelard", spoken by Kirsten Dunst as Mary Svevo in the film:

How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned.

I prefer her other quote, by Friedrich Nietzsche, even though it contradicts the film's message:

Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders.

At its core, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is a love story, despite its underplayed science fiction background. If you've never seen the film before, you're in for a treat. The opening credits are delayed for almost 18 minutes. In the pre-credits sequence Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) spontaneously takes a day off work to spend a day on the beach in Montauk. It's Valentine's Day 2004. He's approached by Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet), who blatantly forces herself on him. She talks to him in the train and doesn't even stop when he tells her he would rather be left alone. That evening she invites him home for a drink and leans against him romantically. She says that they should get married.

Stop!

If that happened to me I'd think that I'm dealing with a mentally deranged person. I'd run as fast as I can.

It's true that Clementine is eccentric, but she's far from deranged. The story unfolds after the credits.


The film is an emotional roller coaster. It's best known for its surreal special effects, but concentrate on the tragic young couple. All relationships have problems, some more than others. Walking away and forgetting your partner is the coward's way out. Love will find a way.


Clementine believes in love. It's written on her shirt. I've been unable to identify the shirt, because the text is hidden beneath her breasts. Some people claim it's "Love is a magic carpet ride", but the picture doesn't match that shirt.


Obviously. Does anyone have the right answer? Once more: use the comments box!

Success Rate:  + 1.6

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Saturday, 17 April 2021

Adaptation (5 Stars)



Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.


Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.


Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.


In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 19 December 2018

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)


First of all, I have to make an apology to my regular readers. I'm being visited by two of my children for the next three weeks, so I expect I shall have less time to write my blog. I'll be watching as many films as usual, because they'll be watching films with me, but I shan't have as much time for myself as I usually have. I'll still be writing about every film I watch, but my reviews will be shorter.

I don't have a full viewing schedule for the next three weeks, but I already know what I'll be watching for the next three days. While chatting with my son I found out that he hasn't yet seen my three favourite films, so I'll be watching them with him in reverse order. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is my third favourite film.

It's a mind-bending science fiction story, but more than anything else it's a moving love story. It's a very untypical role for Jim Carrey. It's not his only serious film, but it's the film in which we see the least of his comic personality. The only comic relief in the film is supplied by Kate Winslet.


Does the film have a message? The message that I take from it is that it's better to remember than forget, but there any many other angles from which it can be watched. Maybe another message is that it's only possible to discover the value of what you have by starting again from the beginning.

The film only one one Academy Award, for the Best Original Screenplay. It should have won more.

Success Rate:  + 1.6

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

Anomalisa (4¼ Stars)


Michael Stone is a customer service expert who is scheduled to make a speech at a sales convention in Cincinatti. He has a problem. Everyone in his life sounds the same to him. The voices of everyone in his life, male or female, even his own family members, sound identical. In his hotel he meets a plain-looking woman called Lisa who sounds different to everyone else. He falls in love with her and decides to leave his wife to be with her.

This is a fascinating parable about inter-personal relationships from the brilliant mind of Charlie Kaufman. Tragic and comic scenes are seamlessly woven together. After watching "Anomalisa" today my main impression was of being overwhelmed by a film with such depth of meaning that I was incapable of taking it all in. This is a film that needs repeated viewing before I can make a detailed analysis. On the other hand, I've watched "Adaptation" many times over and I'm still no closer to writing a full psycho-analytical analysis. Let's see how successful I can be with "Anomalisa" after a few viewings.

Sunday, 13 December 2015

Adaptation (5 Stars)


This year the film "Legend" was shown in which one actor, Tom Hardy, played two characters, the Kray twins. It might seem like a novel gimmick to have an actor play both twins, but it's something that has been done repeatedly in the history of cinema. In 1929 William Bakewell played Louis XIV and his unnamed twin brother in "The Iron Mask". In 1946 Douglas Fairbanks played the twins Mario and Lucien Franchi in "The Corsican Brothers". Of course, in the early days of cinema technology was limited. It was difficult to put the same actor in the same picture twice without cutting film frames in half, or maybe using a stand-in in double shoots with his face hidden.

In 2002 Nicolas Cage was cast to play both of the Kaufman twins, Charlie and Donald, in "Adaptation". No other film comes as close to highlighting Nicolas Cage's brilliance as an actor. Charlie Kaufman is insecure, full of self-loathing. Donald Kaufman is self-confident, happily sailing through life, naively oblivious when people speak badly of him behind his back. (On a side note, the Economist once praised German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for dealing with problems by not noticing them until they were gone). The relationship between the twins is even more poignant. Donald, on the left in the picture above, loves and idolises his brother. Charlie's feelings are more complex: he has affection for Donald, but he considers him to be stupid and an embarrassment. Nevertheless, Charlie would like to be more like Donald.

My regular readers will realise that it's no coincidence that I've shown a screenshot where the two characters are reading books. Charlie is reading "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, the book which he is attempting to adapt into a screenplay. Donald is reading "Story" by Robert McKee, a book of instructions on how to be a successful screenwriter. The authors of both books appear in the film, played by Meryl Streep and Brian Cox respectively.

In real life Charlie Kaufman doesn't have a brother. In the context of the film it's obvious to interpret this as a multiple personality disorder. Donald is writing a screenplay in which a police detective and a serial killer are the same person, which the detective doesn't realise when he's pursuing the killer, or even when the killer holds the detective prisoner. We can interpret the film as Charlie being held prisoner by his other self, unable to escape until he kills him.

Robert McKee

However, there's another way to interpret Donald Kaufman. Donald represents Robert McKee, while Charlie represents the real Charlie Kaufman. They are two screenwriters, but on opposite poles of creativity. Robert McKee has all the answers. "Follow my 10 rules of screenwriting and you'll be rich". Charlie Kaufman struggles to do something original, knowing the rules but deliberately breaking them. Supposedly Charlie dislikes Robert (or at least what Robert stands for) in real life. "Adaptation" is Charlie's way of dealing with him. If Robert says don't use voice-over, he'll use it throughout the movie. If Robert says don't use a deus ex machina, he'll throw in an alligator in the final scene.

"Adaptation" is as much an adaptation of "Story" as it is of "The Orchid Thief". The joint adaptations go in different directions. "The Orchid Thief" is a sprawling non-narrative which has been developed into a coherent plot. The story emerged from the primeval ooze and developed into an upright piece of fiction. "Story" is a well-organised book, but it's reduced into chaos, being smashed to pieces by the end of the film. It's evolution versus entropy.

"Adaptation" is probably the most brilliant screenplay ever written. Its depth and nuances make it an ideal topic for a film studies PhD thesis. Probably someone has already written a thesis about it. If I find a thesis on this film I'll ask the author for permission to publish it in full on my blog, because I know that nothing I write myself could ever say enough about the film.

Thursday, 26 November 2015

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)


30 films to watch before you die, #26

I need to write this down before I forget it.

This film was written by Charlie Kaufman. It was directed by Michel Gondry, but that's of lesser relevance. Films written by Charlie Kaufman have a distinctive style, whoever the director is. He enjoys a unique role in today's film culture. Most people who watch films can name the most popular actors. Serious film fans can name their favourite directors. But how many people can name screenwriters (not including the directors who write their own scripts)? I can only name one: Charlie Kaufman.


My memory is beginning to fade.

The film may have confused people when it was made. It stars Jim Carrey in the lead role, and at the time the film was released people still thought of him as a comedy actor, despite his serious roles in "The Truman Show" and "The Majestic". This led to the film being incorrectly labelled a comedy, even on the cover of the American DVD box. If anything, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is the most serious role he has ever played. The only small hint of his humorous self is the way he gets stuck in train doors in the pre-opening credits sequence.


It's all getting so difficult to remember. Let me name another few films written by Charlie Kaufman before it's too late:

I'm sure there was something else I wanted to say. Let me check my notes, if I can remember where I put them.


I'm sorry, I can't remember what film I was writing about.

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Adaptation (5 Stars)


"You are what you love, not what loves you" (Donald Kaufman).

This is probably the cleverest film ever made. Note that I didn't say the best. Whether or not you like it will depend on whether or not you like intelligent films. A film that just uses action to entertain the audience isn't necessarily a bad film. I enjoy action films. Some films go halfway by containing deep philosophical thoughts or political messages. Good films as well. But then there's "Adaptation". From the beginning to the end it sets out to puzzle the viewer. It's a true story. It's also a work of fiction. But where is the dividing line? When the film reaches its final scene where the film's screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, dictates what he's doing into a voice recorder we still don't know where to draw the line between fiction and reality.

Basically, the film is about Charlie Kaufman writing the screenplay of a film about himself writing a screenplay about himself. That would be enough in itself to make most people's head spin, but the confusion runs deeper. Charlie Kaufman -- the real Charlie Kaufman who wrote "Adaptation" -- would be a psychiatrist's dream patient. In the film he invents a twin brother who is his complete opposite, then kills him and gives him the credit for writing his screenplay. That's not just in the film, or in the film about the film, it's in real life. Donald Kaufman, a man who has never existed, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2003, making him the only person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award who didn't exist. After killing his brother Charlie becomes his brother.

This is a film that deserves a full psycho-analytical analysis. I'm afraid to attempt it myself, because I'm sure that whatever I write I'll look at it a week later and realise that I've left out half of the film's meaning.

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Being John Malkovich (4½ Stars)

I have been to the dark side, I have seen a world that no man should see.


Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is an unemployed puppeteer in New York. He lives in a basement apartment with his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz) and her many exotic pets, which include parrots, iguanas and chimpanzees. He takes a temporary job as a filing clerk. One evening, while working late, he finds a secret door hidden behind a filing cabinet. This door leads into John Malkovich's head. Anyone who enters can see through John Malkovich's eyes for 15 minutes, after which he's thrown out onto the grass at the side of the New Jersey Turnpike.

This seemingly absurd film throws up so many philosophical questions. The first time you watch it you have to laugh. You could mistakenly think you're watching a Woody Allen film. After you see it the second time you begin to see the bigger issues. It's a film about reality, identity, gender roles and control.

When I first saw this film I gave all the credit to the writer, Charlie Kaufman. He's written several amazing films, including "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I paid no attention to the director Spike Jonze, who has made his career directing music videos. After seeing "Her" earlier this year, which Spike Jonze both wrote and directed, I can look back and see his influence on this film.


This message appeared at the end of the credits. All the characters portrayed in the film are fictitious? That's strange. I thought that John Malkovich really existed. Wikipedia says he does, but sometimes Wikipedia lies.


What is this strange power that John Malkovich exudes?

Monday, 19 May 2014

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)


Over the last week I've watched a lot of disappointing films. Five films with 3 stars or less. I needed something good today to cheer me up. This is one of my favourite films ever.

If you want to know more about it, look for my other reviews in this blog. Or take my word for it and buy it. You won't regret it.

Tuesday, 4 February 2014

Synecdoche, NY (5 Stars)

Cotard's syndrome is a mental disorder in which people hold a delusional belief that they are dead, do not exist, or are decaying. While this does not necessarily lead to schizophrenia, such people are detached from the world and have strong fantasies which they use to replace reality.


This is one of the best films ever made. The combination of Charlie Kaufman's brilliant story and the incredible acting by Philip Seymour Hoffman make it the perfect film. It's difficult to believe that it flopped at the box office. It cost $20 million to make and only earned $4 million. Roger Ebert called it the best film of the decade, and many other film critics said it was the best film of 2008. So what went wrong?

Maybe the film is just too complex for the average popcorn-munching movie-goer. The following review contains some spoilers, but not too many to prevent you enjoying the film after reading it. Make your own mind up whether you want to carry on reading after the picture below.


Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Caden Cotard, a New York playwright who thinks he's dying. He is convinced that he has cancer, that he's going blind and that he's having epileptic fits. The first time I watched the film I believed he really was ill, since we see blood in his stool, but after seeing it again I realised he was imagining it, he's only a malade imaginaire. Ironically, at the end of the film he's one of the last people left alive in a city of corpses.

Caden's wife Adele is a world famous artist who paints miniature pictures that can only be seen through a magnifying glass. At the beginning of the film she leaves Caden and goes to live in Berlin with their 4-year-old daughter, Olive. Shortly after this Caden's skills as a playwright are acknowledged by him being awarded a grant which is big enough for him to make the most extravagant play ever performed. He buys an enormous warehouse in which he rebuilds New York and gathers a cast around himself to make a play about his own life. Each day, as things happen to him, he adds new events to the play. After 17 years of rehearsing the cast members complain that he's still not finished and ready to invite an audience, but he asks them to persevere. After that the film doesn't give any details about the passing of time, but my guess is that he works on the play for at least 40 years.

During this time Caden has an affair with Hazel, a box office girl who he later promotes to producer. He gets married again to Claire, an actress. These are events featured in his play, so he has to hire actors to play himself and Hazel, but he asks Claire to play herself, much to her distress when the other Caden is touching her. The actor playing Caden makes a play about his own life, so he builds a warehouse inside the warehouse to use for a large scale play. After about 20 years Adele returns to New York. Caden goes to visit her apartment, but she isn't at home. A neighbour mistakes him for the cleaning lady, Ellen, and gives him the key. Over the next months (or is it years?) he visits Adele's apartment every time she goes out and cleans it for her. This too is featured in his play, although he uses a real woman to play Ellen. When the actor playing Caden commits suicide, Caden decides to give up directing the play and become the actor playing himself. The actress who had been playing Ellen takes his place directing the play, and she orders all of his actions, both inside the play and in the real world.

Whooo! Is that confusing? Yes. Is it brilliant? Yes.

Caden and Caden and Hazel and Hazel

Saturday, 26 October 2013

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)


Okay, after watching "I love you, Phillip Morris" yesterday I had to watch another film with Jim Carrey, and this was the best choice I could make. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's definitely in my top five. The screenplay by Charlie Kaufman is mind-blowing.

Click here to read my last review. That includes the facts about the film, and I can't improve on what I wrote, as far as the facts are concerned. I'd just like to add something about the underlying philosophy. Forgetting the past is criticised in no uncertain terms. That's something everyone should take from the film. However painful a person's memories might be, it's better to remember them than to forget them. To quote the famous words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". We see this in the film in the case of Mary Svevo, but I won't say anything more about it here because it would be a spoiler.

Mary changes her attitude once she realises what she's forgotten. She begins by saying, "Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders". This quote from Friedrich Nietzsche is so important to her that she says it twice during the film. My regular readers know that I have a low opinion of Nietzsche, so I'm glad that she rejected this philosophy by the end of the film.


Let me quote Nietzsche's "Midnight Song". I've added my own translation, which is more accurate than the official poetic translations:

O Mensch! Gib Acht!O man! Listen!
Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?What is the deep midnight saying?
"Ich schlief, ich schlief."I was asleep, I was asleep,
Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.     I awoke from a deep dream.
Die Welt ist tief,The world is deep,
Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht.Deeper than day could know.
Tief ist ihr Weh —The world's woe is deep,
Lust — tiefer noch als Herzeleid.And the world's longing is deeper than heartache.
Weh spricht: Vergeh!Woe tells it to cease,
Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit,But all longing wants eternity,
Will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!"Deep, deep eternity."

Night knows secrets that day doesn't. We can conclude that night keeps the secrets from day, jealously concealing the knowledge gleamed from dreams. The night is the messenger of forgetfulness. The world is torn between two extremes: longing for the future and heartache for the past. Nietzsche sees woe as a negative element that tries to hold back longing. Woe is the ally of heartache and wants to preserve it. Woe wants to keep the world centred on the past, but longing strives forward to eternity. This might not seem bad in itself, but we see the consequences in the context of Nietzsche's other writings. By striving towards the future we abandon the past completely. This means that in the quest to become the Übermensch, the Superman, the weak ones of the past are trampled underfoot.

That's a very brief explanation of the poem, I know. Philosophy students have written whole theses about this poem, not always agreeing with one another in their expositions.

A balance is needed between the past and the future. As a certain eccentric film fan once said:

"Live in the present, fight for the future, remember the past".

Friday, 18 January 2013

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5 Stars)


Time flies. Is it really nine years since I saw this film in the cinema? It hit me so hard that I couldn't stop thinking about it for weeks. Usually I wait a year for DVD prices to drop, but this is a film I bought immediately when it was released. I needed to see it again as soon as possible. This is still one of my all-time favorite films, probably second after "Lost Highway". This was also the film that made me a big fan of Charlie Kaufman, the writer of the screenplay. His stories are astounding. Other films of his in a similar vein are "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation" and "Synecdoche, New York".

Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) and Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) have been together for two years. They are complete opposites, which is what drew them together, but it's also the reason for their frequent arguments. Joel is quiet and withdrawn. He likes to spend his evenings at home reading. Clementine is loud and outgoing. She talks incessantly and likes to get drunk. After a particularly nasty argument Clementine goes to a doctor in New York who is offering a new procedure: memories can be selectively removed from the mind. She decides to have all memories of Joel erased so she can start a new life. When Joel finds out about this he decides to do the same and have Clementine erased from his memories. Half way through the procedure he changes his mind and fights to regain his memories.

Of course, there are other twists to the story, as we would expect from any story written by Charlie Kaufman. In particular, one of the doctor's assistants, Patrick (Elijah Wood), falls in love with Clementine when he sees her lying asleep, so he steals confidential information about Joel to act like Joel and present himself as her new lover.

The power of this film is in the way it's presented. Different layers of reality are shown at the same time. We see Joel asleep on his bed, drugged for the procedure. At the same time we see his memories of the previous two years, presented in reverse order, since that is the order in which they will be deleted. Then we see his struggles to create new memories as his virtual world decays around him.

Click here to view the very good trailer. I wish all film trailers had this quality. Not too long, and informative without giving away spoilers. I liked the film promotion at the time of its release. Instead of the big billboards we usually see for new films there were hundreds of small posters all over town, only about three foot high. This made the film stand out from all the other new releases. Less is more. On the other hand, I've found film posters online calling the film a comedy. Idiots! There is nothing at all funny about this film. It's another example of how proficient Jim Carrey can be as a serious actor.

Thursday, 23 September 2010

Adaptation (5 Stars)

For a film that was nominated for several Oscars in 2002, including a win for Chris Cooper as best supporting actor, it's amazing how few people know this masterpiece of cinema. The following review contains spoilers, so read on with care. Normally I try to avoid spoilers, but I don't know any other way to write this review.

At its core it's a true story. A successful Hollywood screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, is asked to write a screenplay for a best-selling book, "The Orchid Thief". After reading it he realises that he can't see any way to adapt the book to film, so he sinks into depression and insecurity, hindered by the presence of his identical twin brother, Donald, who is everything he isn't. While Charlie is a social misfit and is unable to write, Donald dates girls and quickly churns out a detective thriller. Nicolas Cage plays both brothers to perfection. Charlie is encouraged to spice up the book, adding elements such as sex, drugs and violence to make it more appealing to the audience, but he refuses.

Finally Charlie makes a breakthrough when he decides to write a film about himself writing the film. This is where it gets complicated, especially when the viewer realises he's watching a film about a film about a film. Actually it's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. As the film progresses the viewer has increasing difficulty to distinguish between fiction and reality. Are we seeing the real events, or things that Charlie invented for the sake of entertainment? In fact, does Donald really exist, or is he a product of Charlie's multiple personality disorder? It's significant that the film in the film doesn't get written until Donald is killed.

Maybe that's the reason "Adaptation" isn't more popular? It's too intelligent for the mass audience. Despite Charlie's eventual capitulation, dumbing down his film by adding sex, drugs and violence, the film still hovers on a high intellectual plain. If you want a film that will make you think, watch this. You won't be disappointed.

Interestingly, Donald Kaufman was nominated for an Oscar for the best adapted screenplay jointly with his brother Charlie. This is the only time in the history of the Academy Awards that someone who didn't exist was nominated for an award.