Here's what I think is happening in this movie. (SPOILERS BELOW!) The entire movie could be viewed as the slow death of the elderly janitor, who is debating suicide, stays late at the school, gets stuck in his truck in the storm, and dies. What most of this movie is is his dying, interior thoughts. The movie valorizes him, a lowly elderly worker, as having a remarkable thought-life. It's suggesting that he, a humdrum guy, has what Montaigne says about the possibilities of the human mind, infinite peaks and valleys, vast landscapes. We're seeing aspects of his past, his parents, his desires, how media culture shaped him, and what he thinks of himself, throughout the entire movie. One hint is that the child picture in the house looks just like both the Buckly and Plemons' characters. They are two manifestations of parts of the elderly janitor's mind. They are split in half: one wants to go home, and one keeps hesitating and pausing and not going back. The janitor, as the final shot shows, gets stuck because he hesitates and was debating suicide of some form. Now is it all that easy? Maybe not. Even if it is, it's a remarkable statement about 1) poorer elderly people, who get stigmatized a lot in movies as old and fairly naive, plus the elderly are not so beloved in modern American culture methinks, and 2) the possiblities of various people to have a rich interior thought-life. This is something that David Foster Wallace argued strongly for, that you don't know what could be going on inside someone you think is dumb. And Wallace shows up as a key conversation piece in the movie.
5 Stars! Best movie I've seen in years! If you're fairly well-read, are familiar with existentialism, and enjoy arm-chair philosophizing, this movie is perfect. It will provide you with days of conversation or rumination.
I think it's the best thing Charlie Kaufman has done since "Adaptation" and perhaps even since "Being John Malkovich". It fits into his existing body of work, in that it's another film about disappointment, thwarted ambition, and a sense of powerlessness in the face of circumstances. And it shows some continuity with "Anomalisa" in that, to a degree, it's about male neuroses and obsessions and how it is women who suffer in consequence. But I think it is the most humanistic Charlie Kaufman film to date, in that it's very much a film about the universality of suffering. It is promoting a very anti-Hollywood worldview - that there’s no final moment of redemption or triumph for any of us, that loss, insecurity, pain, and unrealised goals will always be part of our lives, and that if there is meaning and dignity to be found in our lives, it is in compassion, empathy, and small everyday acts of kindness. But, as you say, there is a lot to analyse and I would not claim there is one single definitive meaning.
Something I have noticed. Every protagonist in Charlie Kaufman movie represents him or his personality. In Adaptation, Nicolas Cage is literally playing Kauffman. In Being john Malkovich, the main character is a puppeteer who is into experimental which is very close to filmmaking and writing. Jim Carrey in Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is the depressed, tormented, lonely man who longs for love. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Synecdoche, new York is detached and alienated. He is staging a play yo represent a city and his life which is what he does as a filmmaker. In Anomalisa, the protagonist is alienated, introverted and is unable to communicate. In this film, both the main characters represent parts of his psyche, the depression, loneliness, anxiety and quirkiness all o are there. Plus there are references to David Foster Wallace, Pauline kael and John Cassavetes.
I wondered about that. Here, it's pretty general. I suppose most of us/many of us suffer from anxiety and depression and isolation. I hadn't pegged that to Kaufman himself, psychoanalytically, although just about all of his characters are neurotic and sometimes hallucinatory because of that.
One of my favorite movies of all time! Top 2! To me it's about more than just death. It's about self loathing and the reflection of a man and his lifetime of regrets and missed opportunities. He is constantly fantasizing about what he would have liked to have been, in order to keep persistent thoughts of suicide at bay, but his self loathing is so intense, that even in his fantasy with his idealized woman, his negative self talk still permeates, and she still wants to 'end things' with him. He can't even win in his own fantasy. About as dark as it gets.
Fascinating is the word! One of the main reason I loved this movie was because of it's richness (notamment through its creative mise en scène and interesting dialogue). I didn't get all the references and all the visual details, but I think it'a part of the fun, I know my interpretation will become richer with the years and the screenings and I think its a big part of what makes a movie fascinating. I share your interpretation about the ending and your overall analysis. Great video Josh, even greater when you know that you did it ine only one day!!
I'd give it 3 stars. Loved the quiet melancholic vibes. But it grew frustrating in the 3rd act. I felt like he just wanted to shoot a musical sequence for his bucket list. Kaufman's meditations on aging are just not the right stuff for movies. Huge fan of his writing on Being John Malkovich & Adaptation.. But I'm not a fan of Kaufmans work as a director.
I like this movie but it kinda reminds me a lot of Kubrick's The Shining and Tarkovsky's Nostalghia. Maybe Kauffman got inspired by both directors so thats probably why. 😉😉
I’m really glad to hear your opinion on this movie!! Overall, I was excited for this movie to come out because I love Toni Collette and I heard that this was a “horror movie,” and I was really getting into it at first, but as the movie kept going and it didn’t really speed up I kind of just slowly lost interest. Might watch it again down the road lol (for context, I wouldn’t really call myself a Kaufman fan, I tend to prefer emotional experiences rather than cerebral ones, and I just don’t usually get those from his movies personally) EDIT: I also did feel the heady side of it lol
this movie really lost me in the second very drawn out car ride tbh. there was still a lot of interesting stuff going on but i was so lost in it’s not so straight forward narrative by the 3rd act that i pretty much gave up trying to piece things together ended up reading on it afterwards and found maybe half of my suspicions to be correct and everything else i learnt i wouldn’t have guessed on even my 10th viewing i feel 🥴
This movie is very simple. It's about an old creepy man who has regrets about his life. He creates an imaginary world with an imaginary girlfriend where he tries to live out a fantasy he regretted not living when he was younger. His imaginary girlfriend realizes she's a part of his imagination and embraces it and embraces him. The old creepy man sings at the end of the movie in front of all the imaginary characters we meet along the way. The end. Lame and pretentious.
A Kaufman movie described as simple. Well, if you agree with me that's all in the elderly janitor's head, then that's fair. Except the larger point is how complex and free-ranging his thought-life is. Which is a massive political, religious, and social point with all kinds of assumptions that attack common "post-humanist" and consumerist notions of what a human being is. In other words, this movie challenges pretty much everything today, via showing this man's deep complexity. So it's not simple at all.
@@LearningaboutMovies I understood all of that while watching the movie. It wasn't that deep. I think the reason I don't like it is because it is being sold as a horror movie when it's not. It's existential art house. The bad kind. 2001: A Space Odyssey is better.
should art have a human subject in it or not? That's an art criticism question they discuss. Guess what the final shot is? A trick, with the human subject in it, but buried. IT's a joke, a commentary, a riff on the earlier art criticism conversation, and a lot more, all in one. There are presumably dozens of other things like this in the movie. Maybe it's just a puzzle, but one worthy perhaps of Nabokov.
Wow. This film is a terrible mess in my opinion. Fascinating? Kind of? Although because of the ending, I would not recommend this movie anyone. I was very upset On the other side, SNewYork is definitely one of my favorites of all time.
thanks. the movie shows --- spoiler -- what it might be like to die alone, unacknowledged, pathetic. It tries to generate empathy for a class of person completely unloved, and rather despised, in American society right now. And one whom many might assume has little to no inner thought-life. That's no reason to like the movie, of course.
I understand this idea. Honestly, I hope I do. The plot makes me got into it, what s more I appreciate the cinematography, those color saturation^^, but after the film show, my first thoughts were like, well I entirely should not get involved emotionally with the main character. I have had enough of cliche, that we could describe as basically, it did not happen.
it's a movie that defies the hatred against the "it's all in a character's head" story. Because, if I read it right, that's what it is. And that can be annoying!
@Learning about Movies @Learning about Movies Quite apart from Kaufmann's movie, what's your opinion about ''Mr. Nobody''? This movie in my mind more meaningfully emphasizes ageing, the essential problems of human existence. Probably there weren't as many allegories as in last year's film production, but in this case, it seems to work better; less is more. I would say that this is an excellent example where form over substance. However, I'm completely not sure, that this sentence even exists in English. xD
Here's what I think is happening in this movie. (SPOILERS BELOW!)
The entire movie could be viewed as the slow death of the elderly janitor, who is debating suicide, stays late at the school, gets stuck in his truck in the storm, and dies.
What most of this movie is is his dying, interior thoughts. The movie valorizes him, a lowly elderly worker, as having a remarkable thought-life. It's suggesting that he, a humdrum guy, has what Montaigne says about the possibilities of the human mind, infinite peaks and valleys, vast landscapes. We're seeing aspects of his past, his parents, his desires, how media culture shaped him, and what he thinks of himself, throughout the entire movie. One hint is that the child picture in the house looks just like both the Buckly and Plemons' characters. They are two manifestations of parts of the elderly janitor's mind. They are split in half: one wants to go home, and one keeps hesitating and pausing and not going back. The janitor, as the final shot shows, gets stuck because he hesitates and was debating suicide of some form.
Now is it all that easy? Maybe not. Even if it is, it's a remarkable statement about 1) poorer elderly people, who get stigmatized a lot in movies as old and fairly naive, plus the elderly are not so beloved in modern American culture methinks, and 2) the possiblities of various people to have a rich interior thought-life. This is something that David Foster Wallace argued strongly for, that you don't know what could be going on inside someone you think is dumb. And Wallace shows up as a key conversation piece in the movie.
if anybody has read the book, I'd love to know how it compares to the movie.
@@LearningaboutMovies you should abssoluely read the book. I loved it. It really traps you. I liked it better than the film
5 Stars! Best movie I've seen in years!
If you're fairly well-read, are familiar with existentialism, and enjoy arm-chair philosophizing, this movie is perfect. It will provide you with days of conversation or rumination.
yes, it hasn't left me. still thinking about it days later. that's why we watch movies!
I think it's the best thing Charlie Kaufman has done since "Adaptation" and perhaps even since "Being John Malkovich". It fits into his existing body of work, in that it's another film about disappointment, thwarted ambition, and a sense of powerlessness in the face of circumstances. And it shows some continuity with "Anomalisa" in that, to a degree, it's about male neuroses and obsessions and how it is women who suffer in consequence. But I think it is the most humanistic Charlie Kaufman film to date, in that it's very much a film about the universality of suffering. It is promoting a very anti-Hollywood worldview - that there’s no final moment of redemption or triumph for any of us, that loss, insecurity, pain, and unrealised goals will always be part of our lives, and that if there is meaning and dignity to be found in our lives, it is in compassion, empathy, and small everyday acts of kindness. But, as you say, there is a lot to analyse and I would not claim there is one single definitive meaning.
although is there a real woman in it? I agree with your assessment about its place in his body of work.
I'm still unpacking this movie. Quite amazing. It really stuck with me unlike so so many films.
agreed. and I don't quite see dog-shaking the same way ever since!
Something I have noticed. Every protagonist in Charlie Kaufman movie represents him or his personality.
In Adaptation, Nicolas Cage is literally playing Kauffman.
In Being john Malkovich, the main character is a puppeteer who is into experimental which is very close to filmmaking and writing.
Jim Carrey in Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is the depressed, tormented, lonely man who longs for love.
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Synecdoche, new York is detached and alienated. He is staging a play yo represent a city and his life which is what he does as a filmmaker.
In Anomalisa, the protagonist is alienated, introverted and is unable to communicate.
In this film, both the main characters represent parts of his psyche, the depression, loneliness, anxiety and quirkiness all o are there. Plus there are references to David Foster Wallace, Pauline kael and John Cassavetes.
I wondered about that. Here, it's pretty general. I suppose most of us/many of us suffer from anxiety and depression and isolation. I hadn't pegged that to Kaufman himself, psychoanalytically, although just about all of his characters are neurotic and sometimes hallucinatory because of that.
Bleech....read the book and loved the book.
that's usually the way it is. Most movies based on books I read are subpar.
I watched this after tenet. A confusing movie I cared about despite the lack of clarity vs a confusing movie that gave me no reason to care about it.
it's a conflict.
One of my favorite movies of all time! Top 2! To me it's about more than just death. It's about self loathing and the reflection of a man and his lifetime of regrets and missed opportunities. He is constantly fantasizing about what he would have liked to have been, in order to keep persistent thoughts of suicide at bay, but his self loathing is so intense, that even in his fantasy with his idealized woman, his negative self talk still permeates, and she still wants to 'end things' with him. He can't even win in his own fantasy. About as dark as it gets.
thank you.
Fascinating is the word! One of the main reason I loved this movie was because of it's richness (notamment through its creative mise en scène and interesting dialogue). I didn't get all the references and all the visual details, but I think it'a part of the fun, I know my interpretation will become richer with the years and the screenings and I think its a big part of what makes a movie fascinating. I share your interpretation about the ending and your overall analysis. Great video Josh, even greater when you know that you did it ine only one day!!
thank you.
I'd give it 3 stars. Loved the quiet melancholic vibes. But it grew frustrating in the 3rd act. I felt like he just wanted to shoot a musical sequence for his bucket list. Kaufman's meditations on aging are just not the right stuff for movies. Huge fan of his writing on Being John Malkovich & Adaptation.. But I'm not a fan of Kaufmans work as a director.
It's my favourite Kauffman film!
agreed, it's grown in my mind as such. I identify more with it than his screenplays for Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine.
I like this movie but it kinda reminds me a lot of Kubrick's The Shining and Tarkovsky's Nostalghia. Maybe Kauffman got inspired by both directors so thats probably why. 😉😉
hmm, interesting.
Oops?? SYNECDOCHE NEW YORK
What is oops?
I’m really glad to hear your opinion on this movie!!
Overall, I was excited for this movie to come out because I love Toni Collette and I heard that this was a “horror movie,” and I was really getting into it at first, but as the movie kept going and it didn’t really speed up I kind of just slowly lost interest. Might watch it again down the road lol (for context, I wouldn’t really call myself a Kaufman fan, I tend to prefer emotional experiences rather than cerebral ones, and I just don’t usually get those from his movies personally)
EDIT: I also did feel the heady side of it lol
yeah, "Eternal Sunshine" was an emotional experience with the cerebral stuff. This is not that.
this movie really lost me in the second very drawn out car ride tbh.
there was still a lot of interesting stuff going on but i was so lost in it’s not so straight forward narrative by the 3rd act that i pretty much gave up trying to piece things together
ended up reading on it afterwards and found maybe half of my suspicions to be correct and everything else i learnt i wouldn’t have guessed on even my 10th viewing i feel 🥴
it is a long car ride. I enjoyed the conversation, which is not for everyone
This movie is very simple. It's about an old creepy man who has regrets about his life. He creates an imaginary world with an imaginary girlfriend where he tries to live out a fantasy he regretted not living when he was younger. His imaginary girlfriend realizes she's a part of his imagination and embraces it and embraces him. The old creepy man sings at the end of the movie in front of all the imaginary characters we meet along the way. The end. Lame and pretentious.
A Kaufman movie described as simple. Well, if you agree with me that's all in the elderly janitor's head, then that's fair. Except the larger point is how complex and free-ranging his thought-life is. Which is a massive political, religious, and social point with all kinds of assumptions that attack common "post-humanist" and consumerist notions of what a human being is. In other words, this movie challenges pretty much everything today, via showing this man's deep complexity. So it's not simple at all.
@@LearningaboutMovies I understood all of that while watching the movie. It wasn't that deep. I think the reason I don't like it is because it is being sold as a horror movie when it's not. It's existential art house. The bad kind. 2001: A Space Odyssey is better.
should art have a human subject in it or not? That's an art criticism question they discuss. Guess what the final shot is? A trick, with the human subject in it, but buried. IT's a joke, a commentary, a riff on the earlier art criticism conversation, and a lot more, all in one.
There are presumably dozens of other things like this in the movie. Maybe it's just a puzzle, but one worthy perhaps of Nabokov.
I disagree with you partially. One star only for toni collette.
thanks, that's fine. not another star for the animated pig?
Wow. This film is a terrible mess in my opinion. Fascinating? Kind of? Although because of the ending, I would not recommend this movie anyone. I was very upset On the other side, SNewYork is definitely one of my favorites of all time.
thanks. the movie shows --- spoiler -- what it might be like to die alone, unacknowledged, pathetic. It tries to generate empathy for a class of person completely unloved, and rather despised, in American society right now. And one whom many might assume has little to no inner thought-life.
That's no reason to like the movie, of course.
I understand this idea. Honestly, I hope I do. The plot makes me got into it, what s more I appreciate the cinematography, those color saturation^^, but after the film show, my first thoughts were like, well I entirely should not get involved emotionally with the main character. I have had enough of cliche, that we could describe as basically, it did not happen.
it's a movie that defies the hatred against the "it's all in a character's head" story. Because, if I read it right, that's what it is. And that can be annoying!
@Learning about Movies @Learning about Movies Quite apart from Kaufmann's movie, what's your opinion about ''Mr. Nobody''? This movie in my mind more meaningfully emphasizes ageing, the essential problems of human existence. Probably there weren't as many allegories as in last year's film production, but in this case, it seems to work better; less is more. I would say that this is an excellent example where form over substance. However, I'm completely not sure, that this sentence even exists in English. xD
Have not seen it. Worth it?