Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Synecdoche, New York

Idaho

continuity character
Has anyone else sat through this?

A weird double effect of raising interesting questions and stretching concepts, while being utterly tedious and self indulgent.
 
has anybody else seen this?

Its the film at cinebabies on monday and I don't think it looks worth getting up for.
 
A weird double effect of raising interesting questions and stretching concepts, while being utterly tedious and self indulgent.

There's nothing self indulgent or tedious about dealing with parent/child separation surely ? The themes of age and dislocation seem vital in 2009. It's a multitude of things and a difficult first viewing. Perhaps it drags a bit at the end but overall it's enormously impressive if fairly hard to persevere with, it's pretty depressing.

It makes 'Sunshine of the spotless mind' an irrelevance in comparison.
 
Not sure it matters how well intended a movie is if it ends up will-sappingly dull.
I'd have to disagree - it does matter whether people try things. If the result is not altogether positive, it still matters that they tried.

I didn't find it dull at all - dense and somewhat hard to follow at times, but not dull.

e2a: saying all that, I can see how if you don't go along with it it could be all the things described above (tedious, self-indulgent, etc).
 
I stopped watching after about 2 hours. I have no idea how near the end that was. I agree that it's important to make interesting, challenging and stretching work. I'll just leave it up to someone more high-brow than me to actually sit through it.
 
i don't understand this english (british?) sense that somehow something being "highbrow" is an excuse not to bother with it - "oh that's not for me, it's "highbrow". It's nonsense.
 
same with 'pretentious' - sure there's loads of pretentious wanky films about but i've heard so many films described as pretentious that plainly aren't
 
We all dream, nowt pretentious about that, which is what much of the film alludes to. Our anxieties laid out in dreams. It would never have been made in Britain obviously.
 
want to see this, but want to see coraline first. week after this, then I think :)
 
i don't understand this english (british?) sense that somehow something being "highbrow" is an excuse not to bother with it - "oh that's not for me, it's "highbrow". It's nonsense.

that's not a british thing, we just limit it to stuff like films and that

Anti intellectualism is an artform in some less well developed nations.
 
i don't understand this english (british?) sense that somehow something being "highbrow" is an excuse not to bother with it - "oh that's not for me, it's "highbrow". It's nonsense.


Wouldn't have said that is a particularly English (or British trait)!

It is just down to individuals and how they perceive art that they think they are or are not interested in, and the reasons for it.

I reckon you are just as likely to hear someone dismiss a film as "too lowbrow" in concept/content.

Boils down to people marking out their "taste territory" and reassuring themselves of it's validity by dismissing things that appear to fall outside of their comfort zone.

I am probably as guilty of this as the next person, though I would be unlikely to use either of the above qualifiers personally...

**********

Did you see the movie in the end?

Thoughts?
 
Ok - so I am wrong that it got boring, and I am wrong that I found it boring. And I am wrong that I don't want to watch boring films. As long as we are straight on that :)
 
same with 'pretentious' - sure there's loads of pretentious wanky films about but i've heard so many films described as pretentious that plainly aren't

i heard someone describe The Thin Red Line as pretentious. Well if a long and serious meditation on war, nature and mortality can't be "pretentious", what the fuck can?
 
i don't understand this english (british?) sense that somehow something being "highbrow" is an excuse not to bother with it - "oh that's not for me, it's "highbrow". It's nonsense.

It's about whether a film is going to be entertaining or require you to think. Sometimes films can do both. Sometimes, like with Speilberg, they give the illusion of making you think, but really only just make you feel.

The experience of going to see Synecdoche and Wolverine are going to engage with different moods, parts of your mind and require different amounts of mental commitment. High brow and low brow are really just short hand to describe the amount of effort and sometimes the amount of pre-reading and calibration to the cultural form you need.
 
Went to go and see this at the Ritzy on saturday but got there too late and found it all sold out.

Have since heard lots of middling-to-bad reviews - still planning to go and see it, though, maybe having lower expectations will be a good thing.
 
Ok - so I am wrong that it got boring, and I am wrong that I found it boring. And I am wrong that I don't want to watch boring films. As long as we are straight on that :)
it wasn't boring. it was fascinating. how was it boring? so much happens in it
 
Pretty much nothing happens in it. It makes a clever point by twisting together the whole "map is not the territory" along with "life immitating art" combined with a few other well know aphorisms. But after an hour or so you know that it's only going to carry on in the same vein.
 
Back
Top Bottom