that was most pretentious, self indulgent drivel i have ever watched. you can just see kauffman jacking off to the idea of his own "brilliance" as the credits roll while the audience is left unsatisfied, confused, and bored.
i usually like his movies too. but this is too much. what a piece of shit.
What did you expect?
>>66949558
what a piece of shit
>>66949522
>pretentious, self indulgent drivel
Not an argument
>while the audience is left unsatisfied, confused, and bored.
I'm sorry you feel that way
>>66949522
>self indulgent
How the fuck is this criticism? You need to stay away from films like these. These types of films do not suit you. I bet you autistically dislike Terrence Malick too.
>>66949892
>>66949804
you are literally sucking Kauffmans dick
it's self indulgent in the sense that endlessly crafting your film with little details one would only notice on autistic amounts of watching (IE YMS) that do not improve the overall quality or aritistic merit of watching the film. you fucks are worse than Boyhood cucks.
>>66949927
Kaufman? Are we talking about Kaufman now? YMS?
I thought we were talking about the movie?
>self indulgent
I don't think you have any idea what you're typing. Watch more films. I suggest you should start with Barry Lyndon so you can get more taste. If you can't appreciate that film then you're beyond saving
>>66950165
you can critique my argument but you can't offer any type of rational reasoning why this movie isn't a piece of shit. PSH is literally the only saving grace to this otherwise vapid and senseless piece of shit.
Tfw you didn't get inb4 the "you just don't get it" posters.
Oh well I'm gonna make a Tree of life thread instead
>>66950349
The movies jot for everyone m8. It's not a piece of shit. You only think that because you're obsessed about the film's social status instead of the content. Denying that this is a well made movie proves how ignorant you are on art.
>>66950508
It's a well made movie, sure. I took a well made shit earlier. A turd is still a turd, friend, no matter how much craft or artistry goes into it.
>>66950525
>It's a well made movie, sure. I took a well made shit earlier. A turd is still a turd, friend, no matter how much craft or artistry goes into it
Did you seriously type that out and said to yourself "yeah that's a great analogy"
Kys senpai
>>66950447
>he doesn't understand The Tree of Life either
This fucking pleb kek
Im amused by your "crusade" on great movies that is beyond your comprehension and the fact that your only argument is "self indulgent".
Fucking hipster trash.
>>66949522
It wasn't that bad.
>>66950936
i literally masturbate at the redhead girl
>>66949522
>>66949927
Why do you bother even arguing if you're not willing to either present your opinion clearly or discuss things?
Isn't it a waste of time otherwise?
I could totally see how it's a pretentious movie, but arguing that it's pretentious is only one premise within a series that constitutes a conclusive verdict.
Why does pretentiousness automatically mean its bad? You've already conceded that its very well crafted, so its perfectly fine from a technical point of view.
So you're arguing from the emotional spectrum. Personally, I'd probably agree that a movie's quality should be based off elegance (i.e. the ability to seamlessly tell a story without needing to either tell the viewer or to make the viewer overanalyze)
>>66950988
see i hate the movie because yeah its very well crafted and its an amazing idea, but at a certain point it feels like the metaphors hes trying to potray take priority over any sort of story hes trying to tell, its pretentious but a lot of good films are, but what makes synedoche especially pretentious is that at the end what did you gain from it, to me its just a really complex web of incriticate concepts and ideas strewn together with no real reason as to why or how any of the ideas connect, its a solid movie just needed a few more rewrites to really get a central point
This movie is very divisive. I'm not sure if you are trying to b8 because you would think you would actually have something to say about it yourself but whatever, I'll respond.
I do not particularly like this movie. The craft in it, cinematography, camera placement, the actual direction is bad or at best functional. But that isn't why people purport to like Kaufman, so whatever.
The themes of the movie are what I see supported the most as why this is good and again, I see philosophically nothing of interest or comment. Nihilism is not a conclusion that needs a movie to explicate it. I realize however that a lot of /tv/ and 4chan in general are misanthropic and nihilistic so I'm guessing this is why it resonates so well with this group. In general though, the difference between people who think the movie is deep and those who don't, I think does come down to this point. If you think nihilism is deep, you think this movie is.
The last thing I want to touch on in specific is that unweildy metanarrative that Kaufman loves to do. Having a metanarrative is not really a damnable offense in general but the problem with Kaufman's metanarratives are that he seems to be fascinated by infinite recursion and having that narrative fold in upon itself which he has done throughout multiple movies with limited success because he never really directs it at anything. It doesn't thematically link to anything which is the real problem because he devotes a good third to half of both this film and Adaptation to exploring these meta implications but It all simply distracts from what his actual points end up being.
Unfortunately for him, he doesn't really have much of interest to say however (at least in my opinion). If you want a strictly better version of adaptation, watch the player by Altman, and if you want a strictly better Synechdoche, watch The Sacrifice by Tarkovsky if you want the philosophical aspect or Opening Night by Cassavetes for the use of a metanarrative.
>>66952247
so basically exactly what i said?
>>66952514
It's the same gist but I am a lot more articulate and knowledgeable than you.
For instance you undercut your point by stating
>its very well crafted and its an amazing idea
It isn't well crafted and the idea, a playwright writing a play bout himself is banal.
You don't really know why you don't like it, you just don't like it and want to bitch. It isn't an excellent piece of craft. In the hands of Fellini it might be but Kaufman doesn't have that talent. Hell, he's probably less talented than Spike Jonze who is definitely less talented than Tarantino and we all know what everyone here thinks of Tarantino.
lol
plotfags everyone
>>66952762
You need to understand though that Kaufman himself is a plotfag. He's anal retentive about his fucking nonsense plots. They have to be there intricately spiraling out if control or he doesn't feel that he's adequately captured his neurosis.
>>66952651
soo me saying its well crafted but muddled is different than you saying its well crafted but muddled how exactly? since youre soo knowledgable and much more articulate than me
>>66952651
also really? im just bitching even though you literally just said that i said exactly what you said just less "articulate" even though i said its technical aspects are top notch it just has an unfocused screenplay and youre the one trying to denounce by simply explaining what hes doing and comparing it to the "classic" films that it soo wishes it was, okay buddy well go with that
>>66953073
Look, I don't want to get too condescending here but I in no way imply that I believe this is well crafted.
I think all of Kaufman's works suffer from his own insistence on a literalism that really hurts him. I honestly just do not believe he has the filmmaking or metaphorical vocabulary necessary for his ideas to come across as anything but completely "on the nose". His filmmaking craft is shit. It's, in all honesty directed worse than the entertainment directors that Kaufman has scoffed at in interviews. He really doesn't know how to do anything but continuity staging and editing.
I do not find anything of interest in his films.
>>66953235
You need to understand the reason why I'm comparing it to those classic films. They express things through filmmaking techniques like framing, lighting, editing and sound design that Kaufman simply expresses through dialogue. He leans way too much on his script for everything. He really should probably just stick to books because he does not understand how to use filmmaking vocabulary.
>>66953258
yeah i agree kaufman is not a good director, his ideas are way too over his own head to the point where he cant even explain synecdoche to anyone, he really needs a director to filter his shit, but on a technical level the sets cinematography and effects are all well crafted, and if you cant at least appreciate that aspect (which mind you kaufman had nothing to do with) then you really are the hipster you sound like
It's a typically Jewish movie. They like to make them hard and incomprehensible to stick it up to the goyim, it's basically ritual humiliation, not unlike interracial porn.
>>66953377
The sets are interesting. Production design is just about the only thing this movie has going for it. It isn't perfect though and I think it is more an example of the best of the worst. Effects are part of the production design just so you know.
As for Cinematography, I have no idea what you even think is good or interesting about it. Camera movement, placement, lighting etc. Is all bog standard. I mean, there is literally nothing of not to even talk about.
What would you consider good vs bad cinematography if you think this movie's is good?
>>66953572
see you assume i think its better aspects are its strong point when compared to much better, when really all i mean is when the script is as shallow as it is at least the technical aspects make something not entirely worthless, the cinematography isnt extraordinary but it at least gives you the sense of scale of the project hes building as opposed to being really tight and quick cut to the point you have no fucking idea what youre looking at and how it compares to the outside world around it
>>66949522
Watch A Field in England or Primer of you want to see what your criticisms really apply to.
OP is what dumb people sound like when presented with something they can't comprehend.
>>66953752
I again, don't want to be too condescending but the idea of the project's scale is never in any way expressed by the cinematography. There is the establishment shot of the hangar and that's about all you get and considering that it's a matte painting, it's even less impressive from a filmmaking standpoint.
The movie is shot in the same way a 2015 romantic comedy is shot. They point the camera at who is talking and what they're talking about. That's it and no, it isn't worthy of any consideration or comment.
