Why is this movie so fucking depressing?
>>67115709
Because you're just like Jim Carrey, a quiet, meek, beta but you know in your heart you will never have a qt Kate Winslet be very aggressive in her advances with you.
>>67115709
Because you're still in high school.
>>67116176
I'd say it's more that you are seeing a relationship from bad to good instead of good to bad like normal.
>>67116176
Damn you got me.
Because there is no suspension of disbelief to be had, since it's spot on in its depiction of relationships.
>>67116323
In what sense?
>>67115709
Kaufman is a proper depressive, to the point that I think it adversely affects the quality of his films.
He's like, a tier worse than Louis CK at being distracted from what is actually interesting about an idea by the need to gaze sadly into the well of life's futility.
>>67116371
He can't be, he wrote the smash hit comedy of the year!
Is Kaufman one of us?
>>67116419
>A movie that people say drove them to depression
>Hilarious
What
>>67115709
I don't find it depressing. I find it deeply moving in its refreshing look at a relationship that feels more truthful than most. Being in a serious relationship involves a lot of pain but ultimately is something you'll go into even if you know it'll run you through the wringer again and again. That final sequence implies that love is worth it even if it means that you're going to be treading through the same ground of anger and resentment over and over again. Ultimately it's better than not having it.
The movie is sad but it isn't depressing. Synecdoche on the other hand is depressing as fuck
>>67115709
you and the cuck writer have oneitis
>>67116699
>Synecdoche on the other hand is depressing as fuck
This
Is there any hope or positivity in Synecdoche at all? Does Kaufman literally live in a state of constant misery at even existing?
>>67115709
"Why do I fall in love with every woman that shows any kind of interst in me" he says something like that. Anyway, that part hit me hard
>>67116797
lol read some Kafka pleb
>>67115709
I watched this movie with my girlfriend at the time. I truly believe she was the love of my life so far, since we were friends for the longest time before we started dating, but I seem to have forgotten most of the movie except for the part that it's about memory loss.
I then watched 500 days of summer after we broke up with our group of friends hoping we'd get back together, but we never did.
Am I the main character of life?
>>67116636
That's the joke.jpg
>>67116897
Yeah but it's actual marketing on there
Why did Jim Carrey never do anything else good?
>>67116895
Yeah.
I've seen the advance screenings at an event in China. Turns out you're a faggot who dies of AIDS and you spend the last year of your life revisiting the 500 cocks you took.
>>67116895
500 days of summer is a horrendous piece of shit
>>67116346
In that you're in love and then shit goes downhill and some memories haunt you so you wish they were gone. But you realize that those experiences are what helped make you who you are and despite them haunting you, you still look back on them with fondness
>>67117025
I know, but i havefriendsthat wanted to see it. It wasn't the theatre or anything. I was only there for the girl. Like the dude was in the movie at that party.
>>67117016
Oh well. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
>>67117077
I thought it was more about the realization that some relationship are doomed right from the start and that erasing your memories wasn't and isn't going to change that, so you might as well enjoy it.
It's a romantic film made from the male perspective appealing to a certain sort of male who happens to be 90% of the users here. Of course it resonates.
>>67116323
>>67117077
Circle of shit.
>>67117014
>what is the truman show
>>67117189
A shit movie?
>>67117189
Not very good, I thought.
>>67117131
I haven't watched it since it was released but it was not long after a break up with a long term relationship and this (the post you replied to) is how I saw it at the time. If I watch it again now I might have a different take.
This is a relationship film for people who have shitty relationships and who have grown to accept all the crazy behavior within as normal. They see this film as an honest portayal of a typical relationship, rather than an honest portrayal of broken, self centered people in a toxic relationship. The writer lacks any higher insight.
For your health.
>>67117219
>>67117213
I liked it, and I thought the general consensus was it's a good movie. Nothing too life-changing or profound, but funny and sad enough to make you actually feel something. Which is more than can be said for most movies
>>67117274
>The writer lacks any higher insight.
What if everything you wrote was exactly what he wanted you to get out of it? Or are you insulting yourself?
I thought the film was shit to be honest
Is she a bad person?
>>67117014
I actually really like him in this, he does the subtleties well.
Though I wonder if that's just good writing.
>>67115709
WHY THE FUCK YOU DONT LOVE ME AS MUCH I DO? fucking bitch I hate you.
Comeback please.
>tfw failed series of non-relationships
>>67117382
>I thought the film was shit to be honest
thats because it is, but the pretentious crowd on /tv/ gobbles it up because they think it 'resonates' with their shitty relationships and makes an excuse for their beta traits
>>67117274
I agree.
But it's still a great film nonetheless, what you're trying to point out isn't a valid criticism.
>>67117338
But it's clearly not. The film ends with the two characters entering back into a relationship despite knowing better, because the film posits that the experience of loving someone is worth it in the end, in spite of all the hurt that may follow. In other words, it portrays their relationship as a good thing ultimately, in spite of it all.
It has one of my favourites songs of Beck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIVh8Mu1a4Q
>>67117591
IIRC it's not even clear why their relationship was so bad. we're just asked to accept that they thought it was.
at the other end of the scale, the one vaguely "sexual" or tender scene involves Kate Winslet's character crying (for unspecified reasons) and Carey comforting her.
Kaufman's depression really, really limits his writing. We're just expected to accept that things are bad without it being explained why, so it's hard to extract much meaning from his work.
>>67117525
Why not? It shows the writing is lacking a certain self awareness, and is in part unintentional fantasy. I would say that that at the very least makes it a lesser work.
I enjoy the movie btw. Like Synecdoche NY a lot more though.
>>67117274
This.
If you're dealing with a shitty boyfriend or girlfriend, 'fixing' them is going to cost you several years of sanity.
>>67117691
Does it need directly explaining? It's not really an important part of the story. As long as we can accept and understand that things have broken down, the story works.
>>67117691
>IIRC it's not even clear why their relationship was so bad.
But it's clearly bad. Probably because they're shitty people.
>we're just asked to accept that they thought it was.
It definitely is.
>at the other end of the scale, the one vaguely "sexual" or tender scene involves Kate Winslet's character crying (for unspecified reasons) and Carey comforting her.
And?
>>67117691
I got these sense she cheated on him and they were getting tired of each other.
>>67117691
>IIRC it's not even clear why their relationship was so bad. we're just asked to accept that they thought it was.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Kaufman suffers the same problem I think I would have if I was trying to write: He is incapable of discussing sex, as it clearly makes him uncomfortable.
>>67117901
This. Do people want exposition in everything?
>>67117807
>>67117768
honestly I don't really remember the specifics of the core story very well, just all the hi-concept stuff with Carey running through memories.
but, like, in an Ingmar Bergman film there'll be a woman on an island recovering from a mental illness who has a relapse and fucks her teenaged brother, then has a vision of being raped by God in the form of a spider. you don't reach the end of the film in a state of confusion about what the character's problems were.
so dramatization is really helpful for clarifying themes and I don't know if Kaufman films pull it off that well.
>>67117691
>IIRC it's not even clear why their relationship was so bad.
She was a the independent but insecure pixie girl, and the other was a beta guy that can't control the situation.
Can't remember well but I think the break point is that she comebacks late at night drunk, and he calls her a whore, but then why did he let her go alone at night?
>>67117929
Just because a film doesn't explain everything doesn't mean it's failed to sufficiently draw characterizations. The details don't really matter so much here
>>67117929
I really disagree with you here. There's certain things which need explaining for the purpose of the movie, and that isn't one of them.
>>67118089
But anon, Ingmar Bergman!
>>67118129
Shit, sorry, I forgot, he namedropped a niche director so he must be right.
>>67118038
its movie about the breakdown of a relationship that doesn't ultimately convey anything about the particulars of that breakdown. otherwise I agree in principle.
>>67117637
Not his song, but alright. Don't know if you're into Beck, but if you like that cover, I recommend you to listen to Sea Change, Mutations and Morning Phase
>>67118141
No, it's about a doomed relationship and the fact that even those have their happy moments.
![_44028120_colour_416[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Zzq0OeG.jpg "_44028120_colour_416[1].jpg")
>>67118137
Kaufman is at least as niche as Bergie, and a lot of his flicks are about relationships, so eh...
You can't talk about Kaufman without referencing Bergman.
>>67118275
He messed up by calling him niche but the other poster was definitely name dropping him to give his flaccid opinion some kind of passive credibility.
>>67118275
>Kaufman
>Niche
This is a really good thread. I wish more were like this.
>>67118334
you mean Kafka, he's a kafka fanboy not a bergman anything
>>67117698
I think Kaufman was perfectly aware of the kind of relationship depicted in his film. He was a submissive passive agressive beta and she thought she was a special snowflake.
>>67118417
No I don't mean Kafka you faggot. I was kidding.
>>67118469
That's what I find best, it's realistic. They are real life characters.
>>67118469
I agree, he was aware of this dynamic, but there's more to it than that.
>>67117083
>Friends who wanted to see a romance movie
Are you friends with couples or girls or a bunch of faggots?
Seriously?
>>67118552
Is eternal sunshine really a romance movie?
>>67118515
A realistic portrayal of shitty people in a shitty relationship, sure.
>>67118581
Pretty much since most of the film depicts a romance for the good and the bad.
You can also argue that it's a drama.
>>67118655
Hit too close to home, anon?
>>67118669
It's a dramedy
>>67118706
No. I don't date borderline whores. But I was raised by one so I know a thing or two.
>>67118811
>But I was raised by one so I know a thing or two.
So I was right? You gotta get over your mom, man.
>>67118875
Huh?
>>67118913
Did you not relate your reaction to the movie to your mom being a slut? I'd say that's someone who has mommy issues they need to work through.
>>67117014
>implying Dumb & Dumber isn't kino
>>67118961
I have issues because I see parallels to reality in a movie? Um okay.
I didn't have a strong reaction to the movie. I just think the characters were pathetic. Which they are.
>>67119029
Um no? You specifically said you relate the main girl being a whore to your mother being a whore. This is illogical and says more about your relationship to your mother than anything about the movie.
>>67119089
>You specifically said you relate the main girl being a whore to your mother being a whore.
I said the character is a classic borderline, and that I was overly familiar with the type because my mother was the same. Borderlines tend to share a lot in common.
>This is illogical
That I can recognize a shitty person is illogical? You're not very logical yourself.
>and says more about your relationship to your mother than anything about the movie.
Like?
>>67119237
>Like?
You're projecting your mommy issues onto a character in a movie. This is pretty classic and what I meant by it "hitting too close to home".
>>67117014
This shit deserves a criterion release
>>67119237
>borderline
I hate this meme
>>67119318
How am I projecting? If you see a character in a movie that has Aspergers in a movie and you realize that because you have a relative with Aspergers, are you then projecting that relationship onto the character?
I'm not condemning the film. I just don't think it portrays a healthy relationship or fully realizes how unhealthy it is. If you look at these characters and think they're normal, then you are the one with issues.
>>67115709
because its so fucking bad, you'll wish you could blow your head up before the end
>>67119563
>How am I projecting?
Provide undeniable proof that the character is borderline. If you cannot, then you are projecting because she "acts similar to your mommy who was a mean whore".
>I just don't think it portrays a healthy relationship
If it were a healthy relationship then it would not be worth telling a story about.
>or fully realizes how unhealthy it is
This rides on you proving that the characters are in an unhealthy relationship and not just "a bad relationship".
>If you look at these characters and think they're normal, then you are the one with issues.
This is ad hominem correct? Also define a normal relationship while also pointing out where I called their relationship normal.
>>67117591
It doesn't portray their relationship as a good thing, it portrays it as a learning experience.
Their previous relationship had them go through shit but learn the bad stuff about each other, and thanks to those tapes, they know what the problems were without any of the bad memories and animosity between each other so now they can try again but know exactly what to look out for and go through with talking shit out this time around.
If only Patrick had given back that recording from her also, they'd also learn that Joel needs to open up more about his thoughts and what he writes in his little book
>>67119725
>Provide undeniable proof that the character is borderline.
She fits the bill. If you disagree, cool. Have fun with chicks who are compulsive and cheat on you.
>If you cannot, then you are projecting because she "acts similar to your mommy who was a mean whore".
Who said anything about mean? Borderlines can be very loving and caring too.
>If it were a healthy relationship then it would not be worth telling a story about.
Yeah, but the film portrays the relationship as a good thing. In reality, it wouldn't be.
>This rides on you proving that the characters are in an unhealthy relationship and not just "a bad relationship".
Uh? They're the same thing?
>This is ad hominem correct?
Nope.
>Also define a normal relationship
A mutually beneficial relationship, where two individuals rely on and support each other, based on respect and sharing intimacy, both physical and emotional.
>while also pointing out where I called their relationship normal.
My whole point is that the relationship is not normal and the film fails to fully recognize that. I'm not saying you said it was normal, but if you think it is, you have issues. Cheers.
>>67120075
So your whole argument is "the film portrays the bad relationship as good." Also "wah muh mommy issues."
See>>67120029
>Cheers.
This comes off as pretty passive aggressive. Does this imply you leaving after winning the argument or is it some meme you're defaulting to?
>>67120029
>It doesn't portray their relationship as a good thing, it portrays it as a learning experience.
They want to repeat it at the end. What did they learn?
>Their previous relationship had them go through shit but learn the bad stuff about each other, and thanks to those tapes, they know what the problems were without any of the bad memories and animosity between each other so now they can try again but know exactly what to look out for and go through with talking shit out this time around.
I got that, but this is why I call the film unintentional fantasy. In reality they would need to improve themselves first as individuals. And the film makes it clear they are likely doomed to repeat their failed relationship, but they go ahead anyway.
>If only Patrick had given back that recording from her also, they'd also learn that Joel needs to open up more about his thoughts and what he writes in his little book
If you're in a relationship with a shitty person, opening up isn't going to help.
It's only depressing when you are not in love.
Good luck, my homies.
>>67120249
>So your whole argument is "the film portrays the bad relationship as good."
Well yeah.
>Also "wah muh mommy issues."
Um?
>This comes off as pretty passive aggressive.
You are extremely defensive. I've given you the benefit of the doubt again and again, and have refrained from insults. "Cheers" was me saying, "it's all good, whatever."
>Does this imply you leaving after winning the argument or is it some meme you're defaulting to?
You are very cynical.
>>67120310
>They want to repeat it at the end. What did they learn?
Gee, not like they learned they'd been together before or listened to the tapes or anything and learned what complaints they had about the other or anything right?
>And the film makes it clear they are likely doomed to repeat their failed relationship, but they go ahead anyway.
They might, yeah, Joel knows it and clementine points it out, their eyes are wide open now though. It's not like it was before when they first got together after his breakup with Naomi and where he did think that she was gonna save him or whatever despite her telling him that she wasn't a concept an shit. He just learned from the tape not to expect that, that she's not some comet that's gonna take him away from everything and make him perfectly happy or anything. But they're willing to try.
>If you're in a relationship with a shitty person, opening up isn't going to help.
They're not in a relationship yet, they're not pissed at each other about anything yet, they don't hate each other yet, but they do know what their problems or views of the other were so they know what the problems might be and what to avoid and talk about before it becomes a problem.
And I also just remembered that Clementine did get her tape thing.
>>67120352
I'm past hope
>>67120310
>In reality they would need to improve themselves first as individuals.
This is not true. There was nothing inherently wrong with who they were as people. They already liked each other, the problem was that they couldn't accept the others negative qualities after the "honey moon phase was over.
>>67120452
Anyone who ends a post with "cheers" as if it means anything is a massive cum guzzling homo if not outright disingenuous as a person.
>>67120504
>Gee, not like they learned they'd been together before or listened to the tapes or anything and learned what complaints they had about the other or anything right?
Yes, but this doesn't change them as people.
>They might, yeah, Joel knows it and clementine points it out, their eyes are wide open now though. It's not like it was before when they first got together after his breakup with Naomi and where he did think that she was gonna save him or whatever despite her telling him that she wasn't a concept an shit. He just learned from the tape not to expect that, that she's not some comet that's gonna take him away from everything and make him perfectly happy or anything. But they're willing to try.
That's nice, but they haven't made any real change or progress. They're just more aware of each other's shortcomings.
>They're not in a relationship yet, they're not pissed at each other about anything yet, they don't hate each other yet, but they do know what their problems or views of the other were so they know what the problems might be and what to avoid and talk about before it becomes a problem.
That's fine. It's a movie after all. As I said, I enjoy it. Most of it works. But there's a bit of fantasy at play here. Even of they're more open with each other, in reality people like this would find themselves right where they started.
It makes relationships seem shitty
>>67120766
>Yes, but this doesn't change them as people.
Are you acting like people can't change or learn to get along or anything?
>but they haven't made any real change or progress
Movie has to end at some point anon, what do you want, another 40 minutes to show them on a date or something? A flashforward to 2 years from now? When do you want them to cram this real change and progress idea you want? Is it not enough that meek Joel is the one who in the end runs after Clementine and wants to get back with her while she's the one trying to run away?
>But there's a bit of fantasy at play here
That's a given since there's a memory wiping machine in the movie anon
>in reality people like this would find themselves right where they started.
In reality memory wiping machines don't exist nor a way for people to learn the big faults and past/possible future views of their relationship without having any of the animosity those views and faults come with.
>>67120615
>This is not true. There was nothing inherently wrong with who they were as people.
Nothing wrong with a compulsive cheater? Or a guy who lets himself become emotionally estranged in a relationship? What.
>They already liked each other, the problem was that they couldn't accept the others negative qualities after the "honey moon phase was over.
Yeah. But those are some huge negative qualities.
>Anyone who ends a post with "cheers" as if it means anything is a massive cum guzzling homo if not outright disingenuous as a person.
Then how about, whatever you say, friend? Yeah? Whatever you say friend.
![eternal-sunshine-table[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7ZDC6rU.jpg "eternal-sunshine-table[1].jpg")
This part in the middle was fucking excellent. Really interesting use of subtle audio distortions to create a surreal experience. The objects and situations were about a traditional domestic relationship and their shared discomfort brings them together. But regardless, the way the objects persisted through the shots was really masterful, like falling through layers of the characters' shared mental connotations. It's like what I imagine it would feel like to dream together.
I guess I didn't find the rest of the movie as memorable but I really like it overall just because of that part I remembered.
>>67121046
And it happened while the memory machine people were doing their thing so it really brought everything together. It felt like the narrators were actually the three people from the memory company, so I guess I didn't associate with or care about the couple all that much,
(sage)
>>67120911
>Are you acting like people can't change or learn to get along or anything?
They can. But two people as emotionally damaged as this who have a history of poor behavior towards each other? Highly unlikely.
>Movie has to end at some point anon, what do you want, another 40 minutes to show them on a date or something?
That's the writer's problem.
> Is it not enough that meek Joel is the one who in the end runs after Clementine and wants to get back with her while she's the one trying to run away?
Meek people are often needy. Not seeing any grand character arc there.
>That's a given since there's a memory wiping machine in the movie anon
Obviously not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about what the film is saying.
>In reality memory wiping machines don't exist nor a way for people to learn the big faults and past/possible future views of their relationship without having any of the animosity those views and faults come with.
Talk about disingenuous and snide.
>>67120967
>Nothing wrong with a compulsive cheater?
Not that anon but there is no proof that Clem is a compulsive cheater. Joel thinking in his mind that she cheated that night and accusing her of sleeping with everybody to make them like her, does not mean she did or does.
>>67120967
>compulsive cheater
Is that a fact? I thought it didn't outright say whether or not she cheated on him or if he was just being jealous.
>lets himself become emotionally estranged in a relationship
Is that also a fact?
>Yeah. But those are some huge negative qualities.
I don't think you can accurately say that. For them, I feel, the movie was showing that most of their problems were a reaction to them both being "not as perfect as they originally thought they were". Simply understanding that could be just enough to make their relationship work if they already liked eachother as people.
>Whatever you say friend.
Yes, this is much much better.
>>67121150
>Meek people are often needy. Not seeing any grand character arc there.
This is the same Joel that didn't have the balls the first time around (on the beach) to talk to Clementine, and on the train didn't want to either. He even admits in the beginning of the movie that he's not impulsive, yet he's running after a chick he just met, a few minutes after kicking her out cause he thought she was fucking with him, and after listening to his tape shitting on her, and you think this is all just due to his neediness and not a sign of any change at all?
>I'm talking about what the film is saying.
Which goes back to thinking their relationship is a good thing in the end despite the bad? Considering there's a fantasy element that lets them have a new relationship with insight but none of the damage from the previous relationship, of course it's gonna be a bit fantastical. but again, they're learning from stuff, nothing says the relationship is good or sunshine and rainbows or worth it, movie even has Clementine acknowledge that it'll probably fail, heck the previous relationship was even so bad they had to get shit wiped. But it was bad because of shit on both sides, things both know about now and can actually do something about, like Joel sharing his thoughts instead of just writing it in the book. They themselves don't know if its worth it yet
>Talk about disingenuous and snide.
Like your comment just now about it being the writer's problem isn't?
>>67121046
That's one of the things I liked most. It's a clever movie, more than people seem too make out.
>>67116419
Is that fucking real?I am legitimately laughing so hard.
>>67121046
That moment when you realise the man-children scene was shot without any CGI, the effect was created purely with set and perspectives.
>>67117918
>Kaufman suffers the same problem I think I would have if I was trying to write: He is incapable of discussing sex, as it clearly makes him uncomfortable.
Have you seen anomalisa?
> they get together in the end
> anon finds it depressing
>>67116176
I had that experience once, love gone wrong leaves a lasting and gaping hole that can never be filled.
>>67115709
To change a mindset like that is always depressing. Lack of control.
Because you're a beta that identifies with the main characte
>>67121929
Yeah. They really went mental for the UK release.
>>67122076
Yeah. It's uncomfortable as fuck in that, pretty much what I'd expect from him.
>>67122092
They get together for a pointless romance that will never last.
>>67116419
it's a comedy because of how fucking masturbatory and up his own ass Kauffman is
>>67115709
Because everybody's gotta learn sometime.
>>67123498
Fuck off, hipster
