1981 movieRating: 18/20 (Jen: 17/20)
Plot: Two theater guys who haven't seen each other in a few years meet at a restaurant. They order food and talk for almost two hours.
It's amazing enough that a conversation between two theater guys can keep me entertained for this long. I don't think there's a dull moment in this. The conversations starts rambunctiously with Andre talking ceaselessly for about 45 minutes, detailing his adventures abroad, his encounters with half-men/half-goats in churches, being buried alive, his desire to have a flag, his experiences with beehives. I'm not sure if it's Andre Gregory's voice, his slight mannerisms, his diction, or what, but his stories are completely captivating. And occasionally very funny. I think I could have listened just to him for twice the amount of time. It seems silly to use the word action-packed, but that's really exactly what it is. Then, conflict is introduced when Wallace Shawn's "character" replies and we realize he doesn't quite buy all this mysticism and experimentation in Andre's new way of living. As the core of their conversation develops, the issues become clearer--science vs. religion, experiencing life vs. living life, the importance of letting things go haywire, the dangers of comfort and electric blankets, etc. There's nothing flamboyant about My Dinner with Andre, almost no style. Director Malle uses a mirror to sometimes show the faces of both men while they're talking, some close-ups, and minimal music (just the beginning and the end) but that's about it. The focus is on the words the men exchange which for whatever reason are so easy to digest, to picture, and to connect with. I think this is a movie that people have heard of more than they've seen, and that should change. It's such an enjoyable experience, and a film that sticks with you for days.
Two questions: What's with all the references to the Holocaust? And what does Andre's last line mean? Everything else he says is pretty clear, but the last line about his son being a baby and then picking him up is strange.
I had been meaning to see this for about 20 years since every film critic alive seems to verbally masturbate over it. I liked it, but it sometimes was a bit stagey, and two years later I remember almost none of the actual conversation. As always though, I do love Wallace Shawn. He probably isn't quite short enough to qualify for a midget bonus, is he?A 15.
ReplyDeleteLittle person bonus...this blog will no longer use the m-word.
ReplyDeleteNo, he's probably not short enough.
This is the type of movie, it seems, that film critics would even pretend to love even if they didn't. It's more than a little pretentious, but both times I've watched it, I was, for lack of a better word, moved. There's nothing at all new about the philosophies brought up in the conversation, but it's just so easy to connect with the ideas. I love this movie.