I’ve been an admirer of Roger Ebert for decades. His recent health problems (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/nil_by_mouth.html) fill me with sorrow. Over the thousands of movie reviews Ebert has published during his career, I find myself agreeing with him about 90% of the time. This is one of the 10% of Ebert’s opinions I disagree with. I initially did not go see Synecdoche, New York because I read plenty of mixed reviews of the film. But, when Ebert asserted that Synecdoche, New York was the best movie of the DECADE, I borrowed a DVD from my local public library and watched it. It’s the story of a frustrated director whose marriage is failing and whose career seems headed nowhere. Played by the brilliant Philip Seymour Hoffman, theater director Caden Cotard tries to deal with his crumbling life. He’s a hypochondriac. In fact, I could argue that 20 minutes into this film, when Caden Cotard goes into a doctor’s office for an examination, the rest of the movie is Caden’s drug-induced fantasy where he spends years preparing the play that will be his masterwork. This movie did not resonate with me at all, but your opinion might be different. GRADE: C-
There are no critics I would trust enough to take their word for it, especially when everyone else disagrees. I might see this as I like Hoffman, but as much as I often enjoy reading Ebert I disagree with him too often to trust his judgment.
That reminds me – just saw Gene Shalit reviewing VALENTINE’S DAY on the Today Show. I have never forgiven him for his all-out rave for Mel Brooks’s SILENT MOVIE.
I never took him seriously after that.
And then there’s that mustache.
😉
I haven’t watched the TODAY SHOW in years, Jeff. Gene Shalit must be about 100 years old! The cast of SYNECDOCHE isn’t the problem. The film’s detour into surrealism lost me.
I do feel awful about what Ebert is going through. For someone who likes to talk as much as he does it must be especially tough.
Can’t talk, can’t eat, can’t drink. That’s Ebert’s condition right now, Jeff. But, nothing’s wrong with his brain as evidenced by his insightful reviews and thoughtful blog.
I did not know of Ebert’s condition, nor do I understand what caused it – stroke? – but it is awful. He is taking it well, so he says, and it’s an interesting piece you linked to, but gee that’s a bummer.
As for the film, I don’t think I’d even heard of it. Won’t see it, probably. I’m not literary, smart or academic when it comes to films, I guess.
Roger Ebert’s health problems are the result of post-surgical complications related to thyroid cancer which left him unable to eat, drink, or speak, Rick. It’s a sad, sad situation.
The Art of Time in Fiction which you reviewed on January 27, has arrived at the library and I’ll go pick it up in a few minutes.
Okay, I got the book. I read the first 20 pages. I have to buy it, and perhaps the whole set. Wonderful!
I plan to read the whole “Art of” set from Graywolf, too, Rick. Terrific books, terrific prices! Glad you enjoy THE ART OF TIME IN FICTION.
I have mine on reserve at the library as soon as we get home.
Hated this movie. It perfectly explains pretension.
You and I share the same opinion of SYNECDOCHE, Patti. Pretension and surrealism are a fatal combination.