The directorial debut of acclaimed writer Charlie Kaufman, whose scripts include Being John Malkovich (1999) and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Synecdoche, New York (2008) is a work of rare ambition and scope.
Theatre director Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is mounting a new play in Schenectady, New York but turmoil reigns as his wife has left him to pursue her painting in Berlin, taking their young daughter Olive with her. Therapy brings Caden no solace and a new relationship with the alluringly candid Hazel (Samantha Morton) has also prematurely run aground. Worried about the transience of his life, Caden heads for New York and after hiring a huge ensemble cast sets about crafting a brutally honest work that mimics his own life experiences.
Unafraid to grapple with themes of failure, disappointment and ennui, Kaufman has made a dazzlingly original film of poignancy and import. The cast is also one of the best in recent American cinema, with the outstanding Hoffman enjoying tremendous support from Michelle Williams, Hope Davis and Dianne Wiest to name but a few.
JASON WOOD: In purely practical terms how did you find the transition from writing to directing?
CHARLIE KAUFMAN: I always adopted the attitude with my writing that failure is not something to be avoided. I decided early on to take a similar approach with directing. I asked myself what’s the worse thing that could happen here? The answer was that the movie might not come out well and that’s not so terrible. I’d always had a fairly collaborative relationship with Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze when I’d worked with them and had experience of making movies in pre-production, production and post-production stages. As well as having studied at NYU Film School I also have a theatre background and so have developed a real love of working with actors and also think that I have an intuitive feel for it. The thought of directing wasn’t traumatic for me.
JW: Synecdoche needs to be experienced numerous times. Did you make it with the intention that subsequent viewings would pay dividends?
CK: This was absolutely my intention. I very much wanted the film to have a certain ambiguity so that you would be able to interact with it as an audience member. It allows you and encourages you to interact with it as opposed to being merely presented with a story that you simply follow. The film certainly doesn’t simply give you answers and this type of cinema doesn’t particularly interest me. I sometimes watch movies that do that, and find them enjoyable, but I do seek to give a more inclusive experience. I feel that theatre has a dynamism that cinema lacks and so my approach is one that hopefully embraces new discoveries. I want the film to feel fresh and different each time you watch it.
JW: Synecdoche isn’t a dream and doesn’t have the same reliance on dreams as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It does, however, have a certain dreamlike logic.
CK: I have always been interested in dreams and am always trying to figure out what it is to me that is so powerful about dreams and to try and understand how that works. I also just think that dreams often make for really great stories. I find myself a much better storyteller in my dreams than I am when I’m awake. When you are asleep and when you are dreaming you obviously can’t control your feelings and the result is often intense emotion. The idea of being confined as a storyteller to a linear, literal and fairly narrow understanding of reality is actually quite frustrating and this understanding and depiction of reality is really not of that much interest to me. There is an infinite world out there to explore.
JW: Themes such as death, despair, loneliness and metaphysics recur. For all that though, Synecdoche still has a high comic element.
CK: That was one of the perspectives from which I wrote it. To my mind it’s funny! But I also don’t want to tell people what to think and it’s not my aim to say ‘you should find this bit funny and that bit funny’. As we touched upon earlier it’s paramount that people be allowed to have their own personal experiences of the movie. It’s fine of course if they don’t find any of it remotely funny but if it moves them in some other way … my feeling is that it can be both.
There is also the feeling that Synecdoche is pretentious because of its complexities and because of some of the language the characters use. I’m very much aware of that but this to me is also part of the fun, specifically with regards to the ways in which similar language is sometimes used in other kinds of movies. People also sometimes get nervous about laughing at things when they are in an audience in case they feel they have laughed at something inappropriate. They don’t want to be embarrassed.
When we were making the film we were all very aware of this delicate balance and treated everything very seriously. This was certainly true of Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is the film’s centre. In many ways it’s a painful performance and his character has a lot of hurt and turmoil in him. This sense of suffering was certainly real and was felt on set by the other actors and all those working on the movie. For Philip this must have been an intense emotional experience.
JW: Alongside Hoffman you have assembled a very impressive cast.
CK: These are some of my all time favourite actors. I knew Catherine [Keener] quite well, but a lot of them I’d never met or worked with before. I can’t tell you the feeling of having had Samantha Morton read the script and then hear that she wanted to do it; the same is true of Dianne Wiest. It was also important once met them that we got along as people. The film was not only my first as director, it was also shot relatively quickly and so I had to ensure that everybody was going to get along as I didn’t want to find myself in the position of babysitter.
JW: You are known for writing strong female characters. Synecdoche features at least eight compelling women. One of the kernels of the film is Caden’s inability to ever fully connect with the women in his life.
CK: This is the big issue for Caden Cotard. In general he has a difficult time being present in any situation and because of this misses moments and opportunities. I’m not sure that I ever set out with this somewhat intellectual idea with regards to his character but it seems to be true of him. It’s perhaps a human condition too.
JW: You also present quite a challenge to Frederick Elmes. How did the veteran cinematographer respond?
CK: It was great to work with Fred. He was passionate about the project from very early on. The biggest problem that we had was the very compact shooting schedule. We only had 45 days to shoot and so we all had to take a very pragmatic approach. Fred and I talked a lot about what we wanted the movie to feel like. We had a lot of photographs and shots of exteriors in the production office. We worked very closely on storyboarding the particularly complicated things and also spent a lot of time together with the rest of the production team finding the right locations. We also felt, and for a whole bunch of reasons but especially because aspects of the movie are so surreal and stylised, that the cinematography had to be relatively uncomplicated.
JW: You’ve a good trackrecord concerning titles.
CK: Not everyone agrees! I think Synecdoche has a sense of mystery to it. It has various meanings and connotations. I also just liked the way it sounded and the fact that it’s a play on words to Schenectady, New York which is where the film is partly set. Believe me, I come up with a lot of titles. When people ask me why called the film Synecdoche I always respond, ‘Well, why not?’ Besides, you might get to learn a new word.
