10/10
Were we really in the restaurant? My mind was elsewhere. Brilliant!
11 September 2009
Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory play Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. Yes, as the story goes, these two old friends caught up much like in the film after Andre's return from an awakening journey of life through Asia and during dinner discussed philosophy, life/death and existentialism. They were so involved, moved and amused by their very deep and meaningful conversation that they both agreed to turn their night into a film. And not once during the film do you get the feeling that they were trying to remember what they said the night they had the original conversation. It just came naturally, because their ideas and opinions were fueled with passion and conviction. Their enthusiasm translated through their eyes, facial expressions and fidgety hands. I was so embroiled in their conversation, that the thought of sitting in a restaurant for two hours never crossed my mind once. I've always been compelled by films that are confined to a single set, a claustrophobic surrounding, whether it be one room, one house or one place. These films enable better character development because of the intimacy of the setting. Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski and Sidney Lumet knew the great power of single sets and understood that great stories are never driven by visuals, special effects or mindless mayhem but by character(s) - everything else serves the character and not vice versa. If you were not taken, convinced or fascinated by a character - if you didn't care - the film has failed. And while visuals, attractive actors, special effects and over-the-top action adds value to a film, it however does not define a film. That is why those films which possess all attributes other than interesting characters have shelf lives shorter than the time it took to make them. The reason why Die Hard succeeded over Rambo is because we cared, loved and really got to know John McClane.

What is most fascinating about 'My Dinner With Andre' is that it ONLY has characters. There is no explosions, swearing, sex, CGI and none of the garbage that has attracted brainless movie goers for generations, but rather an intimate story of two friends catching up and talking about lost time. Not only is this film a character study, but the single-setting idea was taken a step further because for two hours while your whole notion of the outside world is erased you do not see a single house nor a single room, but a single table. Your only visual compass are knives, forks, plates and close ups of Wallace and Andre. The pure magic of 'My Dinner With Andre' is its ability to make us feel like we are sitting at the dinner table with them, contributing to the ideas and thoughts of the conversation. Every time there is a surprise twist or revelation we feel as proud and passionate as they are.

The greatest gift the film bestows upon its viewers is its remarkable storytelling. The script never bores. Andre, who does most of the talking, always has our attention. Even when we don't quite understand what he is saying, his obsessive eagerness to tell us something translates through his body and we are happy to listen and try to make sense of everything. Both men have an incredible grasp of language (both are real Theatre producers) and never were there any awkward or dull words spoken. Every word seemed to be dependent on the other in their philosophical debate. It is because this film is completely dialog driven and lacks visual interpretation that our minds create our own. That is the colossal power of the film. You look at the too men and their table but your mind is always elsewhere trying to make sense of their feelings and insights. In other words, you are there but you aren't. Their words feed our brains with rich and poignant imagery, yet no other location photography, sets or computer generated graphics are required and no violence is employed for cheap attention tactics.

'My Dinner With Andre' can be taken on many levels. It reminds you of how great it was to have a friend you could spend hours with talking about philosophy, science or whatever have you for hours on end and be completely oblivious to lost time. In that respect it is a timeless story of friendship. Another interesting dimension to the film is how Wallace represents the audience in his reluctance to accept all of Andre's philosophical views. We voice our concerns, opinions and disagreements through him. However Andre counters all our remarks and criticisms with confidence of a prophet. The film centers on Andre and his five year absence from home and theater. His travels to Tibet and India came as work/life anxieties took their toll on his life characterized by 'writer's bloc' to the point where his grasp on life was questionable. His experiences in Asia enlightened him to life's true reality and those theories, questions, ideas and truths that awoke him from his robotic death and taxes existence of Western Culture are the film's focus. You will find yourself mesmerized by opposing views which in the end combine into a single understanding between friends, an ending that will have you thinking and reflecting for hours, with ample conversation material with those who were fortunate to watch this masterpiece with you.

I can talk about this film until the saliva in your mouth dries and your tongue grows a daisy. This film is just so deep and masterfully realized. Nothing prepared me for it's perfect evaluation of all the thoughts, anxieties and philosophical ideas i've ever had. Whether you agree with what is said at the table or not, you will no doubt walk away from it as "Gymnopedie for Piano" plays in the background, thinking about what a great night you've just had with two very intelligent and interesting people. And you will never forget it!
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed