BEFORE: Of course, there is another school-based film that happens to star two actors from "Clueless" - that would be the next logical choice, and I'll get to that one tomorrow. But since this film has only two actors, the only way to link to it is to place it between two movies that also feature Wallace Shawn. So that means I have to take a break from high schools and colleges. Let's call it a dinner break.
THE PLOT: Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, apparently playing themselves, share their lives over the course of an evening meal at a restaurant.
AFTER: Well, this couldn't be more timely, since it's about two playwrights who meet for dinner, and one wants to ask the other about why he seemingly dropped out of the business several years ago, and what he's been up to. I've had to deal with one of my employers taking a break from the animation business, which in turn forces me to take a bit of a break, and writing is something I'd like to do more of during that break.
You probably know Wallace Shawn from his role as Vizzini, the lisping Sicilian, in the fairy-tale comedy "The Princess Bride". Or perhaps you know him from voice work in "Toy Story" and other animated films, or from Woody Allen films like "Radio Days". Me, I happen to know him as "that guy I see in the post office sometimes if I don't go there too late in the day". But not many people seem to know him as a writer. The two actors here are given credit for the screenplay, which suggests that this whole film could have been improvised - it's tough to say how closely the men are sticking to a script, or perhaps a basic outline.
Oddly, a lot of their conversation is ABOUT improvisation. Gregory, who's the one who supposedly vanished from the scene a few years previous, talks about traveling around the world, to places like a Polish forest where a group of actors and musicians were brought out to a forest, and not given any specific instructions about what to do, only told to create something through music and dance. For Gregory, who had gotten disillusioned with the rigidness of playwriting, this was the sort of fresh, active experience he was seeking out. True improvisation, where people are not playing the roles they think they have to in life - husband, father, wife, son - and not wearing the masks of society, and allowed to just be whatever they want. (Sounds a bit like a hippie orgy in the forest, if you ask me.)
Shawn's contribution, for most of the conversation anyway, amounts to saying things like "Oh, really?" and "Then what happened?" Which are improvisation techniques too, designed to keep the other person's conversation going. I noticed that the two men rarely disagree with each other, and the first rule of improvisation is to just say "Yes" to whatever the other person suggests, and roll with it. But when "Wally" finally has a point to make, it's more about the banality of life, having a routine - getting up in the morning and finding the cold cup of coffee from the night before and considering yourself lucky if there's not a dead fly floating in it. Then going about your day, doing errands, and if you find yourself with spare time in the afternoon, grabbing a book to read to fill up the empty hours.
What's really taking place here? Is it just about two men having a conversation? Can something BE that simple? Perhaps, or maybe they represent two different schools of thought - the inner self and the outer self. One is "to be" and the other is "to do". Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, because I want this to be more than a complicated conversation about the creative process. Am I supposed to notice that one man talks about traveling to Europe and Tibet, while the other one is happy just being in his apartment in New York? That one apparently walked away from his marriage for a few years, only to fall back in love with her, while the other one has a live-in girlfriend but wonders if the romance is gone? That conversationally and intellectually, one seems to be playing chess while the other one is playing checkers, on the same board?
I sort of wish I knew more about the plays that both men have written, and how they differ. Even though two writers can use the same language, and think in terms of how people react to each other, or how different environments create different realities, they seem to be polar opposites in terms of where they find their inspiration. One is concerned with the romantic, the ideal, the inner self that can only be seen once society's rules are stripped away, and the other is inspired by the workings and rules of society itself, the daily grind, life's little annoyances. How do these different approaches influence their work? Is one better than the other? Does one's conversation end up influencing the other's approach?
According to the intro that aired on TCM, Roger Ebert called this the best movie of 1981, pointing out that it was completely devoid of clichés. That may be true, but it also violates my #1 rule of screenwriting, which is "Show, don't tell." (My #2 rule of screenwriting is "avoid using flashbacks or other non-linear methods" and my #3 rule of screenwriting is "come up with some more rules when you have time") This is nothing BUT tell. Other than the dialogue, nothing happens. OK, two men eat out, so what? SPOILER ALERT: Andre picks up the check.
I shouldn't be so harsh - something does happen, two people reconnect over dinner. And in the age of texting, tweeting and facebooking, it's the kind of thing that should be celebrated. Just not in a movie. Get out there and invite an old friend to dinner - use LinkedIn to track down your old college roommates that you haven't seen in years. When your high-school reunion comes up, you should totally go. Since I'm not on Facebook, I think I missed the 25 year reunion, I never got an invite. But my 30th is coming up in two years - I'm not THAT hard to find, people, my parents still live in the same town. Geez, put in a little effort beyond just e-viting your friends list.
I can't really support the notion that New York City is a giant concentration camp, where the residents are both the Jews and the guards in some schizophrenic fashion. Is that really what some people think? That New Yorkers basically bully each other into never leaving? Show me the concentration camp that has such great restaurants, shows, beautiful buildings, great stores, etc. Not to mention bars, festivals, food events of every shape and size - maybe so many people live here and so few leave because it's so awesome, did you ever consider that, Mr. Existentialist Playwright?
The one thing we DON'T have in NYC is the restaurant where this was filmed. Immediately I wanted to know where they shot this - from the menu items my first guess was the Russian Tea Room - but they filmed the interiors at the then-abandoned Jefferson Hotel in Richmond, Virginia. In case anyone comes to Manhattan trying to re-create this meal, it's just not possible.
Also starring Andre Gregory.
RATING: 4 out of 10 espressos
No comments:
Post a Comment