J9, a brief history.

It's a funny thing, my relationship with my sister Jeanine. The shift from animosity to unending love was massive. The extremes to and from which we swung were epic. Legendary, to be truthful. The only way they could be rivaled would be if Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly were to end their feud and become lovers, moving into a cottage in Vermont to live the rest of their lives sewing leather patches onto the elbows of each other's suits and discussing the beauty of the poetry of Lord Byron ("Stunning," said Franken. "I quite agree," replied O'Reilly). 

Growing up, we fought frequently. I knew exactly what I could do to annoy her, or even better, publicly embarrass her. Jeanine and I were the perfect age separation to become mortal enemies, 6 years. Kirk and Kahn? 6 years difference. Darth Vader defied the laws of logic and was somehow 6 years older than every jedi in the universe, thus making them mortal enemies. I did so much deliberately to annoy her, but deep down it was all stemming from the fact that I secretly admired and loved her. But that love didn't stop me from doing everything I could to drive her crazy. Yes, I loved her immensely, but that didn't stop the 11 year-old me from doing the worm shirtless in front of her date when he came to pick her up. 

I don't really remember when the shift truly began, but somehow the mutual seething hatred we felt was transformed into glorious adoration. She went off to college and I stayed at home. Maybe that is when I first realized that I missed having her around. When should would come home on weekends I'd actually be happy to see her. She started introducing me to things that would change my life. It was her who told me about The Royal Tenenbaums and introduced me to Wes Anderson. She literally saved my life - LITERALLY, NOT FIGURATIVELY - when she sat me down and had an intervention. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, she staged an intervention. She sat me down with an Elle and Vogue in hand and taught me all I was doing wrong and then schooled me in fashion and grooming. She took me shopping and helped me begin to develop my personal style. At the time I hated her for it, but I now look back with endless gratitude. 

When I moved to college we started calling each other and actually talking to one another. I realized that she was an interesting and wonderful person as well as being my sister. She was intelligent and funny, passionate and talented. I got to know her so much more, and it made me appreciate and love her all the more. When I moved home from college I started spending more time with her and her husband Sean. It got to the point where I would prefer spending a Friday night with them than out on the town. She became my BFF. When I came home from my mission she was my solid rock. She was one of my safe havens where I would be able to go when I wanted to disappear. 

She's now in St. Louis and I miss her like crazy. She's now a mommy and has the most beautiful little girl, and has another one on the way. I don't know how we changed from where we were to where we are, but I love it, and I love my J9!!!!

BFFs since birth.

Adorability level: Very high.

Now she's preggers, and not only is she a wonderful momma, she's so beautiful, too!

My top 10 films of 2008

Alright, this is me attempting to create my top 10 list of this year's films.

First off, a little word on 2008 in general. Looking at the films released this year I cannot help but agree with the masses of others who say that 2008 was a weak year in film. But why is it so? There is a bevy of great films released this year. 2008 saw a few wonders, so why is it being regarded as a failure? Simply put: 2008 is following 2007, and 2007 was phenomenal. Any year would have difficulty following the lineup of 2007, especially the end of 2007 with its canon of Oscar worthy films. So seeing as 2008 is a weaker year, following 2007 makes it look like a travesty in comparison. As if Brad Pitt went back to Jennifer Aniston after Angelina. Tsk tsk. Nevertheless, 2008 presented some wonderful films, perhaps just not as many as 2007.

To begin, I must describe a bit my criteria. This is my list of favorites of 2008, not the best of 2008. While I do think they are close, I do make a distinction between the two. I may rate technically "inferior" films higher than technical "masterpieces" because of simple preference. Let me also say that I consider my top three to be pretty much equal.

10. Speed Racer

A visual mindfreak of a film, the Wachowski brothers feel completely uninhibited and capture a perfect aesthetic of

 childhood imagination amped up on pure adrenaline. All one must do to truly enjoy this film is to buy into the theme of family that is presented here, and I bought into it completely. Though it may lag a bit with the Royalton segment, the absolutely mad pace and visual wonder on display all but redeem it.

9. Rambo

I can't believe this film is here on my list, but I must admit to it being one of the most enjoyable films I've seen in a long time. The slim film gives us only enough exposition and plot to create an inciting incident, which incites . . . mayhem, simply put. For the rest of the 90 minute running time the film is simply the latest marketing video for Squibs-R-Us. Either that or the latest issue of "Headless Burmese Monthly." It is pure enjoyment.

8. Doubt

An incredibly well-crafted piece of theatre disguised as cinema, John Patrick Shanley's ambiguous did-he/didn't-he tale of a Catholic priest is a showcase of acting at its finest. The movie may falter (pointless dutch angles are jarring) but the quality of the performances make it one of the most excellent films in quite some time. Every single performance is sharp and crackling with passion and dedication, and the courage of the story and its dedication to ambivalence make this one of my favorite cinematic experiences of the year.

7. Iron Man

Iron Man is on my list instead of The Dark Knight for one simple reason: enjoyability. Iron Man was infinitely more enjoyable than its dark and gritty colleague, and that is largely due to two men: Jon Favreau and his light touch and serious dedication to the characters as director, and even more to Robert Downey, Jr. for his wonderful embodiment of Tony Stark. Downey owned this film and helped transcend from its pulpy roots to a funny and intelligent film. Great, committed performances from the rest of the cast round out this wonderful film.

6. Milk

I was very much moved by Milk - more than any other film this year. It is a touching and timely film by Gus Van Sant, elevated by wonderful performances by James Franco, Emil Hirsch, Josh Brolin and especially Sean Penn. The film truly finds its footing about halfway through as Milk and his associates battle against the discriminatory Proposition 6. Once it finds itself it propels forward becoming an elegant and fearless story, as moving as Harvey Milk himself.

5. Vicky Christina Barcelona

I'm surprised this film has received such little recognition. Usually a surprising and beautiful little movie filled with rich characters and complex performances is lauded at year's end, but this, sadly, seems to have been forgotten. Woody Allen's best movie of the past years, this examination of modern sexuality and its consequences is filled with wryly funny dialogue and wonderful acting from Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz and Patricia Clarkson. This movie restored my faith in cinema

 after a brief struggle (true story).

4. Burn After Reading

2008 was good for comedy. Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder, Step-Brothers and Hamlet 2 were all hilarious, but the Coens' very dark and bitter screwball comedy is by far the funniest. Each and every performance is bursting with life and energy, but special notice must be given to Brad Pitt for his portrayal of Chad Feldheimer - a man who merits every inch of the name Chad. The taught script by the Coen brothers is never merciful, but always hilarious. Twisting and turning over itself, the plot is a perfect deconstruction of film, always using the medium to twist and manipulate our expectations. Burn After Reading only solidifies the fact that the Coen Brothers understand clearly the art of cinema and how to use it.

3. Let the Right One In

Let the Right One In is a beautiful love story and a deeply touching coming-of-age story. It is a wonderful story of isolation and eventually acceptance as young Oskar meets and falls in love with Eli, the pretty vampire next door. The deliberate and drawn-out pacing perfectly accents the moments of horror, making them all the more shocking and terrifying, and the build-up to the climax makes it one of the most satisfying moments of film this year. The cinematography of the stark, Swedish landscape is as beautiful and haunting as the story.

2. Synecdoche, New York

I can't begin to describe this film in an adequate fashion. The scope and ambition of this film is unparalleled this year. Synecdoche, New York is about . . . well . . . everything. It is about life. It is about creation and its inherent selfishness. It is about communication and miscommunication. It's about obsession. Isolation. Sex. Longing. Narcissism. Love. Pain. It is simply about life and its intricacies. But it is in no way simple. The film is ambitious and takes thousands of little risks. Some work, some don't. But those that work pay off in such a spectacular way that the movie stays with you. It is a rare film that dares to take so many risks with its storytelling, and to see one take them so audaciously and fearlessly is to be commended. Marveled, even. The acting is uniformly excellent, and it also boasts a wonderful new score by my favorite film composer Jon Brion. This film moved me as equally as Milk, but in a completely different fashion.

1. Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle is versatility incarnate. His films range from the horrifying to the wildly imaginative to the poignant and touching. His latest film, Slumdog Millionaire is a touching shot of joyful adrenaline into the year in film. His underdog tale of poverty in India is a beautiful and moving film, but also exciting and full of life. His images of impoverished India are haunting and truthful, but not devoid of hope or happiness. His troupe of Indian actors all perform spectacularly, and he manages to coax wonderful and deep performances from his child actors. His color palette is splendid, and the vibrant images on display energize and awaken the mind. But with all the visual frenzy and drama, he does not lose grip on the heart of it all, and he creates a touching and beautiful film. I loved this movie. I left the theatre feeling exhilarated and alive, excited and blissful. It's a powerful movie to make you feel that way, and Slumdog Millionaire is indeed powerful.

Honorable Mentions: Funny Games, The Dark Knight, The Visitor, Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder

Have Not Seen, But Want To: Frost/Nixon, The Wrestler, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Wackness, Man on Wire, Revolutionary Road, Wall-E, Rachel Getting Married, In Bruges, The Fall, Waltz With Bashir

An Open Letter to The Coen Brothers

Dear Misters Joel and Ethan Coen - 

My dear friends. I do not know you. I have never met you. I would be so privileged. But as a complete stranger to you, I approach you in my mind as friends. You see, you appear to me to be friends - and close ones. I say this because we've had so many blissful moments with each other. It's never been through direct contact, sadly, but through the medium of which you two are such gifted masters. Through your gifted hands I have come to feel as if I know you two, and as if I am close to you. It is because you have revealed yourselves so nakedly and vulnerably through your art that I feel comfortable to approach you in this way.

You see, I want to ask of you two a favor. I know this could seem forward. We have never met, as I mentioned before. But we're friends, and friends can do that for one another. So I ask you two do me one little favor. I hope you don't mind, but I must ask it of you: Please, my dear friends, never stop making movies. I couldn't bear it. As a friend I don't think I could handle the loss of you as working filmmakers. The American cinematic landscape would sit barren of many of its unique beauties if you were ever to cease making movies. You have added so much to that landscape that only you two could have added, and losing you two would be a devastating blow. So again, I implore you with much fervor: never stop.

You must be asking yourselves why I've decided to write this letter. It's simple. Tonight as I watched Miller's Crossing, I marveled at the poetic beauty and that you created in the failed hit of Albert Finney's Leo. As he leaps off the balcony and then picks up the tommy gun and shoots it wildly into to night, as he shoots his would-be assassin through the window and while his once-living would-be assassin shot uncontrollably the bedroom I was awestruck by the near perfection attained. It is a scene that could only be as wonderful as it was in your hands, dear Brothers Coen. It played perfectly to your sensibilities and your capacities, sprung uniquely from your creative genius. It is a familiar moment - many films contain the same type of scene played out similarly - but yours was stamped with your indelible art. You are filmmakers who have taken to heart the theory of Truffaut and Godard, that a director has the capacity and the responsibility to leave his or her imprint on their work. This scene, as well as your entire oeuvre, benefits from this magical imprint. You are unique filmmakers, truly one-of-a-kind, and the loss of your genius would be devastating to the creative world.

So once more I implore you: don't stop. Never stop. If not for you, for me - a friend.

Sincerely, your good friend,

Brian Owen

Truffaut

What is it about Francois Truffaut that makes him such a wonderful filmmaker? I took the afternoon today to watch and absorb his first film, The 400 Blows, and this question has been in my head since then. I pose the question seriously, not in any condescending sense. His films are beautiful and poignant. They have a way of elevating one's spirit. But he is a simple filmmaker. He does not do this by any manipulation or by technical spectacle, but he finds stories that are pulled from a collective consciousness of experiences to make films bothe fantastic and relatable for everyone.

So what is it about Truffaut that makes him such a fine auteur? I think  first and foremost it is the word auteur. It is found within the theory projected by all those involved with Truffaut and contemporaries' new wave filmmaking, the theory that a director is the author of his films, and that he leaves an indelible fingerprint on his films. He took it farther. As writer of most of his films he allowed himself to be an even stronger "author" of his style in filmmaking. He believed that the director had not just the ability, but the responsibility to make a unique piece of art, reflective of one's own style. He believed it and he lived and created by it.

He also understood the medium from two different perspectives. He understood it as an artist and a creator, but also - thanks to his years at Les Cahiers du Cinema - as a critic and an analyst. He understood film in both theory and application. He was a harsh critic of the current French cinema, and as such he - along with his fellow new wave filmmakers - made films in direct opposition to the current trends in filmmaking. He understood from a critical standpoint where other films were going wrong, and as an artist he understood how make it right. His personal beliefs of the ability and responsibility of a director and his understanding on different levels of the art of film are two of the strong components that make hims such a fine artist. 

Then we have his actual ability manifest in his films. His artistry was nearly unparalleled. His stories, while often lacking the traditional three-act structure as we recognize it, were always well-crafted and well-realized. They were somehow always relatable enough, even in his more fantastic of films. His stories all seemed to find a way to reach down into the heart of each viewer and pull their individual experiences out to be examined and re-experienced. While few among may have experienced the rejection and neglect of Antoine in our own lives, it is told in such a way that our own childhood isolations - no matter how small - are brought to the surface, having us experience life alongside Antoine, instead of simply watching it. He crafts wonderful reflections of our experiences.

His camerawork is what astounded me in this last viewing. His camera is a casual observer to the situation, very unassuming and devoid of any flourishes that take away from experiencing the story. When he does use the occasional technical flourish, it's for a reason and it is arresting. In the 400 Blows he uses no establishing shots, which is a subtle change but has huge impact. An establishing shot will show us the entire school building before entering the classroom, the home before the bedroom or the restaurant's name before panning in to the couple at the table. Establishing shots have become an easy way of identifying something to the audience. It spells it out for us. Worse yet, it has become a substitution for mood: show us point-blank a location and expect the mood to be evoked by a flash of identification. Truffaut uses no establishing shots. On each cut he takes us immediately to our characters, and to our stories, there is no wasted time to have it painted out to us. He has two shots in the film that I would consider for Truffaut his establishing shots: at the beginning of the film we see Paris from the streets and when we shift to the juvenile camp we have a brief shot of the school with a supertitle before the class exits. Both of his locations, Paris and the camp are full characters in the film. It is for this reason, I believe, that he has no large need for establishing shots. I believe the realism of the film is greatly aided by his lack of establishing shots. There is no halt of the story in order to show us where we are, we simply see and we simply know it. 

His few technical flourishes in the film become completely breathtaking after a film of such unassuming camerawork. The final shot of the film is well-known, but what stunned me the most this time around was the transition after Antoine's meeting with the psychiatrist. The slight freeze with the dissolve was absolutely stunning, and it allowed the mood of the scene - the heartbreak and abandon - to linger just that much longer.

To me, that dissolve illustrates what works so well about Truffaut and his work. It shows a perfect synthesis between technical proficiency and artistic excellence. The dissolve is technically well-conceived, but is a wonderful moment of art that evokes reaction and emotion. And it succeeds on every level.

"What can I offer?" In function to my religion

To continue in my thoughts on the idea of "What can I offer?" I now take my ideas and put them into the context of my religion as well as the social stigmas and ideologies that stem from, not my religion per se, but rather by the culture grown from zealous living in a controlled cultural environment.

The earlier quote, that someone could "never marry a man majoring in art" because "it is selfish" is an idea held firmly in place by many members of my religion. Many people my own age in college believe this. It grows from a place that I do not understand, but I have many theories on where it may come from. Expectations for a certain type of life are high within the church. It is a life where righteous living is priority, and a happy home and happy family are the results. This expectation, though, can often be manipulated with the Calvinistic ideology that those who are favored by God will be identified by their temporal success. In the church this ideology is not so literally believed that we will consider those in the larger homes to be truly on a faster track to the celestial kingdom than those in the smaller homes. But we do judge far too often one's righteousness by their exterior signs of commitment or by temporal successes. So when someone assumes that an art major will never be able to provide for his family, the implication is serious. They are putting their family - which is the most important - behind their desires to follow their pipe dreams. Or so this idea would have you believe. 

So within this warped framework of ideology we have beliefs that begin to form in the collective consciousness that there are careers and educations that are inherently more righteous than the others. Those with noble ambition - the doctors and lawyers, the scientists and businessmen - are regarded as nobility. Those with "normal jobs" who have the ambition and talent for manual labor or office work are also regarded as noble - they who will work and do everything it takes to provide for their families. But the artists are for some reason looked upon as selfish people, too absorbed in our own desires and abilities to come to our senses and put others first. I am not saying this is the case for all members, but a group of them feel this way, perhaps without realizing it. but to them, we are hedonists who care only about our dreams and desires and not about the health, safety and security of our families. 

Then there is the odd stigma that many oddly have, that the arts are somehow a heathen world of pornographers and sinners, and that pursuing a career in the arts is enlisting directly in their services. It is odd seeing as this archaic mindset of religion that banned arts was one of the major steps forward of the restoration. Our church championed art and artists. Not to mention, the major events leading us out of the dark ages and into modern thought and intelligence was fueled by the renaissance and its art and artists. But in this modern age, art is equated with the snarling face of Babylon. Unless it is, of course, the wonderful genre of mormon art (another subject altogether) which is how the Lord sees fit to produce art. Art is bad. Unless, you know, it is Eric Dowdle, Halestorm Pictures or generic paintings of Jesus in a field of blooming flowers accompanied by small children. 

We cannot assume that to be considered a successful or a righteous mormon that we must belong to a certain profession. We cannot assume that to be a positive influence in someone's life or to help people come unto Christ that we must be a doctor or a real estate agent or a sales manager at a local Staples. We must simply do the best with what the Lord has given us. In the parable of the talents the wise and profitable servants took that which were given and multiplied it. The unprofitable servant whose apathy frustrated the master simply hid his away. In the Lord's kingdom we have each been given talents. Some talents are in some disciplines and other talents are in other disciplines. What is unwise is hiding that which we have been given away. I will be a far more effective servant of the Lord in being myself and multiplying the talents I have than by hiding my talents away and force the growth of talents I may not even possess. I will have the capacity to influence the world positively and to help bring others to Christ far more by being involved in my art and the talent the Lord has given me than by majoring in anthropology and finding a "normal job."  

The arts have their place in the Lord's kingdom. He has given us artists for that reason. Burying the talents given to us is frustrating to the Master, and does nothing to benefit His work nor His kingdom. To not broaden one's education in the arts if given the talent is to bury it, and is to be - in turn - an unprofitable servant. To seek an education in the arts is not a selfish quest - it can be if approached poorly - but rather it is a quest to take what is given to us an multiply it. In so doing we prepare ourselves so that when the Master arrives He can tell us that we have done well, and that we may enter into His kingdom. 

So do you want to open a shop in a large city? Sell vintage clothing and your own designs? Want to create a community of artists in order to consistently create and perform original quality material? Want to make films? Than do it. If this is what you truly desire and want to do, there is no reason to bury it and force it to sit unused. Make yourself profitable. Make the world a better place by whatever means you can. Bring people to Christ by the means that He has given you, and you will be far more productive than trying to do it some other way. Our righteousness will not be based on our 401k nor our decision to choose biochem over painting. (and vise versa) The Lord's kingdom requires all types, not just those deemed to be in "respectable" professions by the local neighborhood watch.

What I can offer?

"I could never marry a man majoring in art. It's selfish on his part."

That's in quotes for a reason: someone actually said it. It is a sentence that must, by obligation, be put in quotation marks because - as improbable as it seems - it was actually uttered. Odd, I know, to think that such a misguided and sad idea could be expressed by a friend of mine, and even sadder to come to the realization that there are many who share the same viewpoint. It has started me thinking. The statement is flawed and hypocritical by its own selfish trappings so I won't spend any time on why I think it should be disregarded. I will rather express the thoughts that have been occupying my mind all day as I contemplate my place within this idea of selfishness by artful expression. The thought that is reoccurring most frequently in my mind is the following: What do I have to offer?

So what do I have to offer? I am not speaking of myself in a marital sense, as in "What can I bring to the table in a relationship?" but rather  "What can I bring to the world?" It's not as deeply existential as the question may lead one to believe. What do I have to offer the world? How can I better it? How can I change or influence it? Within this, there lies many paths. Each is unique, and each is important. But we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that a path which diverges from what many would define as "normalcy" is a lesser path. The artist's influence, while perhaps unfelt and unseen by many is just as imperative to the world as the influence of lawmakers, powerful businessmen, politicians and doctors. You know, the "normal professions." 

So what can I offer? I have only that which I can create and that which I am given. I cannot force interest or talent in areas where they do not exist in me. I cannot pretend that I understand the deep inner-workings of an equation. I cannot pretend that I would like to. I cannot feign interest in the things in which I would normally have no interest. So why force myself into an education, career and life devoted to it? Why pretend that I could be effective in accomplishing important goals by surrounding myself in that for which I have no talent or ability. I am what I am, and I am who I am. I have certain abilities and talents which are unique to me, and for that I am thankful. I am no lawyer or politician, and for that I am thankful. I am no biochem major, no physicist in training. I have to offer that which I have, that which I am. I cannot change that. What I can do is refine and hone that which I have. In doing so I will a greater impact on the environment around me than I could in any other way. I have talent for the arts. How can I fool myself into thinking that my life would be more affecting by denying them and turning myself to scholarly pursuits accepted by the masses? In all truth I can only be effective by being who I am. I cannot have the same influence or impact in hiding my abilities or denying them in order to pursue a "marketable" career. Saying that a point comes where one must grow up and pick a big-boy job is an idea as ludicrous as saying that a talented and gifted doctor would have more success in life by leaving his practice and painting. 

Why is it a selfish pursuit to hone and perfect the abilities that I have been given? Those who are gifted in thought, in science or in mathematics certainly use education to further deepen their knowledge and abilities in their crafts, why is it not the same for me? Why am I a fool for wanting to further my abilities in my own craft? It is a fallacy to think that it is selfishness that leads many to do that which they love. It is a fallacy to believe that pursuing one's dreams is left only to the artists. It is a pursuit that should drive all of those seeking education in their respective fields. We can all better our capacity to offer something to the world. The lawyer may grow in his knowledge of the law, the doctor in his ability to understand the human body, the taxi driver the fastest route and the artist his craft. Each of us can offer the world what we have. That which we have we can improve and refine. But taking that which is innate and ignoring it for that which is accepted is a disservice to ourselves, seeing as we rob ourselves the ability to fulfill the extent of our own potential. Again, this extends to all realms of ability. We cannot rob the world of a good surgeon, a good mechanic or a good executive by ignoring our natural gifts, abilities and tendencies. The world cannot afford it. Whatever it is that we are, we cannot positively or as powerfully affect the world by denying or changing it. We can never achieve our potential by deceiving ourselves. 

So in summation, I can only offer that which I am and that which I have. Anything else would be either a lie or a disservice, and would not be as affecting. To refine one's ability in that which one loves is, in fact, the antithesis of selfish. True selfishness would be to deny the world that which one could offer.

 

Trips to the Broadway Center

Last night I was able to go to the Broadway Center Cinemas, one of my favorite places on Earth. My life living in Utah has seen me wasting hours upon hours of my life at this wonderful cinema. The Broadway Center Cinemas is run by the Salt Lake Film Society (get information on screenings, and more importantly on becoming a patron here) an organization that is wonderful and deserves our support. Because of the SLFS I have had several of my most intimate and moving experiences with film, and what I have experienced because of them plays in heavily with why I want to be a filmmaker and an artist. 

It has been too long since I've been to the Broadway Center. I was able to go last night with a close friend, and together, we shared two wonderful films together.

Let the Right One In is a slow, subtle Swedish film about two 12 year-olds coming to know each other and deal with their growing affection for one another. As far as plot goes, I don't want to speak about it much more, because I feel as if I would have enjoyed this heartwarming and beautiful tale if I new less about it going in. The film is slowly but perfectly paced, allowing the character relationships to blossom and develop naturally. The story also progresses in a natural and beautiful arc, accompanied by affecting performances by the two young leads. What really impressed my in the film was the sound. Using silence when many films would use far too much music, and using deep human noises for certain scenes create an effective and often horrifying environment. 

I won't say much more about Let the Right One In, because I don't want to spoil it too much, and I also don't want to overhype it. But honestly, the film is perfect. In retrospect, I cannot find one flaw in the film. No hyperbole, I'm serious. Not one flaw. I loved this movie.

The second film was the epic and wondrous Synecdoche, New York. It is Charlie Kaufman's latest film and his directorial debut. The exciting thing about this film is that it is Kaufman directing Kaufman, so we are left with solely his vision, no filtering. While his collaborations in the past have been massive successes , this is 100% Kaufman pur jus. The last time I was this excited about seeing someone bring just their vision, and solely their vision, to the screen was Shane Black's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For me, both films are triumphs for their respective filmmakers. 

I don't know where to begin with Synecdoche, New York. As with all of Kaufman's films, the plot is unorthodox, to say the least. Theatre director Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is given a Macarthur grant and decides to do something big and truthful, creating an ever-growing replica of life in New York City. That's probably about as simple as I can make it, but it is increasingly complex. The film that I would relate this to would most likely be Fellini's 8 1/2, due to Synecdoche's tale of the struggle to create as well as the tale being told largely by analyzing Caden's relationships with the women in his life. The film also has no problem analyzing itself and its themes on several different meta-levels. 

Synecdoche is a grand, sweeping tale playing with time and consciousness as if it were a near-annoyance. It's protagonist's struggle to connect and create is a beautiful tale that touched me, as well as my friend, deeply. It also sports a new score by the incredible Jon Brion. 

I plan on spending more time over my Christmas break at the Broadway Center, and I hope to have as many marvelous film experiences as I did this weekend.