Tag Archives: film analysis

Living or Acting? The Search for Meaning in ‘My Dinner with Andre’

How do we approach life in the modern era with our eyes wide open? In My Dinner with Andre, two men sit and have a conversation about this very thing over dinner. It is a long conversation, and they cover many topics, but the theme stays the same: we are all living in a dream. I suppose the film can be construed as dull, but I believe it has important artistic value, and it’s a movie that has the power to change one’s life.

This is a more personal essay than usual because I believe in the spirit of the film. It literally shifted my perception of life at a time when I was unsure about many things. Critically examining one’s life is difficult, but I think this film offers a lot in the way of literary efficiency through analysis.

Similarly, this movie feels literary in its scope. At the heart of it, it is a series of anecdotes from one person’s recent history and philosophical undoing. We have point of view, the oral tradition of storytelling, existentialism, and theme all grounded into a thematic stew. All of this is about finding meaning in life in some way, and it says a lot about the modern age. In this essay, we are going to explore existentialism and how it relates to the film’s message.

Synopsis of the Film

On the surface, My Dinner with Andre (1981) is about a casual dinner at Café des Artistes in Manhattan. Wallace Shawn is a playwright who has recently taken up acting to make ends meet. As he says, being a playwright has not been paying the bills. Shawn’s girlfriend, who is only introduced through his narration, has started waiting tables for extra money.

Shawn narrates: “I became an actor, and people don’t hire you. So, you just spend your days doing the errands of your trade. Today, I had to be up by ten in the morning to make some important phone calls. Then, I had gone to the stationery store to buy envelopes. Then, to the Xerox shop. There were dozens of things to do.”

All of this complicates Shawn’s life. It also begins digging into the theme of existential depression. Shawn seems to be removed from dwelling on this psychological anxiety. We as the audience get the feeling that he has been at this for a while. As such, there is an underlying fear in his words. He is not successful, monetarily or professionally, and that fact has negatively impacted his life. 

“I’ve lived in this city all my life,” Shawn tells us. “I grew up on the Upper East Side and when I was ten years old, I was rich, I was an aristocrat, riding around in taxis, surrounded by comfort, and all I thought about was art and music. Now, I am 36, and all I think about is money.”

What is Existential Depression?

Existential depression is the feeling that life is pointless and without meaning. It is the feeling that one is simply floating in a void of space without much purpose. Of course, this can be a passing moment that does not affect one’s overall outlook on life. Yet, it can have damning effects and change the outcome of one’s future.

Angel Rivera, writing for Depression Alliance, states that, “Existential depression generally occurs in people during periods of deep reflection about the meaning of one’s life and the very purpose and meaning of existence … it can revolve around people’s concerns and attempts to make sense of four main topics: death, isolation, freedom, and meaninglessness.”

The above quote has a lot to do with the point of the conversation between both characters in the movie. Their conversation explores the realization that one can have experiences and one can find meaning in life. But they reject the commonality, the repetition, of life. They do this because it forces adherence to the social constraints into which we have unwillingly been born.

It is as much a movie about existential depression and meaning as it is about two men with differing views about life. As stated, the types of epiphanies that are posed in the film can have both positive and negative results. To be precise, Andre seems to have woken up from a sort of mental stagnation. This paralysis is seemingly imposed on him by external powers.  

Where the Dinner with Andre Takes Us

Shawn, being in an artistically desperate moment in his life, has agreed to dinner with an old theatre colleague, Andre, whose abandoned his role as a director and engaged in bizarre escapades. Andre now talks to trees and, at one point, was found weeping near an old building in the city.

This is, as Wallace puts it, due to the impact of a quote from Ingmar Bergman’s Autumn Sonata (1978):
“I could always live in my art, but never in my life.”

In response, Shawn tells us: “He dropped out of the theater. He sort of disappeared. Obviously, something terrible had happened to Andre.”

The two meet for dinner and begin a lukewarm conversation about the usual humdrum of every day life. It isn’t long before some of Andre’s opinions and thoughts on the world begin to seep into their talk. Andre shares fantastic stories of his travels and the peculiar acts in which he engaged. In one story, he claims to have been buried alive, and Andre’s quivering voice guides the audience through the often-dark tone of the film. Meanwhile, Shawn listens politely, apparently untaken with the spiritual nature of the conversation.

Andre’s penchant for experimentalism in all aspects of his existence has changed the way he views the world, and thus the existential depression of the movie becomes visible as Andre questions what it means to experience art, and for that matter, life, and why complacency, as he tells Shawn, has created a willingness in humans to live an unfeeling life. Andre opens more as the movie progresses and he tells Wallace about the existential realization that began his journey into understanding his role as a human. 

Andre says, “I mean, it’s a very frightening thing, Wally, to have to suddenly realize, that, my God! I thought I was living my life, but in fact I haven’t been a human being. I’ve been a performer. I haven’t been living, I’ve been acting. I’ve acted the role of the father. I’ve acted the role of the husband. I’ve acted the role of the friend. I’ve acted the role of the writer, or director, or what have you.”

And this reflection is confounding, and yet it is both revealing for Andre’s character and critical to most of the audience’s own perceptions about life. Are we just performers, wearing different masks each day and under different circumstances?

He finishes by referring to his wife: “I’ve lived in the same room with this person, but I haven’t really seen them. I haven’t really heard them. I haven’t really been with them.”

As the audience, we are forced to confront the existential nature of this observation. Have we been in the room? Or are we just floating above reality in performances that go on until we die?

Andre’s Existential Outlook

Themes in the Film

The existential dread of this film is palpable, from Andre’s musings about life and Shawn’s attempts at arguing a more grounded existence. And I think by its conclusion, Andre lays out many good arguments about how society has zombified so many aspects of life and experience for the sake of comfort and contentment. There is an instance where Andre asks Shawn about the effects of cutting oneself off from the seasons in favor of a life indoors. It is one of those silly spiritualistic questions that seems disingenuous, but it creates an interesting thread for discussion.

“I mean, what does it do to us, Wally, living in an environment where something as massive as the seasons, or winter, or cold don’t in any way affect us? … I think that means that instead of living under the sun and the moon and the sky and the stars, we’re living in a fantasy world of our own making” (My Dinner with Andre).

Andre continues by telling Wally and the audience that as humans we are more than just husks that eat and procreate. Rather, humans are thinking creatures who learn and relate through experience. Humans learn through dancing in Poland or putting on plays in the Sahara. What is the meaning to life? According to Andre, it very well might be the act of experiential existence. It is life through interaction rather than just going through programmed motions.

“I mean, things don’t affect people the way they used to,” he says. “I mean, it may very well be that 10 years from now, people will pay $10,000 in cash to be castrated, just in order to be affected by something.”

From the Director’s Mouth

Director of My Dinner with Andre (1981) Louis Malle’s own words suit the intent of the film, I think. Malle, in speaking with documentary filmmaker George Hickenlooper during an interview in 1991, answered a question about whether he would ever return to Hollywood to make a movie. He responds as such:

“It’s funny, you know, because I’ve made a film about Calcutta, which is a city of physical and economic despair. And I’ve often thought of making a film about Los Angeles, another city of despair—obviously not economic or material despair, but rather a spiritual and ethical despair which stems from lifestyles saturated by popular culture. Los Angeles has its own mini-culture that has grown to serve as the rhetoric for the rest of the industrial world.”

He goes on: “American popular culture really comes from here … –movies, television, commercials, music—comes from Los Angeles. Not only popular culture, but a whole way of life—this obsession with health, for example—all that stuff comes from here. I think people in this town are mutants. They’re a different species.”

A Continuing Analysis

For me, and how this relates to the central conceit of My Dinner with Andre (1981), is that an unmoored adoption of societal norms is a poison. It is a poison that we should mitigate if we are going to truly live a life that has value. Existential depression comes from a paralysis of the soul,. It comes from when we are at our most unsure about why we get out of bed in the morning. Why having experiences may give us the surety we need to continue living meaningfully.

I am not the only one that feels the existential dread of vapid advertisements or vacuous influencers on social media. Sometimes I don’t even remember why it is that I go to work every day and for what reason. Like Andre says: “Because you have to learn now. It didn’t used to be necessary, but today you have to learn something … are you really hungry or are you just stuffing your face because that’s what you do out of habit?”

In other words, we must examine every action and every drive in our own lives. We do this to understand ourselves better and to give value to those actions. Mindless repetition is a death sentence because we are not giving thought as to why we are performing. Instead we repeat those actions ad infinitum. Thus, existential depression sets in and we look longingly into the void. Yet, answers can not be found.  

Final thoughts on My Dinner with Andre

One statement from Andre that keeps coming back. It is an extremely profound one as well. It made me think about my own role in this world. Andre declares that we must wake up from the prolonged sleepwalking. We need to fight against the feeling of android captivity and the casualty of technology, comfort, and complacency.

“I mean, we’re just walking around in some kind of fog,” Andre says. “I think we’re all in a trance. We’re walking around like zombies, I don’t…I don’t think we’re even aware of ourselves or our own reaction to things, we…we’re just going around all day like unconscious machines and meanwhile there’s all of this rage and worry and uneasiness just building up and building up inside us” (My Dinner with Andre).

I do not think my interpretation perverts the purpose of the film. To that end, I could not help but ask myself a million questions as I watched the movie. Questions about social media, my own substance habits, and my relationships with both my wife and family.

I think, to fight existential depression, you must do as Andre says, and actively participate in your own life. You must fight the feeling to turn on autopilot. And, the feeling to regress to the imaginary world of undefined goals and objectives. These thoughts ultimately stand in opposition to reality. Questioning purpose happens when you feel as though you have no purpose. However, it also happens when you are able to experience the world around you in a real and tangible way. Through this, one can create real, thoughtful reflection.

Works Cited

Hickenlooper, George, and LOUIS MALLE. “My Discussion With Louis: AN INTERVIEW WITH LOUIS MALLE.” Cinéaste, vol. 18, no. 2, 1991, pp. 12–17. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41687809. Accessed 26 May 2021.

My Dinner with Andre. Louis Malle. New Yorker Films,1981. Film.

Rivera, Angel. “Eistential Depression: The Mental Illness of the Gifted & Talented.” Depressionaalliance.org. 2021. URL: https://www.depressionalliance.org/existential-depression/. Accessed on: May 25, 2021.

Coppola’s Dracula: The Execution of Atmosphere and Ambience

The Dracula legend exists in many forms, from television shows, to films, to short stories, to poems. But I don’t think it exists anywhere as deftly stated as in Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula (1992). As far as tension and atmosphere, this movie does wonders. In this post, we are going to take analyze the film inspired by Bram Stoker’s masterfully written Gothic horror novel. It’s a pretty faithful adaptation as well. So, follow along as we sink into this excellent film with both fangs out!

Atmosphere in Coppola’s Dracula

Atmosphere

The film tells the tale of Mina and Jonathan Harker, as well as Dracula, Van Helsing, and Dr. Steward. It also gives shifting points of view and perspectives as the strange events of Dracula’s arrival in England from Transylvania unfold. There are many interesting and eerie events, from wolves appearing in movie theaters, to werewolves and giant bats appearing around the city.

Coppola frames these scenes using the same narrative device as the book—epistolary format. Coppola uses this device to showcase the wonder and horror that each of the characters feels as they experience the strange and uncanny events that pervade Count Dracula. Through these written artifacts, Coppola gives scenes of action and character development. And we are led to each encounter by the voices of the film’s main players as they write to each other.

The film’s POV allows the atmosphere to take hold on a personal level, and it’s a clever way to get the audience into the action. Likewise, the audience has an intimate look at each of the characters’ personalities and voices. This lends itself to the atmosphere and ambience of the film. In this way, the audience feels doubt when characters write about it and hope when they write about that, too.

Ambience

After Dracula attacks many of the characters are attacked, the heroes call upon Abraham Van Helsing. The aging vampire hunter assists hem in their combat against the evil entity. The tone and atmosphere shifts in the movie from horror and suspense veritably, as they are quite literally taking action against Dracula. In the background, there is a ticking clock.

“She lives beyond the grace of God, a wanderer in the outer darkness,” Van Helsing tells. “She is vampyr…nosferatu. These creatures do not die like the bee after the first sting, but instead grow strong and become immortal once infected by another nosferatu. So, my friends, we fight not one beast but legions that go on age after age after age, feeding on the blood of the living.”

Eventually, the final fight arrives, and our heroes are triumphant over darkness. They go on living even though they have experienced the painstaking cost of life. Again, the atmosphere and ambience are inescapable as the grief of triumph is such an unusual feeling. Though the protagonists win, they win at a cost, which speaks to the Gothic theme of mourning and death, sin and loss.

Differences from Coppola’s to Stoker’s Dracula

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a long novel to read and engage with, but it is deliberately so. Yes, it is a Gothic horror novel and so shows its pacing by developing building tension. The movie, meanwhile, moves much quicker, as the pacing is far more precise. Additionally, Jonathan Harker stayed very briefly at Dracula’s castle. In the book, he escapes quite early. Likewise, Harker is positioned as Renfield’s replacement in the movie. In the book, no such connection exists.

Meanwhile, Mina is not attracted to Dracula in the book. She does her best to help her friends fight the monster due to his violence toward Lucy. Mina’s image from his past drives Dracula’s motivation in the film, whereas in the book no such connection is a made. Lastly, the book ending is much quicker. The heroes stake Dracula and he is dusted. In the movie, the audience is treated to a prolonged fight. Dracula emerges and battles the companions before Mina beheads him in a church.  

Conclusion

Critics savaged this film for a variety of reasons. From camp to downright strangeness, this film has a variety nge. I guess I don’t disagree. Keanu Reeves performance is just as bad as Wynona Ryder’s performance. There is hammy acting and sometimes inconsistent imagery. Yet, it’s a great demonstration of atmosphere and ambience. The viewer feels the film in their very bones as they watch.

Furthermore, the film executes insanity adeptly. For example, Tom Waits and Dr. Seward share a sort of turn-of-the-century lunacy. At the same time, Professor Abraham Van Helsing carries an air of sophistication and grime. This is a fantastic approach to a character who has spent his career exploring ways to defeat the undead.

Other Dracula movies do other things better. The Hammer Dracula films have a great deal of bloodshed and Nevertheless, Coppola’s nails the atmosphere of Dracula’s castle and the streets of England excellently.