Mein Essen mit André

MY DINNER WITH ANDRE is one of the greatest movies of all time because it works on a seemingly infinite number of levels. Yet at the same time it is one of the biggest failures in film because it only succeeds in connecting to the most insightful of its audience. The resulting paradox only serves to prove the film's lesson to be true. Brilliant!

This is either a movie you will turn off after fifteen minutes, or it is a movie you will watch over and over again to pick up all the things you missed in previous screenings. The former will be bored and lost by the endless, meaningless talk. The latter will find gold in every word, and veins left to be mined time after time.

In simple terms, the question is understood "If life is a stage, are you going to be an actor, a director, or a playwright?" It is the viewer's choice. Wally is a struggling playwright who has fallen back on acting. Andre is a former actor and director who has left the theatre entirely. Wally and Andre meet for dinner, and Andre recounts his experiences since leaving the theatre.

But one of the ironies is that their dinner itself is theatre, and both Andre and Wally have roles to fill. [Notice they wrote the script and use their real names. They are not playing characters. They are necessarily playing themselves.] And summarily the viewer also has a role to fill. If life is a stage, viewing the theatre is in itself theatre. The viewer is now in a place of choosing the role. And will that choice be made mechanically or deliberately? Mechanics is acting. Deliberation is playwrighting.

This is a brilliant, brilliant film. One of the greatest movies of all time. And its resolve is purely subjective to the individual viewer. The goal is to deliberate and come away enlightened (literally). Unfortunately the majority of viewers will act mechanically and turn it off.

This is a very strange film, indeed. There are moments of profoundness, but for the most part there is a lot of nothing. However, I feel like it is worth watching for those few minutes that are absolute gold.

For the sake of authenticity here are various reactions from my diary:

1984

An interesting movie, one of the few non-comedies I liked. It consisted of nothing but a two-hour conversation between two friends. The conversation wasn't of very good quality, but infinitely above most of the drivel on TV.

1985

A recreation of a real life dialogue between a playwright and a theatrical producer about life, modern civilization and everything under the sun. I found it very interesting but neither of the characters are first rate-intellects. Andre came off looking kooky.

1988

It is SPELL-BINDING, but ultimately frustrating, like all movies. One is never sure what the writers really believe, and to what degree they believe it. I wish the two would appear on talk shows and carry on the same type of conversation.

2000

I'm afraid what looks like art in a movie would look perfectly banal in real life. If you were overhearing this conversation in a coffee shop, would you pay to listen? I wouldn't, nor would I listen free of charge. But a movie is fascinating, because it is an object, a product. A movie is an event in itself, regardless of content. There is a communal experience of watching what thousands have watched. Without meaning to, this worthy film exemplifies the tragedy of human communication: it is impossible. No one really knows what is being said or why. We are all wrapped up in ego, yet when we strip it away, there is nothing. But talking has a sensuality of its own. It is more intimate than sex.

There are movies made of every kind, of many different genres. While quite a few are entertaining, some films can actually be life changing. "My Dinner With Andre" is one of those films. I first saw the film in the early 1990s, around a decade after it was made. Caught in a vortex of corporate America office work drudgery as a single parent, the movie inspired me then to really examine my life and actively work to change it.

I struggled to understand how a theater director (Andre) could ever become disenchanted with his life enough to drop out and search for more meaning. For me, the ability to do anything artistic to earn a living was a dream come true. As I watched the film, it became apparent how even someone in the arts could become disconnected - in fact, even more so than other people, who had resigned themselves to live the way that they were expected to according to standards they didn't agree with. I came away with the conclusion that it is the artists in society who have an obligation to cast truth's light on culture and how it affects humanity. This is a huge responsibility, and it is often frustrating for creative people to have to confront the mundane aspects of life which can create soul crushing circumstances, driving people to behave in the most inhumane of ways.

Seeing the film again recently, it had a whole new meaning for me. Now that I am on the other side of the spiritually deadening life in corporate America - I can see how my goals and decisions to change my life were extremely necessary - in fact, imperative to my existence. Since the film was made, people have spent decades engaging in all manner of robotic and soul deadening activities - many to the detriment of themselves and everyone around them. We have also seen a technological surge that helped to liberate people to a certain degree, while further enslaving others. Regardless of which type of person one happens to be, at the end of the day, most everyone should work toward doing the things that give them joy - without harming others in the process. While this is much easier said than done, it doesn't make the goal any less important to accomplish. In fact, on a very basic level, it is just as necessary as eating, breathing and sleeping. Maybe even more significant, since human apathy, in its own way, can systematically destroy and sully the spirit driven intention of others.

"My Dinner With Andre" is every bit as relevant now as when it first premiered, perhaps even more so. A conversation about the meaning of life and how people choose to live it, along with all of the outside forces that exist to complicate it, will never go out of style. This is a beautiful masterpiece of a film, that can be watched many times, to produce different points of view which provoke interesting, engaging and enlightening discussions by those who experience it. This is very apparent as Shawn's character, who on the surface seems to disagree with a lot of what Andre says. Yet by the end of the film, on his way home, his eyes observe things in his environment as though a new light was been cast upon them.

I saw this movie in 1981 when it first came out. I was 31. (Don't know if that matters but it might.) I could barely stay in my seat. I wanted out so bad. All this taking. (I was not a talker. I didn't like talking. I didn't want to tell anyone anything about me.) No action in it. I like action. This movie went in my list of "good movies" (received well in the press) that I did not like.

It has bothered me for a long time that I didn't get what this movie was about and just watched it again at 71. I loved it. I could relate to both these guys. I enjoyed watching them react to one another. That's just me. Nothing wrong with hating it.