My Dinner with Andre

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.

My Dinner with Andre is one of those films you may well hear about, because it is really pretty different. This is the kind of film where you have to have (or have had) a lot of existential curiosity to be able to enjoy it. The less you think you know about this world, the more interesting you will find Andre's tales to be. Beyond that, you may still find it interesting if you can relate to the quest for meaning and happiness and you think of yourself as a student of human interactions. On the other hand, if you have low tolerance for weirdness and fancy, then you are likely to find yourself to be irritated by it all. There is a question of how high to rate it as a film since it seems to be just a recorded conversation. I rate it down just a bit on that account (seems unfair to other films), though I find there are some subtleties to be picked up on, and I found Wallace Shawn to give a pretty good performance with his sincere and mildly intense reactions to Andre (and at one point finds something to be INCONCEIVABLE!). Recommended to artist- and entrepreneurial types that find themselves often wondering over the edge of the World of Appearances.

Wally Shawn is about to meet a friend he has avoided for several years, Andre Gregory. He has apparently gone mad. The interesting thing is that Shawn and Gregory plays himself, they themselves wrote the script and what they say are supposedly parts of conversations they have actually had over the years.

With this in mind you should already know that you are about to encounter something out of the ordinary.

If you take away the journey to and from the restaurant, which can't have taken up more than a few minutes, all the action takes place around a table. The title says it all. This is Wally dinner with Others. The excitement lies in the words coming out of their mouths, and fortunately their conversation is extremely interesting.

At the beginning it seems like Andre is a maniac, just some crazy person babbling on about nonsense. However, at some point things are starting to make more and more sense. Threads are merged and a serious and highly relevant discussion about life and the roles we play occurs.

The film was never boring and most of what comes up is something to think about. You get this strange "tell me more" feeling, which so few other movies do, or even try to achieve. A very special film I would most warmly recommend.

First off, I love this film. I'm sure I will see it a dozen or more times before I die. Definitely a 10/10.

But I comment for a different reason. Sure, you see the philosophy in the conversation. It is very interesting. What I think a lot of viewers are missing, though, is the strong characterizations of Wallace and Andre. They very clearly reveal their characters throughout the movie. I also love the tension that arises between them. Andre subtly criticizes Wally several times in the film (note what Andre says about people who stuff their face out of habit while Wallace is eating; also notice that we hardly ever see Andre himself eat). Wally is perceptive enough to catch them. This movie hit so close to home it was unbelievable. I think I've had that conversation before. The dynamics between Wallace and Andre have existed before between myself and friends with whom I have argued. If you find Andre a little pretentious, by the way, which many people will, don't necessarily believe that that wasn't deliberate. Wally himself finds his friend somewhat pretentious. And I think many people will be fooled into believing that the director sides with Andre just because he speaks the most. Some people will just buy into Andre's ideas and believe Wally is a poor sap. Don't be too sure that Wally has his life in any order. Don't believe he understands all that happens around him. Remember the line in Autumn Sonata that made him weep. Also, notice that Wally is fibbing a bit himself. In his opening monologue, he complains how hard his life is getting. All he used to think about was art, but now the only thing he thinks about is money.

See, this film is filled, just stuffed, with layers. Who would ever think that the most multi-layered film ever is a film about two people who sit down to dinner and talk!

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.