IMDb RATING
6.8/10
2.6K
YOUR RATING
After doctors inform him that an eye affliction will require risky surgery, monologist Spalding Gray recounts his various pursuits for alternative medicine to avoid the doctor's scalpel.After doctors inform him that an eye affliction will require risky surgery, monologist Spalding Gray recounts his various pursuits for alternative medicine to avoid the doctor's scalpel.After doctors inform him that an eye affliction will require risky surgery, monologist Spalding Gray recounts his various pursuits for alternative medicine to avoid the doctor's scalpel.
Featured reviews
Director Steven Soderbergh, best known for the Ocean's Eleven / 12 / 13 etc movies, makes an experimental movie now and then. This is one of them, BUT...
The bad: this is not really a movie though, it is a contineous monologue from a dude I didnt know, but apparently is famous in America (apologies to the fans of this dude Spalding Gray).
The monologue isnt bad, but it is not really a movie. And I wanted to see a MOVIE.
Not any good then? For anyone interested in watching a documentary with a comical look at alternate treatments for eye diseases THIS is your pick. Especially the real life interviews with folks suffering from several forms of severe eye diseases or injuries, especially those personal stories are flabbergasting to listen to. But they only last about 20 minutes.
The rest of the movie is the same contineous monologue by this dude Spalding Gray, that may or may not interest you... I couldnt really be bothered. I'd rather listen to the radio...
The bad: this is not really a movie though, it is a contineous monologue from a dude I didnt know, but apparently is famous in America (apologies to the fans of this dude Spalding Gray).
The monologue isnt bad, but it is not really a movie. And I wanted to see a MOVIE.
Not any good then? For anyone interested in watching a documentary with a comical look at alternate treatments for eye diseases THIS is your pick. Especially the real life interviews with folks suffering from several forms of severe eye diseases or injuries, especially those personal stories are flabbergasting to listen to. But they only last about 20 minutes.
The rest of the movie is the same contineous monologue by this dude Spalding Gray, that may or may not interest you... I couldnt really be bothered. I'd rather listen to the radio...
But that's why some people love Spalding Gray. And although I do not fall into that category, per se, I was very entertained by this 80-minute monologue -- told in ranting New Yorker mannerisms that are nonetheless fairly endearing -- about what Gray should do about his macular pucker.
The macular pucker, we learn in great detail, is an eye condition that must ultimately be "scraped" in order to restore normal vision. Gray, a born Christian Scientist and an enduring doctor-phobe, walks around New York City, tearing his hair out while choosing among the opinions of an array of quacks who weigh in on the issue. (Or, at least, he describes himself doing this -- the whole film is a series of closeups of Gray in a studio, with various visual stimuli applied to him, through the wonderful direction of the visionary Steven Soderbergh). Through the course of the narrative he describes near-slapstick visits to a Native American sweat lodge, a Phillipino doctor who is the Elvis of healers, a quirky New Jersey "dietary opthalmologist" and several others. It's all told with great storytelling verve, and occasional moments of poignancy.
The film also consists of a series of short documentary interviews with about 8 survivors of eye trauma, who each nearly lost (or in some cases did) vision in stomach-churning ways. Their occasional thoughts on the healing process are very fascinating.
Because of its odd structural format, the one-man narrative film threatens to fall by the wayside. Not that it has ever been a particularly popular form, but its appeal is perhaps dwindling further as our attention spans, and ability to sit through prolonged stories, deteriorate. However, Gray, with a boost from Soderbergh, gives the genre a good name -- and hope
The macular pucker, we learn in great detail, is an eye condition that must ultimately be "scraped" in order to restore normal vision. Gray, a born Christian Scientist and an enduring doctor-phobe, walks around New York City, tearing his hair out while choosing among the opinions of an array of quacks who weigh in on the issue. (Or, at least, he describes himself doing this -- the whole film is a series of closeups of Gray in a studio, with various visual stimuli applied to him, through the wonderful direction of the visionary Steven Soderbergh). Through the course of the narrative he describes near-slapstick visits to a Native American sweat lodge, a Phillipino doctor who is the Elvis of healers, a quirky New Jersey "dietary opthalmologist" and several others. It's all told with great storytelling verve, and occasional moments of poignancy.
The film also consists of a series of short documentary interviews with about 8 survivors of eye trauma, who each nearly lost (or in some cases did) vision in stomach-churning ways. Their occasional thoughts on the healing process are very fascinating.
Because of its odd structural format, the one-man narrative film threatens to fall by the wayside. Not that it has ever been a particularly popular form, but its appeal is perhaps dwindling further as our attention spans, and ability to sit through prolonged stories, deteriorate. However, Gray, with a boost from Soderbergh, gives the genre a good name -- and hope
Made during the time when Steven Soderbergh was in the process of reinventing himself (see also "Schizopolis," made the same year), this is a wonderfully inventive film with a kinetic visual style to match Spalding Gray's verbal gymnastics. This is the kind of film that stays with you long after you've finished watching it, thanks to Gray's performance -- he is a terrific storyteller -- and Soderbergh's imaginative staging.
Caveat: If you're at all squeamish when it comes to graphic descriptions of eye injuries, this film may not be your cup of tea.
Caveat: If you're at all squeamish when it comes to graphic descriptions of eye injuries, this film may not be your cup of tea.
When Spalding Gray is diagnosed as having an eye condition, he goes to a doctor to discuss a course of action. When the issue of surgery comes up it launches Gray on a journey to get a cure that sees him reconnecting with his Christian Scientology roots before other treatments including a physic surgeon, cutting out some foods and a Native American sweat lodge.
Spalding Gray's monologues are very much a matter of taste -many audiences do not like spoken word shows or films and even those that do may not like Gray. I am of the mind that any story teller than can hold my interest for 80 minutes is worth listening to. As an ex-cleaner I have listened to many of my older colleagues talk ad infinitium about their medical problems but none did so with the wit and invention of Gray. He tells a simple story of alternative treatments and such but every little detail is painted with great words. He also manages to inject wit into it - the funniest moment being where he is told that he cannot eat fish (cause they eat certain sea cucumbers in the wild that have chemicals) and he cannot eat chicken because they feed fish to chicken; he finds a farmer's market selling fish bred in captivity (hence, he reckons, unlikely to have eat the sea cucumbers), buys it but then is told that they feed the fish ground up chicken!.
Gray is captivating. At times he is a bit too hyper and his mannerisms are a little irritating in a spoilt Western-hypochondriac type of way, but this is just my prejudice getting in the way. He is a very good story teller and he makes for a good focus. The talking heads add value but really were unnecessary to carry the film. As director, Soderbergh finds himself with a difficult task: does he just point the camera and let the words do the work or does he try to mix it up? He goes for adding to the words and, in some cases he does (The Elvis of surgeons for example) but too often he just blurs the camera behind colours and rippled images. It still works but the words don't need help and often Soderbergh's influence is unnecessary even if it isn't unwelcome.
Overall this is an enjoyable story that is very well told with words that do not only inform but paint and expand on the basic tales. Soderbergh feels that he must do something to justify the difference between film and stage and some of his influence works - but happily even when it doesn't it can be ignored. One of the more accessible and enjoyable of Gray's monologues, this film is a perfect way to reflect upon the man in the shadow of his untimely death.
Spalding Gray's monologues are very much a matter of taste -many audiences do not like spoken word shows or films and even those that do may not like Gray. I am of the mind that any story teller than can hold my interest for 80 minutes is worth listening to. As an ex-cleaner I have listened to many of my older colleagues talk ad infinitium about their medical problems but none did so with the wit and invention of Gray. He tells a simple story of alternative treatments and such but every little detail is painted with great words. He also manages to inject wit into it - the funniest moment being where he is told that he cannot eat fish (cause they eat certain sea cucumbers in the wild that have chemicals) and he cannot eat chicken because they feed fish to chicken; he finds a farmer's market selling fish bred in captivity (hence, he reckons, unlikely to have eat the sea cucumbers), buys it but then is told that they feed the fish ground up chicken!.
Gray is captivating. At times he is a bit too hyper and his mannerisms are a little irritating in a spoilt Western-hypochondriac type of way, but this is just my prejudice getting in the way. He is a very good story teller and he makes for a good focus. The talking heads add value but really were unnecessary to carry the film. As director, Soderbergh finds himself with a difficult task: does he just point the camera and let the words do the work or does he try to mix it up? He goes for adding to the words and, in some cases he does (The Elvis of surgeons for example) but too often he just blurs the camera behind colours and rippled images. It still works but the words don't need help and often Soderbergh's influence is unnecessary even if it isn't unwelcome.
Overall this is an enjoyable story that is very well told with words that do not only inform but paint and expand on the basic tales. Soderbergh feels that he must do something to justify the difference between film and stage and some of his influence works - but happily even when it doesn't it can be ignored. One of the more accessible and enjoyable of Gray's monologues, this film is a perfect way to reflect upon the man in the shadow of his untimely death.
Like the greatest, most professional poet, Spalding Gray tells him stories at a swift, rhythmic pace that is exciting and brilliant all at once. With his pitch perfect timing and comedic wit, he weaves together here a masterpiece of the monologue as he recounts his bizarre, eye opening (yes, pun intended) adventure after he discovered he had an eye problem. Rather than simply accepting a surgery (he really doesn't like it when the doctors refer to their work as "scraping"), he attempts to work out alternative methods, which range from an all raw vegetable diet to traveling to the Philippians to visit a so called "psychic surgeon".
As a master of the monologue, Gray tells this story miraculously well. He writes with a beautiful and distinct quality. Through his storytelling, he expresses himself in a truly unique and entertaining way, packing this one man show with laughs and personality.
I must also praise the director, the famous Steven Soderbergh, who morphs this monologue into a visually stunning art film. Using music, sound, sets, props, camera movement, shadows, and plenty of other fascinating, experimental techniques, he turns Gray's witty writings into a much more cinematic and epic adventure that truly captures Gray's quirky and strange view of life.
As a master of the monologue, Gray tells this story miraculously well. He writes with a beautiful and distinct quality. Through his storytelling, he expresses himself in a truly unique and entertaining way, packing this one man show with laughs and personality.
I must also praise the director, the famous Steven Soderbergh, who morphs this monologue into a visually stunning art film. Using music, sound, sets, props, camera movement, shadows, and plenty of other fascinating, experimental techniques, he turns Gray's witty writings into a much more cinematic and epic adventure that truly captures Gray's quirky and strange view of life.
Did you know
- TriviaThe Broadway performance of "Gray's Anatomy" by Spalding Gray opened at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre on November 28, 1993, ran for 13 performances and closed on January 3, 1994. A repeat performance reopened at the Vivian Beaumont Theater on June 5, 1994, ran for 8 performances and closed on June 27, 1994.
- GoofsThe earpieces of the stethoscopes are supposed to have the slant toward the front because that is the way the ear canal in the skull runs. Every scene shows them just obscuring sound using the stethoscope with the slant toward the back of the user's head. Its an error against anatomy.
- Quotes
Female Interviewee: I think I've been disfigured; or at least blinded.
- Crazy creditsAlthough inspired by actual events, the characters and events depicted in the monologue portion of this motion picture have been fictionalized. Any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
- ConnectionsFollows Swimming to Cambodia (1987)
- How long is Gray's Anatomy?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $350,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $29,090
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $4,690
- Mar 23, 1997
- Gross worldwide
- $29,090
- Runtime1 hour 20 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content