My Dinner with Andre

This movie is mainly a conversation between 2 people. There isn't much music, barely any camera work, there actually is barely any acting because both actors play themselves!... it can barely be called a movie, but it still is one - and a very entertaining one at that. Both Actors have a gift for languages and are amazing story tellers. My native language is not English (you probably guessed it while reading this review), but even I have been amazed by the beautiful language and their amazing skill to talk.

From a philosophical point of view, there is nothing new. I heard all the thoughts before. - The great strengths of the movie is the way those ideas are expressed. Even the most simple thought is coated by meaningful and beautiful words. You almost feel enlightened while watching this movie! But after the movie is over, you realize, that you actually learned nothing. It still has been a great experience. And I wished that there'd be more movies like this one.

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.

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.

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.