The End of the Tour

Saw this film last weekend at its world premiere at Sundance. First of all, Donald Margulies' script was fantastic. I am slightly partial to good writing in film, so perhaps that's just what stood out to me, but the dialogue is incredibly well-written and natural and at least generally captures David Foster Wallace's fascinating way of talking. In essence (and in the best of ways), nothing really happens in this movie. There isn't a lot of high stakes drama, but that's exactly what makes it so compelling. It's like we as the audience get a glimpse into two men struggling with the same ideas about life, art, expression, addiction, culture, and depression.

Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg live up to the task of interpreting the script, helped along the way by director James Ponsoldt. The direction is simple, and the camera work is relatively basic throughout, giving the actors plenty of room to work with natural rhythm. Segel definitely impressed me, as this was the first dramatic role I've seen him in. While he didn't exactly capture some of Wallace's real-life mannerisms, I'm not sure if that was exactly the point of the film. He interpreted the script in a powerful way, and I think that that ended up working out quite well for the overall tone of the film. Eisenberg played his usual somewhat neurotic, slightly asshole- ish character very well, and I thought it fit the reporter role perfectly.

Overall, I would strongly recommend the film. 9/10

Prior to seeing this film, I had limited knowledge of David Foster Wallace and his works. After seeing the film, I wanted to learn more. The End of the Tour (dir. James Ponsoldt) is a very reflective film, highlighting author Wallace on the last stretch of his book tour for his novel Infinite Jest. Our entry point into this intriguing man is David Lipsky, a Rolling Stone reporter hired to do a piece on him in the late 1990s.

What little there is of plot is made up for in excellent characterization. The film is really all about existentialism, and thankfully it never leans towards pretentiousness. Rather there is an air of optimism about making your time on earth worthwhile. Wallace and Lipsky in a way represent two extremes of existentialism. Wallace is very relaxed, and takes his newfound celebrity with a grain of salt, while Lipsky is very Type-A, yet never brash or irritating. Lipsky has been trying to get his foot in the door as an author for a while now, while Wallace almost became famous overnight, and the film plays with the concept of "fame" in fun and unique ways. Through the film, Ponsoldt is able to explore these two extremes and find common ground between them, all while touching on the idea of fame and what it means to different people.

The script is outstanding, and hits all the right notes I touched on above. The dialogue between Lipsky and Wallace feels natural, nothing is forced. I wonder how much improvisation was done for the film, because the two seem like good friends from the moment they meet. There is a natural chemistry that draws these two characters together, and it's outstanding to watch on-screen. It's difficult to adapt a book like Lipsky's, which is mostly interviews and recording, as the book was published after Wallace's death in 2008. But screenwriter Donald Marguiles makes it work, and the result is an insightful, often hilarious film.

All this talk about chemistry would be a waste if it weren't for Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg as Wallace and Lipsky, respectively. Segel is a marvel as Wallace; it's a performance that doesn't demand much, yet Segel taps into all of Wallace's nuances and quirks. His delivery, cadence, and warmth almost makes it feel like you're talking to an old friend. It's a subtle performance that I hope is remembered come awards season. Eisenberg, too, is great. His reporter-type isn't very developed until the middle-end of the film, and he might come across as annoying for some. But he makes Lipsky tick as the curious interviewer wanting to learn more. He's driven by his desire to success, his want to make a successful piece for Rolling Stone, yet he ends up with a lot more.

The End of the Tour is a huge success. It isn't a very showy film, without much in the way of technical prowess, yet it's a talker. The realistic dialogue and blasé tone make the film feel like a 140 minute hang out with two good friends. Ponsoldt keeps a tight grip on the film's themes, never letting one overpower the film's true intentions. It's a wonderful ode to Wallace, and a funny one at that.

Welcome inside the mind of David Foster Wallace. He's a peculiar man. He thinks he's a regular man, when he knows that he's a genius. He hates being a genius, and he hates being a regular guy. His life is as meandering as his dialogs recorded by David Lipsky. The End of the Tour feels more like a documentary, than dramatized narrative feature. So in effect, this movie is as real as it gets about David Foster Wallace. It's all about the acting here, and it shines. Jason Segel was born to play DFW. He proves to us that he is more than a series of cheap shots at his naked body. Here, he doesn't strip himself of his clothes, he strips himself of his emotions. I hope award season treats him very kindly. It's so natural, and easygoing, and pays a respect to Richard Linklater in tone. It's a scatterbrained wonder, a good film to watch on a lazy day.

The End of The Tour was a beautifully done movie that will not be widely seen or even heard of. This movie doesn't have explosions, or side splitting humor, or sex, or anything that sells in Hollywood these days. What this movie does have is a well written plot with fantastic dialogue, a great story, wonderful performances, and thought provoking themes that make you ponder what is really important. The End of The Tour is about the five day interview between Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky, and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (played by Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel). This five day interview took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace's epic 1,000 page novel called Infinite Jest. An interview that would later turn out to be never published and not really heard about until Wallace's 2008 suicide. During this interview, we get to see inside what it is like between the two men. Like I said earlier, this movie asks a lot of deeper questions that will leave you thinking. Questions like what is really important? If I am unhappy right now, will having what someone has change that? That even being famous and looked upon by the public doesn't really make you truly happy. We have seen this time and time again with famous celebrities that everyone thinks has it all together, give it all away because of depression and loneliness. This movie does an excellent job of portraying that. My only critique about this movie is that you never really get to know the character David who was doing the interview. They allude to deeper issues within him but never dive into them and expose them. Average Man Score: 8/10

Rarely am I enlightened by a film in the way I was by this one. Not that I was lectured or taught something, but that I had a visceral response to what I had experienced on screen that I wouldn't be able to explain but to ask you to recall a song or a book or a show that invited you to pour your soul into it and in return reminded you of what it was like to have one. I was reminded that films can do this.

I don't expect everyone to like it to the degree that I did because I can only base my strong inclination towards this movie on the connection I personally made with it which was emotional rather than intellectual, although the film is rich and lingering in its intellect as well, and of course; I recognize what makes this film profound, which I'll try to explain.

This is a talky film from director James Ponsoldt, who I'd now have to rank as one of my favorite contemporary directors after this and another I've seen and loved, The Spectacular Now. This director isn't one you'd normally find on a list ranking among the greatest working today because he's not about style and doesn't appeal to the ego as much as other contemporaries such as Wes Anderson and David Fincher do (in addition to many others, not to single them out). No, Ponsoldt is subtle and reserves his ego. He is unimposing on the lives of his characters and candid about what his films are trying to do and say, not hiding beneath film rhetoric or allegory or the impression of a representational work. And what's great about this is how his films point out that you don't need intricate sets or perfectly symmetrical shots to create beauty. This film has some of the most beautiful shots I've seen (the shot of them walking in the snow, the shot of the normally- withdrawn Wallace dancing), all the more so because of their subtlety, giving the feeling that the beauty was discovered and not created by the director.

But the beauty is often created by the actors. Ponsoldt trusts his actors and puts his efforts towards making the characters come alive before our eyes. I was under the fantastic impression that I was witnessing a completely real human soul with Segel's performance. He felt so real, so three dimensional. I understand him, even though I am not him. This is more magical to me than sweeping camera movements or extravagant art direction.

I didn't realize when watching the film that the dialogue is all based on, if not directly taken from, the tapes journalist (and protagonist) David Lipsky (Eisenberg) recorded of his interviewee, universally acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Segel). The dialogue is rich with insight into the character's thought processes and their observations on life (but mostly those of Wallace). I was riveted at every moment the two were talking, feeling as though being revealed before me were the truths of life. The thrill of being a fly on the wall. And it's not just the words containing the wisdom of the thoughtful and complicated Wallace, but the delivery via the actors and the way in which the many hours of tape are edited to allow Wallace's ideas and observations to resonate. Even beyond Wallace's ideas, the film cuts to the core and observes Wallace as a human being, not different for his brilliance but the same for his humanness.

The film is about so many things it would be overwhelming to attempt list all of them. Its ideas, however many, are all-encompassing of what it means to exist, which is, beyond the desire for fame and ego-boosts, to want to be understood. The film observes how the inner-worlds of all people are so uniquely complicated and pays tribute to that wonder. I'll be relating my experiences to this film in time to come.