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.

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.

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.

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 the tale of two different men: Andre, an avant-garde director, and Wally, a theatre actor and writer. They meet at a restaurant and philosophise and discuss a variety of subjects. The majority of the dialogue is spoken by Andre. He is a far more loquacious and complex character than Wally. Wally is a laconic and soft-spoken guy, who enjoys a simple life with his wife. His epitome of bliss is drinking a cold cup of coffee left from the night before, without finding a cockroach in it. Andre is an intense ponderer. He tells Wally the stories of his experiences travelling around the world, from his time spent in far flung places such as Scotland, Poland, India and Tibet. Andre gives the impression he is exaggerating at times. Is he fabricating some of the tales? He could be. Especially the ones where he claims he has seen monsters and weird creatures. The premise of two men conversing for 110 minutes at a dinner table is not going to be the most appealing film, but this film holds your attention and intrigues the viewer. You become involved with Andre's musings somehow, and just as fascinated as Wally is. A great piece of arresting cinema.