My Dinner with Andre (1981)

My Dad was sixty, at the time, and not prone to liking many movies. I have recently re-watched this, and see why a person who is interested in many aspects of life, would be intrigued by a conversation between two men; something unusual.

While several reviewers have mentioned, the film is not for everyone. I would concur, but give it a chance. Wallace Shawn is the less traveled, non-pretentious friend, while Andre discusses his travels to India, Poland, Scotland, and the many philosophies he has encountered therein.

The discussions about daily life, its esoteric meanings, and how these two men interpret their lives, is quite interesting. Think of it as a brief exposure to a man's psyche (Andre) after he has lived and searched for meaning in his life. Also to be appreciated is the conversation between two men, something not often addressed in film. 10/10.

Fmovies: This film is a miracle -- that anyone would even make a film about little more than a dinner conversation is incredible enough, but the play of paradigms between Shawn and Gregory is such a Gurdjieffian tour de force that it creates a compelling crossroads for any astute viewer. This is a challenging flick!

Also, be it hereby said that the brilliant and understated performance of Jean Lenauer as The Waiter should have won an Oscar for the best supporting role. Watch again and see if you don't agree! The old gent passed on two years after this film was made, but, man, was he great! Thanks, Jean.

This film is well described in the comments and reviews . however misinformation is affirmed through lazy use of incorrect descriptives.

Here are my correctives:

1. The premise is not so much about a conversation between familiars. In truth, Wallace and Andre have not seen each other for a significant period and Wallace actively avoids Andre. What we see are two individuals who, in the past, met as idealists and lovers of theatre at the onset of adulthood, encounter the reality of themselves and their life choices at the onset of middle age. They see that they are in fact total strangers to each other. The context is an attempt, in part, to critique the previous decade, the 1970s, where Andre embodies the most excessive experimental characteristics of that decade. Wallace is his opposite, an entropic and resigned realist, very NYC.

2. The dialectic falls along two fault lines. Theatre and Mortality. If there is one thing that should be said about this film, is that you should see it within the context of cinematic space and with the presence of an audience. Malle sets up an interesting technique. In many respects this film is a little homage to Woody Allen. This is where the cinematic familiar of the piece lies. However, Malle makes one crucial exclusion. He pushes the improvisational , the theatrical element to the extreme, but he removes the comic punctuational relief, the spacial permission to laugh. The result is that he induces in the audience a state of exasperation which at it's best invokes involuntary cries and gestures. He literally provokes the audience to acts of primal theatre. At precisely the point he has pushed them to their limit, Andre's conversation draws attention to the kind of gestures they are making, and instantly it is realised the extraordinary way Malle has acknowledged the presence of the audience. It's an electric moment, and it's worth seeing this film in a cinema to witness this exchange.Only within the last 20 minutes does the one real permission to laugh at the spectacle arrive, when Wallace exclaims complete incomprehension. But by the time of it's arrival, it's almost too late, and the first real collective roar of laughter from the audience feels like something earned, needed, perhaps even knowingly wise.

Mortality is so extremely forwarded via the vehicle of Andre's desperate search for meaning, that for the first time in my life, after the experience of a piece of culture, i left with the absolute conviction that there really is nothing beyond death, That death is absolute and final. I've had friends who become just as Andre, perhaps we all will have had in time. But there was something about the cinematic intimacy and the distance of it's voyeuristic gaze that enabled one to really see a man so consumed by his emotions that simply can't be achieved in the encounter with that in real life, largely because their 'fire' is too overwhelming to achieve such a distance easily.

Finally to say, Malle does not judge in the end. He expertly remains aloof, simply shows with such simplicity and via the brilliant melding of devices of the theatrical with the cinematic. It's this that allows this piece to claim a status of masterpiece.

My Dinner with Andre fmovies. 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.

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!