My Dinner with Andre (1981)
My Dinner with Andre (1981):
8.8/10
My Dinner with Andre is a completely unique work that will either work or not work for the individual viewer. It is most know for its concept which is all there in the title; Wallace (Wallace Shawn) has dinner with Andre (Andre Gregory). The film simply consists of a dinner in which two men that are both in theater and not having seen each other in years, catch up with one another. Both real life actors/writers/directors were well known for their work in the New York experimental theater scene. Together they came up with the idea of taping conversations together and creating a screenplay from that which was then directed by French filmmaker Louis Malle. The result is a work that is like no other.
The film is bookended with voiceover narration from Wally because after all it is his dinner with Andre, placing him in the position of the viewer and Andre as the person who is mostly being observed. He explains that he is nervous about meeting Andre again and does not even want to go. There have been rumors going around that for years Andre has been mentally unwell and in addition to Wally not being good at catch-up conversation, the entire experience has him prepped for stress and regret.
The entire conversation is essentially philosophical. I expected it to be character driven and focused on what is going on with both characters, how they drifted apart and reconciling their friendship. The film remains character driven but through the philosophies, speaking time of each and the reaction shots of both Wally and Andre. Andre spends nearly the entire first half of the film speaking. His life has been filled with desperate attempts to connect himself with others, nature, the world itself and the theater through unconventional and outlandish means. He is a gifted storyteller as he illustrates his experiences in a forest in Poland with 40 others, being buried alive, a trip to the Sahara which involved him eating sand and much more. Wally simply sits in awe of Andre, not revealing anything beyond his fascination. Soon Andre begins to criticize the way everyone lives to such a degree that it leaves the viewer feeling hopeless, deeply upset and even offended.
Wally clearly feels the same way. He has spent most of the film quiet and he slowly begins to interject himself into the conversation with mildly putting forth opinions. Finally he cracks in the film’s most exhilarating moment (yes this film has those) when he says “Do you really want to hear my response?” He then begins to nervously and with all of the speechless energy he can muster, defend civilization. I had not realized how affected and upset I was by some of the things Andre had been saying until Wally’s response had me inexplicably in tears. It was so satisfying and necessary to hear Wally’s point of view and it came as such a relief. This was when the film made its subtle but substantial effects known revealing a much more powerful film than would be expected. Some of what Andre says is completely valid but he relates his desperate attempts to make connections to the idea that everyone else is hopeless for not trying the things he does. Also, he does not acknowledge either that the extremes he needs to go to are not necessarily what anybody else has to or that anyone else is even trying to connect with the universe. These are what make Andre difficult to sympathize with or even like while he remains fascinating to listen to.
Malle uses subtleties and builds tension through his focus on any specific character. His task is extremely difficult and he makes it look so easy that it is hard to even conceive how difficult this must have been. There are times when Andre speaks that go on for minutes and the camera is kept on him when eventually the viewer becomes curious as to what Wally’s reaction is to all of this but Malle keeps it on Andre. This builds suspense within the conversation without doing so in an overt way.
My Dinner with Andre is the only one of its kind despite other films entirely based in conversation coming after it. There is no change of setting, no extracurricular events that take place outside of both characters receiving their food. It is based on philosophically character-driven conversation that forces the viewer to think about everything being talked about. The genius within the film is that the viewer inadvertently becomes just as much a part of the conversation as Wally and Andre. Since Wally is listening for much of the film, the viewer and he are much of the time equal participants. When actually conversing with others, we are forced to think about our own opinions in relation to what our conversation partners are saying. Since the film makes us feel like participants rather than mere observers through Wally’s silence, it is required that we think about the discussions within the film making it an involuntarily substantial piece for anyone that is willing to submit themselves to it through the big questions it addresses. Just because it may look like a small film does not mean it equals a small experience.
