MY DINNER WITH ANDRE – DVD review

Criterion has used the month of June to release three of the most iconic art-house films of all-time. “The Seventh Seal” is one of the films that launched the art-house movement in America and its imagery has been parodied in films from Woody Allen’s “Love and Death,” and perhaps most famously for American audiences, in Peter Hewitt’s “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey.” A hit. You have sank my battleship.

The other two films define two of the extremes of the perceived tendencies of art-house cinema. “Last Year at Marienbad” is, for some, the very definition of hyper-intellectualized cinema, filled with directorial flourishes and completely incomprehensible. It’s one of those “weird ass” movies that only movie geeks would ever want to watch.

“My Dinner with Andre” represents another stereotype of the art-house set, the movie in which nothing happens. Two men sit at a table and talk. That’s the whole damn movie. It’s one of those “bo-ring” movies that only movie geeks would ever want to watch.

All three movies have carved out a place in popular culture, though “Marienbad” in a more roundabout route through fashion advertisements. For the sheer audacity (or absurdity, depending on your perspective) of its structure and its title, “My Dinner with Andre” has spawned its share of jokes. In “The Simpsons,” nerdy Martin Prince plays an arcade game based on the film, and in “Waiting for Guffman,” Christopher Guest’s character shows off his “My Dinner with Andre” action figures.

The joke in both cases in based on the contrast between “action” and the inertia of the film. But “My Dinner with Andre” is a pretty lively affair with dramatic ebbs and flows like most narrative films. Wally (Wallace Shawn, playing a fictional version of himself) is a playwright who is on his way to visit old friend Andre (Andre Gregory, also playing a fictional version of himself.) On the bus ride to the restaurant, Wally worries about his girlfriend and his career but mostly worries about Andre. He hasn’t seen Andre, also a playwright, in years, and the rumor is that Andre has gone totally crazy.

Once dinner begins, Andre doesn’t do much to dispel the rumors. He speaks of wild adventures in what can only be called “extreme improvisation,” acting workshops in the woods somewhere in Europe that turn into sub-cultures centered around pagan rituals like ceremonial burials, communing with spirits, and related gibberish.

“Dinner” is a downright transgressive film because it brazenly allows its characters to just talk. Actually it allows Andre to talk and, just as importantly, for Wally to listen. For the first hour or even more, Wally does almost nothing but say “So what else happened?” as Andre rambles from one silly anecdote to another. Few actors would be willing to just sit there and do nothing but listen, but then again Shawn and Gregory did conceive and write the play, only bringing Louis Malle in to direct at a later stage of the project.

Watching the movie again, I realized that Wally is a genuine movie hero. As Andre blathers about one spiritual, transcendent experience after another, he becomes increasingly annoying. Finally Wally, fortified by the first few dinner courses, can’t take it anymore: “Do you want to know my actual response?” Yes, Wally, we do! Slay that New Age dragon with your sword of reason!

Wally defends his bourgeois existence with gusto. Andre, to his credit, is a good sport about it. Deep down, he knows he’s peddling snake oil and it becomes clear that he really does value Wally’s friendship. It would have been too easy for the final act to end acrimoniously, providing a traditionally dramatic denouement. But they do what friends do. They talk out their differences and get to know each other a little better in the process.

One of the pleasures of film is the opportunity to see things we don’t normally get to see. As mundane as it seems, we rarely get to watch other people have a simple dinner conversation. Of course, this is a rehearsed, highly polished conversation between two performers riffing on their real life personas, but still the film’s explicit argument is that a mundane event like this is worthy of being put on film and subsequently being viewed by others. And the fact that it remains a popular draw even today is proof that the film’s argument is a valid one.

VIDEO

The film is presented in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. “Andre” was filmed in 16mm and blown up to 35mm, so the image is grainy and the resolution is not as sharp as we’ve become accustomed to from Criterion but that’s because of the source material, not the transfer. It’s a very solid effort.

AUDIO

The DVD is presented in Dolby Digital Mono. Optional English subtitles support the English audio.

EXTRAS

Both extras are on Disc Two of this 2-disc set.

Director Noah Baumbach records separate interviews with Andre Gregory and Wallace Shaw, each about a half hour long. They’re included in the same feature and can be watched either separately or an hour long program. They were recorded recently for the Criterion Collection.

“My Dinner with Louis” (42 min.) is a 1982 episode of the BBC program “Arena.” Wallace Shawn meets with Louis Malle in Atlantic City to discuss Malle’s career. Directed by Tristram Powell.

The insert booklet includes an essay by Amy Taubin and the prefaces written by Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory to their published screenplay.

FILM VALUE

Watching “My Dinner with Andre” on DVD gives viewers the chance to pay attention to the lesser-discussed aspects of the movie. While Louis Malle shoots in a fairly straightforward matter, shifting between close-ups and two-shots, the strategic placement of a mirror behind the dinner companions gives the longer shots more energy and keeps Andre’s face in view even when he’s turned away from the camera. And then of course there’s the marvelous waiter, played by non-professional actor Jean Lenauer, who likes like he might have snuck in from a French B-horror movie.

If you’ve only heard of “My Dinner with Andre” by way of its pop culture parodies, you may have some preconceptions about the film. Place them aside and watch the movie with a fresh eye because it’s a lot more vibrant and flat-out entertaining than you might think. It’s not just a “bo-ring” movie for movie geeks. It’s lots of fun.

Reply