Charlie Kaufman is notorious for challenging audiences with his brain-bending screenplays; now, the screenwriter's directorial debut, Synecdoche, NY, faces a challenge even getting to audiences.

The film concerns a playwright (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who uses a grant in order to stage a life-size re-enactment of his life within a massive hangar. Our own James Rocchi referred to the film as "a sprawling, messy work of inspired brilliance and real humanity, a film that enthralls and affects even as it infuriates and confounds"; Kim Voynar put it much more simply: "man, is that film two hours of mental-mindf*ck."

So, as might be the case with another lengthy high-profile Cannes premiere greeted by praise but no distribution, Kaufman is considering trimming the film down from its current 124-minute length to something a bit leaner ... which is saying something about a movie whose first cut, according to the Hollywood Reporter, ran just over four hours.

What say you, readers? Having seen the likes of Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, would you rather greet Synecdoche in all its full-bore glory, whether in theaters or on DVD, or would you be willing to settle for a tighter version?

[via Hollywood Elsewhere]

New movies often bring anxious fidgeting and the buzz of excitement. But a new movie by Charlie Kaufman, one that he not only wrote, but helmed, brings the anxious, hopeful mania of a kid about to see Mickey Mouse. At least, it does for me. I like Human Nature, but I love Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Now we're getting his directorial debut with Synecdoche, New York, a film that seems like it should be set in Schenectady rather than the Big Apple, and have huge replicas of Proctors and Rotterdam Square Mall rather than Manhattan skyscrapers, but will probably be awesome anyway. Almost a year after we saw the first poster, Anne Thompson has posted what looks to be the first image of Catherine Keener and Philip Seymour Hoffman, which you can see cropped on the right. It doesn't show much, and isn't nearly as fun as this puppy, which shot up on Slashfilm earlier this year, but it just makes this whole film all the more real.

No matter what casting announcements or vague posters pop up, there is nothing like seeing that this is actually a real film that will get to us soon, with all of its magnifying glass glory. If only I could get to Cannes to see it! Obviously, I'm a big fan, but how about you? Are you as anxious as I am for Mr. Kaufman's directorial debut?

The Oscar-nominated Charlie Wilson's War hit DVD shelves today, and with that came yet another CIA agent on the big screen -- Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of real-life maverick agent Gust Avrakotos. It's a role that shows that playing by your own set of CIA rules isn't just a fictional theme picked up by filmmakers. Gust (with a 'T') plays by his own rules, whether that means using bugs to listen in on Charlie Wilson's conversations, or throwing fits at his boss and smashing office windows. He's a bit unhinged, but proves to be the perfect ally for a war championed outside the normal means -- and just so happens to be perfectly played by Hoffman.

But Gust is just one of many, many CIA agents on the big screen -- ones that come from both real and fictional means. There is Dabney Coleman's Cooper in The Man with One Red Shoe, Nathan Muir and Tom Bishop in Spy Game, the retired and sneaky Jack Byrnes who is wary of the Focker family, Agent Bob Barnes in Syriana, Johnny Depp's Agent Sands in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, or wonderfully recruited men like Emmett Fitz-Hume and Austin Millbarge in Spies Like Us.

From comedy to drama, they're out there, but I ask you: Which cinematic CIA agents stand out in your mind? Are they by-the-book men, or rogue dudes like Gust who make things work on their own terms?

There are two ways to watch Charlie Wilson's War. The first way is to watch it like we watch most movies -- go in to be entertained, to experience something outside of our scope of experience -- to leave our lives at the door and encounter something different. The other way is to be critical, having researched the situation upon which the film was based, to see how it diverges, and then decide whether the divergence is acceptable within the realm of what actually happened. One way will give you an entertaining experience. The other will probably result in the film getting under your skin.

I usually get pretty tense over large leaps in the truth. To this day, I grumble at the thought of Girl Interrupted, and the fact that they could insinuate that a character based on a real, live person could be indirectly involved in another's death when it simply isn't true. With Charlie Wilson's War, however, I wasn't completely weighed down by derailments from truth. Perhaps this is due to being warned after reading reviews like James' and Kim's, maybe it was due to the film more omitting facts than completely changing them, or perhaps it was the light delivery of the subject. Whatever the case, Charlie Wilson's War is an enjoyable film weighed down by its decisions of omission.

There are two reasons I find this (as yet unconfirmed) story interesting. One is that I'll soon be writing my review of Brett Morgen's new documentary Chicago 10, which comes out next week. The other is that I've been thinking about the 2009 Oscars (I like to jump ahead), which I presumed would include a number of nominations for Steven Spielberg's next film. For a few months now, we've believed that film would be, like Morgen's, about the trial of the "Chicago 7" and would be fittingly titled The Trial of the Chicago 7. First we heard the director was interested in the script, written by Charlie Wilson's War scribe Aaron Sorkin. Then we got that crazy news that Sacha Baron Cohen would play Abbie Hoffman. Finally we heard more people, specifically Colin Hanks, Jeff Daniels and Philip Seymour Hoffman, were joining the cast. However, now we have word from Collider that Spielberg "has decided to move on and will not be making the movie."

Note: It has since come out that the film has been delayed, not completely dumped.

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees:

Casey Affleck -- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Javier Bardem -- No Country for Old Men

Philip Seymour Hoffman -- Charlie Wilson's War

John Travolta -- Hairspray

Tom Wilkinson -- Michael Clayton

Predicted Winner: Javier Bardem

Once in awhile there comes to cinema a character, and a performance that goes with it, that goes on to haunt us for years. Such a timeless villain is played in No Country for Old Men by Javier Bardem. It's the actor's third Golden Globe nomination and will be his first win. How do I know? Here at Cinematical headquarters we were going to toss a coin to find out if Bardem would get the statue. But then we realized that this award isn't about chance (plus we were afraid of getting an air blast to the skull if it came up that he'd lose). Bardem will win because he deserves the award, because his is the most well-developed and most memorable performance of the bunch.

Now it's your turn to vote ...

With all the interesting projects Steven Spielberg had lined up to choose from after completing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the news that he'd direct a movie about the Chicago 7 has come out of left field -- though we did hear a bit about it back in July. But as of yet, the guy hasn't denied the news that Sacha Baron Cohen will be playing Abbie Hoffman in a film titled The Trial of the Chicago Seven scripted by Aaron Sorkin (Charlie Wilson's War). Nor has Spielberg publicly commented on some other casting possibilities leaked in the new Vanity Fair article about Indiana Jones -- possibilities I apparently missed the first time around, because those photos were so eye-grabbing. One definite casting decision, according to that article, is Philip Seymour Hoffman as William Kunstler, the famous attorney who defended the 7 as they were tried on charges of conspiring to incite riots during the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

The Vanity Fair writer, Jim Windolf, wrote about learning of this news while visiting Spielberg at his Amblin Entertainment office on the Universal lot. The writer claims to have glanced at a table on which headshots of Will Smith, Taye Diggs, Adam Arkin and Kevin Spacey were visibly linked to the Chicago Seven project. None of the actors' proposed roles were determined, however. Now, I don't want to assume that Spielberg planted those headshots for Windolf to see, but it does seem strange that such a sometime-secretive filmmaker would let something like this be leaked in such a way. It also seems strange to think that anybody, even Spielberg, would need a headshot of Smith in order to decide to cast him as Black Panther (and 8th of the originally Chicago 8) Bobby Seale, who I will assume Smith's being considered to play. Windolf also claims that Sorkin's script is somehow based on the documentary Chicago 10, which premiered at Sundance last year and is being given a limited release next month. As Jessica noted the other day, you could probably make that a must-see primer while you await Spielberg's film (and more news about it). Another idea is to check out Steal this Movie (often available for free online), which is also good to watch for the appearance of a very young Michael Cera as Abbie Hoffman's son, America.

The first feature from Tamara Jenkins, the Natasha Lyonne-headed Slums of Beverly Hills was a pretty darned decent late-90s film. Alan Arkin. Marisa Tomei. Jessica Walter. Mena Suvari. The cast rocked, and the film was dysfunctional fun. So, hearing that she's finally written another feature, one that stars Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman as a sister and brother who have to care for their dementia-ridden father... Well, that's just too good to ignore.

Just a few days ago, Cinematical posted a great exclusive clip from The Savages, where Nancy Lenehan is a dementia support group leader who doesn't take too kindly to early nibbles at the refreshment stand. (She might have been in a lot of stuff, but I don't know if I will ever see the woman as anything but Pat, the woman who turned demon for Dead Man's Party.) Anyhow, Jenkins and Linney recently took part in Variety's Screening Series to discuss the film, which Jenkins says: "kind of came bubbling up out of my dark recesses, and then I stuffed it in a drawer and didn't think about it for a long time."

Linney says: "It's one of the best scripts I've ever read." You can't get a much better thumbs up than that, since she has had her share of great films. She continued: "With films of this nature, you really just have to throw yourself off a cliff and go. You really don't have time for a lot of exploration. You have to do as much work as you possibly can before you start, and then hit the ground running and you do not mess around." Well, it doesn't sound like they messed around in any way that could possibly hurt it. Kim Voynar gave it a rave from Sundance, and we can finally see it for ourselves when it hits limited release on November 28.

In honor of the striking screenwriters, I wanted to write a list of my favorites, either contemporary or all-time. But I decided that it would be more respectful to not exclude any of them. Even the bad writers need recognition right now. I've tried writing screenplays, and I salute anyone who has had one produced, whether brilliant or not. Even if it weren't difficult to actually write a script, it's certainly tough to deal with the b.s. of Hollywood and the sad truth that your vision will likely not make it to the screen as devised. So, instead of concentrating on real writers, I figured I'd look at screenwriter characters, specifically those portraying the hardships of the job.

"Joe Gillis" from Sunset Blvd. (1950, Billy Wilder).

I imagine there's nothing scarier for a struggling screenwriter than the thought of ending up like poor Joe Gillis (William Holden). The opening shot of Wilder's classic shows the character floating face down in a swimming pool, and immediately he's labeled "an unsuccessful screenwriter." This sets up a hopelessness for the character, and for writers in general, as the film then flashes back to one of the greatest stories of Hollywood cynicism ever made. Gillis not only represents the difficulty of making it as a screenwriter, he also shares some juicy lines about how writers aren't recognized enough by the public ("Audiences don't know somebody sits down and writes a picture; they think the actors make it up as they go along."); about drastic alterations to his scripts ("The last one I wrote was about Okies in the dust bowl. You'd never know because when it reached the screen, the whole thing played on a torpedo boat.") and about the desperation that turns good writers into seemingly hack writers (replying to talk of his once promising talent, he says, "That was last year. This year I'm trying to make a living."). There were screenwriter characters before him, and plenty after, but Gillis will forever be the quintessential example.

Fall 2007 is shaping up to be the season of illogical movies. First there was the much-praised Gone Baby Gone, which has a third act twist that's logically crazy and impossible in practicality, and now there's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, a film from the aging non-master Sidney Lumet that twists its narrative into a pointless and annoying timeline-pretzel and in doing so drains every ounce of energy and motivation from the piece, only to arrive at a Greek tragedy climax that has a plot hole so large you could drive a Hummer through it. (Don't worry, I won't spoil it, but I'll just say this -- cops?) That both both films contain performances by Amy Ryan may be their saving grace -- Ryan has a lock on Best Supporting Actress this year that's as tight as Ben Foster's lock on Best Supporting Actor, but that's not enough to push Before the Devil over the line. Nor is its high-grade cast, that includes Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke. Even Marisa Tomei's frequently naked breasts don't get it done.

The plot: two brothers scheme to knock over their parents' jewelry store. Mom and pop will get the insurance money, they'll get the loot, and everyone's rent gets paid. Sounds pretty simple, only -- pause for effect -- something goes wrong. What goes wrong is Rosemary Harris, who re-confirms here what she proved in the Spiderman films -- she can't act worth a lick. Harris plays the boys' mother, who unexpectedly stops the thief they send in to rob her with a handgun and also gets herself shot in the process. 'Big emotion' is not something that should ever be required of Harris, and I felt a tinge of relief when she was dispatched early on in the film -- the less screen time she takes up the better. The boys' father, played by the excellent Albert Finney, sets out to make it his mission in life to find the "guy who did this." And so it begins ... or ends ... or something. The timeline in this film is so herky-jerky that for all I know, my interpretation of its events could be completely wrong.