My Dinner with Andre | Reelviews Movie Reviews

Some movies, no matter how highly regarded, can lose at
least some of their luster over the passage of time. When My Dinner with
Andre was released in the fall of 1981, it was a critical sensation, garnering
raves from all corners including accolades from Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
(both of whom named it among their Top 10 films of the 1980s). The years haven’t
necessarily been kind to it, however. When it first arrived in theaters, the French
New Wave was still firmly anchored in the minds of many art-house viewers. The
freshness of that aesthetic, which informs My Dinner with Andre, has
grown stale with the passage of decades and there are times when it’s hard to
view this film as more than a curiosity of another age.

Okay, I’ll admit it – there were times when, while I watching
My Dinner with Andre, I found myself becoming bored. Not “eyes glazed
over” bored, but restless. Although the movie works as a study in acting, shot
selection, and editing, it has lost its edge in terms of telling a story. So
much of the film’s relevance is tied to the era in which it was produced. Although
aspects of the culture clash – between activists who believe technology has
created a robot society and those who prefer to simply live their lives day-to-day
without drama – remain as relevant today as ever, the anecdotes used to express
this are dated. Andre Gregory’s adventures in Poland, the Sahara, and Findhorn
(Scotland) are as believable as Paul Bunyan’s Tall Tales and his philosophy is naïve
and simplistic.

Although the movie is narrated by Wallace Shawn (who would
be immortalized six years later as Vizzini in The Princess Bride), he has
considerably less dialogue than the title character. Yet, while Gregory does a
lion’s share of the talking, director Louis Malle maintains the fiction that this
is from Shawn’s perspective. He is the only one we see outside the restaurant
(during the prologue and epilogue). The background is simple: Shawn informs us
in a voiceover that he is going to have dinner with an old friend and
colleague, Gregory, who has become something of a recluse in recent years. 95%
of the film focuses on their dinner conversation with Gregory regaling Shawn
with tales of his years away from the theater, then the two engaging in a debate
over rationality vs. mysticism in criticizing modern society. The movie ends
with them parting as friends.

One of the most amazing things about My Dinner with Andre
is how it manages to capture the seemingly off-the-cuff approach one might
normally associate with improv – sort of the thing Mike Leigh was famous for. However,
every word was scripted and the two actors never deviated from what they wrote.
The improvisational “qualities” were a collaborative result of Gregory, Shawn,
and Malle working to achieve it. It’s also amazing that Gregory (making his
feature debut as an actor) was able to memorize so much dialogue. There are numerous
long takes in which his monologues go on for stretches without breaks. Although
it would be unfair to diminish Shawn’s contributions, the heavy lifting
undoubtedly falls to Gregory.

Although the actors use their real names and some of the biographical
details attributed to their characters come from real-life occurrences, both
men have repeatedly denied that they are playing themselves. Instead, they
created fictional avatars that were intentionally different from their true
personalities. In an interview, Shawn even joked that if the two were to embark
upon a remake (something highly unlikely although, at the time of this writing,
both are still alive), they could swap roles without the need to change even a
line of dialogue.

My Dinner with Andre has the look and feel of a stage
show, although it was never developed as such. From the beginning, it was
intended to be a movie. Gregory and Shawn, however, have deep roots in theater
and they bring this to the film. Additionally, before going in front of the
cameras, the pair hosted ten rehearsals on stage in front of live audiences
with Malle not always in attendance.

At the beginning of the movie, I focused on the words,
allowing myself to settle into the rhythms of the conversation between these
old friends getting re-acquainted. Over time, however, I found myself becoming less
interested in what the characters are saying and more intrigued by how Malle chooses
to present the conversation: shot selection, editing close-ups into the master
shots, etc. Expressions and reactions (especially Shawn’s, because much of his emoting
occurs without words) are of paramount importance. Although My Dinner with
Andre may be of minimal interest to mainstream movie-going audiences in the
2020s, it should be required viewing for would-be actors and behind-the-camera
craftspeople. Although what Gregory and Shawn have to say may have lost a share
of its relevance, how it’s presented offers a clinic in the importance of the
non-verbal aspects of filmmaking.

My Dinner with Andre (United States, 1981)