Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, apparently playing themselves, share their lives over the course of an evening meal at a restaurant. Gregory, a theater director from New York, is the more talkative of the pair. He relates to Shawn his tales of dropping out, traveling around the world, and experiencing the variety of ways people live, such as a monk who could balance his entire weight on his fingertips. Shawn listens avidly, but questions the value of Gregory's seeming abandonment of the pragmatic aspects of life. Written by

Plot Synopsis:
-------------------

In New York City, an actor/playwright agrees to have dinner with a theatre director who he has not seen, literally, for years. He is afraid of meeting with him because of the stories that he has heard about the director sobbing on a sidewalk and talking with trees. Obviously, something terrible had happened to him.

He meets with him at an expensive restaurant (he is given a coat and necktie to wear, since he is not dressed appropriately) and waits at the bar for his old friend to arrive.

Once Andre arrives, he hugs Wally, who feels that he is really in the theatre now. The staff at the restaurant know Andre well and seat the two immediately at a table that provides a fair amount of privacy.

Wally needs help understanding the menu, and Andre, with a sense of humour, helps him with the French cuisine. They both order quail.

Over the next 45 minutes or so, Andre tries to explain what has happened in his life. It seems that he has been on a fantastical journey of enlightenment. Wally mostly listens in disbelief.

Andre takes the viewer on adventures to the forests of Poland where he worked with a fellow experimental theatre director; to the Sahara with a Tibetan Buddhist monk; to a lush paradise of plants in an inhospitable region in the north of Scotland; to Montauk, Long Island, where he stayed on Richard Avedon's estate and took part in a rebirth ritual.

Andre had been involved in breaking free of the habits of mechanical, automatic living.

The dinner conversation ends with Wally challenging some of the methods and purpose of Andre's pursuits. He is confused, angry, and feels Andre has wasted years of his life. Wally is a pragmatic rationalist, to assign a label to him. He feels that Andre's magical thinking is ridiculous and can be harmful to both himself and others.

As Wally continues to verbally attack his former colleague, he begins to realise how confused he is about the stories that Andre has told him. In confronting his confusion, Wally begins to understand there may be other ways to view the world. There is no resolution in the conversation.

As he rides home in a taxi, an indulgence, he reflects on the evening's conversation as the city passes by the window. He recalls various events from his childhood that had taken place in this part of the City; however, he seems to be viewing everything in a slightly different way.

----------------------------------------
fideist from Chicago, IL
----------------------------------------

MY DINNER WITH ANDRE is one of the greatest movies of all time because it works on a seemingly infinite number of levels. Yet at the same time it is one of the biggest failures in film because it only succeeds in connecting to the most insightful of its audience. The resulting paradox only serves to prove the film's lesson to be true. Brilliant!

This is either a movie you will turn off after fifteen minutes, or it is a movie you will watch over and over again to pick up all the things you missed in previous screenings. The former will be bored and lost by the endless, meaningless talk. The latter will find gold in every word, and veins left to be mined time after time.

In simple terms, the question is understood "If life is a stage, are you going to be an actor, a director, or a playwright?" It is the viewer's choice. Wally is a struggling playwright who has fallen back on acting. Andre is a former actor and director who has left the theatre entirely. Wally and Andre meet for dinner, and Andre recounts his experiences since leaving the theatre.

But one of the ironies is that their dinner itself is theatre, and both Andre and Wally have roles to fill. [Notice they wrote the script and use their real names. They are not playing characters. They are necessarily playing themselves.] And summarily the viewer also has a role to fill. If life is a stage, viewing the theatre is in itself theatre. The viewer is now in a place of choosing the role. And will that choice be made mechanically or deliberately? Mechanics is acting. Deliberation is playwrighting.

This is a brilliant, brilliant film. One of the greatest movies of all time. And its resolve is purely subjective to the individual viewer. The goal is to deliberate and come away enlightened (literally). Unfortunately the majority of viewers will act mechanically and turn it off.

----------------------------------------
zetes from Saint Paul, MN
----------------------------------------

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!

----------------------------------------
cinemaniac2002 from Chicago, IL
----------------------------------------

There are movies made of every kind, of many different genres. While quite a few are entertaining, some films can actually be life changing. "My Dinner With Andre" is one of those films. I first saw the film in the early 1990s, around a decade after it was made. Caught in a vortex of corporate America office work drudgery as a single parent, the movie inspired me then to really examine my life and actively work to change it.

I struggled to understand how a theater director (Andre) could ever become disenchanted with his life enough to drop out and search for more meaning. For me, the ability to do anything artistic to earn a living was a dream come true. As I watched the film, it became apparent how even someone in the arts could become disconnected - in fact, even more so than other people, who had resigned themselves to live the way that they were expected to according to standards they didn't agree with. I came away with the conclusion that it is the artists in society who have an obligation to cast truth's light on culture and how it affects humanity. This is a huge responsibility, and it is often frustrating for creative people to have to confront the mundane aspects of life which can create soul crushing circumstances, driving people to behave in the most inhumane of ways.

Seeing the film again recently, it had a whole new meaning for me. Now that I am on the other side of the spiritually deadening life in corporate America - I can see how my goals and decisions to change my life were extremely necessary - in fact, imperative to my existence. Since the film was made, people have spent decades engaging in all manner of robotic and soul deadening activities - many to the detriment of themselves and everyone around them. We have also seen a technological surge that helped to liberate people to a certain degree, while further enslaving others. Regardless of which type of person one happens to be, at the end of the day, most everyone should work toward doing the things that give them joy - without harming others in the process. While this is much easier said than done, it doesn't make the goal any less important to accomplish. In fact, on a very basic level, it is just as necessary as eating, breathing and sleeping. Maybe even more significant, since human apathy, in its own way, can systematically destroy and sully the spirit driven intention of others.

"My Dinner With Andre" is every bit as relevant now as when it first premiered, perhaps even more so. A conversation about the meaning of life and how people choose to live it, along with all of the outside forces that exist to complicate it, will never go out of style. This is a beautiful masterpiece of a film, that can be watched many times, to produce different points of view which provoke interesting, engaging and enlightening discussions by those who experience it. This is very apparent as Shawn's character, who on the surface seems to disagree with a lot of what Andre says. Yet by the end of the film, on his way home, his eyes observe things in his environment as though a new light was been cast upon them.

----------------------------------------
Afracious from England
----------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------
kneiss1 from Germany
----------------------------------------

This movie is mainly a conversation between 2 people. There isn't much music, barely any camera work, there actually is barely any acting because both actors play themselves!... it can barely be called a movie, but it still is one - and a very entertaining one at that. Both Actors have a gift for languages and are amazing story tellers. My native language is not English (you probably guessed it while reading this review), but even I have been amazed by the beautiful language and their amazing skill to talk.

From a philosophical point of view, there is nothing new. I heard all the thoughts before. - The great strengths of the movie is the way those ideas are expressed. Even the most simple thought is coated by meaningful and beautiful words. You almost feel enlightened while watching this movie! But after the movie is over, you realize, that you actually learned nothing. It still has been a great experience. And I wished that there'd be more movies like this one.

----------------------------------------
dkampion from United States
----------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------
didier-20 from london
----------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------
Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico, USA
----------------------------------------

Two aesthetes meet for a two-hour dinner in a fancy restaurant and talk. Man, does it sound boring. They talk all the time, especially Andre Gregory, the playwright and director. There is an absolute minimum of narration by the other diner, Wallace Shawn. The colloquy is relentless. There are no light moments, no obvious jokes, no badinage. The camera never strays from the faces of the two actors. There are no inserted shot of the meals they are served so we don't even know what they're eating -- and this is directed by Louis Malle, a Frog himself. The film just drones on, cutting from one face to the other. The momentary appearance of a waiter brings a breath of air.

It goes on for almost two hours, yet I found that every time I checked the clock, more time had passed than I'd expected. That's ordinarily the sign of an enjoyable experience. I remember working in the pattern department of Lubell's shirt factory and thinking the clock must have stopped completely. In this case I was unable to lose interest.

I'm not sure why it was hard to ignore the conversation. I'm a behavioral scientist so when someone says something like "we all live in our separate fantasies in order to avoid dealing with reality," I have no idea what it means. Mene mene tekel? I mean it. I'm sitting there while Andre is expounding on how having an electric blanket cuts us off from reality. We no longer are in contact with "cold." We lose our connection to the rest of the natural world, and the rest of humanity too, who may be cold and without electric blankets and who may have to heap their old clothes on top of the ordinary blankets they DO have and -- well, you get the picture. And I'm sitting there thinking, culture is a cocoon that tries to buffer the impact of natural events, of course. We don't even see our corpses until they're prettified. That's precisely what culture DOES. And here Andre is, carrying on like some pop psychologist about "transparency" and "fantasy" and "authenticity." But I could not tear myself away.

Wallace Shawn is an unprepossessing, balding little man who seems content with waking up to an unspoiled cup of coffee. Andre, on the other hand, is a different sort of animal. When Wally asks Andre what he's been doing lately, Andre launches into a full half-hour monologue about dancing naked in a Polish forest with forty Jews who play harps and finally baptize him before burying him alive. It's not a particularly erudite conversation -- there are a few reference to St. Exupery and Jackson Pollack -- but it's weird as hell. Andre seems to think like a combination of Andy Warhol, Timothy Leary, and Jack Kerouac, although he has an actor's impressive face and a deep, incisive voice that's at once soothing and authoritative. Think William Daniels. That voice, with its rolling and expressive contours, even makes it possible for us to believe that when Andre hallucinates a monster at a Christmas Eve mass -- half man, half bull, with poppies growing out of its toes -- he's able to interpret it as a helpful sign.

I still can't quite understand the movie. What was all that intense talk meant to be about. And I can't understand my response to it. Why couldn't I just shut it off and go back to reading my comic book? I've given it extra points for being absolutely, deliberately, suicidally non-commercial. The writers, Shawn and Gregory, and the director, Malle, have given the audience nothing to hang on to but the most wispy of surreal notions and the compelling faces of two decidedly odd people. Your brain may be racing a mile a minute but your adrenal glands will go into Standby.

----------------------------------------
MarieGabrielle from United States
----------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------
Gloede_The_Saint from Norway
----------------------------------------

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.

restaurant|cult film|story telling|graffiti|taxi|quail as food|quail|reference to marlon brando|reference to ingrid bergman|reference to jane austen|36 year old|reference to charlton heston|dialogue driven|voice over narration|ufo|transcendence|theatre director|talking to a plant|stream of consciousness|soul searching|search|reference to the little prince|reference to jerzy grotowski|occult|mysticism|montauk long island new york|monologue|hope|food|findhorn foundation|eating|ceremony|buried alive|art of conversation|anecdote|actor|single set production|minimal cast|intellectual|all male cast|real time|hallucination|waiter|new york city|electric blanket|dinner|subway|playwright|existentialism|philosophy|sahara|flag|independent film|character name in title|title spoken by character|espresso|

AKAs Titles:


Certifications:
Australia:G / Finland:S / Sweden:Btl / UK:12 (DVD rating) / USA:PG / West Germany:16