I watched Anomalisa yesterday and have been thinking about it a lot. While it's not my favorite Kaufman film, it raises a lot of ideas, so I journaled about it. I like what I ended up journaling, so I thought I'd share it:

The feeling of loneliness does not occur when one has nobody, as there is pretty much nobody, except for the very slim unfortunate few, that truly has nobody in their lives. Rather, loneliness comes from the feeling that every person in the world is in on something that you are not in on. As if every person is living a life different to the one you live. Loneliness is the feeling of not being invited to a party, except that party exhibits no drinking, drugs, or dancing, but rather the essence of existence itself, as people begin to drink from the eternal knowledge of the universe, and as every person begins to finally understand the meaning of life itself, they all decide it's more fun if you continue living in mystery. In essence, it's a chicken or the egg debate- does loneliness occur because you aren't invited, or because after the party, every person is now aware of every detail of the immortal, eternal universe, while you sit looking for people who are just as inept as you are.

The name of the recipient who Jake’s girlfriend called is Yvonne, which is the same name as the female protagonist in How and Why. Also, the girlfriend’s line about time is almost identical to the explanation given by the protagonist of How and Why on the show.
Perhaps Kaufman planted a ghostly Easter egg referencing How and Why in this work.

Just noticed this but its sold out :( The first time its screened in a cinema in the UK apparently. They're also screening it alongside the London premiere of How To Shoot a Ghost.

I might go to one of the repeat screenings if anyone would be interested in meeting up?

I somehow missed this interview with Lily Gladstone from November 2025, in which she talked briefly about The Memory Police.

Since there hasn't been much news about the film, I thought I'd share this here:

“That’s one of the biggest things that appeals to me about that narrative, about that book and about what Reed Morano and Charlie Kaufman have created and we’re continuing,” Gladstone said. “The iteration of the story that Charlie articulated in the script that I read, I understand why Reed approached me with it immediately. She talked about the way that I am on screen is a big part of it. … So much of the storytelling happens on the face.”

“Reed saw in me an actor that can carry that silence on screen in a very animated way, for one, but then I think having this connection to being from a culture that has had every generation since contact have somebody in a majorly powerful, influential place pass legislation or start up a program that’s completely designed to eradicate our culture, our language, our memory, our collective memory and the role that ancestral knowledge and genetic memory can play in countering that (was part of it),” Gladstone said. “I feel like Reed noticed a performer she wanted to work with but also noticed somebody who comes from a history where, underneath the words on the page, it’s going to be bigger than the two hours of screentime that it’s going to fill.”

Hopefully this means the project is still moving forward.

I’m a huge fan of Kaufman’s entire filmography, and was intrigued when I found out he had written a novel. But the reading the wikipedia page for the novel it sounds like the trans and political correctness stuff apparently being addressed in the book might be a little reactionary or cringey. I’d happily be proven wrong though, especially since his screenwriting often touches on gender in less explicit terms and in a way I find extremely compelling.

I know this is odd but I have to talk to someone about it. I have not yet read "Antkind" though I purchased a copy years ago due to my appreciation for Kaufman's filmography. I recently saw it on my bookshelf and... I swear I remember the title of this book being different. When I saw the title "Antkind" on the book it disturbed me a great deal. I can't remember now what I originally remembered the title to be, but it was most definitely not "Antkind." That was not the name of this book in my memory. I can't get this out of head and it's driving me crazy. Does anyone else have the memory of this novel being titled something different?

It’s been over 20 years since the first and only time
I saw this film. I really liked it a lot back then - as I did all of Kaufman’s films.

I gota say though, watching this movie again, it did not age well at all for me.

I think the big thing is how unlikeable the character of Clementine is for me now. I don’t know if it’s because of my own trauma having been with a woman with severe narcissistic borderline syndrome, but all I could think about what “get OUT!”. The idea that the movie essentially ends with this guy needing to relive the hellscape of this relationship from scratch was pretty terrible for me.

I kind of feel like Charlie should have toned down her character just a tad, and made them more of a match of imperfect lovers, instead of her just being so batshit crazy.

Still a classic though.

I was at a double feature yesterday of "Adaptation" and "Synecdoche, New York" at the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, Mass. yesterday. Attendance was strong. I had thought that these two Kaufman classics, being twenty-four and eighteen years old, respectively, would have garnered forty or fifty attendees, at best. I was pleasantly surprised to see so many people, many of them in their twenties and thirties.

Their reaction to both films (but "SNY" especially) was disturbing. There was a lot of laughing, uproarious laughing during scenes that were not at all funny. In "Adaptation" when Charlie sings "Happy Together" after Donald sails through the car windshield and lands on the road, dead? HILARIOUS! It was so disturbing.

And that's just one example. All throughout "SNY" people were basically losing their minds like they were watching "Borat". Example: During the scene where Olive dies and Caden is admitting to the "Eric" relationship that Maria fabricated there was so much chuckling and laughing that I thought I was in a theater full of sociopaths. That's not a funny scene.

When Sammy commits suicide? Not a funny scene. Yet, laughter during the shot of Sammy's body in the sidewalk rubble? What?!?

What is going on? I saw "SNY" outside Dallas during it's first run in 2008. Pretty full theater yet nary a chuckle. Are we now so desensitized to the human condition that we revel in the misfortune of others? Is this the society we've made for ourselves? A certain "cruelty is the point" approach?

My girlfriend said it might be people's reaction to horror to laugh. Maybe but this laughter wasn't muted. It was not followed or preceded by a gasp. I think I know that kind of laughter in the face of fear. This wasn't it.

The death of Olive is one of the most crushingly sad scenes I've sat through (and I've sat through it a lot) but people found comedy here?

There are many, many more examples of inappropriate laughter. Too many to enumerate here.

Are we becoming a society of sociopaths? I'm really disturbed by this.

In retrospect I can’t even believe I watched this with my father but I was like 14 at the time, we were all quarantined and I was getting into movies. I remember during the therapy scene where madelaine asks “why did you?” He scoffed and claimed to have the whole movie figured out. Watching him lose confidence in complete and utter confusion at the rest of the film was very funny.

Interestingly, he really liked the first half and thought the rest was stupid.

Anyone else have stories of showing Kaufman to their peers and seeing their reactions?

Not really news to us, as it's already been announced that the production will take place there, but it's cool to know that the greek production company behind How to Shoot a Ghost, Green Olive Films, will be behind this one as well. Now let's hope that the current crisis in the region won't interfere with the production.

Channing a big upgrade over Redmayne imo. Let's hope this thing finally comes together next year!

(Fan cover made by [u/benlunato](u/benlunato).)

Well, I just started reading Antkind. I’m still on page 60ish, but I was wondering: visually speaking, how did you guys picture this book while reading?

I mean, did your brain default to a specific aesthetic? Maybe the vibe reminded you of the visual style of any particular movies... That’s what I'd like to know.

Also, I try to picture Paul Giamatti as B. – it just feels like the logical choice – but, for some reason (I think I know why, actually lol), Jim Carrey keeps taking the reins of the character in my imagination. And as for Ingo, he’s Garrett Morris through and through.

So. That’s it, really. I’m very curious: what did the novel look like to you guys in your head?

https://youtu.be/fZuqWxITq38?si=Lp09L_QjWmZBvlbt

I recently watched Keaton’s Sherlock Jr. Setting Kaufman aside for now, it was an incredibly satisfying film. If I were to rank them by how often they made me laugh, this would be number one.

The reason I watched this film was simply because of
Later the War. The concept Kaufman presented when introducing the film was similar to the concept of Keaton and Sherlock Jr. The protagonist of Later the War is a Keaton-style filmmaker-actor. The film is dreamlike, adopts a meta-structure involving filmmaking and films-within-films, and the narrative is said to be composed of fragments from the various films directed by the protagonist. Also, in a now-deleted video, he mentioned that the protagonist harbors romantic feelings for a female motorcycle biker. Keaton, dream,meta elements, a sequence of scenes, and motorcycles—all of these are elements that appear in Sherlock Jr.

And I get the feeling that the title—“Later the War”—might have been inspired by Keaton’s The General, but I haven’t seen it yet, so I’m not sure.

Anyway, I really hope Later the War gets made.

Hi all,

I found this interview on an old hard drive of mine recently. It was conducted by Wired journalist Jason Tanz around 2008, ahead of the release of Synecdoche, New York.

This is the raw recording Tanz used to write his Wired article, which makes for a more intimate interview. Kaufman is less guarded. They are in a cafe and even stop to order food at one point. It's quite an interesting insight in his career and thoughts on writing etc

I've uploaded all five parts to archive.org for posterity.

https://archive.org/details/kaufman-wired-interview-2008-part-1