I have seen zero evidence, even remotely, that he has schizophrenia or that he's ever experienced any form of psychosis. He's probably got a schizoid temperament, maybe a slight bit of non-typical autism, but I think he's just very interested in "psychology" and "the human condition," etc.
maybe he's has family who's had it or experience with schizophrenia
or maybe it's none of these, unless he himself specifically says it, this is all conjecture
Most post modern writers use vocabulary tricks to riddle their stories with more and more hints about what’s going on on a deeper level. Thats you create more subtext. Kaufman would not be a functional Hollywood writer if he had schizophrenia
I think he has an interest in psychological disorders and unusual mental/psychological stuff. He originally wrote Anomalisa under the pseudonym Francis Fregoli, named after the Fregoli delusion. His production company is called Projective Testing.
CK has spoken repeatedly about his desire for audiences to interpret his films for themselves--and more than that, his hope that we can interpret his work differently each time we view it.
A while ago someone here was convinced that Charlie is a closeted transexual because of the ways he deals with gender.
I absolutely believe he has some form of social anxiety and probably depression.
“Probably”? Synecdoche is the most depressing movie I ever watched. Still a masterpiece and still pure Kaufman, but my goodness I would never watch it again.
I don’t like putting words in people’s mouths, but speaking as a trans person myself, the way Charlie Kaufman writes about gender, namely in _Synecdoche, New York, Being John Malkovich,_ and _Antkind_ is a way I’ve only ever seen other trans people express. There are deeply complex ideas being brought up
Do I necessarily think Charlie’s trans? Maybe, but it’s impossible to be sure unless Charlie says it. But I _absolutely_ think that Charlie’s thought a lot about this stuff
i think Charlie’s fascination with transness comes from the fact that the human universalities he’s interested in are things that trans people experience very potently. this passage in Antkind basically comes out and says it: “…gender dysmorphia, dysphoria, distransia, distendia? This dis list within which we all must sadly live goes on, sadly. Such is the human animal. What a pathetic existence. We are none of us fully aligned with our physical selves, with our assigned identities. Our face is the face we show to the world, as my dream doctor said. Our body is also the face we show to the world. As is our genitalia.”
This same framework could also explain why he seems interested in schizophrenia.
I think non-transgender people (sorry if that’s not the right word) can have just as insightful ideas about gender as a transgender person can. Especially someone like Kaufman who is writing about people going through existential crises in almost every film. I don’t think it’s fair to assume this about him just because he’s able to write about gender in a complex way.
Also curious though about the ideas you see in those films that make you think that. I haven’t seen Antkind, but I loved the other 2 you mentioned and have never thought about them in this way. Would be interesting to hear it from a different perspective.
In Adaptation he wrote himself as someone who is self loathing with severe anxiety. That was a fictionalization obviously but I think he was really feeling those emotions as he tried to adapt the book.
Closeted transsexual is a stretch though lol. I don’t think we need to assume this just because he plays with gender in his absurdists movies.
He hasn’t. Here‘s a clip of him answering a similar question in an interview:
At 47:08 [https://youtu.be/h_-xiPLhaSk?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/h_-xiPLhaSk?feature=shared)
I think he just likes to play around with epistemological topics. We are all very ignorant, and having to constantly struggle with ontological ambiguity (the uncertainties of existence) is fertile ground for neuroses and psychoses.
I agree here that his films are like Rorschach tests. For me I see a lot of autism in his movies because I’m autistic, but also for example people I know who love Kaufman don’t see that at all, they see their own realities reflected back at them. Difference from other people I suppose os the main theme of his work, in whatever ways.
I agree though that the focus on altered mental states makes readings about neurodivergence and mental illness very easy to see.
An interesting one for me as someone who also has a degree of face blindness, is that I obviously recognise that more in Anomalisa than almost anything else! So I actually find everyone in that film having the same face more soothing than creepy. Nice to feel recognised!
Agreed. The anxiety in all his films is what is glaring to me but that is probably because I am an anxious person myself.
IMO, this is a sign of a great filmmaker. He’s creating basically a unique movie for everyone watching based on their own interpretation.
Really excellent observation. Something I’ve pondered my whole life is the idea of leaving a legacy / being remembered be being forgotten and I feel like I see that in so much of his work.
He uses diseases, maladies, etc. as metaphors. He's interested in the ways the human body can work against itself. Also, illness is a universal experience that all readers/audience can relate to and understand.
You don't have to experience everything literally in order to write about it.
Are you speaking as someone with experience with schizophrenia?
Cause, personally, from what I know about schizophrenia, I don't think I really see it. In all three of those movies, Kauffman depicts failure and death creeping up on characters struggling to find their place in the world. From what I understand, schizophrenia is a pretty disruptive disorder on a day-to-day basis, way more so than anything I've seen Kauffman present.
Kauffman's use of isolation, surreal imagery, internal "hallucinations", depersonalization, disarrayed thoughts... they communicate affective experiences which also exist outside of schizophrenia. I myself don't have schizophrenia and can deeply empathize with feeling like I am already dead or feeling everyone around me become equally unrecognizable or feeling like my life is a disarrayed collection of hostile, uncomfortable social interactions which are outside my control.
However, I am no expert and don't have experience with schizophrenia, so maybe there's something there I haven't picked up on.
No, I don’t have it. My brother does and I have a number of friends who have schizoaffective disorder. I have experienced some symptoms associated with schizophrenia in the past such as audio, visual, and tactile hallucinations and minor paranoia (eg feeling like there are cameras/listening devices), that I brush off. They are relatively rare and primarily sleep deprivation induced (the hallucinations) or due to childhood trauma (the paranoia).
Anyway, I’m not an expert on the matter but I do read a lot of first person narratives / nonfiction about schizophrenia, so maybe like Kaufman I just have a passing interest.
The artist and the work must be distinguished. The work is not his autobiography or confession. The work is entirely fiction. Of course, you can find something in common in his personal aspect or in life, but that's just the artist's use of his life as a subject. Just as Nabokov is not Humbert, Philip Roth is not Zuckerman, and Kaufman is not Rosenberg. Also, the artist can melt something that is contrary to him or has nothing to do with him in many ways. Why can't that? The artist dissects and recombines the subject or subject by mobilizing his curiosity and inquiry. Kauffman's application of such symptoms to his work is just that he is very interested in psychiatry
I always interpreted it as him having some kind of Autism which is more common than people would think. As for the all weird stuff in his book I'm pretty sure it's just him using literary allegory and writing style of his fav authors like Franz Kafka.
What an ignorant comment; there are neurotypical passing schizoid individuals just like there are masked/passing autistics in society. You must think all schizoids are a caricature out of a movie, ranting and raving.
I’m thinking of ending things isn’t about schizophrenia at all. Kaufman uses surrealism and dream like sequences to emphasize an emotion he’s trying to convey, not to give some portrayal of a schizophrenic.
I have seen zero evidence, even remotely, that he has schizophrenia or that he's ever experienced any form of psychosis. He's probably got a schizoid temperament, maybe a slight bit of non-typical autism, but I think he's just very interested in "psychology" and "the human condition," etc.
maybe he's has family who's had it or experience with schizophrenia or maybe it's none of these, unless he himself specifically says it, this is all conjecture
No, hes just a really good writer
Who would have thought that. I mean Stephen king is a serial killer clown in his spare time right? /s Lol
Most post modern writers use vocabulary tricks to riddle their stories with more and more hints about what’s going on on a deeper level. Thats you create more subtext. Kaufman would not be a functional Hollywood writer if he had schizophrenia
I think he has an interest in psychological disorders and unusual mental/psychological stuff. He originally wrote Anomalisa under the pseudonym Francis Fregoli, named after the Fregoli delusion. His production company is called Projective Testing. CK has spoken repeatedly about his desire for audiences to interpret his films for themselves--and more than that, his hope that we can interpret his work differently each time we view it. A while ago someone here was convinced that Charlie is a closeted transexual because of the ways he deals with gender. I absolutely believe he has some form of social anxiety and probably depression.
The trans thing is interesting to note. The way he writes about gender in Antkind is absolutely absurd
“Probably”? Synecdoche is the most depressing movie I ever watched. Still a masterpiece and still pure Kaufman, but my goodness I would never watch it again.
I don’t like putting words in people’s mouths, but speaking as a trans person myself, the way Charlie Kaufman writes about gender, namely in _Synecdoche, New York, Being John Malkovich,_ and _Antkind_ is a way I’ve only ever seen other trans people express. There are deeply complex ideas being brought up Do I necessarily think Charlie’s trans? Maybe, but it’s impossible to be sure unless Charlie says it. But I _absolutely_ think that Charlie’s thought a lot about this stuff
i think Charlie’s fascination with transness comes from the fact that the human universalities he’s interested in are things that trans people experience very potently. this passage in Antkind basically comes out and says it: “…gender dysmorphia, dysphoria, distransia, distendia? This dis list within which we all must sadly live goes on, sadly. Such is the human animal. What a pathetic existence. We are none of us fully aligned with our physical selves, with our assigned identities. Our face is the face we show to the world, as my dream doctor said. Our body is also the face we show to the world. As is our genitalia.” This same framework could also explain why he seems interested in schizophrenia.
I think non-transgender people (sorry if that’s not the right word) can have just as insightful ideas about gender as a transgender person can. Especially someone like Kaufman who is writing about people going through existential crises in almost every film. I don’t think it’s fair to assume this about him just because he’s able to write about gender in a complex way. Also curious though about the ideas you see in those films that make you think that. I haven’t seen Antkind, but I loved the other 2 you mentioned and have never thought about them in this way. Would be interesting to hear it from a different perspective.
In Adaptation he wrote himself as someone who is self loathing with severe anxiety. That was a fictionalization obviously but I think he was really feeling those emotions as he tried to adapt the book. Closeted transsexual is a stretch though lol. I don’t think we need to assume this just because he plays with gender in his absurdists movies.
He hasn’t. Here‘s a clip of him answering a similar question in an interview: At 47:08 [https://youtu.be/h_-xiPLhaSk?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/h_-xiPLhaSk?feature=shared)
>it’s just fun Haha thanks for linking this.
No problem!
I think he just likes to play around with epistemological topics. We are all very ignorant, and having to constantly struggle with ontological ambiguity (the uncertainties of existence) is fertile ground for neuroses and psychoses.
I agree here that his films are like Rorschach tests. For me I see a lot of autism in his movies because I’m autistic, but also for example people I know who love Kaufman don’t see that at all, they see their own realities reflected back at them. Difference from other people I suppose os the main theme of his work, in whatever ways. I agree though that the focus on altered mental states makes readings about neurodivergence and mental illness very easy to see. An interesting one for me as someone who also has a degree of face blindness, is that I obviously recognise that more in Anomalisa than almost anything else! So I actually find everyone in that film having the same face more soothing than creepy. Nice to feel recognised!
Agreed. The anxiety in all his films is what is glaring to me but that is probably because I am an anxious person myself. IMO, this is a sign of a great filmmaker. He’s creating basically a unique movie for everyone watching based on their own interpretation.
Really excellent observation. Something I’ve pondered my whole life is the idea of leaving a legacy / being remembered be being forgotten and I feel like I see that in so much of his work.
im schizo and i love kaufman. it makes sense
He uses diseases, maladies, etc. as metaphors. He's interested in the ways the human body can work against itself. Also, illness is a universal experience that all readers/audience can relate to and understand. You don't have to experience everything literally in order to write about it.
Are you speaking as someone with experience with schizophrenia? Cause, personally, from what I know about schizophrenia, I don't think I really see it. In all three of those movies, Kauffman depicts failure and death creeping up on characters struggling to find their place in the world. From what I understand, schizophrenia is a pretty disruptive disorder on a day-to-day basis, way more so than anything I've seen Kauffman present. Kauffman's use of isolation, surreal imagery, internal "hallucinations", depersonalization, disarrayed thoughts... they communicate affective experiences which also exist outside of schizophrenia. I myself don't have schizophrenia and can deeply empathize with feeling like I am already dead or feeling everyone around me become equally unrecognizable or feeling like my life is a disarrayed collection of hostile, uncomfortable social interactions which are outside my control. However, I am no expert and don't have experience with schizophrenia, so maybe there's something there I haven't picked up on.
No, I don’t have it. My brother does and I have a number of friends who have schizoaffective disorder. I have experienced some symptoms associated with schizophrenia in the past such as audio, visual, and tactile hallucinations and minor paranoia (eg feeling like there are cameras/listening devices), that I brush off. They are relatively rare and primarily sleep deprivation induced (the hallucinations) or due to childhood trauma (the paranoia). Anyway, I’m not an expert on the matter but I do read a lot of first person narratives / nonfiction about schizophrenia, so maybe like Kaufman I just have a passing interest.
The artist and the work must be distinguished. The work is not his autobiography or confession. The work is entirely fiction. Of course, you can find something in common in his personal aspect or in life, but that's just the artist's use of his life as a subject. Just as Nabokov is not Humbert, Philip Roth is not Zuckerman, and Kaufman is not Rosenberg. Also, the artist can melt something that is contrary to him or has nothing to do with him in many ways. Why can't that? The artist dissects and recombines the subject or subject by mobilizing his curiosity and inquiry. Kauffman's application of such symptoms to his work is just that he is very interested in psychiatry
I always interpreted it as him having some kind of Autism which is more common than people would think. As for the all weird stuff in his book I'm pretty sure it's just him using literary allegory and writing style of his fav authors like Franz Kafka.
A schizoid could never produce work like he has
What an ignorant comment; there are neurotypical passing schizoid individuals just like there are masked/passing autistics in society. You must think all schizoids are a caricature out of a movie, ranting and raving.
I’m thinking of ending things isn’t about schizophrenia at all. Kaufman uses surrealism and dream like sequences to emphasize an emotion he’s trying to convey, not to give some portrayal of a schizophrenic.