The End of the Tour (2015)

The story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Jason Segal), which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, ‘Infinite Jest.’.

My viewings of this movie were totally unfettered by any knowledge of the characters or their actual writings. I had no point of reference and therefore no expectations. I still walked away disappointed in its artistry. The primary theme focused on two mindsets about the satisfaction or lack of obtained from fame, wealth, adoration and sex. Wallace for the most part finds having these either empty or too heavy a burden to carry yet admits to enjoying the benefits from time to time.. Lipsky craves them and cannot understand why Wallace puts them down. Both are jealous of others but for far different reasons. A sub-theme is the dilemmas faced by the famous to resolve the conflict between what they believe and what is expected of them, particularly what they must do to promote their product. Both Davids wants attention but one prefers solitude. Wallace is ambitious but gets scared about where that takes him. Another theme is jealousy. Lipsky is very upset that Wallace has been anointed as the current great genius while Lipsky ‘s book is being ignored. He believes that he wants what Wallace has and Wallace tries to convince him that the grass on his side is not greener.

Jesse Eisenberg played Lipsky and is never convincing. It is always Eisenberg not Lipsky. His facial expressions in response to what Wallace is saying are usually flat and removed. The delivery is very jerky. Jason Segal seemed more realistic as Wallace. He appeared to have studied his character more and taken the role as his own. His characterization is easy to relate to and feel sorry for him. He is able to convey the constant conflict that is his life much better than we see from the Lipsky character.

It seems like too much of the story was edited out of the screenplay. The director is able to convince us that both of these men are lonely and insecure no matter who and what surrounds them. But we never really get a decent insight to either man. The conversations are more snippets than dialogues There is no true flow. Despite some verbalization of bonding by Wallace, we the viewers never really see the relationship develop. This may be because of the poor camera work and editing. There is much too much movement of the camera and we rarely see the speaker. More often than not we are left to focus on the recipient supposedly listening. The scenes are so short that there is little time afforded the viewer to take them in and try and discern some real meaning, even though the movie screams “Listen to me, I’ve got a lot to communicate.” The director fails to guide his audience.

The indoor shots are dark or bleak. In Wallace’s home many of the lamps are without shades. I was never sure whose depression or jealousy I was supposed to be relating to . The movie jumped between settings and conversations-never finishing any. The music often does not seem to fit and does not enhance the storytelling.

In sum, the filmmakers didn’t direct me anywhere except to looking at my watch notwithstanding some excellent existential expression.