Review: ‘The End of the Tour’ Offers a Tale of Two Davids

Sedate, magical, perfect.

Just saw it. Don't change an exclamation point!

Btw, I had never "seen" DFW (just read some essays by him) before I saw the film. I went to YouTube to catch a sense of the guy and compare to Segel's portrayal. I think I liked the portrayal better than the actual guy (as per interviews in You Tube). They are different, yes. Seagull's version seemed to have more wrinkles. The original version seems so insecure, so self-conscious, so intent on looking brilliant that it hurts. Siegel seemed more in touch with himself. Now, the version that should really trump all others is the written voice of his work. It was a real spoiler to see the "man" behind it. I do not care for the malaise of "America" that he portrays and would never read 1,000 pages of that stuff, even if it is a critical voice, which I am not sure it is, but he is an important voice of his generation, for better or worse.

Curious. I felt ambivalent about the film and ended up liking it, or finding its premises (or what I read them to be) provoking. I read it as Linsky seeking to interview a mythic genius figure and being disappointed at the man he found. The brilliant man he was seeking to converse with (as an equal or as a giant) seem to be pretty flat and ordinary--and the film does not portray well the ambivalence of whether he was posing or not. He was that way, and with a terrible hole inside that he could not fill up, not even with writing. In fact, Wallace was himself a knowing victim of the very American civilization that he held was killing the spirit or soul of the modern (and future) American person (bored, lonely, dead inside, addicted to junk food and TV (and in the future to internet images). Whether because of his illness or because he partook of that same civilizational malady he was in a bad place at this time. I even got the sensation that in the film he envied the normality of Lipsky. The big epiphany about the "great man" is that he was religious (the prayer on the wall) and he enjoyed the old fashioned simplicity of dancing in a Baptist church--aside from TV, malls, M & Ms, etc.

I just saw this movie & was mesmerized. One thing I found interesting as a psychiatrist was the absolute accuracy of the description of depression voiced by the character of David Foster Wallace. That alone is worth watching this movie. But I also found it extraordinarily compelling in that I can no longer read a 1000 page book. I am 60 years old and my attention span has been virtually destroyed by the Internet. On a good day I can read a New Yorker article. This is sad given that when I was a 9th grader I read "The Arms of Krupp" A 900 page description of the German munitions family. That is a fall from grace. The two women with whom I saw the movie loved it as well. I truly do not understand the negative comments. This was a profound movie about two very different men trying to make a connection. If it took some liberties with its subject, it did so with the aim of saying something important.I am glad that I saw it.

I found this film a total bore. I have spent time with many authors and have high regard for DFW's work, but this film exercise was, in my view, a failure and a waste of time.

The original interview was apparently so uninteresting that Rolling Stone decided not to publish it. It was published as a book after DFW committed suicide. Reading the book or seeing the movie seems a little bit too much like digging up Robin Williams's grocery lists or tapes of Jimi Hendrix messing around with a trombone before a recording session. Unappetizing for all but a certain subset of the most zealous and fervent DFW fanatics.

Whether you are eviscerating or praising the guy, is it too much to ask that you please spell Jason Segel's name correctly? Thank you.

DFW = navel gazer
God, we're bereft of heroes.

"the tollbooths of narrative convention"?
Sorry, you get paid to to do conventional...

I'm not sure I want to see the movie.He would be like seeing a movie of JFK---don't think I would accept the actor as JFK.

I've watched him read.I know what his voice sounds like.All my books are digital and I've been tempted to try one.I am afraid of narrator's voice wouldn't be the voice of DFW.

I recently listened to 'The Night Of The Gun', by David Carr.I had been watching him the night he died. The narrator, Don Hagen, sounded like Carr so much, I quickly forgot it was not the voice of Carr.

Re: "In an ideal world, we would all sit at home reading 'Infinite Jest' and then go out to eat hamburgers, argue about philosophy and watch cheesy action blockbusters....There will always be films about writers and writing, and this one is just about as good as it gets."

This doesn't make much sense to me. No one but a reviewer has to watch "films about writers and writing" if he doesn't want to. "In an ideal world", and often enough in this world, I would (and do) read Milan Kundera and go to see the Ancora String Quartet in an intimate setting then drink champagne and discuss the concert with my friends and members of the quartet. Why would I want to eat hamburgers and watch "cheesy action blockbusters"? In any case, quite a few respected authors write a lot about writing--Kundera in his non-fictional essays, Hemingway in "A Movable Feast", and Philip Roth in his fiction--, so why does a good film about writing have to be exceptional?

It seems that any movie about a writer's life always gets rave reviews. It also seems that any movie about a writer's life dies quickly and quietly as the box office results come in. Wash, rinse, repeat!!!

I probably read movie reviews more than I go to see movies in theaters. I think this is a well-written review. It is not nor was it intended to be literature or philosophy. It is about a movie; it is not a review of Wallace's writing and it is not a biography of Wallace. The review gives me a sense of the movie so I can decide if I want to see it. That makes it a good review, in my view.

DFW didn't like "Borges: A Life," and being the writer he was, his evisceration was sharp and brilliant. But I quibble with his implication (and yours) that the search for "motive causes" is what literary biographies have to be about and is the reason they disappoint. As someone who is engaged in the business, I'd suggest that sometimes you write a biography (literary or otherwise) because the person you write about is interesting and led a life that lends itself to good storytelling. Figuring out how the writer's personal experience infiltrates his or her work is a fraught exercise...probably best avoided most of the time...but contrary to DFW's assertion, it may or may not be "irrelevant." Done fairly, reasonably, and with a modicum of modesty, it can be worth reading. There are exceptions to everything, even the exceptional.

Bravo!

Great review! Day by day DFW becomes, deservedly, a bigger legend that is transcending generations. With hindsight his writing and themes have not lost their edge, and in most cases have become better with time. And precisely what distinguishes Wallace --and makes him so attractive to the young and the becoming-old set- is that his generosity of spirit pours from his work. This distinguishes him and puts him above his very talented contemporaries (let's just mention Franzen here) and the previous "Great Male Narcissists" that DFW so eloquently criticized (Updike, Roth and Mailer). Curiously, in becoming such a figure he attracted guys like Lipsky who wanted (enviously) either to grasp the secret and copy it for themselves, or else to expose a fatal flaw or a fraud. They found neither, but what is usually under an accomplished artist: a disarming normalcy, a refined self-awareness and a desire to do things right. These qualities are, alas, not great entertainment for a book or a movie. And that's precisely why, as Mr. Scott eloquently states, this movie might be worth watching to see how it pulled it off.

Just saw the movie at theTraverse City Film Festival. Loved it. Jason Segel's nuanced performance is very impressive. I highly recommend it.

Is the Mr Scott's description of DFW as the "great white wale" also a reference to the fact that the famous authors of that generation (DFW, Jonathan Franzen, Rick Moody and Donald Antrim) are often referred to as the "great white males?"

A.O. Scott wastes a lot of ink. After reading this review I have no desire to read anything by A.O Scott (ever again) or Mr. Wallace.

I've read most of DFW. He is (was) one of my favorite authors, especially his essay (read his take on "Wittgenstein's Mistress"). I read Scott's review and can almost convince myself to see the film, but a big part of me just cringes at the existence of this project. There is no need for it. None.
I don't want my memory weirdly contaminated with images of Jason Segal and Eisenberg when I think of DFW.
Segal may be a fine dramatic actor: let him act some fictional role to prove his skills. Be Hamlet, but leave DFW alone.

I am not a fan of biopics, stopped going to see them a while back, but this one I will see. Team Jason.

I don't know anything more confusing for a person deeply expressive through his/her writing, than praise, recognition and fame. The internal ambiguity caused by the interpretations of others, the pressure to reproduce the "good" writing and eliminate the "bad" writing, make a rack out of the writing chair. This muddle laid onto a depressive, addictive personality must result in a torture beyond all resistance. Writing as art should not be intended as a communication between spirits, but a communion with one's own spirit.

The question i keep coming back to is "would the movie be possible without having David Foster Wallace's name attached to it?' Not just the use of his notoriety but also his writing and persona. Would even a roman a clef have been worth discussing? Douglas Fairbanks Wilderforce, the Movie. What if the leads had switched roles to give Segal's fanboy vibe a remove from the material? And which are they, men or muppets?

So...this is a writer writing about a movie about a writer writing about a writer.
Right?

"There will always be films about writers and writing"--no, there have not been good films and it is usually a mistaken project to begin with. " And this one is just about as good as it gets." Much more true. Part of its success is due to the narrow focus of the script. Plus the unspoken and undramatized fate of its subject which hovers off-screen. I'm surprised a reviewer doesn't comment on that. It is not a bio-pic, except in the viewer's mind as he puts what he's seeing in a larger context. Also worth noting? The real-life writers are better looking than the actors who play them. How often does that happen?

In a perfect world, this movie might be a "hit", not least due to the hype of Segel's attempt at dramatic film acting after some success as a comedian. In NY and SF, it might play well. In this world, it'll be an art house wonder for a while, and then fade to Netflix. In the short span of 10 years+-, hand-held tech and social media have virtually bulldozed the venerable reading of books, and a thousand-pager like "Infinite Jest"? No Mas.

Regarding the mythologizing of writers -- when's the last time a woman writer has been referred to as "a genius." Or for that matter, a black writer? Can't think of even one.

I think drama is a good vehicle for Mr Segel, as he has never shown any knack for comedy other that the Black Swan like luck to become attached to Judd Apatow's Laff-Factory.

i thought the book transcript of the lipsky interviews was largely a bore.

what i really want to see is infinite jest (the movie)!

Your review of the movie reflects DFW's commencement speech at Kenyon college 2005. Worth hearing/watching twice.

Great review.

“There’s an unhappy paradox about literary biographies” DFW

Ian McEwan said something similar. He cautioned against meeting literary heroes by drawing an analogy: it can be rather like eating foie gras, he said, and then being introduced to the duck.

After DFW's death, there was a tribute to him moderated by Michael Silverblatt; the other participants were David Lipsky, Rick Moody, and Joanna Scott. The entire thing is on YouTube. If you watch it, you can get a measure of the man (rather the men). Silverblatt, always smart & kind, makes you feel truly moved, he makes you crave to go back to DFW's works and regret not having ever met him. In contrast, David Lipsky seems to talk from a bitter place, from the realm of the minor writer who resents the successful author. When he's asked by Silverblatt about DFW, the only thing Lipsky can say is that DFW was a terrible chess player, and goes on & on about how terrible a chess player DFW was, while making very clear that Lipsky himself is a far superior one. Lipsky feels that he has to establish that DFW was not a genius all around (who is?), and that he, Lipsky, did at least one thing better: to play chess. Not every Samuel Johnson gets a James Boswell, another writer who is able to keep his own individuality and, at the same time, pay due homage to the more absorbing figure or better writer with whom he spends time. (Humility pays off: ironically, now Boswell is often more interesting to read than Johnson himself, though Johnson's historical importance cannot be denied.)

"Actually writing is something he does when no one else is around." Nice, Mr. Scott, you may be channeling your friend David Carr.

"In real life, David Lipsky might be a great guy, but on screen he is played by Mr. Eisenberg, which means that his genetic material is at least 25 percent weasel."

That's the best, funniest sentence I've read in some time. Thanks, Mr. Scott.

i am going to see the movie on Sunday... I have read all of DFW books, and i also read the book by DL on which the movie is based. I wish it were Sunday already... i really want to see it acted out!