My Dinner with Andre is about two friends having a meal, not quite a big one like the one mentioned above, but a social one. But when you talk about socializing, it smacks of posturing, and this meal has none of that. That's why it can also be called an "anti-social dinner" movie: here, the focus is not on social etiquette, there's no pretense, but on a real dinner conversation, and a deep conversation at that, in contrast to the empty social dinners that Bu?uel satirizes.

Let's put it this way: can you imagine a movie like this? The camera is basically pointed at a dining room table from start to finish, with two unimpressive men at the table, and it's not exactly a flirtatious conversation.

Yes, this is My Dinner with Andre, the 1981 New York art-house movie that caused so much buzz and sold so surprisingly well that it's impossible to duplicate a movie like this, truly independent.

Except for some New York street scenes at the beginning and end of the movie, it's all about a table in a fancy New York restaurant, and it's a pair of almost two hours, a meal really. But you don't think this movie is to find a restaurant, put the camera a put, to the two actors shot two hours. In fact, the restaurant in the movie was a set, and the movie took three months to make, with the actors recording the dialog several times and tossing around the script for a long time. So a dinner that resembles the real thing is the result of careful artistic design. Some of the director's intentions are carefully noted beforehand. The rhythm of the camera switches, the angles, the sound, all of it. The wall next to the dining table is a mirror, which is quite intentional, and the lighting design gives a sense of transcendence.

Otherwise, how can the audience finish the movie? I've mentioned that French movies have a lot of chatter around the dinner table, and Louis Malle, the director of this movie, is French. The director of this movie, Louis Malle, is French, but this movie was made after he moved to the United States. The screenwriters are the two actors, both from the New York theater scene, so this movie could be said to emphasize the tradition of theater and storytelling, taking that kind of talky movie to extremes, and instead creating a niche craze in the United States.　　 The charm of this movie lies in the fact that you can't stop thinking about it, but when you really look at it, you'll be mesmerized without realizing it, just like when you meet a friend, chatting with him, and before you know it, a meal has gone by. We may have had a lot of social dinners, a lot of delicious food, but there may not be a lot of words that really speak to our hearts, so this kind of dinner deserves to be made into a movie, and it's the only one of its kind.　　 To say what they talked about is honestly all sorts of life feelings from that time and our time that haven't gone out of style, which again might scare you away from watching this movie, but as I said they don't pretend, so they use normal people's words with normal people's attitudes trying to figure out what's going on with them. Of the two, in the usual terms, one is idealistic and the other has his feet in reality, one metaphysical and the other metaphysical. One runs the world and explores himself, the other nestles in his own little world, worrying about bills and happy for the taste of a cup of coffee in the morning. The greatness of the movie is that it presents these two positions, complementing each other, rather than who is absolutely right and who is absolutely wrong. The conversation ebbs and flows with little real effect, but like a conversation we've had before, its process is a value. After dinner, the "I" in the play is on his way home, looking around again, but with a new vision - the role of that conversation.

As for what they ate, it doesn't matter, it's the process of eating a meal in a Western restaurant, with white water, buttered bread, red wine, then a starter, then a main course (quail), then a salad, then coffee and after-dinner drinks, which also form the natural segments of the conversation/film, which is a natural part of the play.