REVISED REVIEW: A tour de force at 2 different levels

Rating: 10/10 (26 November 1999)

This revises my previous review (14Nov99; #54 in the Comments Index)
Few who see this movie can ever forget it, it's so original and creative, so well acted by a marvelous cast, and it's so funny.
But this is a movie that needs to be seen a second time. In a first viewing, you're so busy hanging on to the roller coaster -- sort of like an action film (e.g., "Romancing the Stone" minus the threats of danger to the characters) -- that you miss its deeper meaning. The two levels complement each other and make each the richer.
At the first, most obvious level, this movie is for enjoying rather than stating philosophical issues. But along the way, while it provides few satisfactory answers, it does raise some intriguing questions: -- do we feel that we'd be more fulfilled as someone else, maybe someone famous, than as ourselves? -- what's the difference and what's appealing, between men and women's sexual experience?; would some women enjoy or envy men's faster arousal? -- would some men like their sexual experience feminized? -- what's it like to be a movie star? -- what's the source of those various conflicting urges we sometimes feel within us; could we say they come from the prompting of others voices/urges within us? But the most insistent question for most of the characters is how they can feel most self-actualized and they try to find an answer, not in being really themselves, but rather as puppeteers who pull someone else's strings.
And at this first level, the characters' quests are just material for the fun plot. But don't look for thorough consistencies (e.g., Maxine's early frank sexual opportunism/ predation vs. her later stance; or aspects of the Craig & Lotte relationship in its earlier vs. later stages). And don't look for deep answers; just enjoy the most original, creative ride in movies for some years.
The second, deeper level becomes clearer with a second viewing. In a sense it's very much an insiders' joke about directors, directing, and making movies.
The beautiful, stunning scenes we see (early in the film) of lifeless, wooden puppets becoming so brimming with life, movement, and feeling, these state Spike Jonze's love and homage to his craft -- who wouldn't want to do this (these scenes ask) and make ideas and people come so alive?
The film director is, metaphorically, a puppeteer who brings out of his/her marionette/actors new lives into new roles. It's the high from this experience that Lotte craves when she announces she wants a sex change operation; the sex of the first level is a metaphor for creativity at this second level. And, after making a film is over, after the high of making a vision come alive, it's like being dumped into the banal, the prosaic, the commonplace -- almost like being dropped beside the New Jersey Turnpike after having lived in the magic of Oz.
But there are problems that any director/ puppeteer faces. Being creative and talented is no fun unless there's an appreciative audience; that makes fame and "box office" valuable and worth pursuing because it gives more avenues and freedom. And while a puppeteer has the advantage of owning the "actors" (the marionettes), any one director has many competitors wanting to occupy the chosen actors and invest them with his/her vision. And there's always another director/ puppeteer waiting to grab them.
And the role of Maxine, I think I understand how this fits with the various people involved with making films -- but you'll want something to also figure out at this second level, don't you?
I very much appreciate Robert Lesser's review (#51 in the Comments Index, q.v.); we share similar views and seeing his comments supported the thinking expressed here.