WAKING LIFE
Mark Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The first digital video animated film is an account
of a man going through his dreams listening to people talk
about dreams, dream states, and the nature of time and
reality. Some of the speakers are philosophical, some
highly speculative, and some incoherent. The undulating
animation is at times irritating, worse than hand-held
cameras, but few films so revel in ideas. Rating: 7
(0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4)
Not only is it rare to find a feature film like WAKING LIFE
itself, it is rare to find a feature film that is even plays in
stylistic fields this far from the norm. First what is the film
about? An unnamed character played by Wiley Wiggins talks to
people about the relationship and duality of dreams and waking
life. Richard Linklater filmed with a hand-held camera Wiggins
and some people who talked to him and gave their views of reality.
The visual images were transferred to computer where animators
superimposed animation over Linklater's filmed images in a
technique like rotoscoping. So we just have animated films of
Wiggins talking to many and various people about the nature of
dreams. The film is little more than that. Wiggins does little
of the talking. He just listens with a "Wow! Cosmic, Man!"
expression on his animated face.
The film is a symphony of ideas the viewer may not be able to hum
later. The point is not assimilating all the ideas on one
viewing; it is to immerse the viewer in the flood of ideas. I do
not believe that any of the people shown in the film are in any
way considered expert, but each has philosophy of sorts. The
ideas are concepts of life, death, and time. They are views of
dream and reality. The ideas just interplay as we as an audience
in Wiggins's dream go from one person to the next. We hear some
old chestnuts like that time is an illusion. And probably no
matter who you are you hear some ideas that are new to you.
At some point one must discuss the artistic decision to animate
this film and to use the style of animation that was used. I
think that the style that is used is near right, but on some level
it sabotages the effort. It certainly gives the film the right
dreamlike quality. Linklater himself says that he is going for
the feeling of being on drugs and made the film for people on
drugs. If so I think he is also showing us a little of the
downside. The images give motion where it is not needed. At time
the scenery seems to undulate on dry land as if it were on an
ocean. There it distracts rather than enhances. Other places the
animation comments on the discussion, illustrating an idea here or
there or playfully turning the speakers into billows of clouds.
Linklater had the animation assignments broken down by character
and not by scene, an approach the better animation studios use
now. That way stylistic differences become part of the character
rather than errors and inconsistencies. It eliminates the need
for the director to police the style to maintain consistency.
Rather than the new very realistic animation styles this film
falls back on an easier impressionist approach. But the people
are still recognizably the same people with the essence of their
expression still there in simplified form.
To tell too much of the ideas discussed would be a little like
revealing the jokes in a comedy. One moment the person speaking
will be talking about the philosophy of Kierkegaard, the next the
subject will have gone to out of body experiences. One person
will be talking about different concepts of life and the physical
universe; the next will be as concrete as giving ways to recognize
dreams.
The film was written as well as directed by Linklater though it
would be interesting to find how much of what he wrote was
transcription of conversation and how much was contributed by the
speakers. One would be tempted to believe these are all
interviews with real people presented verbatim but for a scene of
actors Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, possibly playing their
characters from Linklater's BEFORE SUNRISE, also entering into the
discussion. It is not at all obvious what it means to say the
screenplay is by Richard Linklater. I would rate the film a 7 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper