Review: Waking Life (2001)
Mark R. 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
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 29888
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 256878
X-RT-TitleID: 1110299
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 7/10
Max Messier
A film review by Max Messier
Copyright 2001 filmcritic.com
Today, most films are bloated, uninteresting, narrative-driven drivel,
filled with beautiful people, a hit soundtrack, and closely following
the storyline of some bestseller close enough so that it doesn't offend
a legion of Oprah's Book Club readers. Waking Life is something
altogether different, a work of abstract art that recalls Buñuel, Lynch,
and Cocteau.
Most people will not understand Waking Life. Some will find it to be
one of the most brilliant pieces of film ever produced. I found it to
be beyond words; a combination of film, groundbreaking computer
animation, and a difficult and profane script that produces a sublime
interpretation of existence.
The film loosely follows the exploits of a young man (Wiley Wiggins) who
is faced with the realization that the life that he living is only but a
dream, or a series of dreams states with an unknown purpose. The film
follows Wiley as he controls an omnipotent perspective into complex
personal diatribes, candid conversations between lovers and friends, and
one-on-one discussions with over 60 colorful characters, Slacker-style,
crisscrossing and intersecting through his dream states.
In these dream states, Wiley covers complex issues which range from the
purpose of collective memories; the integration of man and machine into
one equal being; the purpose of God and death in the human psyche; the
joys of living in this imperfect world; the notions of memory control
based upon evolution; and free will in relation to theological and
physical limitations. During these interactions, Wiley slowly discovers
his own destiny within these dream states and of the consequences one
must face with that knowledge. All of these soapbox speeches sometimes
lead to the profane, illogical, and rambling notions of a crazy person.
The impact, though, is phenomenal.
The writer and director of the film Richard Linklater, best known for
Slacker and Dazed and Confused, tackles heavy subject matter and
succeeds admirably. Linklater's attempts in answering some of life's
most complex issues are achieved superbly; his conversation pieces even
manage to reach plausible conclusions in a short amount of time.
The metaphysical expressionism of the film is made even more powerful by
the awe-inspiring animation work of Bob Sabiston, who created unique
"interpolated rotoscoping" software to give Wiley's dream world a
surreal and Dali-esque movement and feeling. In every scene of the
movie, all stationary items such as tables and chairs seem to float,
refusing the laws of gravity. Characters are either given great detail
or are reduced to resemble child-like drawings that would hang on the
family refrigerator. The film feels like you're watching a combination
of the works of Basquiat, Picasso, and Warhol brought to life.
Beneath the drawings, the film is shot in real life using real actors,
including Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke, and Adam Goldberg. Over 30 artists
were then brought in to paint over individual characters of the film
using Sabiston's animation software. The result is proof that both the
painter's brush and the filmmaker's eye can combine to achieve visions
of wonder and profoundness.
RATING: *****
|------------------------------|
\ ***** Perfection \
\ **** Good, memorable film \
\ *** Average, hits and misses \
\ ** Sub-par on many levels \
\ * Unquestionably awful \
|------------------------------|
MPAA Rating: R
Director: Richard Linklater
Producer: Anne Walker-McBay, Palmer West, Jonah Smith, Tommy Pallotta
Writer: Richard Linklater
Actors: Wiley Wiggins, Peter Atherton, Steve Brudniak, John Christensen,
Julie Delpy, Charles Gunning, Ethan Hawke, Nicky Katt, Timothy "Speed"
Levitch, Louis Mackey, Steven Prince, Steven Soderbergh, Ken Webster
http://www.wakinglifemovie.com/
---
***** Reflecting Fires, the new fantasy novel by Thomas Claburn gets
five stars.
"Reflecting Fires is an exceptionally well-written future fantasy." -
bn.com
Visit http://www.lot49.com for more info; buy it at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738866229/lot49-20/
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 29894
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 257175
X-RT-TitleID: 1110299
X-RT-SourceID: 178
X-RT-AuthorID: 1198
X-RT-RatingText: 5/5
Robin Clifford
"Dream is destiny," says the fortune telling kids' game at the start of
"Waking Life," the latest effort by filmmaker Richard Linklater, who is
joined by animation art director Bob Sabiston. And dreams are the focus of
this stream of consciousness work that takes live action and, with the help
of computers and more than 30 animators, converts it into a highly stylish
anime that delves into the workings of one young man's sleeping mind.
Wiley Wiggins arrives at a train station in a non-descript city and notices
a pretty girl watching him intently. Nonplussed by her direct stare he
wanders out of the station and is offered a ride by a man driving a small
car-boat who gives the advice "to remain in a constant state of departure
while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes."
Unceremoniously left on a corner, the befuddled Wiley sees a piece of paper
on the ground that says "look to your right." He does, only to see a
speeding car bearing down on him. The next thing he knows he's waking from
a dream. Or, is he?
Helmer Linklater, known for his Gen-Xer works "Slacker," "Before Sunrise"
and "Suburbia," goes the surreal route with his intellectual and artistic
look into the world of dreams. Shooting in three cities - Austin, San
Antonio and New York - using consumer-level video cameras and a cast of
close to 60 people, both actors and non-actors, Linklater tells of the
stuff that dreams are made of. As Wiley wanders through the city and his
dreams he meets many, many people who are willing to spout their own,
individual philosophies of life, death and free will.
Teaming up with the writer/director of "Waking Life" and his team of
animators are a number of his past film alumnus, including Wiggins, Adam
Goldberg and Nicky Katt (all from "Dazed and Confused") and Ethan Hawke and
Julie Delpy, reprising their characters from "Before Sunrise." Wiley
Wiggins is the focal dream wanderer of the story (if you can call it that)
who meets untold numbers of strange and sometimes wonderful folk who spew
forth their philosophical ramblings. The insights of those beings that
Wiley meets range from "your life is yours to create" to "a well-armed
populace is the best defense against tyranny" and much more The
philosophical question that is oft pondered through Linklater's
state-of-mind tome comes down to: is life just a dream or is dreaming
really life?
The stream-of-consciousness film style coupled with the variety of
techniques used to animate the live action sequences takes some getting
used to. Actually, the non-linear nature of the "story" requires a
commitment by the viewer to accept the free-flowing philosophies and the
varied anime. Each of the numerous animators on the project put their own
imprint on the rotoscope technique use - that is, animating live action
film, something developed by Ralph Bakshi years ago with "Wizards" and "The
Lord of the Rings". Some are simple, almost like line drawings of the
characters. Others lend a reality look to their sequences while others,
still, give an exaggerated, surrealistic appearance to their animation of
the live players. The disjointed nature of both the dialogue and animation
caused quite a few audience members to walk out of the movie - something I
noticed most recently during David Lynch's dream-based "Mulholland Drive."
The dream stuff must hit a negative chord in some of us.
"Waking Life" is definitely experimental filmmaking that combines varied
aspects of the craft. The animation of the live action is interesting and,
if you can put up with the philosophical bull that sometimes spews from the
characters, there are some interesting ideas put forth, too. But, it is not
the kind of movie that is going to attract the mainstream, multiplex
moviegoer. This isn't the kind of film that you can leave your brain at
home to go see. Linklater requires a commitment from his audience that will
garner some amusement and provoke thought, but its non-conventionality will
be a turn-off to the less tolerant viewer.
It's an interesting philosophical and artistic effort but has limited
appeal for the average movie bear. Richard Linklater flexes his creative
muscle in a unique way and I give it a B-.
For more Reeling reviews visit www.reelingreviews.com
ro...@reelingreviews.com
la...@reelingreviews.com
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 29958
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 259126
X-RT-TitleID: 1110299
X-RT-SourceID: 386
X-RT-AuthorID: 1488