Waking Life

€uroMeinke · 11-20-2005, 09:17 PM

Ok, Finally got around to seeing Waking Life, and while I enjoyed the film, I get the feeling that I should have liked it much much more. I mean, it’s a talking film in the tradition of My Dinner with Andre, discusses several philosophical topics, starting of with an exposition on the joyfulness of existentialism. On paper this should be in my top ten list.

But it didn’t. In fact the movie struck me as being a bit flat – and I’m not sure why. I’ve been thinking about it for days. Here are some of my speculations.

While I certainly agree with many of the ideas presented, they all were presented rather dogmatically - there was no contrary voice – no discussion - no Wally Shawn being exasperated saying, “you’re out of your mind”. In a way everything presented was an answer, a theory, no one really posed any questions (which to me is what philosophy is all about).

Of course in the context of the film, it works as he starts really as a spectator to all these ideas about the nature of reality as they slowly combine to reveal his presumed reality. Of course, that bothered me in other ways.

First that by the end of the film really only 2 or 3 are relevant to the films plot, the rest are just a sort of intellectual window dressing – interesting to be sure, but the discussion of the ontology of film didn’t really advance the story much (though it was cleverly countered through the use of animation).

I was also bothered by the stuff about lucid dreaming, apparently to the protagonist; this meant the ability to converse. He never once tried to control or engage the situation as one does in lucid dreams, rather he remained rather passive.

I guess I would have liked to see more conflict or a presentation and challenge to the ideas. There were lots of cool things laid out, but I’m not sure they were presented in as compelling a fashion as they could.

I appreciate what Linklater was trying to do with this one, but I think he was far more successful in playing out “ideas” in his films Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Perhaps if the characters were telling more personal stories than spouting wisdom it would have been more effective for me, but with characters that were devoid of relationship to one another, it's hard to connect to any of them.

Perhaps I need to see My Dinner with Andre again and see if it still works for me as well.

Alex · 11-20-2005, 09:31 PM

Have you seen Mindwalk? In the end it falls prey to the desire to view quantum mechanics as a metaphor for life but it has some interesting places to go in the film's long conversation.

I know it was released on VHS, but am not sure it has made it to DVD.

€uroMeinke · 11-20-2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Have you seen Mindwalk? In the end it falls prey to the desire to view quantum mechanics as a metaphor for life but it has some interesting places to go in the film's long conversation.

I know it was released on VHS, but am not sure it has made it to DVD.

You know, I know we rented it once (long long ago) but never saw it beyond the opening. That was another film I expected to enjoy. I'll have to hunt down a copy and see.

Not Afraid · 11-20-2005, 09:38 PM

As usual, we are of similar minds about this film. I was bothered that I was never "engaged" as a viewer in what was being talked about. It was more like being at a lecture about something that usually does interest me but the presentation is a bit lacking. The film felt flat and one dimensional rather than full of wonder and longing that this type of dialog usually takes me on. I didn't take away anything new or unusual nor did it spur me on to other thoughts and ideas the way other films of the "type" have done. The two things I appreciated about the film were the soundtrack (GREAT music!) and the animation technology - but that wasn't reaally enough to hold me. No, I expected the dialog to do more to engage me than it did, and I found it a lot more unfulfilling that I expected.

Cadaverous Pallor · 11-20-2005, 10:04 PM

Aww, that's a shame. I really loved it. I liked most of the things you listed. The disconnectedness, the uninvolvement, the fac that most of it didn't move any sort of plot. Just like a dream

€uroMeinke · 11-20-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Aww, that's a shame. I really loved it. I liked most of the things you listed. The disconnectedness, the uninvolvement, the fac that most of it didn't move any sort of plot. Just like a dream

You see, I found myself questioning that - becasue while the movie could be described as "dream like" it wasn't like any dream I've ever had.

Usually, my dreams are populated by at least one or two people I know. And my dreams usually involve action and activity rather than discussion. But then, perhaps I dream differently than everyone else.

Of Course:

Spoiler:

Also I should Add, I've got my own ideas about dreams and waking life which may interfer with my ability to accept the story in the film - hampered by some dogma of my own if you will.

Alex · 11-20-2005, 10:43 PM

I must admit I turned it off about halfway through. Not becaues of what it was saying, which was interesting most of the time, but because the animation was driving me nuts.

Just too kinetic. Kind of like why I never watched Dr. Katz when that TV show was on; I don't like having evertyhing in constant movement. It made me tired to watch more than a few minutes (I had spread about half of it out over several sessions before finally just moving on).

The current investment firm commercials using the same animation technique are just about the perfect length for appreciating the form.

In a side note, I was once in a San Francisco bar where the back courtyard was open and the tennants above the bar projected movies out on to the wall at the other side of the courtyard. While I was there they showed Hero and then Waking Life. I hadn't seen it yet and asked what it was because it was escaping me. The person I asked said "Oh, it's that film. You know, the Art Linklater one." That amused me since I was pretty sure that outside of the Disney community there were no people younger than me who would be aware enough of Art Linkletter to make this slip.

Ghoulish Delight · 11-20-2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

First that by the end of the film really only 2 or 3 are relevant to the films plot, the rest are just a sort of intellectual window dressing – interesting to be sure, but the discussion of the ontology of film didn’t really advance the story much (though it was cleverly countered through the use of animation).

I think I had the advantage of forknowledge that there was very little story to this movie, that it was more about loosely connected ideas. Linklater himself admits that the movie severd as a catch-all for things he just couldn't fit into his other films for whatever reasons.

What also helped was the pause in the middle for a 30 minute discussion with our friend about the nature of dreaming. Even though I disagreed with a lot of the angles the movie took, I was most pleased with the lines of thought it triggered.

innerSpaceman · 11-21-2005, 06:34 PM

Yeah, I liked it, too. For pretty much the same reasons as GD. And I enjoyed the rotoscoping and the soundtrack. There wasn't a whole lot "new" to me in the realm of the ideas tossed about, but I appreciated them being tossed about at all in the form of a film.

Gemini Cricket · 11-21-2005, 07:24 PM

I threw up during this film. Seriously. I went to see it with Ralphie's sister and her husband and we were sitting too close to the screen. I got motion sickness and threw up in the Burbank theatre bathroom. Woo hoo. Good times.

Before and after pukeage, I found it to be pretentious. My two cents.

The animation was neat...

11-20-2005, 09:17 PM	#1
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Waking Life Ok, Finally got around to seeing Waking Life, and while I enjoyed the film, I get the feeling that I should have liked it much much more. I mean, it’s a talking film in the tradition of My Dinner with Andre, discusses several philosophical topics, starting of with an exposition on the joyfulness of existentialism. On paper this should be in my top ten list. But it didn’t. In fact the movie struck me as being a bit flat – and I’m not sure why. I’ve been thinking about it for days. Here are some of my speculations. While I certainly agree with many of the ideas presented, they all were presented rather dogmatically - there was no contrary voice – no discussion - no Wally Shawn being exasperated saying, “you’re out of your mind”. In a way everything presented was an answer, a theory, no one really posed any questions (which to me is what philosophy is all about). Of course in the context of the film, it works as he starts really as a spectator to all these ideas about the nature of reality as they slowly combine to reveal his presumed reality. Of course, that bothered me in other ways. First that by the end of the film really only 2 or 3 are relevant to the films plot, the rest are just a sort of intellectual window dressing – interesting to be sure, but the discussion of the ontology of film didn’t really advance the story much (though it was cleverly countered through the use of animation). I was also bothered by the stuff about lucid dreaming, apparently to the protagonist; this meant the ability to converse. He never once tried to control or engage the situation as one does in lucid dreams, rather he remained rather passive. I guess I would have liked to see more conflict or a presentation and challenge to the ideas. There were lots of cool things laid out, but I’m not sure they were presented in as compelling a fashion as they could. I appreciate what Linklater was trying to do with this one, but I think he was far more successful in playing out “ideas” in his films Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Perhaps if the characters were telling more personal stories than spouting wisdom it would have been more effective for me, but with characters that were devoid of relationship to one another, it's hard to connect to any of them. Perhaps I need to see My Dinner with Andre again and see if it still works for me as well. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

11-20-2005, 09:31 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Have you seen Mindwalk? In the end it falls prey to the desire to view quantum mechanics as a metaphor for life but it has some interesting places to go in the film's long conversation. I know it was released on VHS, but am not sure it has made it to DVD.
	Submit to Quotes

11-20-2005, 09:38 PM	#4
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	As usual, we are of similar minds about this film. I was bothered that I was never "engaged" as a viewer in what was being talked about. It was more like being at a lecture about something that usually does interest me but the presentation is a bit lacking. The film felt flat and one dimensional rather than full of wonder and longing that this type of dialog usually takes me on. I didn't take away anything new or unusual nor did it spur me on to other thoughts and ideas the way other films of the "type" have done. The two things I appreciated about the film were the soundtrack (GREAT music!) and the animation technology - but that wasn't reaally enough to hold me. No, I expected the dialog to do more to engage me than it did, and I found it a lot more unfulfilling that I expected.
	Submit to Quotes

11-20-2005, 10:04 PM	#5
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Aww, that's a shame. I really loved it. I liked most of the things you listed. The disconnectedness, the uninvolvement, the fac that most of it didn't move any sort of plot. Just like a dream __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

11-20-2005, 10:43 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I must admit I turned it off about halfway through. Not becaues of what it was saying, which was interesting most of the time, but because the animation was driving me nuts. Just too kinetic. Kind of like why I never watched Dr. Katz when that TV show was on; I don't like having evertyhing in constant movement. It made me tired to watch more than a few minutes (I had spread about half of it out over several sessions before finally just moving on). The current investment firm commercials using the same animation technique are just about the perfect length for appreciating the form. In a side note, I was once in a San Francisco bar where the back courtyard was open and the tennants above the bar projected movies out on to the wall at the other side of the courtyard. While I was there they showed Hero and then Waking Life. I hadn't seen it yet and asked what it was because it was escaping me. The person I asked said "Oh, it's that film. You know, the Art Linklater one." That amused me since I was pretty sure that outside of the Disney community there were no people younger than me who would be aware enough of Art Linkletter to make this slip.
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 06:34 PM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yeah, I liked it, too. For pretty much the same reasons as GD. And I enjoyed the rotoscoping and the soundtrack. There wasn't a whole lot "new" to me in the realm of the ideas tossed about, but I appreciated them being tossed about at all in the form of a film.
	Submit to Quotes

11-21-2005, 07:24 PM	#10
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I threw up during this film. Seriously. I went to see it with Ralphie's sister and her husband and we were sitting too close to the screen. I got motion sickness and threw up in the Burbank theatre bathroom. Woo hoo. Good times. Before and after pukeage, I found it to be pretentious. My two cents. The animation was neat...
	Submit to Quotes