nice intro, what no pictures!!
Here are my thoughts
I do not have a whole lot to say about this film (the film talks enough for itself). I think it is very good at defining a group of media enthused, intellectual and intellectual wanabe Gen Xers (people that call themselves losers; they think with irony) that were not given a real portrayal before this film (the success of the film is prob to blame for the horrid Reality Bites and for the horrid Jeanne Garlofago in general) , much more successful in defining its characters than Dazed and Confused and the talk is much more engaging than the sappy Before Sunrise and Set films.
This film captures different types of conversation, but mainly of either the completely engaged (couples) or unengaged (being accosted by a man in a Batman shirt). Some of the conversation is memorable (I could remember line for line the Madonna scene from 15 years ago), some is sad (the diner scene woman) for instance but all of it feels real and true to life (“You dont just go to the lake you have to prepare for it.” ). The actors are not memorable at all (some are terrible) but what they say often is. The film lacks the wit (and the Stilman) or Whit Stilman but unlike with Stilman’s small ensembles the characters here never get tiresome, to Linklater’s enormous credit, he lets characters say interesting things and moves on to different characters, no one is given the time to be boring.
Wonderful film one of the best of the 1990s
Grade A+
Thank you, Den. I meant to say something about the Generation X-ers, but I guess it slipped my mind. :P
Savvy
I’ve seen the film a few times and a number of scenes have stayed with me. I think the first time was around 92/93 and I rewatched my copy yesterday for the first time since I watched it when I bought it.
Some the people are annoying, some are interesting, just like in real life.
As I stated on another, the people on here you who like it are probably people who fail to realize they are just like numerous characters or ones who deny they are yet know it’s true and don’t like a mirror being held up to their BS.
EDIT: See comment two down
Uli Cain, that’s probably very true. ;) And that’s sad. :P
Savvy
Ooooppppsss that was supposed to say Those who DON’T it are, shit, sorry
Don’t worry, I was pretty sure that’s what you were saying! :D
Savvy
Great intro, Zach. Too bad it’s so late you’ve had to forfeit ;)
Yeah, I love this film, too and am anticipating seeing it again (I’ve had the Criterion since it was released but I haven’t cracked it—I’m pretty sure the first time I saw it was on a bootleg VHS).
Living in Dallas and loving Austin, I’ve always had a soft spot for Linklater, and this film in particular.
JR, what’s this about forfeiting??? :O
The Criterion is marvelous, to be absolutely sure. I’m pretty damn sure it’s the best it’s ever looked (other than the original negative). I hope you love it as much as you did then. :)
Savvy
You know how films like Woodstock or Zabriskie Point capture the 60s/70s? Well, I think Slacker does a good job of capturing the 90s (the early 90s at least). It’s also one of the best “Gen X” films—in that it authentically captures people of that generation. I can say that with some confidence because I’m a Gen-Xer myself, and although I never lived in Austin, I did live in Seattle in the early 90s; and I can tell you that I knew people like that, and I was probably one of them. The film is noteworthy for capturing a generation and a specific time in America.
Having said that, I’m not sure how good this film is. It’s more like a “slice-of-a-generation” sort of film (and in that way sort of unique), but I don’t know how good it is.
You know how films like Woodstock or Zabriskie Point capture the 60s/70s? Well, I think Slacker does a good job of capturing the 90s (the early 90s at least). It’s also one of the best “Gen X” films—in that it authentically captures people of that generation. I can say that with some confidence because I’m a Gen-Xer myself, and although I never lived in Austin, I did live in Seattle in the early 90s; and I can tell you that I knew people like that, and I was probably one of them. The film is noteworthy for capturing a generation and a specific time in America.
Having said that, I’m not sure how good this film is. It’s more like a “slice-of-a-generation” sort of film (and in that way sort of unique), but I don’t know how good it is.
Jazz, I appreciate your comments. I think that it captures that perfectly, too. I think there are other films that have tried, but that haven’t gotten it as right as this one has.
And I do think it is a very good film. :)
Savvy
I absolutely love this film, and I understand it so well that I should be afraid to admit it.
I love the way it captures overactive minds in passive lifestyles. I love that it’s the most genre-less feature film I can think of. I love that it has a surreal tone without ever breaking from visual realism (the man with the backpack-TV notwithstanding). I love that it keeps coyly describing itself throughout its episodes: it’s a dream about nothing, a hive-mind, a world of amnesiacs with no future.
And I love that the only two precedents I can think of for its structure (in the realm of feature films) come from abroad: Bunuel, as Zachary mentions, and also Max Ophul’s La Ronde. In other words, I love that it takes the methods and priorities of a European art film and applies them to distinctly American themes and settings. It’s why I love Linklater, and why American independent film can be such a godsend.
(Plus, I love that I can’t walk down the street here in Palo Alto without being reminded of it).
Slacker is also available on Hulu.com to view
Zachary Phillip Brailsford
SLACKER, by Richard Linklater
Richard Linklater’s first released film is an odd one, a piece formed through the interactions and routines of individuals living in Austin, Texas. Perhaps it is an odd choice for a first film – not, in any means, that Linklater chose to shoot in his own hometown, and the like, but that the film does not rely on almost any form of narrative, being rather its own mass of life. The film follows an individual around for a time until it has enough of him, and then it moves on to someone else. Slacker is, in this way, very much like Luis Bunuel’s The Phantom of Liberty, although Bunuel was attacking many different ideas in his film (though usually dealing with hypocrisy), and Linklater’s vision works as an almost enigmatic whole; it is only after one has viewed the entire film that he is able to come to terms with what he has seen.
Before Linklater had begun production on Slacker, he had made another long piece entitled It’s Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books. That film follows one man throughout his days as he get things done, such as fixing his car, eating meals, etc. In a way, the entire film is a precursor to what he would do in Slacker, in that he would end up simply showing people in their daily lives; not much really happens to these people, but whoever said life was like that, anyway? By essentially utilizing non-action, Linklater is able to create and show a series of characters who embody a place and a period in time.
Slacker starts off with Linklater himself arriving at a bus station in Austin, where he is then picked up by a cabbie. The cabbie remains silent as Linklater tells him all about a dream he had on the bus, and alternate realities in which the decisions not made by characters spawn and create their own realities. From there, he gets out of the cab and walks by a woman who is hit by a car. The man who ran her over, who turns out to be her son, arrives home and sets up a ritual for himself before the cops arrive and haul him off, thus moving the story onto someone else. In the film, we get lengthy conversations about the meaning of things and life, but we also just get instances that occur. At one point, a conspiracy fanatic discusses JFK conspiracy books in a bookstore with a young woman who couldn’t be less interested. We see these people, these specific individuals, all who are different, but all who appear to be on a similar plane of life – they all drift around, talking, discussing, reading, thinking, all which does, while it might not seem like it, encapsulate what life can be. Life doesn’t have to be something big, or have events that just happen to create big revelations. We do not have to make something of our lives that is going to impact everyone. We can just live, and the movie does not look down upon those who do.
Because I, myself, live in Austin, I must admit that it’s possible I’m a bit biased toward the film. I see people like this all the time when I walk down Gaudalupe, or when I visit the shops on South Congress, or when I head to the movie theater, past all the bars, on Sixth Sreett. This is life for these people here. It’s not that they are not going anywhere, no, but that they do not feel the pressures that come with a life built up to become the corporate head, or the chairman of the board, or something like that. It is a celebration of life at its most existential level.
I do hope that those who have seen Slacker can appreciate it in the way I do, even if it is not my favorite Rickard Linklater. For those who have not seen it, I hope you are able to sit down and enjoy it yourself, and look at life through these very different eyes. It is a film I find quite fascinating, and one that I hope is very much loved.
Savvy