Waking Life (Linklater, 2001)

[rashhunt]

Film theorist and full time sceptic Stanley Cavell has been quoted as stating in his Pursuit of Happiness (I believe) that philosophy of film is "a willingness to think not about something other than what ordinary human beings think about, but rather to think undistractedly about things that ordinary human beings cannot help thinking about." This cue is taken to heart after watching a talkhead film not unlike a Bergman or Fellini classic where random, often black/white characters, fill the screen and offer incompletely quips and insight into the world, never giving their full understanding - just enough for our main character, or us, to build up the argument and put it in front of the argument - to apply logic and other philosophical tools - or as Lynch would state, feeling.

This is relevant because Waking Life does not play as a typical narrative, there is no direct story besides the minor plot device of the lead 'protagonist' attempting to decipher whether or not he is dreaming, and if he is, how can he escape? His dream, as the film ecapsulates, is his experience from one seat to another, listening to a great number of intellectuals offer their impression of philosophical abstractions such as: existentialism, determinism vs entropy theory (i.e. quantum mechanics), the ego vs the subconscious, post modernism, and so on.

In case you haven't noticed, this review reads more like a poor Philosophy paper attempting to summarize the basics of a fairly random doctrine, and this should give an idea of how flawed this film actually is. It comes off as nothing more than a bulletin of ideas, some filled to the brim with mysticism and others mildly grounded - and so we give Linklater the benefit of the doubt as he drops one big name after another: he must have strong roots in philosophy, in acadamia. And this is true, it is like being the victim of one of those self-indulgent debates one finds on college campuses between the humanity students who just try to prove who can see further between the lines.

A second issue is how unsubtle the film is: where as Bergman would offer obscure but thoughtful symbols or metaphors (death on a beach!), Linklater (the director) deliberately animates during discourses to illustrate the argument, the ideas and the point. The film essentially is caught in a spiral of explaining itself and in a novel this would prove a major downfall. But again, the film explains even this in a brilliant segment in a movie theatre where one of the characters, on a screen, demands attention to the ontology of film and its distinction amongst the other arts of photography, sound and litearture.

Overall, the flaw in the plot structure is what really undoes the film, but in the end I came out enjoying the ideas (being a patron of Satre and Nietzsche) and being mezmerized at the animation, so I dismissed what would normally kill the average movie experience and instead accepted this film the same way one would 2001: We do not go in to be entertained or flabbergasted as the action sequences, we are meant to only sit and experience... and like our main character (played convincibly by Wiley Wiggins), we are likely only to respond after we realize what it is we have sat through and have accepted our situation.


8/10

I would strongly recommend this film for those who found I Heart Huckabees too shallow or too 'gimmicky' to really bite their teeth into - this one sweeps away the cobwebs and builds instead a solid and confident 'big picture' of how the world works, utilizing both Enlightenment (cold logic) and Renaissance (humanism and beauty) approaches to their best potential.


Please comment, this is my first review on the site and any feedback or criticism is gladly appreciated.

- Matt.

[ie]

That screenshot is great. Here's a screenshot from my collection:




You did come off as too steeped in philosophy yourself, perhaps because I haven't taken a formal philosophy class myself , but it's not too bad. Your review was just a little bit hard to read at first.

Waking Life is a philosophical, thinking movie, with many a learned concept just flying past. If you want to compare philosophy to explosions, this movie is like explosion after explosion after explosion, and I love that. (Ha, now I can finally say I love explosions, because I meant it as an analogy. ) I love how we actually get things to think about in this movie, and how we're not just merely given images that are suppose to somehow spark the inner depths of our minds.

Linklater isn't speaking down to us, or trying to make us feel like "oh, I know sooo much more about philosophy than you!" He's speaking on intellectual terms, so you do need to keep up, but as long as you pay attention, and maybe read the script during (with subtitles) or after, you should be able to understand what's going on. Or at the very least, you can understand things on a basic level, based off of what you know, and go from there.

The key to enjoying Waking Life, then, isn't about how highly you could score on a philosophy test at the end of the movie. (Oops, forgot to mark my spoiler about "the test," there ) It's all about what everyone's saying, and if you can find a few ideas that you like, then all the better. Additionally, it's not the "you get what you put in" kind of movie, so if you know nothing about formal philosophy or most of the philosophers, you can still enjoy the movie.

(And that's entirely about the script! Nothing yet about the insane art.)


It's been a while since I've seen Waking Life, but as a testament to how much I got from my first viewing, I was taking screenshots while watching it and managed to get up to 1000 screenshots. I've since trimmed that number down to 325, but yeah, not just visuals, but also subtitled, so I could read little snippets of the lectures. Holy yes, great stuff. I gave it a 10/10 myself.


I've been meaning to make a thread about this, but I Heart Huckabees had no philosophical value at all. The whole movie was bullshit, and it being a parody does not make it smell any less like bullshit. Actually, of all of the movies I've ever seen, hands down, it is my least favorite. But, this rant is for another thread.

[rashhunt]

Understood - I usually feel reviews should try to incorporate the film in question as best as possible. If you're reviewing a parody, take it lightly - if you're reviewing an art film, be subtle - if you're reviewing a philosophy essay like Waking Life, humour it with your own. Also, by making the point that the film itself is a little too detached and distances its audience with its pre-educated notions (even though it attempts to explain some and give examples) by taking the same lane says something...

But yea, will definately keep it a little more formulaic and structured next time. Thanks)

P.S. Huckabees is pretty awful.

[ie]

That's actually a good way to go about reviewing movies, although I don't really write reviews myself.

If you're going to work on your review a little bit more, I would suggest fixing up the introduction. Allow us to get prepared for what you're going to say, especially if what you're going to say is steeped in intellectual value.


Finally, someone here that might agree with the title I Hate Huckabees. Well come.

[criterionmaster]

Great review. But what you said about "the bulletin of ideas," I think that the film just throws the ideas out there for us to think about, and that being the only "flaw" I see in the film actually. It is just that it gives us TOO MUCH to think about, maybe if it would have went deeper into these ideas then it would have been better. But then again, I like that he keeps bouncing around, going from idea to idea, as you never quite finish what you were dreaming about, at least for me, so it would make sense that they feel like bulleted items. I actually give the film a perfect 10/10, and your review the same. Very nice. Welcome!

[ie]

Well, with the idea of going "deeper" with ideas, that may not have been such a good idea.


Let's say Waking Life right now has 20 different people saying their views on 20 different things, and each person gets about the same amount of time to say their piece, okay. Most people may only agree with 18/20 of these people, and maybe feeling indifferent toward the 2/20.

Now, let's say we cut out 10 of these people, and give them more time to speak their mind. I would estimate that most people would start to feel that one or two were speaking for far too long, and add to that that they may not agree with all ten people, and you might be looking at agreeing with about 7/10 of the people.

Remember the guy that was mumbling? I barely remember what he was saying, but imagine if he had twice or even four times as long, maybe to flesh out his perspective on the universe. Not to knock the guy at all, but if he were one of those ten people left in, I could see a lot of people being like "what? I can't understand that guy."


The flash-bang of ideas - or bulletin of ideas - works so well because it gives you a broad sense of what various people think. It's not a one-sided thesis saying This Is How It Is. These are the summaries of how these people (based off of the actor's thoughts, or based off of the character's thoughts) interpreted the universe, culled from all the effort they spent reading, writing, thinking, discussing, learning and accepting discovered and undiscovered ideas. Some of these "people" may get more screen time than others, but they all get to say their unique view on the universe, which in summary, was perfectly compelling to me, at least.

I also can't say I held objection to what anyone said, or if I did, that person quickly went away and was replaced with someone else.

So, that's why I gave it a 10/10. If I did notice any flaws in the movie, well, they don't bother none.

[criterionmaster]

And plus, even if you did disagree with someone thoughts that wouldn't take away from the film since you can't agree with every person on earth. It wouldn't make the film any less good. But yeah, that was what I was trying to say about it gives us just enough to think about. We seem to agree on this film.

[rashhunt]

I think being too broad is a horrible aspect that alot of the ancient philosophers were plagued by, especially when unable to actually distinguish between universals and particulars - which this film never really touches up. The fact is that it -is- a philosophy summary and not a philosophy in its own, and doesn't bother to actually educate the audience who don't know the difference between metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, which the film just meshes together to a point where it's nearly incoherent but again, being broad is a safe way for it not to be 'wrong' on either of its points.

In all, the film is too educated for its own good and yet doesn't take advantage of this apriori knowledge, and instead settles itself into another talking head arthouse pic instead of a documentary (which, given, would have destroyed the pic).

Either way, all of the ideas and interesting but ideas alone don't make a film, and to ignore this to me doesn't give the reviewer the potential to fully critique it.

The substance is right on, the style goes without saying, but the general pacing and even the 'performances' of some of the dictators are a little off. Ethan Hawk played his minor bed side role properly but at times him and others barely seemed to really grasp what they were saying - it'd be like giving the script to a stuttering spaniard.

I stick by my rating, it's not perfect by any degree and it's too rich with thought (though underdeveloped) to call a failure, not to mention entertaining for those of us who actually have some footing in standard philosophical texts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, the problem I have with some people who interpret philosophy is that they state that it is purely theoretical, that it is just 'opinion' and that even if one disagrees it doesn't make the statement wrong. This isn't true at all - philosophy has a very strict formula in most cases and the minute someone has managed to disprove or even lessen the accuracy of the said philosophy, it is complete bunk until it justifies itself otherwise.

[ie]

So, if we agree to agree, then, what were some of your favorite bits from the movie?

Without going into too much detail or thought: I liked the scene in the two screenshots we've seen so far, the lecture on existentialism, the scene where the main character bumps into the girl who talks about how we've always on auto-pilot, and the story the gas attendent tells to the bartender, to name a few.


Oh, and here's a script of the movie, for interested parties.


edit: rashhunt, you snuck in before I finished posting. Sorry I can't read and comment on what you wrote right now, but I will try to later.

[rashhunt]

The scene on the ontology of film (as the initial screen shot suggests) is the most vivid and easily the one that I give the most credit, especially sine I'm in the process of composing a thesis on the very topic (though not quite on the same page).

Also, one of the last bits where he speaks to the fellow on the pinball, where we get a small dictation on what the afterlife may hold... the shadows on the wall and the general content kind of blows me away - not that it's difficult or complex, it's just a very grounded to mythology and entirely poetic. It's the type of thing you'd see out of a Faulkner or even Flannery O'Connor novel, despite the supernatural flavour of it all.

[ie]

Actually, I can't respond to what you said in your last post, rashhunt. I mean, you are certainly right that philosophy is active and not just theoretical, but I can't really respond much about the movie itself. Well, at the moment at least.

[PTAhole]

I'm surprised you like this movie, ie. It doesn't seem like your kind of film at all.

[ie]

Well, the thing is, Waking Life has actual intellectual value. That's what I like about it. There is plenty to think about (or as rashhunt might put it, too much) and to absorb, which frankly is untrue about a good portion of movies that are toted around as being "intellectual" and "thinking films."

[nonfiction]

Huckabees is awesome. It's also a self-parody not meant to be taken seriously.