July 13, 2002

9:47 AM

waking lifeis a wonderful film, both for its amazing animation and its uncommon attempt to bring the mind-body problem to the screen. Curiously, I found this film far more engaging than most of the other films I've seen that use the 'false reality' mechanism. Should more films bring their philosophical subject matters directly into question, instead of relegating it to sub-text?
posted by kaibutsu (71 comments total)

Waking Life was a hoax. B-list actors spouting high-school level philosophy does not a serious movie make.

The animation was fantastic. And after 20 minutes, I'd seen all his tricks. With no story, no characters to care about, and poor ideas, I left.
posted by rocketman at 9:53 AM on July 13, 2002

I enjoyed Waking Life and its ideas, but I generally don't think that more films ought to be two-hour plotless gabfests. Most people like characters, plot, and action, and to figure out how to attach philosophical ideas to a narrative clothesline is part of what it means to be a filmic storyteller. The animation looks even better (looser) in the short "Snack and A Drink," which is also on the DVD.

We previously discussed simulation/false reality here.
posted by muckster at 9:57 AM on July 13, 2002

There was a story. It takes longer than 20 minutes to figure that out, though.
posted by webmutant at 10:04 AM on July 13, 2002

Yeah, it was a bunch of pseudo-intellectual non-narrative drivel. I guess if I had seen it when I was 15, on acid, I would have enjoyed it as a kind of stupid diversion. I can't deny that the animation was cool, but in terms of its contribution to the evolution of film and what it can do, it's about at the level of The Blair Witch Project: technically original, but I'll wait for someone to make better use of the concept. Cheers to muckster for the use of certain terminology.
posted by bingo at 10:15 AM on July 13, 2002

The entire movie felt like my freshman year in college. Overwrought discusssions about poorly understood philosophies and "new" ideas. It made me embarrased for my youth because I'm sure I used to sound like that.

It was attractive, but the beauty can't really support the movie on its own.

rocketman - high school level? Your friends must have been a few years ahead of my friends, but generally, you're exactly right.
posted by willnot at 10:16 AM on July 13, 2002

Ugh, I was genuinely excited about Waking Life but hated it with a vengeance. The dialog was the worst of college coffee talk drivel, a Phil 101 class gone terrible awry.

I did enjoy the prison sequence, and almost enjoyed the Philip K Dick bit, but otherwise I had to restrain myself from projectile vomiting on the screen.
posted by xmutex at 10:16 AM on July 13, 2002

I'm not convinced that the best way to present philosophy is through extended monologues. After a while, Waking Life starting feeling a bit like an episode of NOVA. This is in contrast to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which is a Buddhist parable about attachment.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:21 AM on July 13, 2002

I'll back Webmutant up on there being a story.
And it's not like it's hard to find it. The plot has actually been done before, with another movie that for most people was about as well-understood at first viewing.

Rocketman: after 20 minutes, I'd seen all his tricks
Whose tricks? There were several animators, and they were given pretty free reign over what they did visually.

As for high-school/freshman philosophy, take the character's age into account. It's an important(obvious) factor in why the philosophy was so juvenile.
posted by Su at 10:27 AM on July 13, 2002

It's far from a perfect movie and yeah, you couldn't possibly build an academic career on its philosophy. But movies are supposed to be for an audience, the people who pay some good money in order not to bankrupt the moviemakers -- I suppose WL was considered already too difficult by many moviegoers.
You can't possibly think that you can shoot a movie using the Tractatus as dialogue -- not even Wittgenstein's biopic could pull a stunt like that
posted by matteo at 10:36 AM on July 13, 2002

Su - you may be right, but I didn't get the feeling that I was watching a character study. The film doesn't appear to be at all conscious of how childish it sounds. I got the feeling I was directly hearing Linklater's voice, and he thought he was being profound.

I think a lot of the negative reactions come from the fact that the people who sought out the movie were genuinely excited to get a movie about ideas and genuinely disappointed when they didn't.

If it shows up on Sundance or the Independent Film Channel, I'll try to watch it again and see if, as you suggest, I'm hearing the voice of the character and not the voice of the film maker. It would be great if you were right, because the movie did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
posted by willnot at 10:42 AM on July 13, 2002

Yeah, I felt that the storytelling in the film was flawed, with the plot dragging through the endless discussions of the first half. I did, however, appreciate the directness with which the film's underlying problems were addressed, and that the film actually wanted the viewer to start thinking. Certainly, I may not have agreed with many of the dialogues in the film (e.g. Since when is evolution efficient?), but these dialogues encourage the participation of the viewer through their agreement or dissent. Who can really listen to a guy run on for five solid minutes about free will without having at least one major point to dissent with?

I'm glad that this exists; the Matrix, for contrast, relies heavily on the audience's suspension of disbelief to make its points, but in the process remove the point from their points. I watch the Matrix and think to myself that their problems aren't mine because the technological spurs for the storyline are so far-fetched that they can't possibly relate to the world I live in. On the other hand, everybody dreams...
posted by kaibutsu at 10:54 AM on July 13, 2002

Heh. It's actually on DirecTV Pay-Per-View right now -- my husband and I tried to watch it the other night. Key word being "tried" -- yes, I *know* there was a plot, and I *know* there was a point, but I couldn't sit through it. The animation was beautiful, but it was 86'ed after about half an hour.
posted by metrocake at 10:57 AM on July 13, 2002

If Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius got a nomination, I think Walking Life should have as well.
posted by boost ventilator at 11:03 AM on July 13, 2002

I remember this movie more because of what happened afterwards. If you recall, there's a scene in the movie where two passing strangers begin a conversation, bemoaning anonymity and the automatic quality of our lives.

Anyways, I had gone to go see it with a girl I was seeing at the time. As we were walking away from the theater another young couple approached us and asked if we had seen the movie and what we had thought. They had overheard some nonsense that I had spouted off and were eager to discuss the movie as it had seemed to them to be a revelation.

After a few minutes they told us (my gf and I) that we were fascinating and would we consider joining them for dinner. We hesitated but noted that we were heading in their same direction so why not keep walking and talking. For some reason, after that, their attachment to us became stronger and the conversation veered quickly into religion and sexuality and very personal topics as it is easy to do when discussing philosophy.

I noticed gf was getting uncomfortable but looking for me to take the lead. I told them we had to go. They looked mildly perplexed and asked for our numbers. I only gave them mine.

It was a strange encounter. I'm still not sure whether they were religious zealots or swingers or merely a couple who had been affected by the movie and wanted to talk and share. Anyways, I dont remember much of the film besides that.
posted by vacapinta at 11:09 AM on July 13, 2002

It occurs to me that I don't want to leave this thread with just negative spoutings.

As I was bouncing around my TV channels, I noticed that Defending Your Life is on right now. If you want a movie that explores ideas, and you haven't seen it yet, you should think about checking it out. I'm not sure if the ideas it explores are incidental to the romantic comedy, or if the romantic comedy is just a sugar coating for the philosophies it explores, but it is a very smart and knowing film. In fact you can't really go wrong with any Albert Brooks film.

Sliding Doors explores the role that chance plays in our life. Similar to vacapinta's story above, it always makes me feel like I should approach some stranger and start talking with them.

And, if you're interested in a movie with rambling conversations that explores interesting ideas in an intelligent way, you should take a look at My Dinner with Andre.
posted by willnot at 11:31 AM on July 13, 2002

Ok, I'll bite: what is the story? I've watched this twice, but all I got was "guy can't wake up." That's not a story yet, that's a situation. What am I missing?
posted by muckster at 11:44 AM on July 13, 2002

I'm still not sure whether they were religious zealots or swingers

I had a similar experience after viewing this film, meeting a couple of people who overheard the conversation my best friend and I were having. The couple were both male, and wanted to talk about the movie. My partner and I joined the two for beverages, and we both got the distinct impression that we were being cruised rather heavily. Gaydar going off like mad.

About half an hour into the conversation (and after they'd invited us to their home), they informed us they were Mormons.

Ever since then, I've given a lot of thought over to the notion that homosexuals are often unjustly accused of 'recruiting' by the very people who should be accused of 'recruiting'.
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:59 AM on July 13, 2002

That's not a story yet, that's a situation.

It's surprising you're taking something this experimental, and trying to cram it into the same box as any other movie/story you might come across.
First, not every story is told to "completion," where the good people get married and the bad people have houses dropped on them. Stories stop when the author has decided they've said all they want to within that particular frame(eg: book, movie). Otherwise, you wind up at "Every story eventually ends in death," to quote The Sandman(roughly). Ever had someone tell you a story, and when they stop you go, "And?" because they seem to think they're done?
Second, some stories just stop, to allow you the freedom to draw your own conclusion, or just extend as you please. Go (re?)read No Exit. Seems to me that it does the same thing you object to here: withouth much explanation, it presents a strange situation for a while, the characters realize something and then it stops. But it doesn't need to go through a tidy denouement, closing action, and so on. It would, necessarily, go on forever.

There's more, and these are just examples, though slightly related ones. This isn't to even say that the above both apply to this movie. Maybe it's just somewhere in between. With few exceptions like fables, stories aren't neat little packages.

But to hint at your question: Think of another movie in which a character seems to think he's dreaming or hallucinating, doesn't know what's going on, shifts through realities, is presented with conflicting stories and philosophies, eventually realizes/accepts what's happening, and then "wakes up" at the end.
posted by Su at 12:57 PM on July 13, 2002

i had originally bought the dvd so my gf would have something to watch. she seemed to enjoy it, but after the first five minutes of admiring the animiation, i fell asleep.
posted by lotsofno at 1:22 PM on July 13, 2002

You said there was a story, so now I'm cramming things into a box when I ask what it is?

stories aren't neat little packages.

They certainly aren't. But they have a shape. Stories are series of related events. "Guy can't wake up" isn't a story yet because it has no shape. It's a situation, not a story, just like a point is not a line. "Guy can't wake up, but eventually he does" -- that's a story.

Think of another movie in which a character seems to think he's dreaming or hallucinating, doesn't know what's going on, shifts through realities, is presented with conflicting stories and philosophies, eventually realizes/accepts what's happening, and then "wakes up" at the end.

I'm not sure that he does wake up in the end though. How do we know?

As for your riddle: Jacob's Ladder, The Steppenwolf, Sixth Sense, Arlington Road, The Matrix, Little Nemo in Slumberland, The Odyseey, Orpheus and Eurydice, the episode with Homer in the floating tank, Total Recall, The Wizard of Oz, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge, Carlito's Way, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Which one are you thinking of?
posted by muckster at 1:25 PM on July 13, 2002

Think of another movie in which a character seems to think he's dreaming or hallucinating, doesn't know what's going on, shifts through realities, is presented with conflicting stories and philosophies, eventually realizes/accepts what's happening, and then "wakes up" at the end.
Mulholland Drive?
Naked Lunch?
posted by matteo at 1:25 PM on July 13, 2002

Jeez.
I loved this movie. The fact that somethiing so clearly "artistic" was released through mainstream media channels was inspiring.

With MIB hamburger ads and Austin Britney Spears Pepsi Powers becoming the trend, my heart glowed when I saw the integrity of Linkletter's artistic vision.

Was this a "movie" that told a story? No, it was a journey through ideas.

You people were discussing these ideas in High School and have moved beyond them? Well you are fucking brilliant and should start producing some art for the rest of us!! I'm totally serious. Inspire me!

I applaud the artist's attempt. I've watched it 3 times and recommend it to everyone I know.
posted by halcyon at 1:37 PM on July 13, 2002

I quite enjoyed it.
posted by rushmc at 1:42 PM on July 13, 2002

I "woke up" at the end too... literally. That movie provided me with one of my most satisfying naps in years.

I was looking forward to "Waking Life" too -- I just was profoundly bored after 15 minutes.
posted by Fofer at 2:04 PM on July 13, 2002

I TiVo'd this off DirecTV last week, and it's one of the few PPVs I've recorded that I didn't delete immediately after watching it once. I plan to see it again.

The dialogue was just sound to me. This film was all about the look. It wasn't perfect, there were places where I could tell they had just slapped computer effects on top of video, but there were places where the visuals were just magic.
posted by kindall at 2:12 PM on July 13, 2002

"Guy can't wake up" isn't a story yet because it has no shape. It's a situation, not a story

when framed this way, it's not a story. but "guy can't wake up" strongly implies a sequence of events (a story):

1) he realizes he is dreaming/asleep
2) he decides he no longer wants to be asleep
3) he tries to wake himself up
4) he fails

because without attempting to wake up, how do we know he can't?

(not that i've seen the movie though...)
posted by juv3nal at 2:52 PM on July 13, 2002

Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie, and want as unbiased viewpoint as possible before going in.


That said - I thought the premise of the movie was that the lead character had died and was having his post-mortal mental experience. This explains the disjointed nature of the different converstaions that he tunes into. And that climax the movie works toward is the main character himself moving from the no to the yes. The yes being his acceptance of his own physical death and spiritual (re?)birth. I found the movie very touching, profound, and in many ways life altering.

I very much enjoyed this movie, bought the dvd, and have watched it several times since.

Would it be selfish to steer this thread towards the lucid dream topic? Anyone out there have them? Or should I dig up a link and post a new thread?
posted by folktrash at 3:23 PM on July 13, 2002

Think of another movie in which a character seems to think he's dreaming or hallucinating, doesn't know what's going on, shifts through realities, is presented with conflicting stories and philosophies, eventually realizes/accepts what's happening, and then "wakes up" at the end.

Pi, except for the part about waking up at the end. (ouch)
posted by bragadocchio at 3:32 PM on July 13, 2002

There was an extensive discussion on my movie blog about Waking Life which I thought was a terrible film. Click on "archived" to see the discussion after the initial post.
posted by McBain at 4:05 PM on July 13, 2002

Think of another movie in which...

Confusion over what is reality pops up in Cronenberg's Videodrome and Naked Lunch, and Existenz kinda. Su's riddle also describes Vanilla Sky exactly. Also I watched Mike Leigh's 'Naked' recently, and although it didn't include dream states, the tone and pace of the movie reminded vaguely of 'Waking Life', but darker.

I found it to be an excellent film, I also can't believe it wasn't nominated in the animation category of the Oscars. I disagree with a lot of the criticism of the film, in that only a small percentage of the film is actually discussing philosophy, they're just observations about life and stuff, like the P.K. Dick story, or the observation about the weight of time passing diminishing as one gets older, or the practicalities of lucid dreaming.

Also, on the DVD, the supplementary subtitles gave a url for some site... anyone remember it?
posted by bobo123 at 4:31 PM on July 13, 2002

I agree with Folktrash's interpretation, which would make the story "Guy is dreaming and can't wake up, then realizes he's not dreaming, he's dead, accepts that he's dead and floats into whatever lies ahead." Besides, who says every film needs a story? (though linklater does claim his film is narrative)

I don't see the movie as a character study, I see it as more of a cultural study. My friend, who's a pretty big Linklater-head, says that most of the the conversations were impromptu. It's not the sole voice of the filmmaker, it's the voice of several actors as well as Linklater. Some of the conversations are obviously going to be more interesting than others, and some of it is more advanced than others. I think it's pretty lazy and arrogant to label the entire film as "freshman philosophy." If I may be so bold, what are all the people who thought it was "childish" reading right now?
posted by klint at 5:43 PM on July 13, 2002

I meant to include this link to discussion of Waking Life as well. Click on "archived" to see comments on that post, also.
posted by McBain at 5:44 PM on July 13, 2002

I'm re-reading the Narnia series. What's your point? I don't mind a juvenile story. The problem is this film seemed to take its deep and profound insights seriously when many thoughtful people who'd already been over that ground could see in retrospect what a load of crap it all was. Actually, from my place in life now, the Narnia stuff isn't really very good either, but at least it knows what it is.

If it's largely actors improvising, then that would make sense. I'm sure there are lots of interesting thoughtful actors out there. I suspect there are far more vapid, self-involved pretty vessels that should stick to saying the words others have filled them with.

By the way, I'm totally lazy and arrogant. That doesn't make the film any better though.
posted by willnot at 6:02 PM on July 13, 2002

For me, it was a terrible movie that I loved immensely. It made my brain tingle, even if the philosophy was somewhat sophomoric and the plot almost nonexistent.

I did watch it in a 4-day stretch that included watching Donnie Darko, Mulholland Drive and Liquid Sky, though, so I was in a frame of mind to stretch out.

The movie was defiant and unapologetic, if flawed, and this I love. I'm also fascinated by lucid dreaming. I would disagree with willnot that the ideas raised by the (sometimes puerile) conversations in the film, if not the conversations themselves, were 'a load of crap'. Far from it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 PM on July 13, 2002

"Waking Life, like every movie, delivers us not into the imaginal realm but into an earthly simulacrum of it; its distinction comes from the fact that, like a lucid dreamer, Linklater is aware of what he is doing in both creating and reflecting on an elaborate philosophic analogue linking cinema and quantum reality." -Godfrey Cheshire
posted by Dean King at 7:17 PM on July 13, 2002

Mindwalk was another fun one that I would recommend to those who enjoyed Waking Life.
posted by rushmc at 9:40 PM on July 13, 2002

I saw mindwalk. It didn't appeal to me. It seemed to just cover all the bases, and that's it. Didn't really go anywhere. Plus I thought acting was terrible.

I'm still a sucker for these *kinds* of movies tho. Anyone see cube ?

hahahahaha
posted by folktrash at 10:11 PM on July 13, 2002

I'm really grateful that there are so many really smart and jaded people around here. Otherwise, someone's movie or CD or television show might be considered for its virtues, rather than being used as a springboard for nihilist know-it-alls, who have seen it all before and are oh-so-better than the intended audience.

This thread reminds me of the Dave Eggers "Keeping It Real" rant. Of course, you may take this as your signal to discuss why that sucked, and how juvenile he is, and how you started reading one of his books, but left 20 minutes later, because you figured it all out, and it was going to suck.
posted by websavvy at 10:12 PM on July 13, 2002

websavvy - Maybe you can help me understand something that I never have been able to figure out. Why is it that some people, when faced with criticism of something they enjoyed (I'm assuming), feel the need to personalize it and attack the critics? I mean you don't like something, and that's fine. Tell us why you don't like it. Or you do like something and that's cool. Tell us why you don't like it. But, I'm offended that you don't like it, and I want to tell you how stupid or arrogant or whatever you are? Unless you are Linklater, why does my opinion of a movie make you want to lash out at me? If you are Linklater, then no worries. I loved Dazed and Confused. I even liked Before Sunrise even though it was more of the same juvenile philosophy - it sort of works for me in that movie. I have the DVD for both of those. It's just Waking Life I found to be a huge disappointing waste of my hopes, time and money.

rushmc - thanks for reminding me of Mindwalk. I had it buried in a pile of old video tapes. I don't remember what I thought of the conversations in that one, but I dug it out and I'm watching it now.
posted by willnot at 11:23 PM on July 13, 2002

klint: I think it's pretty lazy and arrogant to label the entire film as "freshman philosophy." If I may be so bold, what are all the people who thought it was "childish" reading right now?

Isn't it enough that many of us literally read about the ideas in the movie when we were freshmen, or earlier? And that we read more than the jacket of the books concerned, therefore giving us more insight into those ideas than the characters in the film had?

websavvy: I'm really grateful that there are so many really smart and jaded people around here. Otherwise, someone's movie or CD or television show might be considered for its virtues, rather than being used as a springboard for nihilist know-it-alls, who have seen it all before and are oh-so-better than the intended audience.

Apparently there are not enough of us smart and jaded people to prevent a mediocre film from making the ignorant masses feel educated for a couple of hours. You're safe.
posted by bingo at 12:42 AM on July 14, 2002

Would it be selfish to steer this thread towards the lucid dream topic? Anyone out there have them? Or should I dig up a link and post a new thread?

Maybe. Yes. Yeah.
posted by vacapinta at 1:10 AM on July 14, 2002

why [do] some people, when faced with criticism of something they enjoyed... feel the need to personalize it and attack the critics

Maybe it has something to do with dozens of "me too" posts repeating the same subjective angle over and over, just dismissing without discussing? Or perhaps the clean up crew that takes issue with the people that take issue with this. Reads like some kin dof metacritical groupthink to me. The web seems ever-more-full of people who just seem to hate everything that tries.

I am a fan of beautiful failures and, as always, root for the underdog. I thought that the best 15 minutes of this film more than made up for the worst hour of it. 15 minutes of brilliance is valuable no matter what surrounds it.
posted by n9 at 1:58 AM on July 14, 2002

Apparently there are not enough of us smart and jaded people to prevent a mediocre film from making the ignorant masses feel educated for a couple of hours.

Just assuming you are not an ignorant mass, bingo, what are you? You sound like an ass right there.
posted by n9 at 2:01 AM on July 14, 2002

Obviously, I am one of those people of which the web is ever more full, who just seem to hate everything that tries.

You may now return to your pseudointellectual schlock.
posted by bingo at 7:15 AM on July 14, 2002

of whom, even.
posted by bingo at 7:20 AM on July 14, 2002

*smiles*

ok!
posted by n9 at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2002

hear, hear websavvy. That said, Waking Life put me to sleep, but since I own the DVD, maybe someday I'll be wired enough to make it all the way through.

Another movie I own a copy of is CRUMB, which has the unerring ability to put my wife to sleep whenever I put it on.

Together, I suspect I've discovered the perfect combination of non-habit forming insomnia cures for my household.
posted by crunchland at 8:00 AM on July 14, 2002

n9 - so if I understand you correctly, several people have the same subjective experience of a work of entertainment, art whatever. The appropriate reaction is to assume there must be something wrong with the people and attack their group-thinking.

I'm not sure how you get to the idea that the people contributing to this thread hate everything that tries. Several of the detractors mentioned that the visuals of the thing were beautiful and innovative. They just didn't think it was enough to carry a movie that was basically just pretty images and poorly considered/expressed ideas.

I mean really that's pretty much the movie, and either you like the images enough to forgive the thoughts expressed, or the thoughts are still new and exciting to you, and the movie feels like an intellectual exploration, or you're disappointed because it had the potential to be so much more but ended up being a movie with nothing but pretty pictures and juvenile ideas. I for one can appreciate the fact that the film makers were trying something, but that doesn't get it an automatic buy either. There are all kinds of people trying something. Walk into a kindergarden art classroom, and you'll find plenty of kids trying something. You may even be inclined to support their efforts because they're growing and fragile. Still, the art itself isn't likely to be very good, and it isn't made any better just because the kids tried. Most experiments should fail. That's how you grow. But, if you're going to release it into the realm of public opinion, then you better be prepared for people to tell you, you failed. And, if you're going to charge me to view it ... well then I expect it to be good. I don't hate everything that tries. I just really hated Waking Life.
posted by willnot at 10:25 AM on July 14, 2002

I agree with those who reacted badly to the people who simply dismissed the film as "juvenile crap philosophy." That's too easy. If you thought it was overly simplistic, fine, make that case. Perhaps give some examples of which ideas you thought were simplistic, and why you thought so. But keep in mind that 99 percent of the audience for that movie has never studied the ideas presented in any depth, so you are in an elite group which is NOT the target audience. It's easier to destroy than to create, and apparently easier to sit back and feel smug at one's level of education than to acknowledge a film that attempts to spread some ideas more widely.

There's a difference between saying "that movie wasn't for me," or "offered me nothing" than to dismiss it as low brow crap.
posted by rushmc at 10:47 AM on July 14, 2002

If you want a nice community online, don't just be a real-life Simpson's Comic Book Store Guy. I don't hang out with people like that in real life because the world sucks enough without annoying people stepping all over themselves to be more jaded than their everyone else. Jaded is so 1996. You hated Waking Life, but people like bingo make me hate Real Life.

Oh yeah, I guess rushmc said this in a nicer way. Read his post instead of mine. Oops, too late.
posted by n9 at 11:37 AM on July 14, 2002

i thought it was pretty awesome :) tape is pretty good too :) wiley wiggins has a weblog btw! (and it looks like he just got married!)
posted by kliuless at 11:41 AM on July 14, 2002

I haven't seen the movie in a while, and so I can only speak specifically about what I was able to glean from the clips available from their web site. Presumably these are the best instances of the movie available since the intent is to sell the movie. From those, we get this:

Man 1: You know I just woke from a dream. It wasn't like a typical dream. It seemed like I'd just walked into an alternate universe or something.

Man 2: Yeah, it's real. I mean technically it's a phenomenon of sleep, but you can have so much damn fun in your dream. And of course everyone knows fun rules.

Man 1: Do you have these dreams all the time?

Man 2: Oh yeah. I'm always going to make the best of it. But the trick is you gotta realize that you're dreaming in the first place. You gotta be able to recognize it. You gotta ask yourself hey man is this a dream? See most people never ask themselves that when they're awake or especially when they're asleep. Seems like everyone's sleepwalking through their waking state or wakewalking through their dreams. Either way, they're not going to get much out of it.

Man 1: The thing that snapped me into realizing I was dreaming was my digital clock. I couldn't really read it. It was like the circuitry was all screwed up or something.

Man 2: Yeah, that's real common. And small printed material is pretty tough too. Very unstable. Another good tip off is trying to adjust light levels. You can't really do that. If you see a light switch near by, turn it on and off and see if it works. That's one of the few things you can't do in a lucid dream. What the hell. I can fly around, have an interesting conversation with Albert Schweitzer. I can explore all these new dimensions of reality, and not to mention, I can have any kind of sex I want. Which is way cool. So I can't adjust light levels so what.

OK. If your idea of deep profound thought is driving around getting high wondering in a moment of complete epiphany what if the entire universe is just an atom in the fingernail of some god, well then good for you. You may enjoy this movie. If you already asked yourself those questions years ago and came to the not so mind-numbing realization that it doesn't really matter since subjective reality is for all intents and purposes real, and the thought is the same thought that every newly expanded consciousness has ever had and hence not really all that original or even interesting, then you probably won't like this movie.

I still don't understand the need to criticize the critic though. If you want to surround yourself with pollyannas who love everything, I hope you can find those kinds of people. Sounds pretty dull and unengaging to me. For myself, I'd prefer people who had genuine opinions about movies, music, books politics - preferably opinions that are different from mine. I expect there will always be some things I like that others don't and that others like that I don't. That's fine. That's to be encouraged. If a group of people don't like something, I don't instantly project the absurd notion that they must hate everything. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I know there are at least two people contributing to this thread who regularly watch and enjoy shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'm not sure you can be jaded and elitist and still enjoy pop culture diversions like that. The personalities on this board aren't single dimensional cartoon stereotypes. I guess if you found the thoughts in waking life original and interesting, you may be used to dealing with cartoon stereotypes, but the real world is a bit broader than that.

Things don't have to be profound to have value, but if something wants to present itself as being profound - which Waking Life certainly did - then shouldn't it actually be profound?

But hey you know...Fun Rules Dude!
posted by willnot at 12:35 PM on July 14, 2002

rushmc, with respect:

It is no doubt easier to destroy than to create, but I do not believe that is a valid analogy here. Criticism, even flawed criticism, is only a destructive force (in terms of an individual work of art) if it hampers the artist's ability to complete the work, and to make it good. Once the work is done, though, it either holds up or it doesn't. Not everyone will agree, though, on whether the work holds up, so critical argument can help to illuminate the flaws of the weaknesses of the piece, hopefully moving us all toward a better appreciation of what's good, and keeping artists honest.

I have no problem with the fact that some movies are made for people without much of an education. But Waking Life is not The Waterboy. It asks the viewer to engage it at an intellectual level, and it touches on a number of complex subjects and a number of important writings. And to do this is to open the door to criticism on how one deals with those issues.

You suggest that this is "a film that attempts to spread some ideas more widely," but I think you are giving the artist too much credit.

You can stage a performance of Hamlet in such a way that people outside its normal audience will understand it better, providing fresh but valid lines of access into what it has to offer. Alternately, you can stage a version of Hamlet in which the most vulgar and obvious parts are emphasized, with attractive actors and brightly-colored props, implicitly giving up on the idea that the audience could handle the nuances that make the play good to begin with.

I think that Waking Life is much more analogous to the latter. You are concerned about seeing this movie dismissed as "low brow crap." In fact, the fact that Waking Life is a low brow (or, perhaps more accurately, middle brow) film masquerading as a highbrow film is what bothers me the most. It purports to deal with a number of complex philosophical ideas, but it introduces only the most superficial pretexts of those ideas, and then blows those precepts up as if they are some of the most profound and complex thoughts that the human mind is capable of grasping. It's like a political thriller in which a character whom the audience is encouraged to see as a gifted and worldly politician, describing communism as a form of government in which all propery is public and everyone is happy. Someone who has never heard of communism before may leave the theater feeling educated, and they are mostly wrong, and the educated faction of the audience leaves annoyed that the artist promised to deal with a complex idea in an intelligent way, and then didn't deliver. My (original) gripe is not with people who liked the movie; if you liked it, you liked it. My gripe is with Linklater, who made something mediocre on purpose.

What's more, Waking Life utilizes an old and tired trick for masking pretension and lack of quality: it introduces one
technical gimmick and permeates the work with it, hoping that the new element will convince the audience that here is something which in its stunningly original form is not subject to the same standards as those petty films that use formal innovation as a way of supporting other elements of the movie, as opposed to coating the movie in a sort of numbing aesthetic goo with the same implicit lack of interest in real taste with which high fructose corn syrup is added to processed food.

I believe that it's valid to make more objectively-oriented, if not truly objective, judgements of a movie than that "it didn't work for me." I think that Waking Life doesn't work, period, and it was released with all the smugness of a director and a marketing machine that know most people would think that it did. It's a swindle, and the movie is bad.

If you read down the thread, you'll see that the personal attacks were started not by the detractors, but by people who liked the movie but were apparently angered at multiple detractors' assertions that the film's ideas were not actually profound. I think the real source of conflict here is the inability of some viewers to see something they really like criticized harshly, and not to take that as a personal insult.
posted by bingo at 1:15 PM on July 14, 2002

Willnot, where in the WORLD do you find anything about "are we a fingernail of god" in that bit you quoted? It's about the phenomenon and nature of lucid dreams, which most people are NOT familiar with and DO find fascinating once told about them.
posted by rushmc at 1:34 PM on July 14, 2002

I just said bingo sounded like an ass because of his ideas regarding the "ignorant masses." If you throw out lines like that and then you are *surprised* that someone has something to say about it? If that is what you are calling a personal attack, well, then I guess that is one, but it has more to do with your rhetoric than the film, which if you go back and read the tail of this thread you will see is what a few of us are commenting on... the rhetoric of the jaded and how touchy they are about it being questioned.
posted by n9 at 1:38 PM on July 14, 2002

Blue Meanies. That's my new way to refer to the new post-post-meta-jaded-web-people: Blue Meanies. Yeah.
posted by n9 at 1:40 PM on July 14, 2002

Criticism, even flawed criticism, is only a destructive force (in terms of an individual work of art) if it hampers the artist's ability to complete the work, and to make it good.

I disagree with that, because I think it can also be destructive if it influences neutral parties in a negative way, without providing any basis for that negative assessment. Saying "it sucked" does not constitute good criticism; rather, it is simply a statement of opinion, and gives us no basis on which to judge the quality of that opinion, because we don't know upon what it was based.

I think the real source of conflict here is the inability of some viewers to see something they really like criticized harshly, and not to take that as a personal insult.

And again, I must disagree, because it seems to me that the objections are not about the fact of the criticism, but about the specious nature of it. I appreciate your taking the time to go into more detail about your own criticisms in this post and wish others had done so.

In fact, the fact that Waking Life is a low brow (or, perhaps more accurately, middle brow) film masquerading as a highbrow film is what bothers me the most.

And I guess this is the core of our disagreement, for I don't see that it is trying to masquerade as anything; I just take it for what it is. It seems to me that some posters here are upset with it for not being more than it is, not being more sophisticated or going into deeper philosophical territory...but that's not the movie he chose to make! And I would again submit that THIS movie has a much larger potential audience than that other movie that you (and also I) would like to see.
posted by rushmc at 1:48 PM on July 14, 2002

Waking Life is a low brow (or, perhaps more accurately, middle brow) film masquerading as a highbrow film

Yeah, that explains why every single letter in the credits is squirming. That's a sure mark of a highbrow film.
posted by kindall at 7:26 PM on July 15, 2002

The part I quoted had 2 functions. It had to set up the gimmick of the film - that is you are dreaming, but you don't realize it, and here are the clues that you and the audience can look out for to determine that it's still a dream. It had to do that to serve the film, and I don't have a problem with it.

It also throws out the extremely smug and condescending (in my opinion) idea that most people aren't leading complete and full lives. That they are in fact sleepwalking through their waking lives.

I put that "wow, the nature of reality is not what you think it is" stuff on the same par as the typical stoner cliche about the fingernail of god. Possibly I could have expressed that better, but it seemed to draw a fairly obvious parallel to me. I'm basically saying A == B, so if you like B, then you'll probably like A as well.

By the way with everybody throwing out the jaded cynic bit, let's take a look at what the film is really saying. It is saying that the ignorant masses (and here I'm projecting what I view to be the films voice and not Bingo's voice) are leading meaningless lives without color or even the ability to really live well. It's saying all of you people are stupid and you need to wake up to the potential of life if you want a full and complete existence. Turn away from the shadows on the cave you and emerge into a higher state of living with us. It's certainly possible to argue that is not what the film is saying, in which case I'd be interested in what you do think it's saying, but that's what I hear in the thing.
posted by willnot at 7:38 PM on July 15, 2002

I kind of want to watch it again. On mute. The animation was bad-ass. Everything else sucked:


"Well, you know what Nietzsche said about that..."
"No, I'm afriad I don't."
"Well, as it says on page 234 of this text..."

I have been having some crazy-ass lucid dreams lately, though.
posted by jeb at 7:43 PM on July 15, 2002

Actually, I guess it might be more appropriate to say that:
A ~=B
posted by willnot at 7:49 PM on July 15, 2002

n9: If you look above, I think it's quite clear that the first one to make this personal and vindictive was websavvy, who said:

I'm really grateful that there are so many really smart and jaded people around here. Otherwise, someone's movie or CD or television show might be considered for its virtues, rather than being used as a springboard for nihilist know-it-alls, who have seen it all before and are oh-so-better than the intended audience.

I responded: Apparently there are not enough of us smart and jaded people to prevent a mediocre film from making the ignorant masses feel educated for a couple of hours.

And n9 responded with this insult/non-sequitir:

Just assuming you are not an ignorant mass, bingo, what are you? You sound like an ass right there.

...suggesting that you either didn't read the context of my response, didn't understand it, or deliberately misinterpreted it, making this:

I just said bingo sounded like an ass because of his ideas regarding the "ignorant masses." If you throw out lines like that and then you are *surprised* that someone has something to say about it? If that is what you are calling a personal attack, well, then I guess that is one, but it has more to do with your rhetoric than the film, which if you go back and read the tail of this thread you will see is what a few of us are commenting on... the rhetoric of the jaded and how touchy they are about it being questioned.

...a bunch of nonsense.
posted by bingo at 9:17 PM on July 15, 2002

By the way, for those objecting to the easy juvenile characterization of the ideas, Linklater himself said in an interview with Roger Ebert that the ideas were juvenile (or at least only really addressed by the young).

"Yeah," Linklater replied, "I think a point I always had in mind is that it wasn't about answers. To me, what qualified as being in the movie were these kinds of eternal questions that as you get older you never really answer. You have time maybe when you're younger, you just technically have more time in your life to talk about them or think about them. But then you don't really answer them, you move on, you get busy with other things. But to me, it was really cycling back to these really fundamental [questions]." cite

So it seems that he feels that people move on without really satisfactorily answering the questions when I suspect most people feel that they have answered them or at least realize that the nature of the questions defy adequate answers and get bored trying. I mean are these really fundamental questions, or are they merely gist for pseudo intellectual masturbation to be hashed and rehashed over coffee at the college diner?

In my experiences, it's the latter. Your milage may vary.
posted by willnot at 9:56 PM on July 15, 2002

bingo: insult/non-sequitir

wow. had I ever thought about it I would have been pulling the "insult/non-sequitir" for years! I mean it, seriously, what a concept!

Anyways, you just have your panties in a bunch cuz I said you sounded like an ass. By my personal definition anyone who relegates the people who liked a movie (or anything, really) to the "ignorant masses" is one. An ass, that is. Disagree with me if you will, but that is the statement you are taking offense to and I typed it specifically because your higher-than-the-masses poo-poo attitude is precisely what I wanted to comment on. Perhaps you are higher than the masses and you certainly seem to be more *correct* than me, to read your lengthy posts. But I completely understand your being annoyed at folks like me pointing out when you type something stupid. I really do.

Thumbs up to you. bingo, don't ever change. (<-- my first purposeful insult/non-sequitir!)
posted by n9 at 10:42 PM on July 15, 2002

n9 - the point is that the ignorant masses line was a joke in retort to the "really smart and jaded people" line. It's meant as a counter ballance. Do you really not see that?
posted by willnot at 11:02 PM on July 15, 2002

rushmc: ...I think [criticism] can also be destructive if it influences neutral parties in a negative way, without providing any basis for that negative assessment. Saying "it sucked" does not constitute good criticism; rather, it is simply a statement of opinion, and gives us no basis on which to judge the quality of that opinion, because we don't know upon what it was based.

I think you're canceling out your own argument right there. If you recognize that you don't have a basis on which to judge the quality on an opinion, then the way you see the work is not likely to be affected.

Besides, I didn't just say "it sucked." I said, among other things, that "it was a bunch of pseudo-intellectual non-narrative drivel." It wasn't exactly New York Times Literary Supplement-worthy criticism, but then, this is a relatively casual environment, and I was responding to a front-page post that begins with "Waking Life is a wonderful film," and not as an argument but as a given that sets up another question. I was disagreeing with the assumption behind the post, and I think that, terse as my post was, it said more about why the film is bad than kaibutsu's said about why it's good.

I said:I think the real source of conflict here is the inability of some viewers to see something they really like criticized harshly, and not to take that as a personal insult.

rushmc responded: And again, I must disagree, because it seems to me that the objections are not about the fact of the criticism, but about the specious nature of it.

And yet, the speciousness was directed at the movie, or at worst the director, and not at the other posters, at least not until they projected themselves into what I was saying and defended themselves against attacks on them I hadn't made.

...I don't see that it is trying to masquerade as anything; I just take it for what it is. It seems to me that some posters here are upset with it for not being more than it is, not being more sophisticated or going into deeper philosophical territory...but that's not the movie he chose to make!

I think he chose to make a bad movie that deals poorly with a number of subjects. As someone who paid to see the movie, I feel I have every right to express my annoyance at that fact.

And I would again submit that THIS movie has a much larger potential audience than that other movie that you (and also I) would like to see.

So did Pearl Harbor.
posted by bingo at 1:04 AM on July 16, 2002

n9: The point that you're still missing is that my "ignorant masses" comment was a response to websavvy's sarcastic suggestion that I and others critical of the movie were suggesting that we are better than those who aren't. My own sarcastic insult was engaging him in an elitist/masses dichotomy that I did not introduce. I was implicitly saying, "fine, if you want to see the argument in terms of me being smart and you being dumb, I guess I'll just go along with that and place you in the dumb category where you placed yourself." My "higher than the masses poo poo attitude" is something that was assumed by someone else, and I was making fun of it. Your response, like your last one, suggests that you really did not understand, or attempt to understand, the context in which any individual comments on this thread were made. What's more, your last use of "non-sequitir" is wrong. Do you own a dictionary? Like websavvy, you're essentially suggesting that I thought you were stupid, and then giving me fuel for such an argument, so it's hard not to go ahead and make it. But before I was attacked for my non-existent insults to others on this thread, my comments were about the movie and its creator.
posted by bingo at 1:17 AM on July 16, 2002

(thumbs up!)
posted by n9 at 5:40 AM on July 16, 2002

We've talked about Waking Life before, you can read the responses of those of us who saw it back when it was released.
posted by riffola at 1:14 PM on July 17, 2002

It also throws out the extremely smug and condescending (in my opinion) idea that most people aren't leading complete and full lives. That they are in fact sleepwalking through their waking lives.

Smug and condescending, perhaps, but if you don't find it to be accurate, then the people you know are quite unlike most of the people I've ever known.
posted by rushmc at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2002

Smug and condescending, perhaps, but if you don't find it to be accurate, then the people you know are quite unlike most of the people I've ever known.

Rush, most people with complete and full lives tend to stay the fuck away from the thoroughly condescending and smug. Which is to say, you.

Coming soon: A dispassionate, humorless rejoinder. I can't wait!
posted by Skot at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2002