 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: waking life- uniquely brilliant posted by tunenut on October 24, 2001 at 10:01:31:
This is from Duncan Shepard, my favorite critic, although this week's column is not one of his best. (New ones post every Thursday.)
Waking Life, shot in live action (by Richard Linklater) and then painted over via computer (by, or under, Bob Sabiston), is neither fish nor fowl. Certainly fishy, however, and possibly foul. I can't speak to it as a visual chaser to some mind-altering substance, a sort of Yellow Submarine for Generation Ecstasy. I can only testify that the undulating, sloshing animation on top of the already unsteady camerawork is very hard on the eyes. And any added visual interest from this cinematic hybrid, or mutant, is actually a distraction from the droning verbalizations on fate, free will, existentialism, evolution, reincarnation, linguistics, the "ontology" of film, etc., spiced with literary allusions to Lorca, Lawrence, Stevenson, Mann, Kierkegaard, etc. -- something like a semester's worth of highlights from a Philosophy major's bull sessions. The desultory narrative apparently depicts -- we cannot be completely sure -- the adventures in the afterlife of a laid-back slacker (Wiley Wiggins, from Dazed and Confused) who gets run over by a car. More precisely it depicts a vision of the afterlife as an endless and uninterrupted sequence of dreams. (A more precise title for the film: Unwaking Death.) To the unprovable assertion that the visual technique presents a plausible likeness of, or metaphor for, the afterlife, my comments would be two: (1) it was hard on the eyes even before the protagonist entered the afterlife; and (2) the afterlife, if indeed this is what it looks or feels like, is too hard on the eyes to be a suitable screen subject.
Follow Ups:
I don't agree with reviews. But then my problem is that I tend to like 92% of the movies I see. Which shows that I'm getting older because it used to be 98%.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
I spent a lot of time in San Diego a few years ago and read the Reader every week. And he is a good reviewer- however if you restrict yourself to movies he likes, you won't see many movies.
I enjoy Duncan's reviews as well. I was one of his students at UCSD. -Sam
"...you won't see many movies." Disagree! If you look at the historical list the site provides, you'll find HUNDREDS of movies recommended. Only trouble is, many of 'em aren't even available on VHS! Anyway what's wrong with not seeing crappy movies?clark
Yes, there is a long list of movies with stars. Even in the current movie list, he gave a few stars. The crux of the matter is that, eloquent as he is and as seriously as he does take movies as art, I do not always share his opinions. For example, Ghost World is given 4 stars while Waking Life gets a dot. I enjoyed Ghost World, found it quite charming, but for me, Waking Life was clearly much more ambitious, thought-provoking and interesting, and it is the one I am sure to see again, not Ghost World.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
