This is mostly directed at
khayman's
critique above, but I think his (
misguided) opinions reflect some
common mistakes about interpreting this
work of art.
Waking Life is a very
dangerous film to
produce. It's also a very dangerous film to
review. On one hand, Waking Life is a profoundly
original,
throught-provoking,
well-produced, visually
stunning movie. On the other hand, it is extremely
easy, while watching it, to get
lossed in all the
philosophical masturbation going on.
It is crucially important that the
viewer realize that there is more going on here than the
speculatory ramblings of all the characters. The movie is not preaching, the characters
in the movie are preaching, and the difference is one thing that makes this
movie so good. One point it's trying to make about this is that
philosophical bullshit sessions (
PBS?) are very important to us in helping us determine who we are and what our relationship with others is.
It's also important to note that although these
discourses can often be accurately described as
sophomoric and only suitable for PHL 101 lecture topics, that also isn't
the point. Some of the things the characters say are
complete bullshit. Some things are
unfounded, or
illogical, or take references from
dubious scientific studies wildly
out of context. Some of them are explicit examples of
foolish thinking, like the
guy in prison or the
ranting guy in the car.
This does not make the movie bad, any more than the main character's blase "y'know, or somethin'" speech patterns makes the dialogue poor. Much of the content, such as the technological "
neo-human"
spiel and the moment-as-eternity ideas is so-called
"real" philosophy, just not rigorously discussed or proved. These are
open philosophical issues. And
I think everyone should realize that rigorous
philosophical discussion would
NOT make a very entertaining movie.
The
animation style is disturbing to some, but I found it very
effective. For the record,
rotoscoping is a very old technique for film
effects (think lightsabers) but the "
interpolated rotoscoping" in the movie is very new, I think developed specifically for this movie. It also screws with your head, sometimes
nauseatingly. The whole purpose of the movie is to screw with your head, so why not let the visuals contribute?
It's an
art movie, no doubt about it. It's a
thinking movie, and it's a
multi-layered movie. It's a movie that puts it's
artistic ideals far, far ahead of its
entertainment value. It's
not a movie to easily write off as a
naked emporer, or complain about because
you weren't entertained. It's not a movie to take at
face value. If you think this movie is about the
philosophical bullshit, then you are not qualified to be criticizing said bullshit. Go watch it again, and show a little
charity in your
analysis.