Slacker

The idea is interesting. Follow a group of slackers interacting with each other and then cut away to new group when new passerbys come on-screen. The problems are in execution. The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few. The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.

Extreme boredom leads to fascination. Like sands in the hourglass so is this day in the lives of several bohemians living in Austin, TX in 1990. You'll either be bored to tears or fascinated to no end. If you've ever been to Austin, or spent a sleepy summer in a college town like Lawrence, KS or Madison, WI, then you'll appreciate the parade of pseudo-intellectuals and good-natured conspiracy theorists that provide much of the grist for the script. These offbeat characters and wonderful dialogue make this film memorable. Remember the traumatized yacht owner in the greasy-spoon diner or the older dude with the toupee from the coffee shop? 'We've been on Mars since the 50's', he says. I loved the loser with the TV strapped to his back and the older guy who found an armed robber in his house, only to take him for a stroll and a friendly chat (about Charles Whitman). I also enjoyed the menstrual-cycle stone garden and the fortune-telling hippie chick with the black eye who was having 'a breakthrough day'. Nearly every conspiracy theory in modern pop-culture is paid lip service during the film. That's a lot of sophistry and navel gazing to be sure! Not every character is a gem. The Madonna pap-smear girl gets more annoying with every viewing. But I recommend this film for its originality and understated comedic themes. Much has been made of the tangent approach to the story telling. I think the technique runs out of steam about three-quarters of the way into it. In other words, it's about 20 minutes too long. Still, it's a fun movie!

This movie has no discernable "plot" except to follow the lives of some of the most interesting and quirky people you are liable to meet. You follow one person, you get a snapshot of their life and the movie then takes off on the life of a person that may just be walking by on the street. You get just enough to encapsulate where they are at in life right now. Most are going no where and this is the reason for the movies title. Great dialogue here and great stuff to get you thinking about the strangest things (Smurfs as Hindu propaganda???). Great movie if you will just give yourself over to it and release all expectations as far as what a movie is supposed to be.

source: Slacker

Moviecut—Slacker

Slacker is about people living their purposeless lives. It is also a good commentary on the state of mental health in America. I could have seen the same movie if I went out an walked around on Polk street here in San Francisco, so I guess I should be thankful that I could stay in, lay back, and watch it from the couch. This film is, though, a perfect picture-postcard of purposeless existence. It is a very sad piece because it does not stray far from reality. Linklater's first film for which he won awards and nominations, it is a very good first feature in many respects. It is honest, it won praise from audiences and critics alike, and costing only 23,000 it made money. Perhaps reaching a more focused narrative in his later work Waking Life, Linklater seems to be a cinematic genius who has over the years had a not an easy time weaving his wares into the mainstream. He has, though, had consistent success with a few films which were nothing if not human. It took him thirteen years to break thorough with his main message, comedy coded, in The Shcool of Rock. Nice timing for a guy that doesn't hurry, and isn't ready to sell out for the sheer sake of celebrity, the relative failure of the Newotn Boys considered. It should be noted that Slacker for all its slacking ended on a vivacious high note with camera work and music which nicely contradicts the entire film.

People share their random thoughts as they walk through their lives, chat at coffee shops, and preach on street corners. Everybody's got a theory and they seem to have a suspiciously nihilistic throughline: it's the 90's and all the good reasons for getting out of the house have been used up by the anarchists, the radicals, and the rooftop snipers. As we meet dozens of characters in thinly connected vignettes, we get a vivid picture of a time, a place, and a group of people. As Richard Linklater himself says in the opening monologue, all the choices that we make in our lives create alternate realities spinning off into space, formed by the possibility that we could have made a different choice, thereby creating a different future. Deep? Oh yes. Is life really like this? Definitely. We meet someone in a convenience store for two minutes, get a picture of their life, formulate some questions about them, and then, poof, they're gone, and you never know what happened, just as we never know what happened to the boy who runs down his mother, the couple who weren't on the guest list, the roommate who disappears, or any of the other characters in "Slacker." But is it worth a movie? Open question, as far as I'm concerned. With such a string of unanswered questions, the audience eventually tires and refuses to invest emotionally in anything, knowing that they will be, once again, left hanging. Sure, life is just like that, but, like Andy Warhol's day-long film of the Empire State Building, the experiment might be better in theory (and in one of the coffee table conversations so prevalent in "Slacker") than in practice.

SLACKER may be one of the worst films ever. EVER! How it has maintained cult-status since its release is a total, inexplicable mystery. It may have something to do with the fact that it was produced on a shoestring; but the horrible acting and worse writing (Linklater should give up trying to be funny; and after watching BEFORE SUNRISE I'd recommend his giving up writing all together) are impossible to ignore. I think there were two occasions when I laughed. I had a date for this film in Austin--amidst a highly partisan crowd--with a hot babe in the front row of the Dobie Theater; and it would have been to my credit to have pretended to enjoy the film, since my date dragged me to it. But I couldn't * myself out to Linklater just to get on this babe's good side. I gave him a second chance with BEFORE SUNRISE and have since decided to save my money for GOOD films.

The title of Richard Linklater's deadpan debut feature describes a new generation of young, educated, aimless social misfits, part of a young neo-bohemian subculture of drifters, dreamers, and losers with no money, no ambitions, and no worries outside the occasional paranoid conspiracy theory. Their marginal lifestyle revolves around the concept of (in slacker vernacular) 'hanging out': eating, sleeping, watching TV, drinking coffee, and listening to the latest, local garage bands. But what they do best is simply talk, and the viewer is invited to eavesdrop on an extended series of hilarious soliloquies, anecdotes, and observations about politics, history, art, Smurfs, and UFOs, from a cast of nearly 100 genuine slackers pulled off the streets of Austin, Texas, apparently a hub of slackerdom. The film (not a documentary) is structured entirely around random encounters, methodically following one character after another, with no plot to interrupt all the verbal detours and digressions. It looks (and sounds) entirely improvised, but believe it or not was all carefully scripted and choreographed, and the result is one of the more unique and original American features of its time.

The idea is interesting. Follow a group of slackers interacting with each other and then cut away to new group when new passerbys come on-screen. The problems are in execution. The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few. The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.