list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Waking Life on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Waking_Life/184356/default.aspx Title: Waking Life
Year: 2001
Director: Richard Linklater
Plot: Richard Linklater returned to the semi-improvised approach and philosophical themes of his debut feature Slacker while embracing a new and groundbreaking visual technology in his sixth feature film, Waking Life. Linklater and cameraman Tommy Pallotta shot the film on location in Austin, TX, using digital video equipment. Linklater and digital animator Bob Sabiston then used newly developed computer software to transform the images through a process called "interpolated rotoscoping"; the result merges the naturalism of live action with a stylized look that resembles a cartoon or a painting in motion. Waking Life's flexible, non-narrative approach follows a young man (Wiley Wiggins) who arrives in Austin and hitches a ride with a stranger, who engages him in a conversation about rarely considered facets of existentialism. As the visitor drifts through the city, he encounters a variety of people and finds himself absorbing their views on art, philosophy, society, and numerous other issues of contemporary life. Linklater's cast is dotted with well-known actors (Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy, Adam Goldberg, Nicky Katt) and pop-culture notables (filmmaker Steven Soderbergh, Martin Scorsese associate Steven Prince, comic Louis Black), alongside a large number of relatively little-known players. Waking Life received its world premiere at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival; Linklater's next film, Tape, was also screened at the same festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 56
Number of Lists: 55
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 23 May 2009 22:51:08 GMTWaking Life2001Richard Linklater<a href="/players/P____99850/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Linklater</a> returned to the semi-improvised approach and philosophical themes of his debut feature <a href=/films/31631/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Slacker</a> while embracing a new and groundbreaking visual technology in his sixth feature film, Waking Life. Linklater and cameraman Tommy Pallotta shot the film on location in Austin, TX, using digital video equipment. Linklater and digital animator Bob Sabiston then used newly developed computer software to transform the images through a process called "interpolated rotoscoping"; the result merges the naturalism of live action with a stylized look that resembles a cartoon or a painting in motion. Waking Life's flexible, non-narrative approach follows a young man (<a href="/players/P____76176/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Wiley Wiggins</a>) who arrives in Austin and hitches a ride with a stranger, who engages him in a conversation about rarely considered facets of existentialism. As the visitor drifts through the city, he encounters a variety of people and finds himself absorbing their views on art, philosophy, society, and numerous other issues of contemporary life. Linklater's cast is dotted with well-known actors (<a href="/players/P____31094/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ethan Hawke</a>, <a href="/players/P____18491/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Julie Delpy</a>, <a href="/players/P____27423/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adam Goldberg</a>, <a href="/players/P____37063/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nicky Katt</a>) and pop-culture notables (filmmaker <a href="/players/P___112040/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Soderbergh</a>, <a href="/players/P___110533/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Martin Scorsese</a> associate Steven Prince, comic Louis Black), alongside a large number of relatively little-known players. Waking Life received its world premiere at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival; Linklater's next film, <a href=/films/182347/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Tape</a>, was also screened at the same festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide56Tag Target (>10)55733http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t179976b10t.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Waking_Life/184356/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/mconrad3/archive/2009/3/26/41283.aspx Post By: mconrad3
Post To: mconrad3 Blog
Post Date: 3/26/2009 11:30:08 PM
Body: Despite my reverence for this film, there isn't much I can say about it. It is one of those films that I find difficult to describe to people who haven't seen it before. I recommend it, but I don't know if I can say anything else about it other than I think it is ineffable to a degree. It's a film about philosophy, but it's not a documentary. It's a film about a journey, but it's not exactly a cohesive story. It's animated, but it's rotoscoped so there's life action under the sketches and inking. It is a film that truly feels like a dream. You enter into it completely lost in what, if anything, is going on. It jumps around, but not so much that you lose the little footing you have. The main character sort of floats through different scenes and we, as an audience, go along with it. There's not necessarily a rhyme or reason to the plot movement, but it doesn't have to be...because it's a dream. Stuff will occur and things will be said that you'll barely remember (not unlike a real dream), but the more you watch it the more you pick up. My advice? Watch it a few times before you pass final judgement on it.
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:30:08 GMTmconrad3mconrad3 Blog3/26/2009 11:30:08 PMDespite my reverence for this film, there isn't much I can say about it. It is one of those films that I find difficult to describe to people who haven't seen it before. I recommend it, but I don't know if I can say anything else about it other than I think it is ineffable to a degree. It's a film about philosophy, but it's not a documentary. It's a film about a journey, but it's not exactly a cohesive story. It's animated, but it's rotoscoped so there's life action under the sketches and inking. It is a film that truly feels like a dream. You enter into it completely lost in what, if anything, is going on. It jumps around, but not so much that you lose the little footing you have. The main character sort of floats through different scenes and we, as an audience, go along with it. There's not necessarily a rhyme or reason to the plot movement, but it doesn't have to be...because it's a dream. Stuff will occur and things will be said that you'll barely remember (not unlike a real dream), but the more you watch it the more you pick up. My advice? Watch it a few times before you pass final judgement on it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/12/39421.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/12/2009 4:01:02 PM
Body: Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Richard Linklater’s Slacker (1991). Richard Linklater’s breakthrough film, Slacker, almost never played Sundance. According to John Pierson’s book Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes, Competition Director Alberto Garcia “did not particularly like the film.” In fact, Linklater was initially rejected when he submitted Slacker for the 1990 festival, at the time still called the US Film Festival. So, that summer, he self-released the film in his hometown of Austin, Texas, with much success. But the biggest success was yet to come. That same year the film was selected for at least one other film fest, Seattle, and after being reviewed there by Film Comment’s Robert Horton, Slacker acquired the interests of both Orion Classics and Pierson, who had already earned his reputation for being an indie film guru. However, even with a distributor and a high profile rep behind the film, Garcia was still hesitant. Something finally convinced him, and Slacker was reluctantly invited to the 1991 fest, now officially renamed Sundance, alongside such important films as Hal Hartley’s Trust, Barbara Kopple’s American Dream and Todd Haynes’ Poison. Yet even then it was slow in garnering fans. Pierson writes that the film’s 10PM Saturday night screening at the Egyptian consisted of the following reception: “one-third loved it, one-third walked out, and one-third fell asleep.” By the end of the next week, Slacker had fared better in subsequent screenings, but it lost the Dramatic Grand Jury Prize to Poison. At least it showed at Sundance, though, and Linklater was able to become one of the festival’s most prestigious alumni (ten years later he would even premiere two new films, Waking Life and Tape, at the 2001 fest). Nowadays, Sundance might not accept a film it had already rejected, particularly if that film screened at other festivals before playing Park City, since the big fests now prefer to feature exclusive premieres. Slacker is available for free in its entirety on Hulu and on YouTube. The latter version is embedded below without commercial interruption: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:01:02 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/12/2009 4:01:02 PMEach day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Richard Linklater’s Slacker (1991). Richard Linklater’s breakthrough film, Slacker, almost never played Sundance. According to John Pierson’s book Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes, Competition Director Alberto Garcia “did not particularly like the film.” In fact, Linklater was initially rejected when he submitted Slacker for the 1990 festival, at the time still called the US Film Festival. So, that summer, he self-released the film in his hometown of Austin, Texas, with much success. But the biggest success was yet to come. That same year the film was selected for at least one other film fest, Seattle, and after being reviewed there by Film Comment’s Robert Horton, Slacker acquired the interests of both Orion Classics and Pierson, who had already earned his reputation for being an indie film guru. However, even with a distributor and a high profile rep behind the film, Garcia was still hesitant. Something finally convinced him, and Slacker was reluctantly invited to the 1991 fest, now officially renamed Sundance, alongside such important films as Hal Hartley’s Trust, Barbara Kopple’s American Dream and Todd Haynes’ Poison. Yet even then it was slow in garnering fans. Pierson writes that the film’s 10PM Saturday night screening at the Egyptian consisted of the following reception: “one-third loved it, one-third walked out, and one-third fell asleep.” By the end of the next week, Slacker had fared better in subsequent screenings, but it lost the Dramatic Grand Jury Prize to Poison. At least it showed at Sundance, though, and Linklater was able to become one of the festival’s most prestigious alumni (ten years later he would even premiere two new films, Waking Life and Tape, at the 2001 fest). Nowadays, Sundance might not accept a film it had already rejected, particularly if that film screened at other festivals before playing Park City, since the big fests now prefer to feature exclusive premieres. Slacker is available for free in its entirety on Hulu and on YouTube. The latter version is embedded below without commercial interruption: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/mercurial/archive/2008/12/8/38099.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: a filmblog
Post Date: 12/8/2008 9:30:50 PM
Body: Putting into words the happenings of Prometheus' Garden is as laborious as the stop-motion claymation must have been for animator Bruce Bickford. A nihilistic interpretation of the evolution of humanity throughout the ages; a mélange of prurient thoughts and perverse fantasies involving bosomy blonde nymphs and phallus wielding virile gladiators; a horrific exploration of mans animalistic urges for grisly torture and evisceration; the inherent loneliness of life on Earth and the struggle to construct and manipulate our surroundings to assuage our fears of it all: all of this only begins to deconstruct the chaos viewed over the course of the films twenty eight minutes. Tracing the course of human history across the globe, the constantly metamorphosing landscape of the earth is matched only by that of humanity and their transformation from peaceful inhabitants of lush locales to warring, bloodthirsty warriors bent on total destruction. Prometheus' Garden is an incredible work of art that only falters in its overly bizarre, nonsensical nature which it should ultimately be garnered with praise for and not admonished for. Undoubtedly comparable to a non-speaking claymation version of Waking Life.
]]>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:30:50 GMTmercuriala filmblog12/8/2008 9:30:50 PMPutting into words the happenings of Prometheus' Garden is as laborious as the stop-motion claymation must have been for animator Bruce Bickford. A nihilistic interpretation of the evolution of humanity throughout the ages; a m&eacute;lange of prurient thoughts and perverse fantasies involving bosomy blonde nymphs and phallus wielding virile gladiators; a horrific exploration of mans animalistic urges for grisly torture and evisceration; the inherent loneliness of life on Earth and the struggle to construct and manipulate our surroundings to assuage our fears of it all: all of this only begins to deconstruct the chaos viewed over the course of the films twenty eight minutes. Tracing the course of human history across the globe, the constantly metamorphosing landscape of the earth is matched only by that of humanity and their transformation from peaceful inhabitants of lush locales to warring, bloodthirsty warriors bent on total destruction. Prometheus' Garden is an incredible work of art that only falters in its overly bizarre, nonsensical nature which it should ultimately be garnered with praise for and not admonished for. Undoubtedly comparable to a non-speaking claymation version of Waking Life. http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/18/31392.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/18/2008 9:01:57 PM
Body: The animation top ten was the first list and it got the evening off to a shaky start. The problems with this list run much deeper than its rather uninspired roster of, almost exclusively, Disney “classics”. Most fundamentally, animation is not a genre; it's a medium. However, it is also the case that in Hollywood, animation verges on being a genre, but the American animation genre of the 20th century is not the same as the genre in the 21st century except insofar as animation is treated as a medium for children's, or “family”, films. In the 20th century, as ably shown by the list, animation was more or less the new medium for musicals. In this millenium, music remains an important part of animated films, but they are less often actual musicals. They are, however, characterized by hyperreal computer animation and dialogue rich with “clever” asides and pop culture references. Does that make a genre? Maybe, but not one that has much in common with the prior century. The larger point is that in other parts of the world, and outside of the American corporate mainstream, animation is used to tell all kinds of stories, including those directed at adults. Even if one were to be biased towards older films in this “genre”, shouldn't there have been room for at least one film by someone like Ralph Bakshi? I don't know about anyone else, but seeing Wizards (1977) was, politically and aesthetically, an earth shattering experience for my eight or nine or ten year-old self, more profound, I would say than the original Star Wars. And certainly American Pop (1981) is enough of a cultural document, and marker for the form, to have been seriously considered for inclusion on the AFI's Top 10. I would also have looked to include one of Richard Linklater's forays into animation on the list (indeed, either Waking Life, 2001, or A Scanner Darkly, 2006, would have been nice companions to American Pop). But, staying within the scope of children's or family films, the lack of either of Brad Bird's eligible films, The Iron Giant (1999) and The Incredibles (2004), seems like a critical oversight, and perhaps reflective of the fact that many of the voters were, undoubtedly, simply mining their own childhoods when making their selections. (I'm not going to suggest specific alternate selections here because, as indicated above, I think that this list is inherently misconceived, and because I think most of the selections on the AFI list are more or less interchangeable in any event). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:01:57 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/18/2008 9:01:57 PMThe animation top ten was the first list and it got the evening off to a shaky start. The problems with this list run much deeper than its rather uninspired roster of, almost exclusively, Disney &ldquo;classics&rdquo;. Most fundamentally, animation is not a genre; it's a medium. However, it is also the case that in Hollywood, animation verges on being a genre, but the American animation genre of the 20th century is not the same as the genre in the 21st century except insofar as animation is treated as a medium for children's, or &ldquo;family&rdquo;, films. In the 20th century, as ably shown by the list, animation was more or less the new medium for musicals. In this millenium, music remains an important part of animated films, but they are less often actual musicals. They are, however, characterized by hyperreal computer animation and dialogue rich with &ldquo;clever&rdquo; asides and pop culture references. Does that make a genre? Maybe, but not one that has much in common with the prior century. The larger point is that in other parts of the world, and outside of the American corporate mainstream, animation is used to tell all kinds of stories, including those directed at adults. Even if one were to be biased towards older films in this &ldquo;genre&rdquo;, shouldn't there have been room for at least one film by someone like Ralph Bakshi? I don't know about anyone else, but seeing Wizards (1977) was, politically and aesthetically, an earth shattering experience for my eight or nine or ten year-old self, more profound, I would say than the original Star Wars. And certainly American Pop (1981) is enough of a cultural document, and marker for the form, to have been seriously considered for inclusion on the AFI's Top 10. I would also have looked to include one of Richard Linklater's forays into animation on the list (indeed, either Waking Life, 2001, or A Scanner Darkly, 2006, would have been nice companions to American Pop). But, staying within the scope of children's or family films, the lack of either of Brad Bird's eligible films, The Iron Giant (1999) and The Incredibles (2004), seems like a critical oversight, and perhaps reflective of the fact that many of the voters were, undoubtedly, simply mining their own childhoods when making their selections. (I'm not going to suggest specific alternate selections here because, as indicated above, I think that this list is inherently misconceived, and because I think most of the selections on the AFI list are more or less interchangeable in any event). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_Films_That_You_Had_to_Research_Afterwards_in/190/27259/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/13/2008 3:52:20 AM
Body: Something that seems to happen more and more these days are movies in which people see them, leave the theater going "Huh," or "Umm," or "That was interesting," and then go home and spend hours reading up on the motivation behind the film and what exactly the filmmakers were trying to convey with it. I'm torn on this (shouldn't a good film need no explanation?) but acknowledge that I am myself guilty of this.Here we go:1.) Mulholland Drive - Not that I was completely oblivious to most of the films goings-ons (this undoubtedly being what everyone says when justifying their love for it), I was just so in awe of it all that I wanted to find out what the film was born out of (it was originally going to be a television show that never got anywhere so Lynch turned it into a film).2.) The Hours - Having just read Mrs. Dalloway the year before and loving it, I felt inclined to research how much of the film was actually based on Virginia Woolfs life and how much was just exaggerated.3.) Waking Life - Basically self-explanatory, the plethora of philosophical ideas discussed throughout the film was just too much of an overload for my tiny head that I needed some clarity afterwards.4.) I Heart Huckabees - Again, being a novice of existential theories, I needed some explanation.5.) Primer - Mathematics + Physics + Me = Incompatible. Needed to buff up on most of the concepts involved and pay extra special attention the next time I watched it.
]]>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:52:20 GMTmercurialTop 54/13/2008 3:52:20 AMSomething that seems to happen more and more these days are movies in which people see them, leave the theater going "Huh," or "Umm," or "That was interesting," and then go home and spend hours reading up on the motivation behind the film and what exactly the filmmakers were trying to convey with it. I&#39;m torn on this (shouldn&#39;t a good film need no explanation?) but acknowledge that I am myself guilty of this.Here we go:1.) Mulholland Drive - Not that I was completely oblivious to most of the films goings-ons (this undoubtedly being what everyone says when justifying their love for it), I was just so in awe of it all that I wanted to find out what the film was born out of (it was originally going to be a television show that never got anywhere so Lynch turned it into a film).2.) The Hours - Having just read Mrs. Dalloway the year before and loving it, I felt inclined to research how much of the film was actually based on Virginia Woolfs life and how much was just exaggerated.3.) Waking Life - Basically self-explanatory, the plethora of philosophical ideas discussed throughout the film was just too much of an overload for my tiny head that I needed some clarity afterwards.4.) I Heart Huckabees - Again, being a novice of existential theories, I needed some explanation.5.) Primer - Mathematics + Physics + Me = Incompatible. Needed to buff up on most of the concepts involved and pay extra special attention the next time I watched it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/4/4/26964.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 4/4/2008 3:20:25 PM
Body: There was a stretch a couple years ago when I was a bit more interested in exploring the world of short films. I had rented several DVDs in the series simply called "Short" released around 2000, primarily because it was the only DVD I knew of that had La Jetée on it. Anyways I find that short films can rarely achieve the kind of lasting effect that is usually more possible for feature length films. However it is a different art form in a ways, and has it's own separate challenges and benefits that I'm interested in exploring.Spout sent me a collection called Shorts! Volume 1. The result was pretty much what I expected. A fair mix of the good and the bad. Maybe a bit better than what I expected now that I think about it. I think the main problem most short films make is trying to tell a story in anywhere near the same way a feature film would. You can't expect to achieve meaning in a short film with the same methods used in a feature film because there isn't enough time. You can fill it with exposition, but it doesn't matter if we don't have time to get to know the characters or the mood of the film. And exposition generally only serves to get to a certain place that can't be reached in a short film anyways. I think short films for this reason will more generally lend themselves to comedy, but as you can see most of the films selected for compilations like this take themselves way too seriously.Anyways, that's some of my feelings about short films in general. Here are just a few short opinions on each of the films on this particular DVD set.What's Wrong With This Picture? - As the first film they are throwing at us, this film is pretty worthless. In the commentary the director boasts that the total budget was only a few dollars for a cookie and a DV tape. There's nothing original creative at this point about a stick figure that come off the page. Such "special effects" are not impressive and the premise is the kind of thing that someone seems to think is funny but they can't explain why. At least it's one of the shortest films in this set.Chinese Wall - I liked this one better in reflection. I'm not sure if it could have been executed better. I'm not that excited by the idea to think of more effective scenarios for the "surprise." I enjoy the simplicity of it at least. I don't see enough Dutch films though. Such tall people!Dreamscapes - Something akin to a short version of Waking Life. The filmmaker asked many people to recount their memories of particular dreams. Then he took segments of a few of them and animated each of them in different animation styles. Interesting to recognize the different kinds of dreams people have and the way they perceive them, and also to see some different styles of animation. This short is nothing too substantial, but generally kept my attention without going too long.In Absentia - Essentially a stylistic exercise. There is extensive use of backwards footage, sped up footage, and other visual filters. No dialogue from what I can recall. I didn't realize what I was watching the first time around until listening to the commentary, but we are essentially seeing a suicide in reverse. The effects and mood sustain interest, and again the running time is nice and short enough.John and Mia - This is one of the longer shorts on this disk, and maybe the best one. I suppose I have a penchant for laconic films from Scandinavia which helps. To be rather candid I've had struggles with pornography and was affected by the main character. The actor has a compelling face. This is one of the rare short films that I really wish had been longer.The World of Interiors - Another animated piece which doesn't present anything too original. The squiggly drawing style is notable only for a strange almost cubist style. But the constant moving of the lines tended to make me somewhat physically ill. I understand the theme. Sometimes you just can't leave your house. But I feel like something more substantial could have been achieved even with this premise.Dad's Dead - I enjoyed this one quite a bit. It's a narrated piece with just a few strange little stories about a guy and one of his old "friends". The film has so many visual effects that are so varied and fit perfectly with the stories and atmosphere. And the effects are so artistic in a way that they are even more fascinating than something you may see in a big budget special effects film.Ready - This one feels quintessentially British. There aren't too many recognizable actors in most of these films, but this one features fairly well known actress Imelda Staunton. This is another one of the longer shorts in the set and can get a bit boring, but I think part of the mood is that it's supposed to be boring.Tenth - This is my least favorite of all the films in this set. I'm sick enough of short films about the World Trade Center attack, but this one has absolutely nothing to say. In fact it has nothing to say about anything. Luckily it's short at just over three minutes. That's probably about the same amount of time the filmmaker put into thinking the idea up for the film.Pishadoo - This is the third of the films that exceed twenty minutes. And it is my least favorite of the three. Maybe it has more appeal to Italian Americans or people living in the Bronx. But I felt like the whole idea could have been conveyed in half the time. By stretching it out it just reveals how little of a story there really is.Sleep - A young man finds out he has cancer and not long to live. We see his reaction and how his family and friends react as well. It's not the most original idea, but the film is just the right length and takes just the right approach. The main character is always silent except for a big of off screen narration. We see the reactions of two different types of friends, the mother, and the father along with just the right amount of scenes of the main character alone between interactions. Any longer and this film would have been too long. But the ending seems just right as well.Fish Never Sleep - An animated piece which is interesting for it's selective use of color. Mostly black and white with red. But there are a few other colors here and there used rarely enough that it's part of a strategy. The other colors really stick out and make a point when you see them. The director commentary is one of those worthless commentaries where they just tell you exactly what's happening on the screen without any background information or insight.Coda - One of the nicer looking films in this set. The compositions are very clean and structured, just like the world of the private boys school that it is portraying. With the occasional contrast of footage shot on grainy video from different locations outside of this world. I enjoyed the contrast, and the short explorations into just small pieces of the lives of the people who live in this world. Everything was simple and didn't linger too long.Non-Abductees Anonymous - For some reason I feel like everyone in this film is familiar. I feel like they are all part of some sketch comedy team that I've seen somewhere before, either on TV or live. But after doing some slight research I really don't think I've ever seen any of them before. I've just been so immersed in the world of comedy ensembles that I feel like I know so many people who could make a movie just like this. On the commentary the director says they are all friends from the same theatre so this makes sense. This is pretty much the only straight up comedy movie in this set, which is kind of disappointing that there weren't any more in retrospect. Why do short films always have to be so dour and pretentious? This film also features someone prominently wearing a They Might Be Giants t-shirt, something I have done in one of my own films now. I thought it was cool at the time, but now I realize how incredibly dorky it seems!Earthquake! - The set starts and ends with two very short and simple films. This film is basically just a few puppets shaking around in a supposed earthquake. Mere novelty.
]]>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:20:25 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog4/4/2008 3:20:25 PMThere was a stretch a couple years ago when I was a bit more interested in exploring the world of short films. I had rented several DVDs in the series simply called &quot;Short&quot; released around 2000, primarily because it was the only DVD I knew of that had La Jet&eacute;e on it. Anyways I find that short films can rarely achieve the kind of lasting effect that is usually more possible for feature length films. However it is a different art form in a ways, and has it&#39;s own separate challenges and benefits that I&#39;m interested in exploring.Spout sent me a collection called Shorts! Volume 1. The result was pretty much what I expected. A fair mix of the good and the bad. Maybe a bit better than what I expected now that I think about it. I think the main problem most short films make is trying to tell a story in anywhere near the same way a feature film would. You can&#39;t expect to achieve meaning in a short film with the same methods used in a feature film because there isn&#39;t enough time. You can fill it with exposition, but it doesn&#39;t matter if we don&#39;t have time to get to know the characters or the mood of the film. And exposition generally only serves to get to a certain place that can&#39;t be reached in a short film anyways. I think short films for this reason will more generally lend themselves to comedy, but as you can see most of the films selected for compilations like this take themselves way too seriously.Anyways, that&#39;s some of my feelings about short films in general. Here are just a few short opinions on each of the films on this particular DVD set.What&#39;s Wrong With This Picture? - As the first film they are throwing at us, this film is pretty worthless. In the commentary the director boasts that the total budget was only a few dollars for a cookie and a DV tape. There&#39;s nothing original creative at this point about a stick figure that come off the page. Such &quot;special effects&quot; are not impressive and the premise is the kind of thing that someone seems to think is funny but they can&#39;t explain why. At least it&#39;s one of the shortest films in this set.Chinese Wall - I liked this one better in reflection. I&#39;m not sure if it could have been executed better. I&#39;m not that excited by the idea to think of more effective scenarios for the &quot;surprise.&quot; I enjoy the simplicity of it at least. I don&#39;t see enough Dutch films though. Such tall people!Dreamscapes - Something akin to a short version of Waking Life. The filmmaker asked many people to recount their memories of particular dreams. Then he took segments of a few of them and animated each of them in different animation styles. Interesting to recognize the different kinds of dreams people have and the way they perceive them, and also to see some different styles of animation. This short is nothing too substantial, but generally kept my attention without going too long.In Absentia - Essentially a stylistic exercise. There is extensive use of backwards footage, sped up footage, and other visual filters. No dialogue from what I can recall. I didn&#39;t realize what I was watching the first time around until listening to the commentary, but we are essentially seeing a suicide in reverse. The effects and mood sustain interest, and again the running time is nice and short enough.John and Mia - This is one of the longer shorts on this disk, and maybe the best one. I suppose I have a penchant for laconic films from Scandinavia which helps. To be rather candid I&#39;ve had struggles with pornography and was affected by the main character. The actor has a compelling face. This is one of the rare short films that I really wish had been longer.The World of Interiors - Another animated piece which doesn&#39;t present anything too original. The squiggly drawing style is notable only for a strange almost cubist style. But the constant moving of the lines tended to make me somewhat physically ill. I understand the theme. Sometimes you just can&#39;t leave your house. But I feel like something more substantial could have been achieved even with this premise.Dad&#39;s Dead - I enjoyed this one quite a bit. It&#39;s a narrated piece with just a few strange little stories about a guy and one of his old &quot;friends&quot;. The film has so many visual effects that are so varied and fit perfectly with the stories and atmosphere. And the effects are so artistic in a way that they are even more fascinating than something you may see in a big budget special effects film.Ready - This one feels quintessentially British. There aren&#39;t too many recognizable actors in most of these films, but this one features fairly well known actress Imelda Staunton. This is another one of the longer shorts in the set and can get a bit boring, but I think part of the mood is that it&#39;s supposed to be boring.Tenth - This is my least favorite of all the films in this set. I&#39;m sick enough of short films about the World Trade Center attack, but this one has absolutely nothing to say. In fact it has nothing to say about anything. Luckily it&#39;s short at just over three minutes. That&#39;s probably about the same amount of time the filmmaker put into thinking the idea up for the film.Pishadoo - This is the third of the films that exceed twenty minutes. And it is my least favorite of the three. Maybe it has more appeal to Italian Americans or people living in the Bronx. But I felt like the whole idea could have been conveyed in half the time. By stretching it out it just reveals how little of a story there really is.Sleep - A young man finds out he has cancer and not long to live. We see his reaction and how his family and friends react as well. It&#39;s not the most original idea, but the film is just the right length and takes just the right approach. The main character is always silent except for a big of off screen narration. We see the reactions of two different types of friends, the mother, and the father along with just the right amount of scenes of the main character alone between interactions. Any longer and this film would have been too long. But the ending seems just right as well.Fish Never Sleep - An animated piece which is interesting for it&#39;s selective use of color. Mostly black and white with red. But there are a few other colors here and there used rarely enough that it&#39;s part of a strategy. The other colors really stick out and make a point when you see them. The director commentary is one of those worthless commentaries where they just tell you exactly what&#39;s happening on the screen without any background information or insight.Coda - One of the nicer looking films in this set. The compositions are very clean and structured, just like the world of the private boys school that it is portraying. With the occasional contrast of footage shot on grainy video from different locations outside of this world. I enjoyed the contrast, and the short explorations into just small pieces of the lives of the people who live in this world. Everything was simple and didn&#39;t linger too long.Non-Abductees Anonymous - For some reason I feel like everyone in this film is familiar. I feel like they are all part of some sketch comedy team that I&#39;ve seen somewhere before, either on TV or live. But after doing some slight research I really don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever seen any of them before. I&#39;ve just been so immersed in the world of comedy ensembles that I feel like I know so many people who could make a movie just like this. On the commentary the director says they are all friends from the same theatre so this makes sense. This is pretty much the only straight up comedy movie in this set, which is kind of disappointing that there weren&#39;t any more in retrospect. Why do short films always have to be so dour and pretentious? This film also features someone prominently wearing a They Might Be Giants t-shirt, something I have done in one of my own films now. I thought it was cool at the time, but now I realize how incredibly dorky it seems!Earthquake! - The set starts and ends with two very short and simple films. This film is basically just a few puppets shaking around in a supposed earthquake. Mere novelty. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jonnysorrow/archive/2007/7/3/12907.aspx Post By: jonnysorrow
Post To: jonnysorrow Blog
Post Date: 7/3/2007 4:10:37 AM
Body: This movie bored the hell out of me. yeah it was good for about the first two people he meets, but after that it just seems like your sitting at a lecture waiting for it to end. The plot really does not progress too well throughout the film. Although the visual is unique i would not recommend this film to someone who wants to be entertained.
]]>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:10:37 GMTjonnysorrowjonnysorrow Blog7/3/2007 4:10:37 AMThis movie bored the hell out of me. yeah it was good for about the first two people he meets, but after that it just seems like your sitting at a lecture waiting for it to end. The plot really does not progress too well throughout the film. Although the visual is unique i would not recommend this film to someone who wants to be entertained. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Re_Waking_Life_An_animated_Philosophy_101/281/6750/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Philosophy of Film
Post Date: 4/5/2007 11:05:04 AM
Body: Those darn prepositions. It's easy to get hung up on them.I think it would be easier to criticize a movie like this if it seemed to carry more pretense. Richard Linklater has said that the construction of the movie is just ideas and scenes that he either could never find ways to fit into other films or were meant for other films but never made the final cut. It's a hodge podge script-wise, and it's that way stylistically. Almost every scene was animated by a different artist. It's really just a series of short films that are loosely connected. Luckily the plot that connects them is just as mysterious and ethereal in a way. This is as opposed to some other films like Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 which seemed like a bunch of stylistically different short films but were often forced too hard into a more tangible narrative. Or if you look at theme as opposed to style, it's opposed to the Matrix movies, especially Reloaded and Revolutions which tried to cram as many philosophical concepts into the story and dialogue as possible. It's often too obvious and doesn't fit so nicely together. That may also be the case with Waking Life, but in Waking Life those aspects are openly celebrated as what the film is actually about.I really don't see much difference between Waking Life and other Linklater films like Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Slacker, and probably Tape too although I haven't seen that last one. If you look at all of these movies, including Waking Life, there are definitely philosophical discussions but almost just as much character studies, wordplay, poetry, and just interesting stories.I suppose some of it may be "intellectual masturbation". To me that phrase could mean a couple of different things. But I think in this case, even if it is present in this film, I don't take the phrase pejoratively.
]]>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:05:04 GMTRisseladaPhilosophy of Film4/5/2007 11:05:04 AMThose darn prepositions. It&#39;s easy to get hung up on them.I think it would be easier to criticize a movie like this if it seemed to carry more pretense. Richard Linklater has said that the construction of the movie is just ideas and scenes that he either could never find ways to fit into other films or were meant for other films but never made the final cut. It&#39;s a hodge podge script-wise, and it&#39;s that way stylistically. Almost every scene was animated by a different artist. It&#39;s really just a series of short films that are loosely connected. Luckily the plot that connects them is just as mysterious and ethereal in a way. This is as opposed to some other films like Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 which seemed like a bunch of stylistically different short films but were often forced too hard into a more tangible narrative. Or if you look at theme as opposed to style, it&#39;s opposed to the Matrix movies, especially Reloaded and Revolutions which tried to cram as many philosophical concepts into the story and dialogue as possible. It&#39;s often too obvious and doesn&#39;t fit so nicely together. That may also be the case with Waking Life, but in Waking Life those aspects are openly celebrated as what the film is actually about.I really don&#39;t see much difference between Waking Life and other Linklater films like Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Slacker, and probably Tape too although I haven&#39;t seen that last one. If you look at all of these movies, including Waking Life, there are definitely philosophical discussions but almost just as much character studies, wordplay, poetry, and just interesting stories.I suppose some of it may be "intellectual masturbation". To me that phrase could mean a couple of different things. But I think in this case, even if it is present in this film, I don&#39;t take the phrase pejoratively. http://www.spout.com/groups/Philosophy_of_Film/Waking_Life_An_animated_Philosophy_101/281/6732/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: porcupine
Post To: Philosophy of Film
Post Date: 4/4/2007 8:03:12 PM
Body: The topic of this discussion might more aptly be "Philosophy in Film" rather than "Philosophy of Film," but oh well. When I first saw Richard Linklater's Waking Life I absolutely loved it. Ideas! Talking! Dreams! Rotoscoping! But now I'm not so sure. I've heard it called "an animated philosophy 101 class," and "intellectual masturbation." These criticisms are starting to seem viable. What does everyone think, does all the idea-talk do anything beyond waxing philosophical about, ya know, life and stuff?
]]>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:03:12 GMTporcupinePhilosophy of Film4/4/2007 8:03:12 PMThe topic of this discussion might more aptly be "Philosophy in Film" rather than "Philosophy of Film," but oh well. When I first saw Richard Linklater&#39;s Waking Life I absolutely loved it. Ideas! Talking! Dreams! Rotoscoping! But now I&#39;m not so sure. I&#39;ve heard it called "an animated philosophy 101 class," and "intellectual masturbation." These criticisms are starting to seem viable. What does everyone think, does all the idea-talk do anything beyond waxing philosophical about, ya know, life and stuff? http://www.spout.com/blogs/hairylime/archive/2007/3/5/6041.aspx Post By: HairyLime
Post To: HairyLime Blog
Post Date: 3/5/2007 2:06:00 PM
Body: Slightly less headache inducing than 'Waking Life' thanks to improvements in the computer aided rotoscoping techniques, and really beautiful to look at. But the story and direction seem to have taken back seat to the images, and the movie suffers for it. After a wonderful opening sequence with a strung out addict desperately trying to rid himself of multitudes of imaginary insects that are crawling over himself, the movie quickly comes to a screeching halt with the introduction of the Keanu Reeves character and his 'camoflage suit' (one of those things that probably work really well on the page, but when you try to visualize it... ug..... - a more annoying visual I have yet to experience), but the suit is a major plot point, so you are forced to endure it on him and others throughout most of the movie.Robert Downey Jr, Rory Cochrane and Woody Harrelson enliven all the scenes in which they appear, but being only marginal characters they can't save this confusing flick.Not really sure why it was decided to 'animate' this, it probably would have worked equally well as live action with a minimum of special effects (the camoflage suits and a few bug scenes)
]]>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:06:00 GMTHairyLimeHairyLime Blog3/5/2007 2:06:00 PMSlightly less headache inducing than &#39;Waking Life&#39; thanks to improvements in the computer aided rotoscoping techniques, and really beautiful to look at. But the story and direction seem to have taken back seat to the images, and the movie suffers for it. After a wonderful opening sequence with a strung out addict desperately trying to rid himself of multitudes of imaginary insects that are crawling over himself, the movie quickly comes to a screeching halt with the introduction of the Keanu Reeves character and his &#39;camoflage suit&#39; (one of those things that probably work really well on the page, but when you try to visualize it... ug..... - a more annoying visual I have yet to experience), but the suit is a major plot point, so you are forced to endure it on him and others throughout most of the movie.Robert Downey Jr, Rory Cochrane and Woody Harrelson enliven all the scenes in which they appear, but being only marginal characters they can&#39;t save this confusing flick.Not really sure why it was decided to &#39;animate&#39; this, it probably would have worked equally well as live action with a minimum of special effects (the camoflage suits and a few bug scenes) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 259

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 416

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:38 GMT259149416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/of/MemberTagFilms.aspxof
Number of films tagged: 96

Number of people who tagged: 87

Number of times used: 105

]]>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:13:39 GMT9687105Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/surreal/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurreal
Number of films tagged: 73

Number of people who tagged: 73

Number of times used: 134

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT7373134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/animation/MemberTagFilms.aspxanimation
Number of films tagged: 295

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 209

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:34:12 GMT29558209Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dreams/MemberTagFilms.aspxdreams
Number of films tagged: 279

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 96

]]>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:25:32 GMT2795096Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dream/MemberTagFilms.aspxdream
Number of films tagged: 414

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 49

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT4143549Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/experimental/MemberTagFilms.aspxexperimental
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 45

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:08:26 GMT393545Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/philosophy/MemberTagFilms.aspxphilosophy
Number of films tagged: 489

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 35

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT4892635Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/trippy/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrippy
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 42

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:43:50 GMT312442Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/professor/MemberTagFilms.aspxprofessor
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 39

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:30:14 GMT7422239Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Texas/MemberTagFilms.aspxTexas
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 44

]]>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:05:36 GMT391944Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/media/MemberTagFilms.aspxmedia
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 28

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:40 GMT2121828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Pretentious/MemberTagFilms.aspxPretentious
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 22

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:48:00 GMT161722Tag