It wasn't as good as Slacker, but nothing Linklater does will ever be. I left the movie wanting to go back in and watch it again, just to go back and really understand some of the ideas that are thrown around. The whole "dream-world" vs. "reality" premise gives the second half of the movie some momentum, kind of focuses the audience on the question of why is this all happening. It reminded me a lot of the feeling I got when I first watched Slacker as a freshman in college, and just felt so energized about THINKING, just wanting to have meaningful intellectual conversations with people. And it was nice to remember that feeling.

For me, the reason Slacker was a better film was that for all the freedom that its animation affords, Waking Life is in some ways much more constrained than Slacker was. By telling the story from the POV of the dreamer, we're trapped into seeing his interpretation of the world, into seeing what he sees. On the other hand, in Slacker, the camera goes where it wants, it can follow a character for a while, capture whatever ideas it has to, then move on to another persepective. And, I also loved how Slacker had a sense of place. Ultimately, the only grounding we had in Slacker was the location, we were in this small community of college folk and drop-outs in Austin Texas. By setting it in a dream, Waking Life is by necessity without a sense of place, and I missed that. There are some characters in Slacker that are unforgettable, a lot more so than in Waking Life.

Anyway, like I said the comparison is probably unfair. Its just that, by making this a companion-piece to Slacker, Linklater is inviting us to see the connections and similarities between the two films. But, I'm glad he's come back to making this kind of movie again - it's definitely his strength as an artist.

peace,
murph

peace,
murph