What is the "genre"? Basically a bunch of random conversations about various subjects relating to life, the universe, philosophy, dreams, etc., but not a documentary. This film and its characters are assuredly fiction, but the subjects brought up relate to reality either directly or indirectly through metarealistic discussion.
Despite the completely random feel and appearance, there is a direct consistency to it all in that it's always the same main character (played by Wiley Wiggins) taking part in the discussions, either just listening or occasionally replying, and there is also an indirect undercurrent of actual character progression. When we first begin both the viewer and the main character are completely lost, going through the journey with no known purpose or ending. But by the end of the film we see him almost grow, learn and accept. He begins to question his reality and form theories about what is happening to him. In turn we the viewer also begin the same. This is likely due to the various characters he is talking with. You could say they open his mind to questioning his surroundings and give their small clues to the viewer as to what is going on in the film.
The film leaves it intentionally open as to what "really" is going on. Is it all a dream? Is he on drugs? Is he dead? It is almost as if the film suggests that there's no real difference among all these possibilities. This concept is indeed brought up in some of the conversations, notably one that begins, "The worst mistake you can make is to think you're alive when really, you're asleep in life's waiting room," and another where a guy says, "It's bad enough that you sell your waking life for minimum wage, but now they get your dreams for free." These passages, and plenty of others, support the position that the film is suggesting that there is barely any difference between being alive, dead, and dreaming, at least to his own perspective.
The visual style is very interesting but can admittedly become disorienting and dizzying at times. However that was likely the intent, as the entire film discusses concepts relating to disorientation, dreaming, being a "zombie", etc. It is a technique that was brand new in 2001 when it came out, to my knowledge, or at least for a full feature film. Everything was actually filmed, but then artists went over every single frame and drew their own version of the scene over it. This gives it a very jittery, cloudy feel, because it was not carefully lined up perfectly, and mixing drawing with reality in general gives a hazy look. The amount of effort that went into this is greatly respectable, and I personally like the result, but could understand if some people couldn't really sit through it. I don't think the film would have had the same effect just keeping it regularly filmed though, so I admire the choice. The same kind of technique and style was applied to Linklater's 2006 film A Scanner Darkly, but it was a little bit more cleaned up and not as jarring in that film. However I don't necessarily think any one is better, just slightly different and each one fits their respective film's content.
Some of the most dreamlike scenes in the history of cinema are in this film. By dreamlike I don't specifically mean the visuals, although they certainly don't hurt, but instead I mean the actual content happening and the resultant tone. Specifically, dreams often carry a much more casual tone than what reality does, at least in the actual events. Maybe you feel very scared, nervous, or anxious sometimes but the events happening around you are very casual compared to reality. For example, I've been naked in public in dreams often and did feel embarrassed in the dream, but the actual reactions are much less stirring than in reality. In reality people would react much more; they might be forward and tell you to put some clothes on, they might laugh at you, or they might be frightened and call the police. In the dream it's almost accepted behavior, or no one cares as much as they normally do. This kind of dreamlike quality is all over this film, specifically in the scene where a man in a bar casually pulls out a gun and, at the behest of the bartender himself, fires it at the bartender. The violence is very brutal, but when contrasted with the surrounding eerie silence, is actually quite frightening to observe. No one else in the bar is screaming or running. They just keep sitting there going on with their day. This is what I mean by the tone being much more casual, but the feeling not following suit.
The actual content of the conversations varies much too widely. If I were to write about each one this would be a very very long review, so I shall refrain. I will just say that they are engaging and get you thinking, even if you disagree with what's being said. Many of them teach you perspectives, again whether you agree with them or not, opinions, and even facts you may not have known or just didn't think about in detail.
Richard Linklater has created a very unique gem, and it may not be absolutely "perfect" in every respect, but I have never seen anything else like it to this day. Indeed, I feel that being a genre of its own deserves recognition, not to mention the vast variety of ideals brought up in the 99-minute runtime.
Despite the completely random feel and appearance, there is a direct consistency to it all in that it's always the same main character (played by Wiley Wiggins) taking part in the discussions, either just listening or occasionally replying, and there is also an indirect undercurrent of actual character progression. When we first begin both the viewer and the main character are completely lost, going through the journey with no known purpose or ending. But by the end of the film we see him almost grow, learn and accept. He begins to question his reality and form theories about what is happening to him. In turn we the viewer also begin the same. This is likely due to the various characters he is talking with. You could say they open his mind to questioning his surroundings and give their small clues to the viewer as to what is going on in the film.
The film leaves it intentionally open as to what "really" is going on. Is it all a dream? Is he on drugs? Is he dead? It is almost as if the film suggests that there's no real difference among all these possibilities. This concept is indeed brought up in some of the conversations, notably one that begins, "The worst mistake you can make is to think you're alive when really, you're asleep in life's waiting room," and another where a guy says, "It's bad enough that you sell your waking life for minimum wage, but now they get your dreams for free." These passages, and plenty of others, support the position that the film is suggesting that there is barely any difference between being alive, dead, and dreaming, at least to his own perspective.
The visual style is very interesting but can admittedly become disorienting and dizzying at times. However that was likely the intent, as the entire film discusses concepts relating to disorientation, dreaming, being a "zombie", etc. It is a technique that was brand new in 2001 when it came out, to my knowledge, or at least for a full feature film. Everything was actually filmed, but then artists went over every single frame and drew their own version of the scene over it. This gives it a very jittery, cloudy feel, because it was not carefully lined up perfectly, and mixing drawing with reality in general gives a hazy look. The amount of effort that went into this is greatly respectable, and I personally like the result, but could understand if some people couldn't really sit through it. I don't think the film would have had the same effect just keeping it regularly filmed though, so I admire the choice. The same kind of technique and style was applied to Linklater's 2006 film A Scanner Darkly, but it was a little bit more cleaned up and not as jarring in that film. However I don't necessarily think any one is better, just slightly different and each one fits their respective film's content.
Some of the most dreamlike scenes in the history of cinema are in this film. By dreamlike I don't specifically mean the visuals, although they certainly don't hurt, but instead I mean the actual content happening and the resultant tone. Specifically, dreams often carry a much more casual tone than what reality does, at least in the actual events. Maybe you feel very scared, nervous, or anxious sometimes but the events happening around you are very casual compared to reality. For example, I've been naked in public in dreams often and did feel embarrassed in the dream, but the actual reactions are much less stirring than in reality. In reality people would react much more; they might be forward and tell you to put some clothes on, they might laugh at you, or they might be frightened and call the police. In the dream it's almost accepted behavior, or no one cares as much as they normally do. This kind of dreamlike quality is all over this film, specifically in the scene where a man in a bar casually pulls out a gun and, at the behest of the bartender himself, fires it at the bartender. The violence is very brutal, but when contrasted with the surrounding eerie silence, is actually quite frightening to observe. No one else in the bar is screaming or running. They just keep sitting there going on with their day. This is what I mean by the tone being much more casual, but the feeling not following suit.
The actual content of the conversations varies much too widely. If I were to write about each one this would be a very very long review, so I shall refrain. I will just say that they are engaging and get you thinking, even if you disagree with what's being said. Many of them teach you perspectives, again whether you agree with them or not, opinions, and even facts you may not have known or just didn't think about in detail.
Richard Linklater has created a very unique gem, and it may not be absolutely "perfect" in every respect, but I have never seen anything else like it to this day. Indeed, I feel that being a genre of its own deserves recognition, not to mention the vast variety of ideals brought up in the 99-minute runtime.