Rumtreiber

Even though I've immensely enjoyed many of Richard Linklater's films (especially "Waking Life" and "Dazed and Confused"), I never had much desire to sit through Slacker. The title and the era made me anticipate this would be a lazily-crafted, self-indulgent, aimless exploration of the oh-so-forgettable ennui of 20-somethings.

Boy, was I wrong.

"Slacker" is actually a true "art film", a highly conceptualized storytelling experiment in the manner of mid-60's Godard. In fact, in many ways it seems patterned after Godard's "Weekend" -- a bold ambition for a young low-budget filmmaker if ever there was one -- with its long, fluid takes that seamlessly drift from one story to another with chance passings on Austin's sidewalks.

In many ways I found Slacker more interesting and more enjoyable than Godard's movie, though. Weekend ultimately boils down to Godard satirizing his society, while maintaining a dry, utterly unsentimental and unemotional attitude towards his characters. When you watch Weekend, there is always the sense that Godard is looking down his nose at his characters (however justifiably). Slacker has a more complicated relationship between Linklater and his subject. While there is undoubtedly a strongly satirical feel to many of the scenes (for example, the two apparently stoned guys debating the meaning of Saturday morning cartoons while they chain smoke in a bar), at the same time, the movie feels made from the inside. It's, maybe, a satirical self-portrait. In fact, since Linklater plays the first of the Slacker characters that we meet -- the cab fare spinning yarns about parallel universes -- it is in some manner quite literally a self-portrait.

All of that is a very academic way of saying what's viscerally obvious when watching Slacker - - it's funny and real and naturalistic at the same time that it is abstract, constructed and very obviously written.

I'm not sure what it all adds up to or if it's supposed to add up to anything. After all, this is the story of people who, with a couple of notable exceptions, can't seem to put their plans into action ("You're not on the list"), so it makes perfect sense that the movie in the end feels like it just wanders off a cliff instead of coming to an end. It would be a mistake to say that the movie captures a generation -- these are caricatures, without doubt -- but it does capture the flavor of the times as they rolled by on some particularly lazy afternoons.

Richard Linklater is a director well known for making films revolving around personal relationships, philosophy, and how people are affected by the passage of time. For this, he has made some of very memorable movies in the past including the coming-of-age comedy 'Dazed and Confused', the romantic trilogy starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, and the critically acclaimed masterpiece 'Boyhood'. Rewinding back to the early 90s, Richard Linklater directed his first film centering on the social politics of citizens in Austin, Texas during the the Post-Baby boom period. This movie follows various unnamed characters and scenes dealing with seemingly random events around the city of Austin, including a young passenger (played by Richard Linklater) in a taxi car yattering about philosophy of dreams and reality, a young woman wandering around town trying to sell Madonna's Pap lipstick, a man lecturing on the existence of UFOs, a group of friends chatting about the conspiracy of John F. Kennedy's assassination, an elderly man who bonds with a criminal after thwarting him from robbing his house, and many other social misfits. The film focuses on each of these characters for a few minutes and their actions, and then cuts away to a new cast of characters, never showing them again.

This film is a highly unique movie with an interest that is incredibly difficult to describe, even for fans of Richard Linklater's other works. The concept of this film is that it doesn't necessarily have a plot of any sort, but basically explores different aspects of a society and creates interest through the intriguing and thought-producing topics of their conversations. Topics such as philosophy, terrorism, conspiracy theories, and politics are placed in the institutions of the conversations. As we listen to their thoughts on the topics, the character development comes how the conversations flow and how the characters interact with each other, to make viewers engage with the characters. Some of the conversations warrant some laughter, while other tackles on more subtle material such as in one scene with the man chatting on the existence of extra terrestrial life, or the scene with the teenagers talking about their beliefs dealing with JFK's assassination. The acting works quite well and the cinematography stays solid. The whole movie plays like a mockumentary about society functions. The movie is an interesting work of art, but can only interest those who understand the direction Linklater is taking this film. The only major flaw with the film is definitely the abandoned possibilities that Linklater could have done with the concept to make the film capture better interest.

Slacker is very unique and inspiring piece of work, but one that will definitely not appeal to everyone. Those who go into this expecting a plot will be significantly disappointed. But those who are able to understand the direction of this movie may enjoy this movie. This is a movie that doesn't tell a story, but rather explores aspects of societal and social satire.

Director Richard Linklater follows one slacker after another in this absolutely fascinating film. Linklater throws out the rules of traditional movie-making with this low-budget film shot in Austin, Texas. There is no star, in fact, there is no central character. The camera simply follows one person, who meets and relates to a second person, then follows the second person to a third person and so on. Although the structure appears aimless, it remains thematically in focus throughout, and the film introduces enough interesting characters to fill five movies. The only problem is the length. By the end, the novelty starts to wear off a little bit.

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.

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.