bedazzle

The first time I saw this movie I didn't remember the references to Schopenhauer, but now I've read said philosopher and was thinking about the point in using him in this movie. At first it seems like a mistake. After all, Schopenhauer is of the major philosophers, the most pessimistic. So it's strange to have him portrayed positively in such an optimistic movie. I think the movie is reinterpreting his philosophy from an optimistic perspective. Reinterpretation is a strong part of all classic works. For example, Virginia Woolfe has a crazy man interpret Shakespeare as being a misanthrope in 'Mrs. Dalloway.' Basically, Schopenhauer says that humans are conditioned by evolution to choose life over everything horrible that could happen, and that we have no choice but to obey. 'Life is Beautiful' takes this reality to be a positive. Really, it's an affirmation of the inherent goodness of life. So I think the Schopenhauer references work perfectly here.

If you liked 'Waking Life' you'll find 'Slacker' at least interesting for its similarities. There's many of the same characters, same style, even some of the same scenes. There's also a few differences. 'Slacker' is only partially philosophically related, whereas 'Waking Life' is completely based on philosophy. The non-philosophical portion of S consists of politics, conspiracy theory, general slacker lifestyle, aesthetic screen shots, and unique characters similar to those of Kevin Smith. Another thing is that there is no discernible plot in S while there is in WL. Really, if you like dialogue movies, you'll like this one. If you liked 'Tape' you'll like S. The big question is, Can you relate to a bunch of quasi-intellectual college graduates stuck somewhere between the world of professional scholarship and mainstream mundane-ness?