Slacker (1991)
Directed by Richard Linklater
Here's a video of one of my favourite scenes. I'm sure this isn't a very original choice, its one of the most memorable of Slacker's funny moments.
Before watching ‘Slacker’ I had only ever heard of Richard Linklater from his films ‘Before Sunrise’ and ‘Before Sunset’. I watched Before Sunset with my mum about 5 or 6 years ago and both of us were completely non-plused. Firstly, we didn’t know it was a sequel, which didn’t help, but I also remember thinking it was crazily short (its 80 minutes long, but it felt like the credits were rolling after only 30). I thought the film hadn’t gone anywhere. It felt rambling and structure less.
Luckily I’ve got a lot more adventurous in my film choices since the age of 13 and instead of feeling frustrated and confused at indy films, I enjoy them- a lot of the time more than the big budget Hollywood ones. So, when I saw ‘Slacker’- which is a film which epitomises ‘rambling and stuctureless’- I got really into it and for a while after the screening, I couldn’t get it out of my head, I couldn’t believe how clever it all was.
Everybody who reviews this film is faced with the seemingly impossible task of having to summarise it. It is ultimately a day in the life of the residents of Austin, Texas. Linklater collages together scenes made up of countless numbers of characters (the full list is here. I wouldn’t even attempt to recount a quarter of the credits). Some are obscure, some eccentric, some lazy, but none are named and all of them feel extremely real. This collage that is created mostly feels completely ramshackle and chaotic, while at the same time the long takes and seamless transitions leave the audience convinced of the film’s meticulous planning and careful execution. At times the camera will roll for over 10 minutes to create one, long, uninterrupted stream of consciousness- perhaps focusing on a pestering stoner preaching about how ‘we’ve been on Mars since 1962’, or on a girl trying to flog ‘Madonna’s pap smear’.
Most reviews I’ve read of ‘Slacker’ focus on the $23,000 dollar budget, which gets a bit boring, but it can’t be denied that this low funding shapes many aspects of the film. For instance, the fact that most of the ‘actors’ weren’t professionals heightens they’re believability. Linklater himself talks of how the budget limitations meant scenes had to ‘have nothing going on… instead of anything going on’. He also refers to ‘Slacker’ as a ‘summer art project’- I feel this sums up the film perfectly. It’s risky and experimental, but it doesn’t seem to try too hard.
Yet I understand why some critics got frustrated after about an hour of ambling along with only drop outs and average joe’s for company. Vincent Canby ( reviewer for the New York Times) explains how he felt ‘a monotony set in, as well as desperation’. I definitely found some of the philosophical rants undertaken by the characters hard to keep up with. By giving the ‘limbo dwellers’ of society so much space to air their views and theories, Linklater sometimes leaves his audience at the mercy of ramblers that would win prizes in their efforts to bamboozle they’re victims on topics we actually don’t know or care about. Sometimes I felt like I should listen because to ignore somebody preaching about society’s countless flaws would make me cultureless or ignorant
However, one reason I liked the film so much overall was the way it reminded me of my favourite book- Irvine Welsh’s ‘ Trainspotting’. On the surface this might seem a weird comparison, as, admittedly the drug fuelled aggressive lifestyles of young Scottish outsiders isn’t exactly similar to the carefree eccentrics of Austin. But, the way Welsh strings together juxtaposed, incomplete and fragmented images of characters and their situations relates a lot to what Linklater is trying to achieve in Slacker. Trainspotting’s chaotic narrative is made up of 43 sections which constantly shift between separate and often unidentifiable viewpoints- Welsh describes it as ‘a bunch of voices shouting to be heard’. Both have the sense of wanting to paint a portrait of an underlying subculture- whether it’s of the ‘marginal, eccentric and over educated citizens in Austin’ or the hopeless druggies living in the Leith docklands in the 80s. Thinking about the way Welsh represents the unrepresented in his book, I saw how Linklater strove to show a bunch of people scrambling around in the early 90s searching for their generation’s identity.
However, one reason I liked the film so much overall was the way it reminded me of my favourite book- Irvine Welsh’s ‘ Trainspotting’. On the surface this might seem a weird comparison, as, admittedly the drug fuelled aggressive lifestyles of young Scottish outsiders isn’t exactly similar to the carefree eccentrics of Austin. But, the way Welsh strings together juxtaposed, incomplete and fragmented images of characters and their situations relates a lot to what Linklater is trying to achieve in Slacker. Trainspotting’s chaotic narrative is made up of 43 sections which constantly shift between separate and often unidentifiable viewpoints- Welsh describes it as ‘a bunch of voices shouting to be heard’. Both have the sense of wanting to paint a portrait of an underlying subculture- whether it’s of the ‘marginal, eccentric and over educated citizens in Austin’ or the hopeless druggies living in the Leith docklands in the 80s. Thinking about the way Welsh represents the unrepresented in his book, I saw how Linklater strove to show a bunch of people scrambling around in the early 90s searching for their generation’s identity.
References
· ‘Slacking Off’ by John Pierson
‘Slacker’s Oblique Stratedgy’- by
(Both essays were found here: http://www.criterion.com/films/408-slacker)
· IMBD
· Slacker Film review by Vincent Canby- March 22nd 1991
· Youtube video- Richard Linklater on the Making of Slacker. August 1995 ‘The film Archive’
