by Keepcoolbutcare on Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:35 am
I've read more books by Philip K. Dick than I have any other author (no small part due to the fact that he wrote 44 books and tons of short stories), and of all his works, A Scanner Darkly is amongst my favorites.
Richard Linklater is one of my favorite writer / directors working today; Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise / Sunset, and, yes, Waking Life (hate all you want, I smoked up beforehand, bugged out to the images and actually dug the philosophical meanderings) are all films that I hold dear.
For some reason or another, I've got a hard on for animation. Big time. Cartoons, anime, Pixar; maybe it's all the drugs, but to me drawing / programming something to life at 24 frames per second is one of mankinds greatest achievements, even though technically it's only a great leap foward technologically from cavepeople drawing on walls, but maybe that's part of the primal power of the genre for me.
So when I heard Richard Linklater was adapting Philip K. Dick's seminal drug warning novel to the big screen, with some damn near perfect casting choices, and was going to go the route he took with Waking Life by filming digitally and then use interpolated rotoscoping to achieve a sort of "lucid dreaming" (Linklater's words, not mine) effect, well, yeah, I was sold.
And if the following rave review comes off as biased, so be it. I'm with Moriarty in that all film watchers come to a film with their own preconceived notions, that the notion of objectivity and reviewing are mutually exclusive. Criticism is merely articulation of your tastes, and then arguing / defending them, nothing more.
Being slavishly faithful to the book is a major factor in my love for this film; suffice it to say this is the most Dickian of all the numerous screen adaptations of Dick's work. While that in itself would be a major accomplishment, the film also nailed the tone, feel and ideas of the book, sometimes to frightening versimilitude. Yes, some liberties have been taken; it's not Jerry Fabin with the aphid problem, but rather Rory Cochrane's Charles Freck who gets bugged out to comical effect at the films onset. I'm not quibbling, some things had to be changed up and made streamlined for a 2hr. film. And I love me some Slater San; envisioning him years later, slowly poisoning himself with Substance D adds a touch of meta, which, if you know my tastes, is always a good thing.
But it's not just Cochrane who shines, damn near the entire cast is spot on impersonations of the novels characters. Tell me, was Keanu not just born to play a befuddled, drugged up, "cross chatter" inflicted monotone voiced casualty of the drug war? And as perfect casting (in no small part due to Keanu's love for this sort of material. Say what you will about his acting, the man has had an interesting career, and I credit him with good taste) goes, Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey Jr. were just perfect as Ernie Luckman and James Barris. When I heard they were cast for those roles I knew they were the right choices, but even I didn't think they would be this accurate, this spot on. While Woody's Luckman is the goofy, good natured druggie who you want around during a good trip, it's Downey who steals the picture. You know he's been that whacked out before, so yeah, call it method if you want. Regardless, he just nails the fascinatingly fucked up Barris. Kudos to Wynona Ryder as well. Yeah, I've never been that impressed with her, but she doesn't bring the proceedings down, and her soul searching speech near the end was convincing enough. Good on her, just don't allow her near the jewelry.
If it's a bit strange to be talking up the performances of a rotoscoped film, well, that's one of the benefits of said technique. You get to see the actors, as it were, but there's a sense of disconnection, call it a heightened sense of dislocation from normal film reality. For the material, it works smashingly, most noticeably with the "scramble suits", what our undercover agents have to wear to disguise their identity. Changing appearance based on a database of hundreds of thousands, the suit is a sight to behold and I just couldn't take my eyes off it (I think it might've been explained, but I wonder how you can smoke and eat with one of those on...must be permeable but I missed / forgot the reference to it).
As a director, Linklater ain't exactly flashy, he's tells a story good enough, but obtuse angles and a great eye just isn't his thing. However, with the rotoscoping, he doesn't need any more tricks to convey the book's sense of paranoia, it's "trippiness" and, eventually, it's despair. And hey, Locke's former av reading to Charles Freck all of his sins...perfect. I'll 'prolly write more about the films look after I see it again when it opens wide, but I was dutifully impressed.
While visually I may slag a bit on Linklater, the man can write, and apparently he can edit as well, because his decisions on what stoner speak to bring to the film were on point. There's an interesting thing he did with one of the characters, and while it was superfluous to Dick's story, it works here. While it may take away from the utter mindfuck of the book, since it's presented as an afterthought here, with no great attention paid to it 'cept that it explains the bigger picture, I didn't have much gripe with it. And he stuck the landing, absolutely nailed both the visual and the brief glimmer of hope from the novel.
It's fucking late, I'm tired, but if I had this movie on DVD I would be watching it again, for the third time, 'cuz there's no way I would've written this review.
9 out of 10, the best American film I've seen all summer.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.