336 Dazed and Confused

[Gregory]

I wouldn't say the extras got in the way of my enjoyment of the movie, but they certainly were disappointing. The main thing I was trying to do seeing it this last time was to try and place where the film belongs in the gap between horror film and bittersweet nostalgia (as opposed to pure nostalgia). Among the heap of extra features and booklet content, there is frustratingly little that gets into that question. The "Profiles in Confusion" section of the booklet was such an embarrassing waste of paper it's no wonder no one was credited with writing it. Not Linklater, I hope. The making-of docu, interviews, and 10-year anniversary footage have undoubtedly a kind of fan appeal and can certainly be diverting -- but I had higher hopes for the remainder of the supplementary content.

Kent Jones in his essay tries to address the question of whether Dazed is a horror film but the few arguments he offers are not all that convincing, For example, that O'Bannion is isolated and betrayed because of his excesses. It's not clear that his peer group does finally cut ties with him, and to the extent he is shunned it he's generally unpleasant to be around and is considered a stupid jerk, for reasons that certainly aren't limited to the manner of his hazing.

Furthermore, Jones ignored important evidence from Linklater himself that he did in fact intend it to be a kind of horror film, which shows a disappointing lack of rigor on Jones' part. I'm inclined to think it is not a pure horror film, and that Linklater's suggestions to the contrary were motivated by a desire to distance the film from the nostalgic and vapid-teen-comedy trappings that against his will dominated the way the film was marketed and consumed. Whether or not I'm right about this, someone should have held Linklater's feet to the fire about some of the film's contradictions.

It's such a rich film in its subtext about power relations, roles of authority, institutional procession through hierarchy -- and there is so little exploration of all this. We get one or two interesting deleted scenes, an interesting sentence here and there in the essays, and the rest is all fun filler and reminiscences that really don't do any justice to the film's merits as anything more than a time capsule, a loose story involving a group of fun and interesting characters, and a fun way to toke up and spend 102 minutes. Case in point, the empassioned plea in defense of the likes of Ted Nugent, Kiss, Foghat, and Peter Frampton -- or, even worse, the essay that starts out "I have watched Dazed and Confused approximately sixty-five times, and I have been stoned for approximately sixty-four of those experiences. At this point, it almost seems unfathomable to watch this movie without being high..." I know I'm in the minority on the question of what this movie has to offer, but my God...

Linklater himself offers a few short statements about the broader themes of the film but mostly he glides along the superficial part of it, and discusses the production end of it, and so on. Linklater is an extremely bright guy, but this kind of commentary shows him in his normal mode. Like the vast majority in his profession, he is reticent when it comes to discussing critical analysis of his own work. That job is left to the critics, and while there are not a large number of real film critics interested in addressing Linklater's best work, there are some out there. It is disappointing that Criterion did not assemble a more penetrating assortment of writing about the film.

P.S. I also didn't get much out of Linklater's notes to the cast and filmmakers but I also didn't find them pretentious. They express a sincere aspiration to make a successful work of art as a community and are an example of the kind of sincerity that has been tainted by all the opportunistic motivational speakers of the kind to which Narshty referred. Still, I agree with Narshty that too much behind-the-scenes minutiae can kill the magic.

[Narshty]

It was the whole illusion of the film - as beautifully self-contained and organic as anything else I've seen - being shattered by the whole effect of deleted scenes/bonus footage/Linklater talking over the top of it.

I'll certainly be deliberately ignoring the extras on the upcoming Playtime reissue - if there was ever an instance where peeking behind the curtain could be potentially disastrous, that's surely one. Same with the mooted reissue of Picnic at Hanging Rock. I think certain films benefit incalcuably from having their creation, context and impact explored in painstaking detail - Equinox, The Rules of the Game or Brazil, for example. Others stand to lose more than gain with the raiding of their archives. This is all very personal and subjective - although I think it was probably the right decision to leave the deleted scenes from Diary of a Country Priest to rest in peace, I wouldn't object to their release either. I just wouldn't watch them.

[HerrSchreck]

And Zep certainly aren't the first band or artist to borrow blatantly from folk & blues music without giving proper credit.

I dunno why anyone is getting defensive.. Plant himself ridicules what he called their "thievery" back in those days. And there's a little thing called publishing, whereby if you're a dude who just wrote a song a couple yrs ago, and your song is used/copied by another on an album or radio, etc, you are by law supposed to receive a thing called "royalties". Zinking an old Robert Johnson tune without attribution is one thing-- it's up to his estate if there is any, to seek publishing royalties (if there has been any official "publishing" in BMI or ASCAP)-- but slipping in without attribution a song just written by a dude alive & well & starving is generally not cool.

ICE ICE BABY........

[Andre Jurieu]

The main thing I was trying to do seeing it this last time was to try and place where the film belongs in the gap between horror film and bittersweet nostalgia (as opposed to pure nostalgia). Among the heap of extra features and booklet content, there is frustratingly little that gets into that question.

But that's just one question regarding the perspective the viewer chooses to approach the film with (and it's a question very much influenced on Robin Wood and Rosenbaum's views) and I have my doubts that any DVD supplements will ever answer the question conclusively (and in fact I hope that there never would be a DVD supplement that would be able to answer the question conclusively). Whether the film was designed as a horror film or bittersweet nostalgia is an important question, but it's only one question and perhaps not even the most significant question that requires an answer from the filmmakers via Criterion. Criterion and Linklater are attempting to design a collection of supplements that offer a broad perspective of the film, so specific details and analysis might be a difficult ideal to accomplish.

Kent Jones in his essay tries to address the question of whether Dazed is a horror film but the few arguments he offers are not all that convincing, For example, that O'Bannion is isolated and betrayed because of his excesses. It's not clear that his peer group does finally cut ties with him, and to the extent he is shunned it he's generally unpleasant to be around and is considered a stupid jerk, for reasons that certainly aren't limited to the manner of his hazing.

You know, the more I watch the film, the more I actually start to believe O'Bannon to be a really sad character. It's difficult to view him as anything other than a jerk who gets what he deserves, partly due to his actions, partly due to how obnoxious Ben Affleck is as a public personality, but he's truly pathetic. He's failed his senior year (and it appears his group of friends from his first senior year have left him and he only hangs around with the juniors), he's not even liked very much by the people he hangs around with, and he can't afford gas for his car (and vehicles are obviously a huge symbol of status within the film).

Furthermore, Jones ignored important evidence from Linklater himself that he did in fact intend it to be a kind of horror film, which shows a disappointing lack of rigor on Jones' part. I'm inclined to think it is not a pure horror film, and that Linklater's suggestions to the contrary were motivated by a desire to distance the film from the nostalgic and vapid-teen-comedy trappings that against his will dominated the way the film was marketed and consumed. Whether or not I'm right about this, someone should have held Linklater's feet to the fire about some of the film's contradictions.

I always thought it was apparent that Linklater wanted to slide across the border between horror and nostalgia (but that's just my opinion), and I'm not really sure why we have to obtain a definitive answer on Linklater's intensions to satisfy one's curiosity. Would his admission that the film was specifically designed to be totally one or the other make the film more enjoyable? I'm hoping we aren't saying that the depiction of high-school as horror movie would make the film more worthy of some form of status of sophistication rather than if it was a film designed to evoke nostalgia. The contradictions of the film are kind of make it a much more satisfying work than all the other high-school-inspired films.

It's such a rich film in its subtext about power relations, roles of authority, institutional procession through hierarchy -- and there is so little exploration of all this.

Very true, and while I wouldn't mind further exploration of these themes and topics, I'm not entirely sure that making such a package would satisfy a great deal of the film's fans. It's important stuff that I would also have appreciated, but we can't really expect the DVD to satisfy all our needs.

Case in point, the empassioned plea in defense of the likes of Ted Nugent, Kiss, Foghat, and Peter Frampton -- or, even worse, the essay that starts out "I have watched Dazed and Confused approximately sixty-five times, and I have been stoned for approximately sixty-four of those experiences. At this point, it almost seems unfathomable to watch this movie without being high..." I know I'm in the minority on the question of what this movie has to offer, but my God...

Well, I've watched the films a dozen times or so and only once was I under the influence of "the ill", and I would say it's a film where the enjoyment doesn't change a whole lot between the two states. I do believe the attachment to drug-culture is a bit overstated for the film, but I do also believe that we have to admit that it is a film that is very much tied to stoner-culture, mostly because getting stoned was (and is) an experience that is very much tied to adolescence. It's not like Linklater shies away from addressing drug-culture in his films. The idea of altering the mind's functions and abilities is definitely a topic he likes to explore.

Linklater himself offers a few short statements about the broader themes of the film but mostly he glides along the superficial part of it, and discusses the production end of it, and so on. Linklater is an extremely bright guy, but this kind of commentary shows him in his normal mode. Like the vast majority in his profession, he is reticent when it comes to discussing critical analysis of his own work. That job is left to the critics, and while there are not a large number of real film critics interested in addressing Linklater's best work, there are some out there. It is disappointing that Criterion did not assemble a more penetrating assortment of writing about the film.

I was a little disappointed too, but hopefully the treatment that Criterion provides the film and the brief mentions that Linklater drops will lead to other viewers exploring these themes. If they analyze the thing to death, I don't think very many others will attempt to explore the "magic" of the film in further depth.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

This is the first time I've realised that being a huge fan of the film is not the same thing as wanting to know everything about how they put it together. The Criterion set, as a whole, is splendid, but I've already punted my copy on Ebay and have gone back to the barebones R2.

This is quite possibly one of the craziest things I've read! No disrespect intended but it seems kinda crazy to actually go back to an inferior version of the film. Granted, I haven't seen the R2 version but doesn't Criterion's have the superior picture and sound quality? That alone warrants it as a keeper in my book regardless of what you think of the extras.

I wouldn't say the extras got in the way of my enjoyment of the movie, but they certainly were disappointing...The "Profiles in Confusion" section of the booklet was such an embarrassing waste of paper it's no wonder no one was credited with writing it. Not Linklater, I hope. The making-of docu, interviews, and 10-year anniversary footage have undoubtedly a kind of fan appeal and can certainly be diverting -- but I had higher hopes for the remainder of the supplementary content...We get one or two interesting deleted scenes, an interesting sentence here and there in the essays, and the rest is all fun filler and reminiscences that really don't do any justice to the film's merits as anything more than a time capsule, a loose story involving a group of fun and interesting characters, and a fun way to toke up and spend 102 minutes...or, even worse, the essay that starts out "I have watched Dazed and Confused approximately sixty-five times, and I have been stoned for approximately sixty-four of those experiences. At this point, it almost seems unfathomable to watch this movie without being high..." I know I'm in the minority on the question of what this movie has to offer, but my God...

I disagree with this backlash to the lack of substantial extras. I think, if anything, most of them keep in tone and spirit of the film itself which is to say not to take themselves too seriously and have fun. I'm all for analytical essays and I do agree that the inclusion of one or two would have provided a nice balance to the more frivilous content but I thought almost all of the extras on the DVD were entertaining in one way or the other with the retrospective documentary and Linklater's commentary being the most illuminating. I also felt that the interviews with the cast and audtion tapes that were done from back in the day were interesting from a historical perspective, a snapshot of what these people were like back in the day.

And as for there being too much minituae on the making of a movie well, it's pretty easy - if you don't want to know that much than don't watch any documentaries on the making of the film or listen to any commentary tracks... or just be selective in what extras you do check out that way you won't get supersaturated.

[Narshty]

This is quite possibly one of the craziest things I've read! No disrespect intended but it seems kinda crazy to actually go back to an inferior version of the film. Granted, I haven't seen the R2 version but doesn't Criterion's have the superior picture and sound quality? That alone warrants it as a keeper in my book regardless of what you think of the extras.

Meh. The R2 served me well for a few years before the Criterion and with the price difference I could buy another couple of films.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Sure your're not Scottish, Jon?

[Gregory]

I always thought it was apparent that Linklater wanted to slide across the border between horror and nostalgia (but that's just my opinion), and I'm not really sure why we have to obtain a definitive answer on Linklater's intensions to satisfy one's curiosity. Would his admission that the film was specifically designed to be totally one or the other make the film more enjoyable? I'm hoping we aren't saying that the depiction of high-school as horror movie would make the film more worthy of some form of status of sophistication rather than if it was a film designed to evoke nostalgia.

No, it's definitely not about status or sophistication for me, I'm just trying to understand the film. It has a lot of important themes and questions that were barely touched on in any of the extras. A lot more justice could have been done to the film's subtextual levels without, as you feared, analyzing them to death or even providing conclusive answers.
Linklater has stated in no uncertain terms that he wanted to completely avoid making a nostalgia film. As I alluded to before, according to a footnote in Wood's Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan and Beyond he says that when he wrote an early essay calling Dazed and Confused horror film, Linklater wrote to him to congratulate him on being the first to understand his real intentions. However, I don't think this puts it to rest. Linklater's intentions and what he actually did, I think, are two different things. Again, I'm just trying to understand not only this question but all those related to it. To me, these are central elements of the film -- to avoid them is to avoid the whole subtext, which is exactly what Criterion's release did, for the most part. I guess Criterion knows its target market and what kind of extras they want. As you said, they can't satisfy everyone. Maybe this is a result of Criterion's linkage of commerce and critical inquiry and/or they (and most other people) are failing to appreciate part of what this film has to offer. Then again, maybe I'm just a weirdo.

[Narshty]

Sure your're not Scottish, Jon?

Uncertain of the precise insinuation, but, nevertheless, hehe.

[tryavna]

My favorite joke about the Scots and their alleged cheapness (from The Simpsons, I think):

"It's emptier around here than a Scottish pay toilet!"

[Napier]

I took a vacation to Scotland for a month.And it was anything but cheap.6$ a pint!

[Narshty]

A pint of what? If you're talking imported lager, I'm not surprised.

[Napier]

3 Pounds for a pint of Tennants.Which works out to like $5.50 USD.But thank GOD for 2 for 1 happy hour. I love SCOTLAND!

[Antoine Doinel]

I went to watch the Beer Bust feature on Disc 2 tonight on "random" and after the first clip it kept on returning to the main menu. Has this happened to anyone else? Could it be my DVD player? The rest of the set has been working fine....

[TheGodfather]

Received my copy yesterday
lovely release, once again =D> =D>

[monkeybrow]

I'm upgrading to hd-dvd, and fear and loathing and dazed will be the first two I purchase.

the HD-DVD version of Dazed is horrible... a little better as far as resolution... but had specks/dirt all over the place. I will keep the Criterion

[GringoTex]

My boy turned ten tonight, mommy's out of town, so this is what I put on. His mouth was agape the whole way through, dreaming of the possibilities of high school life, and he quizzed me on every detail as if I'd just put him through Hamlet.

Which is just, because this is our Hamlet.

[kaujot]

I'm still amazed that for years I thought it this film as some stupid stoner bullshit (the previous covers/posters certainly didn't help matters) until I bought it on compulsion (I have a problem) when I saw it at a Best Buy a week before the release date.

A really great film, and it rivals Slacker for the title of Linklater's best.

[Narshty]

My boy turned ten tonight, mommy's out of town, so this is what I put on. His mouth was agape the whole way through, dreaming of the possibilities of high school life, and he quizzed me on every detail as if I'd just put him through Hamlet.

Which is just, because this is our Hamlet.

I saw this movie for the first time when I was 12 and I can't tell you the crashing comedown my teenage years were in comparison.

[jbeall]

I'm still amazed that for years I thought it this film as some stupid stoner bullshit (the previous covers/posters certainly didn't help matters) until I bought it on compulsion (I have a problem) when I saw it at a Best Buy a week before the release date.

A really great film, and it rivals Slacker for the title of Linklater's best.

I had the same experience--I refused to see it for years, precisely b/c I thought it was another stoner comedy, until I was stuck over at a friend's house without a ride home. He played the VHS tape, and it was an amazing movie. Since then I've been a Linklater fan.

[colinr0380]

My boy turned ten tonight, mommy's out of town, so this is what I put on. His mouth was agape the whole way through, dreaming of the possibilities of high school life, and he quizzed me on every detail as if I'd just put him through Hamlet.

Which is just, because this is our Hamlet.

I saw this movie for the first time when I was 12 and I can't tell you the crashing comedown my teenage years were in comparison.

I also first saw the film during my mid teens (in that Moviedrome double bill about 'growing up', followed by The Sexual Life of the Belgians 1950-1978!) and while nothing like my own time at college the film really captured being just at that moment where you can do anything or go in any direction you want, combined with the frightening knowledge that the next decisions you make in life are going to inevitably limit those possibilities.

Plus, my time at college seemed better in comparison since I never got beaten with a wooden bat - so I had all the (metaphorical) highs and none of the lows!

[Michael]

I can't point out what it is exactly I love about Dazed and Confused. It's labeled as a stoner comedy, surely it's riddled with funny moments but the air hanging in the film is perfumed with a bit sadness. It always leaves me feeling very wistful every time I watch it. The teens are forever engraved in my memories, they are so real and alive but strangely sealed inside the dream bubble of the film, something that will never be popped. Like a faraway sunset memory you want to keep returning to get another glimpse.

[Mr Sausage]

Plus, my time at college seemed better in comparison since I never got beaten with a wooden bat - so I had all the (metaphorical) highs and none of the lows!

I'm curious, how common is (or was) this? Like Colin I've never encountered it, but then neither of us are from the States; so does anyone else have memories of being paddled by older kids in Highschool?

[GringoTex]

Plus, my time at college seemed better in comparison since I never got beaten with a wooden bat - so I had all the (metaphorical) highs and none of the lows!

I'm curious, how common is (or was) this? Like Colin I've never encountered it, but then neither of us are from the States; so does anyone else have memories of being paddled by older kids in Highschool?

I grew up in a small Texas town and D&C is easily the most realistic highschool movie I've seen. We weren't paddled, but we were heavily hazed by the upperclassmen. Like following our bus in their trucks and ordering us to do stuff that would get us in trouble- like throwing shit out the window or make out with some girl on the bus. If we did, the bus driver would suspend our bus privileges for a week. If we didn't, they'd wait for us at our stop and make us hop around on hot Texas asphalt in bare feet. And like D&C, you had psychopaths like O'Bannion who were sadists, and cool guys who would protect you later on if you handled the hazing well.

Of course, we didn't need upperclassmen paddling us, because the adults did it for them. I was probably paddled a hundred times in school by teachers and principals, and that's no exaggeration.

[Mr Sausage]

Plus, my time at college seemed better in comparison since I never got beaten with a wooden bat - so I had all the (metaphorical) highs and none of the lows!

I'm curious, how common is (or was) this? Like Colin I've never encountered it, but then neither of us are from the States; so does anyone else have memories of being paddled by older kids in Highschool?

I grew up in a small Texas town and D&C is easily the most realistic highschool movie I've seen. We weren't paddled, but we were heavily hazed by the upperclassmen. Like following our bus in their trucks and ordering us to do stuff that would get us in trouble- like throwing shit out the window or make out with some girl on the bus. If we did, the bus driver would suspend our bus privileges for a week. If we didn't, they'd wait for us at our stop and make us hop around on hot Texas asphalt in bare feet. And like D&C, you had psychopaths like O'Bannion who were sadists, and cool guys who would protect you later on if you handled the hazing well.

Of course, we didn't need upperclassmen paddling us, because the adults did it for them. I was probably paddled a hundred times in school by teachers and principals, and that's no exaggeration.

Vastly different milieu than what I encountered. There was no hazing in highschool, and physical punishment was illegal long before I entered grade school (although that didn't stop my parents from trying to convince me it was still practised by a few of the harder looking teachers handling the grades above me in order to frighten me into caring). Out of curiosity, what would have happened if you'd denied outright anything the upperclassmen asked, asphalt hopping and all? Would you have called the bluff of their implied threat of "worse," or was there a real physical threat behind it? It seems like for hazing to work a certain amount of cooperation is necessary on behalf of the victim, and that a staunch defiance will confound the other side since it refuses the 'rules' and makes the process more trouble than it's worth. But this is speculation, and I don't know how they do it in Texas.

Anyway, it's a testament to the strength of this movie that despite sharing very little with it in the way of particulars, it still seems to me the best depiction of regular teenage/highschool life.