336 Dazed and Confused

[Titus]

I personally am very fond of Linklater's work, and think he's one of the best "young" American filmmakers around, but I'm finding the budding debate over the general consensus on where he places in the pantheon of contemporary American cinema to be amusing. He's not a huge name in the same manner that Paul Thomas Anderson or Quentin Tarentino is, and it's always seemed to me that he doesn't have any interest to be. He makes relatively small, personal pictures aimed at a somewhat small demographic, with the occasional foray into more mainstream fare (which, I assume, without any intimate knowledge on the matter, is to help fund his more artistically oriented work).

The fact that his pictures don't have the same immediately gratifying pizazz of some of his colleagues leads to him flying under the radar amongst a lot of moviegoers. This, in turn, leads to a slight (and I'd like to emphasize the slight--like I said, I'm pretty big on Linklater myself) inflation, possibly as a point of compensation, of his ability amongst many people and critics. Probably the most prominent one that comes to mind is Jonathon Rosenbaum (though David Walsh and Robin Wood seemed to be the first major champions of his work), whose absolutely smitten with the guy.

Linklater is a patient and generous filmmaker. He shows utter compassion for his characters, yet almost always retains his (and thus the audiences') objectivity. His visual style differs from picture to picture, but I've never felt it to be a weak point. He obviously doesn't create his pictures as visual spectacles, which is commensurate with his adversion to the showmanship that permeates throughout so many other American filmmakers (some of whom I love--I'm not against a flashy aesthetic style). I personally think his imagery almost always has a certain elegance to it, where Linklater compliments his wordy stories with naturalistic beauty, as opposed to the deliberate ugliness of many European art films (again, many of which I love). Ogygia, Linklater is, by your own admission, a good filmmaker--so why the hangup over the modest respect afforded to him by the critical community and an occasional entry into the Criterion Collection?

[godardslave]

titus, im interested in your opinion on what you think are Linklater's 4 best films?

[Gregory]

That's not really true. I have a severe dislike/aversion for Hawke, but I really enjoy Before Sunrise (though I enjoy the sequel much more, perhaps because Hawke is disappointed with his life/career).

By "severe dislike" I meant someone who can't appreciate to any significant extent any of his performances (e.g. ogygia avenue). If Hawke's mere presence were apt to ruin a film for someone I was thinking it would be inescapable with Before Sunrise and its sequel given that Hawke has so much to do with it, as opposed to say Waking Life.

[Andre Jurieu]

Point taken. I'm just saying it's possible, though I agree any irrational hatred of Hawke would probably cloud the proper evaluation of the film.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Linklater is a patient and generous filmmaker. He shows utter compassion for his characters, yet almost always retains his (and thus the audiences') objectivity. His visual style differs from picture to picture, but I've never felt it to be a weak point. He obviously doesn't create his pictures as visual spectacles, which is commensurate with his adversion to the showmanship that permeates throughout so many other American filmmakers (some of whom I love--I'm not against a flashy aesthetic style). I personally think his imagery almost always has a certain elegance to it, where Linklater compliments his wordy stories with naturalistic beauty, as opposed to the deliberate ugliness of many European art films (again, many of which I love).

Wow, I think that is best summation of Linklater's filmmaking style that I have ever read. Well said, sir!

And if you listen to any of Linklater's commentaries, this kind of approach is reflected in the way he speaks and what he says. He delivers very laid-back tracks with self-effacing humour that I find quite engaging. There is no pretension to what he does at least, that's the impression he conveys and that is quite refreshing.

[cafeman]

I think Titus` post is one of the greatest things ever written about Linklater in general, and I couldn`t agree with it more.

I just watched Bad News Bears, which is a hit and miss affair, but for the life of me I can`t think of a film which better captures childhood, with all of its positive sides, as well as the kind of more uncomfortable unadmitted smugness and egoism. Especially the final scene with the Yankees becomes very dark in all sorts of subtle ways, reaching its penance in the short exchange of glances between Joey and the fat kid, when two players on opposing sides reach a mutual agreement, at the expense of the adults, or rather only in spite of them.

Also, consider the dinner scene between Billy Bob and Masha Gay Harden. It is a marvelous scene, in which two adults communicate frankly and about as realistically as I can imagine. It`s very bare, goes right to the heart of the matter, and doesn`t strike a single false tone, which is generally the most admirable facet of all of Linklater`s works.

Oh, and also there was a great essay on Linklater by Brian Price Arthur available at www.sensesofcinema.com (I don`t have the exact URL anymore). It`s not terribly detailed, but provides a nice overview of his work, major themes etc.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I finally caught up with this movie and really enjoyed it for what it was. I felt that Billy Bob really nailed the bored indifference of his character and had the deadpan delivery of his smarmy dialogue down cold.

As he demonstrated with School of Rock, Linklater works well with kids and is able to get natural performances out of them. He didn't allow them to resort to shameless mugging. I also liked how the kids improved gradually over the course of the movie and it didn't happen miraculously overnight. So when they do start winning it is well-earned. Compared to the bland, kid sports movie, Kicking and Screaming, this one feels more genuine, like it was made by someone who actually gave a damn. Linklater's trademark, laid-back style and charm have survived intact. It is an unnecessary remake but entertaining nonetheless.

[colinr0380]

Oh, and also there was a great essay on Linklater by Brian Price Arthur available at www.sensesofcinema.com (I don`t have the exact URL anymore). It`s not terribly detailed, but provides a nice overview of his work, major themes etc.

This is the exact link.

[Narshty]

I saw it again, and it's truly magnificent. I daresay it's Linklater's Rules of the Game.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

A nice diversion until the Criterion edition comes out. Info and pictures from the Austin Film Society 10 year Dazed Reunion here.

Btw., the coverage starts on page 6 of the PDF.

[Anonymous]

Linklater's Filmography (Ranked):

I won't bother including his student film prior to Slacker, since I still haven't gotten around to viewing it.

1) Dazed and Confused
2) Before Sunset
3) The School of Rock
4) Waking Life/Slacker
5) Before Sunrise
6) Suburbia
8) Tape
9) Bad News Bears
10) The Newton Boys

Dazed is an American classic, regardless of its seemingly trivial subject matter. Before Sunset is one of the greatest films of the new century. The School of Rock may seem like a variation on Sister Act, but it's everything a good movie should be: smart, enjoyable, endlessly watchable. Don't let the jokes, Jack Black, and the rockin' kids fool you: this is popcorn filmmaking of the highest order.

[oldsheperd]

I thought the Bad News Bears remake was great.

[tryavna]

The School of Rock may seem like a variation on Sister Act, but it's everything a good movie should be: smart, enjoyable, endlessly watchable. Don't let the jokes, Jack Black, and the rockin' kids fool you: this is popcorn filmmaking of the highest order.

My sentiments exactly. In fact, I was amazed at how much I enjoyed this movie -- despite all the signs that the studio had its paws on the script (i.e., a few too many pat opportunities for the various kids to redeem themselves or have their moments in the sun). What makes this movie particularly intelligent is how it offers education as an opportunity to remain passionate about a subject (e.g., music) and transmit that passion to others even when one's own enthusiasm might not always match up to one's talent.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Plus, any movie that celebrates Led Zep and exposes 'em to kids who've grown up on Blink 182 is okay by me...

[Moniker Jones]

I thought the Bad News Bears remake was great.

I thought it was okay, but completely unnecessary. The style of humor and Thornton's performance were already utilized beautifully in Bad Santa. This just took the least funny jokes from that film and slapped them on to an extremely similar remake of an already enjoyable movie. I rated it a C+ when I reviewed it for our regional newspaper, and I'm not sure if another viewing would alter my opinion. I will admit that I was extremely high on Linklater prior to this film's release, given the overall brilliance of his 4 previous films. Also, keep in mind that I loved Tape, and that placed just above it on my list. So in my mind he's made about nine movies that range from really good to oustanding, one that I'd call mediocre (BNB), and one that I'd consider a dud (Newton Boys).

I still really admire the man and his work, and I'm really looking forward to his next few projects. If only Criterion would put together a stellar edition of D&C. They would definitely make some money off it, and it would give this underrated cult classic the artistic attention it deserves.

Now I'm wishing I hadn't lost the autograph he wrote for me on a napkin at the SubUrbia premiere in Austin years ago.

[Doctor Sunshine]

Because I enjoy disparaging small children I'll add that all the kids in Bad News Bears were awful. I imagine it's difficult to find that many good, child actors but they were really bad here. I'm sure they're all mostly swell kids but, that said, I hope they never work in show business again. Otherwise, I agree, a very middling movie. Loved School of Rock.

[mmiesner]

how anyone can rank 'School of Rock' above 'SubUrbia' is well beyond my comprehension... i'm not trying to bash your tastes, i am just intrigued by that choice. i just watched SubUrbia again yesterday and i truly think that it - coupled with D&C - really capture the feeling of today's youth and our outlook on the world and life. in Dazed you have just one big party, we're all here to have fun and grow up and then it turns slightly sour when we have to think and make choices. but in SubUrbia you have this total nightmare. Giovanni Ribisi's character is so dead on to what all of todays post highschool kids feel, he's just the only one who doesn't fck around with idealism - he's a purely honest, confused twentysomething.

School of Rock is about a fat guy who teaches kids about AC/DC.

once again, not bashing your tastes, just wondering why you think it's so much better than SubUrbia.

[foofighters7]

well, any lingering doubt can be put to rest. Its true, its coming out in time for summer, according to the Criterion Newsletter.

Goodtimes.

[stroszeck]

The fact remains, regardless of all the commotion, that this film really truly did not deserve the Criterion treatment. There are FAR MORE important films which have NEVER been released on DVD. There a bunch of different versions of Dazed that have come and gone -- check your local used DVD store, there's probably a whole TON of this. Not that its a bad movie, but I mean, COME ON -- this IS criterion we're talking about. Spend some effort on important stuff.

[toiletduck!]

Or maybe they could just spend some of the mad cash that this one (just one out of well over 300, mind you) release will make on those titles...

Just maybe.

-Toilet Dcuk

[balzer]

The fact remains, regardless of all the commotion, that this film really truly did not deserve the Criterion treatment. There are FAR MORE important films which have NEVER been released on DVD. There a bunch of different versions of Dazed that have come and gone -- check your local used DVD store, there's probably a whole TON of this. Not that its a bad movie, but I mean, COME ON -- this IS criterion we're talking about. Spend some effort on important stuff.

While I sort of agree with you, I feel that there needs to be more newer films in the collection. By releasing films like the Anderson titles and the Linklater titles that more people will check out and buy, people will be more likely to check out some of the other lesser known titles.

Plus I am sure that the expense of putting together the D&C set will be a fraction of what it would be to restore and track down material for other titles. This money will be made by titles like D&C. I think that is the bigger picture here. I think that D&C deserves to be in the collection. Linklater is hit and miss for me, his best film I believe is D&C. Just my opinion

[skuhn8]

Well...hard to argue if you are stating a "fact", stroszek.(!?)

Balzer, some will never understand how the forces of commerce work. D&C is perhaps a puzzling choice for the CC, but you are right; it is titles like this that help fund the loftier works in a list like the one provided by stroszek. Funny how people seem inclined to believe that the CC choses titles like D&C "instead" of certain other works rather than "in addition to".

[Cinesimilitude]

I wish they'd jump ahead a bit and just make Dazed and Confused Spine #420

[davida2]

Would be perfect. I agree with parts of several previous posts; I'm one of the folks who's been more than a little annoyed by the extreme slowness in getting Mizoguchi out, more Ozu, some Naruse, or Yamanaka, or some non-Japanese Asian films, or more Italian & Iranian film, something from Latin America (some Mexican golden-age films??)...to name but a few of my own Criterion 'wants.'

BUT - I also love D&C; I think it's inclusion doesn't demean the collection at all - it's an entertaining film that happens to also be very well-crafted, miles ahead of most other popular, American youth-related comedy you'll find, and Linklater handles his characters quite well - with a respect and detail that I find admirable, and very much lacking in the majority of his contemporaries.

I am also pleased to see more contemporary film sneaking into the collection - I would hope to see their contemporary choices go more global as well - Claire Denis, or (more) Kiarostami, M. Makhmalbaf, K. Kurosawa or Hirokazu Kore'eda have made some worthy films. But the Amer-indie films they've released recently are all choices that make sense to me - films that may not be situated at the avant edge of US indie film post-80s, but are representative enough.

I was drawn to Criterion through a friend's purchases of laserdiscs years ago - mostly contemporary releases. This drew me deeper into their catalog, where I discovered any number of classics from Europe and Japan. Thus I'd argue that their contemporary releases - especially films like D&C that are popular, well-made and influential are a critial part of what they should be doing.

[Narshty]

The fact remains, regardless of all the commotion, that this film really truly did not deserve the Criterion treatment.

I don't really know how to approach the self-possessed idiocy of this statement. If it's facts you're after, then Dazed and Confused is unquestionably worthy of the Criterion's attention because they're releasing it. That's pretty concrete, I'd say. By "all the commotion", I presume you mean "the great deal of interest" from other board members that has propelled this thread to over 100 post counts at this point - and that's without even having seen the cover art. If you feel somehow vindicated in coming in to this thread as the embittered minority, holding the True Word of Criterion aloft and kicking over sandcastles in the process, then more power to you.

Spend some effort on important stuff

I'm always intrigued as to why this sort of argument comes up whenever we get a popular semi-mainstream recent American film from Criterion, but never at any other time. When we get a fairly obscure minor work like Le notti bianche or La commare secca, at best we'll get pithy "disappointing lineup this month"-type complaints, but never the same instances of frustrated list-making to "prove" Criterion are on the wrong scent. Is that because those sorts of films are closer in spirit (basically old and foreign) to the "ideal" output of Criterion, despite their glaring flaws and weaknesses as movies?