336 Dazed and Confused

[exte]

Does anyone else feel like they're a character in Dark City? I swore that a few years ago I fell asleep one night and Linkletter was just Linkletter, and when I woke up the next morning he was suddenly a brilliant director.

To be quite honest, School of Rock was his best film... and I've seen them all.

No, Dazed and Confused and Slacker were acknowledged as soon as they got into circulation. Before Sunrise's stock has increased since its release.

You really think that School Of Rock is a better film than Dazed and Confused? Or are you being fashionably contrary?

I agree that School of Rock is a great film, perhaps even his best. It's so unabashedly in love with its material, and I can't help but feel the same. It gives off such positive vibes, which is so rare these days, at least for me.

I just saw Dazed and Confused, and pardon me for saying so, but it seems like it's the missing link in piecing together Kevin Smith's early career choices. I mean, Jason London?? But after seeing Dazed and Confused, I can now understand why he threw him and just about anyone else willing into Mallrats. Also, it was shocking to see so many young stars in the film, but they're not that great. Ben Affleck proves he was a piece of shit even then. Anyway, for me, it wasn't a film that blew my mind about the whole high school experience. And yes, I also feel it's too close to American Graffiti at times.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I agree that School of Rock is a great film, perhaps even his best. It's so unabashedly in love with its material, and I can't help but feel the same. It gives off such positive vibes, which is so rare these days, at least for me.

I agree but then I also feel that way, strangely enough, about Slacker too. Of course, the experience of first seeing that movie resonates in a deeply personal way so to each their own I suppose.

I just saw Dazed and Confused, and pardon me for saying so, but it seems like it's the missing link in piecing together Kevin Smith's early career choices. I mean, Jason London?? But after seeing Dazed and Confused, I can now understand why he threw him and just about anyone else willing into Mallrats.

Smith has also said that he also copied casting process he did for Mallrats from what Linklater did in Dazed and Confused. Basically, a day-long pizza party to see how various actors interacted with each other and so that everyone could see everyone else audition, etc.

[exte]

Allmovie.com states that the studio interfered heavily with Dazed and Confused, and I'm wondering if anyone here can give any insight. If Criterion does the DVD, I hope they go into all that. I always covet that shit. =P~

[Napoleon]

I would add that I don't think School Of Rock is a bad film by any means, although I did think that it ran out of steam badly in the last 20 minutes.

That said I don't view it as being even close to the quality of Dazed and Confused. See Narshty's earlier comment for the reason.

Finally I think that London and Affleck fit their roles like gloves. But then I saw the film long before Affleck became famous, so I don't have the benefit of years of pent up hate in any way affecting my judgment.

[mmiesner]

i would agree that School of Rock is a decent entry into Linklater's resume, but do you think he was even attempting to be as meaningful as he was with Dazed and Confused, Slacker or Waking Life? i think if anything he was trying to prove that he can play the studio game and make a 'hit family film' so they would be more willing to let him do his true love projects, such as Scanner Darkly.

but to be perfectly truthful, i think more Linklater is a great addition to the collection, i wonder if Criterion will work out a way to get SubUrbia in there as well.

[analoguezombie]

i wonder if Criterion will work out a way to get SubUrbia in there as well.

What you should really be asking is if Criterion will get ahold of Penelope Spheeris' "Suburbia" (1984).

[Narshty]

Here is an interview with Linklaterfrom Sept. 14, 2005 where he lets this little nugget slip:

Do you plan to release a DVD with deleted scenes?

Criterion is going to do a really kick ass DVD of Dazed. It is something to look forward to in July. It is going to have commentary tracks, it's going to have hours more of additional footage and interviews it is going to be so cool.

Usually, I don't like when a DVD has too much stuff. It's very rare the film has both enough artistic merit and interesting backstory enough to support such a quantity of supplements without swamping the film in comparison (The Rules of the Game can, for example, but Fear & Loathing cannot). Usually a really great commentary track or interview and some minor additional supplementary material is all that's required to put the movie into its required context and go into some detail on its strengths (for example, 3 Women, Pickup on South Street, Thieves Highway or The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp).

This time, however, fuck it. 3 discs, 4 discs, bring it on - it's all good. I haven't slavered this much over a DVD since Piranha came out six years ago.

[mmiesner]

the only thing that ever annoys me about a DVD having too many extras is when it brings up the price on something i don't like enough to dish out the higher price tier for. 3 Women is an example of that. another time i hate it is when the extras are still minimal, but enough to bring it up, as in Discreet Charm of the Bourgesie. i agree, i'll pay the extra for Dazed and Confused, but i guess what i took offense at was your comment that the Fear and Loathing DVD was swamped? it does have a ton of extras, but most of them are really kick ass, and even if you hate the extras the film is awesome.

of course, i am one of the few non-Rules of the Game fans here, so maybe it was the comparison there... who knows.

[Cinesimilitude]

I was teeter tottering about buying a Dazed and Confused CC. but with that nugget of information, and having rewatched the film twice last night, It's the disc I'm looking forward to the most next year.

[blindside8zao]

i think fear and loathing is one of the greatest Criterion DVDs I've purchased, out of my 40 or so, in terms of supplements. They are all wonderfully interesting. The BBC documentary is wonderful for anyone who is not too familiar with the two main characters in real life. The commentary with Thompson is 1. hilarious 2. something special, how many writers can you sit down with and hear talk for 2 hours? The Depp correspondance letters are alright too. The only think I thought was too much was gilliams commentary. I always find his commentaries dull and very low on information. I am almost borderline on thinking Gilliam gets more credit than he really deserves anyways. The Depp/Toro commentary is alright too. The rest of the extras were good too, though I can't remember them.

Oh, and to stay on subject, I think I saw this film when I was in 6th grade or something and it really hit me as something different and special. It just happened to be on tv one night, really late, so I watched it, never having heard of it. I was not aware that Linklater was a famous director and not aware that he did School of Rock which really didn't excite me much. I will probably pick this up just for nostalgia's sake. Lord knows I didn't know what I was talking about when I was in 6th grade anyways.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

The only think I thought was too much was gilliams commentary. I always find his commentaries dull and very low on information. I am almost borderline on thinking Gilliam gets more credit than he really deserves anyways.

What?! I disagree completely. Gilliam delivers some of the best commentaries around. They are always entertaining and informative. The guy is very well-spoken and tells some hilarious anecdotes. He's one of the few people I can actually listen to their commentaries more than once. You should check out the ones he did for Brazil and The Fisher King (sadly, only available on laserdisc) which are excellent.

[toiletduck!]

I agree with Fletch, and even though Gilliam seems like a overgrown child (meant both as a compliment and an insult) to me most of the time and I usually end up impartial to his work -- damn, the man is fun to listen to.

On topic, I haven't seen Dazed and Confused in years, but I am very decidedly NOT a fan of Linklater's "talkies" (Slacker, Waking Life, Before Sunrise/set all get on my nerves immensely). Yet, I really enjoyed School of Rock, and from what I can remember, same goes for Dazed and Confused. As much as I groaned when Slacker was announced, I'm quite cool with Dazed receiving the Criterion once-over.

-Toilet Dcuk

[ogygia avenue]

What's with the fascination with Linklater? I'm talking with the CC and in general. He's a fine, serviceable director at his best, but he's not a particularly good visual stylist, his work has a very offhand classism that I find irritating, and he really likes stuntcasting (the frequent use of Speed Levitch and the ever-irritating Ethan Hawke, to name two examples). I'd put him in the same class as Ang Lee, but where Lee learned from his mistakes, Linklater...doesn't.

[backstreetsbackalright]

I'd put him in the same class as Ang Lee, but where Lee learned from his mistakes, Linklater...doesn't.

You lost me there. In what way do you liken Linklater to Lee?

[Gregory]

Every statement in that post lost me. In my judgment, his best work (e.g. Before Sunrise) shows outstanding visual technique. His films vary so much it's hard to credibly generalize about things like "offhand classicism." Similarly, Hawke is so versatile I don't see how anyone could find him always irritating without prejudice. As far as Lee, from what I've seen his career has taken a nose-dive since the Ice Storm. Overall, the quality of his first 5 years as a director was so high that I'm not sure what "mistakes" there are that draw a parallel to Linklater. Oh well.

[Andre Jurieu]

Similarly, Hawke is so versatile I don't see how anyone could find him always irritating without prejudice.

I'm not so certain that Hawke is versatile. He's spent a great deal of his career as either the idealistic rookie or slightly pessimistic pretty-boy. I don't always find him to be irritating, but other than his roles in Linklater's films, I generally find him to be an annoying personality. Of course there are a few actors that I enjoy that others loathe, so to each his own I guess. Everything before that statement regarding Hawke I totally agree with.

[Gregory]

He's spent a great deal of his career as either the idealistic rookie or slightly pessimistic pretty-boy.

That strikes me as a very pat assessment of his roles, but I do recognize that one is far more likely to notice subtleties of performance and observe new developments in the career of someone for whom one already has admiration.

[Andre Jurieu]

That strikes me as a very pat assessment of his roles...

Well... yes it is, considering I'm attempting to sum up his career in a sentence, which is admittedly unfair, but I'm not about to spend significant time in order to analyze his career in depth. Would it be more polite if I just eliminated the term "pretty-boy"?

[benm]

i find the translation issue more interesting in linklater's before sunrise and before sunset. much of the film is spent thoughtfully reconsidering ideas and stories and telling them again in a more nuanced fashion. the chemistry between the two actors comes from their ability to seem interested in what the other person is saying and be willing to wait for the other person's reflection.

the visuals are fine but are quite insignificant for me.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I find that Linklater's strengths lie in casting and his ability to work with actors and non-actors alike. He did a fantastic job with cast of Slacker, getting fine performances out of a largely amateur cast -- it works for the movie. And then you have Dazed and Confused, which helped launch the careers of so many people up to and including School of Rock and Bad New Bears which demonstrated his ability to get credible performances out of kids. I just watched Bears right after that atrocious Will Ferrell vehicle, Kicking and Screaming, and the films couldn't be worlds apart quality-wise. Everything in K&S feels forced and most of the jokes fall flat (altho, Mike Ditka is well cast -- go figure) while Bears has this engaging laid-back vibe that is certainly the trademark of most Linklater films.

[ogygia avenue]

I wrote this with a bit of a time limit. Herewith in detail, the problems I have with Linklater (and a few other things).

I think his films are vastly overrated. Let's just get that out there now. His films don't strike me as bad, but -- well, he gets all these laurels lain on his films, and it just doesn't make sense.

On a visual level, his films are boring. There's nothing wrong with making a dialouge-driven film, but his technique suggests that -- in spite of his extensive shoutouts to other, better filmmakers -- he spent a lot of time watching TV. As one of those boring people who likes Renoir rather a lot (and Renoir's characters liked to talk), I find the camera work in Slacker really, really boring.

Linklater does seem to like "stuntcasting" and working with untrained actors. While he has hit with this (in the form of the endearing Wiley Wiggins), there are so many places where he misses. The presence of Ben Affleck in Dazed, for example. The fact that he needs to put Speed Levitch in one movie, let alone two. At the rate he's going, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Linklater adapted "Oedipus Rex" for the screen with Andy Dick in mind.

I see Linklater's continuing fascination with Ethan Hawke -- who makes my bowels writhe -- as being part of his interest in stuntcasting. Ethan Hawke irritates me no end. Talk all you wish of "subtlety" and "prejudice", Gregory, but whenever I see Hawke in anything, all I can think of are the guys at the bar down the street from me who hit on cute coeds with their "sensitive new-age guy" schtick, only to reveal themselves as raging assholes. I live in a college town, so I don't have to pay $10 to watch some smirking jack-o'-lantern with a glued-on goatee do this.

On a more serious note, I do think his work doesn't deal with class and race particularly well. Just to use an example, look at the Chinese kid in School of Rock. The classism thing is a bit more complicated, and I want to be able to do it justice rather than just throwing it out there (which was a mistake in the first place).

As far as the Ang Lee comparison: both of them started out as indie filmmakers and have worked on massive films. Both are not particularly good visual stylists; both have used stuntcasting (Lee in Ride with the Devil -- Jewel, anyone?). Where Lee has attempted to correct some of his mistakes, Linklater continues making boring-looking commercial films with some truly irritating personalities.

Just to put this into perspective, I wouldn't have any sort of antipathy towards Linklater if he were just another director. Instead, he is regarded as the Voice of Generation X. I don't get it, and I don't appreciate being made to feel like a pariah for not seeing him as God's Gift to Cinema.

[Gregory]

I wanted to acknowledge that I somehow misread "classism" as "classicism" in ogygia ave.'s first post. Anyway, the classism is a discussion for another time, but I hope it wouldn't rely too heavily on interpretations of School of Rock, which I don't see as something very fruitful to read critically. Also, it's not one of his most personal projects nor did he even write it.
Likewise, while Slacker is not totally without serious interest, I think it's unfair to compare it visually to Renoir because Slacker didn't set out to achieve anything magnificent visually. (Conceptually, Slacker can be linked to Renoir, and has been, but only by coincidence. Renoir is a favorite filmmaker of Linklater's but the latter says he didn't know that the idea for Slacker had occurred to Renoir many years before.) A better sample of what Linklater is capable of visually is Before Sunrise. Someone who severely dislikes Hawke can't be sold on Before Sunrise, of course, and it is off-topic. Still, I would be curious how his performances in Before Sunrise or Before Sunset could remind ogygia avenue of a person useing a "sensitive new-age guy" schtick to disguise being a "raging asshole." He certainly played an asshole in his previous film, Reality Bites, but that character never made much pretense to sensitivity; his airs were in the opposite direction, cynicism.
As for Speed Levitch, ogygia avenue said Linklater has used him frequently, but he only makes brief appearances in two films. Honestly, I had to look up the name to remind myself who he was, so needless to say his presence in those films (not my favorites anyway) isn't much of an issue for me. Oh well.

[backstreetsbackalright]

Certainly Linklater's affiliation with cultural branding, willing or unwilling, is an obstacle, but I'm concerned that ogygia avenue's beef with Linklater has a lot more to do with Linklater's reception amongst novice cinephiles than it does with the films themselves. It's certainly understandable (the nausea and revulsion the Dave Matthews Band stir up in me has much more to do with their shortsighted fanbase than it does with the relatively benign music itself), but this kind of argument doesn't lend itself very well to a useful discourse.

I shinl his films are vastly overrated. Let's just get that out there now. His films don't strike me as bad, but -- well, he gets all these laurels lain on his films, and it just doesn't make sense.

Sure, but the exact same things could be said about Radiohead, The Sopranos, or frankly even Orson Welles, Gerhard Richter, and Stravinsky. This doesn't speak to the merits or liabilities of the work in question at all, only to a distaste for vocal praise for work subjectively deemed inferior.

On a visual level, his films are boring. There's nothing wrong with making a dialouge-driven film, but his technique suggests that -- in spite of his extensive shoutouts to other, better filmmakers -- he spent a lot of time watching TV. As one of those boring people who likes Renoir rather a lot (and Renoir's characters liked to talk), I find the camera work in Slacker really, really boring.

Visual style isn't one of my strongest areas, so I don't doubt that there's something to what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you mean by "he spent a lot of time watching TV." Are we talking about his blocking? editing? what?

Linklater does seem to like "stuntcasting" and working with untrained actors. While he has hit with this (in the form of the endearing Wiley Wiggins), there are so many places where he misses. The presence of Ben Affleck in Dazed, for example. The fact that he needs to put Speed Levitch in one movie, let alone two. At the rate he's going, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Linklater adapted "Oedipus Rex" for the screen with Andy Dick in mind.

Okay, but for the record, Ben Affleck was pretty much nobody at the time Dazed was made and released. He hadn't even made Mallrats, and was several years from Good Will Hunting's Oscar hype.

I see Linklater's continuing fascination with Ethan Hawke -- who makes my bowels writhe -- as being part of his interest in stuntcasting. Ethan Hawke irritates me no end. Talk all you wish of "subtlety" and "prejudice", Gregory, but whenever I see Hawke in anything, all I can think of are the guys at the bar down the street from me who hit on cute coeds with their "sensitive new-age guy" schtick, only to reveal themselves as raging assholes. I live in a college town, so I don't have to pay $10 to watch some smirking jack-o'-lantern with a glued-on goatee do this.

Whether or not we like him or his character has very little to do with Hawkes' acting chops (which, for the record, I'm not convinced of myself). Also, I've always felt that Linklater's greatest strength is the way he allows his characters to arouse the audience's suspicions. Often times, philosophical musings are presented that sound like complete bullshit, which I think is the point. A film like Suburbia deals with people who are militantly convinced of their own worldview, but that tend to sound to the audience like adolescents with superficial understandings of anything they're talking about. Waking Life takes this to the nth degree, letting everyone on screen talk like experts, or at least serious thinkers. Many of these diatribes are very interesting, while others reveal themselves to be little more than the poorly-prepared ramblings of survey course auditors. Similarly, I think Linklater is keenly aware of all the trappings of the "sensitive new age guy," or any other cultural stereoype, in his characters.

Linklater continues making boring-looking commercial films with some truly irritating personalities.

Just how commercial are they, really? School of Rock and Bad News Bears surely performed well, but what about something like Waking Life? If nothing else, anyone who chartered Sonic Youth for a soundtrack can be so quickly branded with the C-word. Additionally, I think School of Rock's attitude is a rather unique on in today's cineplexes. And I don't know very many directors, commercial or no, who've attempted as broad a range of work as Linklater has.

I don't get it, and I don't appreciate being made to feel like a pariah for not seeing him as God's Gift to Cinema.

You're in luck; it's extremely unlikely that anyone on this board will deem you a pariah for disliking Linklater's films.

[Zumpano]

Can someone define this term "stuntcasting"? I understand that actors have been cast against type/in small roles and that non-actors have been used in film; both as long as film has existed. But I've seen this term thrown around in threads lately (Woody Allen, this one) in a deragatory sense. I am confused. I cannot see how casting Hawke in a Linklater movie could be considered a "stunt". ...?

[Andre Jurieu]

I think his films are vastly overrated ... but -- well, he gets all these laurels lain on his films, and it just doesn't make sense.

Can I ask what significant laurels he has received? I think his most significant achievement is perhaps having a film place high on the annual Village Voice poll, which isn't much of an achievement. He has a following of critics who enjoy his work, but that's not really any unique accomplishment.

On a visual level, his films are boring.

Perhaps, but his choice of style on Before Sunset fits fairly well with his material. I can't think of any other better method to ask the audience to consider the effects of time than to allow his story to unfold in long unbroken takes during a discussion. It may be self-conscious, but it suits what he is trying to examine. I might argue the same about Waking Life (which I'm not the biggest fan of), where he is attempting to create an artificial setting through his animation and changes the style of the illustrations in accordance with the material being covered. These might be considered clever tactics, but at least he's trying something visual without going overboard. But are we really concerned with visual style in something such as School of Rock, considering part of its target audience is children?

The presence of Ben Affleck in Dazed, for example.

backstreet covered the topic of the timing of stardom pretty well.

I see Linklater's continuing fascination with Ethan Hawke -- who makes my bowels writhe -- as being part of his interest in stuntcasting. Ethan Hawke irritates me no end ... but whenever I see Hawke in anything, all I can think of are the guys at the bar down the street from me who hit on cute coeds with their "sensitive new-age guy" schtick, only to reveal themselves as raging assholes. I live in a college town, so I don't have to pay $10 to watch some smirking jack-o'-lantern with a glued-on goatee do this.

I'm not entire sure the presence of Ethan Hawke in Linklater's films qualifies as stunt-casting. He just seems to be the actor that Linklater enjoys collaborating with. Hawke's everyday day job is actually acting, so if he appears in a movie that shouldn't be considered news really. If you consider including Ethan Hawke to be stunt-casting in a Linklater film, you would have to consider casting Lee Kang-Sheng to be stunt-casting in a Tsai film (that example is slightly pretentious). But other than the hostility concerned with how Hawke seduces co-eds, I have a similar reaction to him in most of his movies.

Just to put this into perspective, I wouldn't have any sort of antipathy towards Linklater if he were just another director.

Yeah, but one doesn't have to judge him by the reputation others have attached to him. If you want to, you could choose to consider him to be just another director and judge him accordingly by those standards.

Instead, he is regarded as the Voice of Generation X.

True, but how often is Generation X a topic of conversation anymore. It's a label that can be easily discarded.

I don't get it, and I don't appreciate being made to feel like a pariah for not seeing him as God's Gift to Cinema.

But, seriously, who actually considers him to be "God's Gift to Cinema". After all the original hype and marketing around Generation X died down, this label kind of slipped away. Nowadays, most critics just feel he makes a great film occasionally (Before Sunset), often make entertaining (that's not a crime) films (School of Rock), and sometimes his results aren't fantastic (Badnews Bears). I think we've dealing with a slight miscalculation, or at least an over-estimation, about Linklater's esteem and position within cinema history. It's an example of a small following who believe he is great and many people thinking he's good. That doesn't really equate to him being firmly positioned as a Cinematic Deity. A large number of votes for good doesn't qualify as great, and certainly doesn't equate to God of Celluloid.

But, again, this is just a question of not enjoying/agreeing with the position others take regarding a director. Your issue seems to be with an inappropriate placement of Linklater rather than the actual films. Again, you don't really have to play by the rules of others, but the perception of career/talent of a director by others is not really something that should be taken out on the director's work. Consensus in evaluation is never an interesting thing anyway.

Someone who severely dislikes Hawke can't be sold on Before Sunrise

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). I think Linklater is one of the few directors that can work with Hawke's personality and make it far less grating.