Hey folks, Harry here... seems Linklater dropped by a UT Film Class out here last night and made quite the impression. Here ya go...
Hey Harry,
You and I have crossed paths now three times: once at the SKY CAPTAIN screening,
once at the SIN CITY premiere at the Paramount, and then at the UFA Conference a
few days back. Let me just say that it is good to love film and live in Austin.
And why, besides those three events that I just listed and others like them, is
it so great? Because some of the best and brightest working in the industry live
here in town and are helping the blossoming Austin film scene grow into the
legitimate “third coast” of filmmaking.
Of those folks, Richard Linklater is something of the big grandpoppy of it all.
And he happens to be close personal friends of my film history professor here
at UT. So, last night, my class enjoyed a screening of WAKING LIFE, followed by
a rare Q&A with the man himself, Mr. Richard Linklater.
I’ve written up for the
site one of these such events before, and I hope you can use this one too.
This was the first time I’d seen WAKING LIFE since moving to Austin, so
realizing that so many of these locations were so close to where I live and go
to school (the scene with Ryan Power from SNACK AND DRINK, for example, was
shot on the roof of the parking garage next to my dorm) was pretty amazing.
But this movie has been out for four years, so I’ll spare you all my thoughts
on it and move onto what the man had to say:
Most of the questions in the very brief Q&A dealt with his process, since this
was at a film school after all. He described how very collaborative he liked
his work to be, and how he liked feeling a sense of looseness when on the set.
“Film would be very boring for me if you were just rendering your ideas (with)
no deviation.”
When asked about what inspired him to make such a free-form movie as WAKING
LIFE, he seemed pretty nonchalant. He described the film as being a “Kitchen
sink movie,” pieced together from moments that had been dropped from other
films, or little thoughts and ideas or pieces of conversation that he had
always wanted to explore on film but never got to explore. For example, the
scene early in the movie with the car-boat where the passenger gives a
seemingly random series of directions for where to drop of the nameless
protagonist was actually taken from a cut sequence in SLACKER. Remember in the
opening scene of SLACKER, when he’s in the cab talking about how an alternate
reality is created with every decision that is made? In the end of that scene,
he gives the cabbie a seemingly random series of directions, suggesting that
the outcome of the movie is just one possible version of what could happen
next. Or the scene with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. That is indeed supposed
to be their characters in a scene that never came to fruition in either of the
“BEFORE” movies.
Speaking of which, he suggested that there may be further romantic adventures in
store for the two characters. “Maybe we’ll see them again in another five or
seven years... It would be like the SEVEN-UP series.” He said that he and Ethan
talk about the possibility of making it an ongoing series every time they meet.
“The big hurdle was making the first follow-up, and now that we know we can…”
he trailed off with a smile. He also joked that if the characters are to be
revisited in future films, that the stars would probably appreciate it if any
sexual stuff appeared while they were still young and beautiful. I don’t know
if there will ever be a time when those two aren’t beautiful people. The only
trouble I can see with doing a third one is the title. You’ve done BEFORE
SUNRISE and BEFORE SUNSET, so what’s left?
But on the subject of re-visiting characters, somebody brought up the subject of
a DAZED AND CONFUSED sequel. Linklater said “I’ve kicked around the idea before…
they’d all be, what, thirty now?” (paraphrasing) “That movie was about my
experiences in high school, it wasn’t really about a lifetime. Though I guess I
should do my big college movie someday.” The crowd seemed to like the idea.
The subject of A SCANNER DARKLY came up, much to the delight of some in the
audience. Richard started describing the differences between WAKING LIFE and
the upcoming sci-fi film: (paraphrasing) “With WAKING LIFE, we were sort of
doing more of a documentary feel. I just loved the idea of a hand-held animated
movie. With SCANNER, we’ve got a more traditional film set thing going on. We’ve
got techs lighting the sets just like they would any other picture, only we’re
going to paint over it later.”
He also talked about the technical differences on the animation side, saying
that “the software has come a long way” since WAKING LIFE. For example, while
WAKING LIFE was 12 frames per second, SCANNER is 24 frames per second (It’s
interesting, though, that even though this is a primarily digital film, he’s
going for 24 instead of 30), because the technical capacity is “that much
farther down the line.” Also interesting is that he mentioned that SCANNER
would have a consistent visual style from start to finish, saying that where
WAKING LIFE was a series of “cartoon characters,” A SCANNER DARKLY was like a
“moving graphic novel.”
What is it with Austin filmmakers and moving graphic novels?
He also laughed at the fact that BAD NEWS BEARS, which was shot after SCANNER,
would be coming out long beforehand. “Film in general—and animation
specifically—there’s long-term gratification.” Unfortunately, that was all we
got to hear about that one.
When asked about the differences between making a movie like WAKING LIFE or A
SCANNER DARKLY and making a movie like BAD NEWS BEARS, he said that for him the
difference was minimal. “It’s not that different for me. I got up in the
morning, I worked on a movie, went home. They were different movies.”
When asked what draws him to a project, or what makes him want to do a project,
he said with a grin: “I have to feel like I’m getting away with something.
That’s when I know I’m in the right territory.” Somebody brought up Scorsese’s
old line about how he’ll make two for the studios so he could get to make one
for himself, to which Linklater said with a laugh, (paraphrasing) “I can’t
trust them to give me one for myself. So, I take what I can with every one I
do.”
One of the last and most insightful things he had to say before he left was
about how making a movie about dreams seemed only natural. “I think the reason
that cinema is successful, and the reason that cinema has been successful is
that we’ve been seeing films for 100,000 years while we sleep.” He also related
the idea of “lucid dreaming” to being a filmmaker, saying “I do that pretty
naturally—just being aware that you’re dreaming and making decisions… that’s
what directing is, you just make decisions”
Only two major commercial filmmakers have had the opportunity to render,
verbatim, their dreamstate into a film: Linklater with WAKING LIFE and Kurosawa
with DREAMS.
And on the subject of comparing the two, compare this quote of Linklater’s from
last night:
“There’s some writing, there’s some painting, there’s some sculpting in
(cinema). It’s the artform of our time, because it’s an amalgam of all the
other art forms. And yet, it’s important to me to make films that couldn’t be
anything else besides films.”
…with this quote by the master from his autobiography:
“Cinema resembles so many other arts. If cinema has very literary
characteristics, it also has theatrical qualities, a philosophical side,
attributes of painting and sculpture and musical elements. But cinema is, in
the final analysis, cinema."
So, there’s that. Richard Linklater, visionary storyteller and one of the
pioneers of the digital age comes and humbly chats with a room full of
undergrads.
Damn it feels good to be in Austin.
~Leo Boxclocke
