Film: "Waking Life"

[Captain Nate]

In my philosophy class my Professor showed this film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/maindetails) "The Waking Life," which I didn't really like at all. I wrote up my brief reaction to it, but I was wondering what some of you thought.

My thoughts:

Since we didn't see the ending, perhaps the conclusion of the film would give me a "Whoa, that's awesome" feeling that, without it, makes me feel unsatisfied by the various unimpressive monologues. And maybe if it were in color -- as it was meant to be had our projector not been broken -- I would have found it more engaged by the film. But, based on what I did see, I didn't like it and doubt its full form would have impressed me much further.

I thought it was an empty film lacking the creative spark necessary to make such a stylistically-unique film work. It was about dreams, but it indulged in that theme far too deeply to have any strength as a story for me because it lacked any cohesiveness. As far as the lack of plot goes, I wasn't impressed by its pretentious, jumbled philosophical musings strewn throughout the story, which I thought were characterized more by a sense of forced trend-iness than meaningful discussion of ideas. Perhaps if one of the ideas were taken and used to create its own film, with characters and story, rather than just dropped into this hodgepodge of experiences like a college lecture, they would be more interesting.

[Jon P]

In my philosophy class my Professor showed this film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/maindetails) "The Waking Life," which I didn't really like at all. I wrote up my brief reaction to it, but I was wondering what some of you thought.

It's probably my favorite movie to date. It's my "favorite" in the sense that I can watch it over and over and never bore from it. I think the movie was aimed toward more of the right-minded type people, who believe in more than what they read. You wouldn't find it in anyone’s movie collection that subscribed to this forum. Of course, I could be wrong, but likely am not. I know only one person that likes the movie as much as me, everyone else shows similar expressions to the film as you. The conclusion wasn't any different than the rest of the movie. The character that you're following around ends up floating upward into the sky into the unknown oblivion, if that helps to provide a full picture.

unsatisfied by the various unimpressive monologues.

You're right, no doubt some of the monologues were so bad, you just wanted to turn away. However, as I watched the movie more and more, I realize to accept these characters and not toss them out of the movies context just because they weren't captivating enough to hold my interest. Otherwise, I found most of the monologues really compelling. I don't know how far you got into it, but it does pull together in the second half of the movie, it becomes very interesting.

I wasn't impressed by its pretentious, jumbled philosophical musings strewn throughout the story, which I thought were characterized more by a sense of forced trend-iness than meaningful discussion of ideas.

Later on in the movie, the pretentious jumbled philosophical musings strewn throughout the story are a bit more interesting. The beginning really doesn't compare to the second half of the movie. I think it definitely explains you’re your critique from just seeing the first half.

Perhaps if one of the ideas were taken and used to create its own film, with characters and story, rather than just dropped into this hodgepodge of experiences like a college lecture, they would be more interesting.

I think the film was very unique as it expressed the whole spectrum of modern day thinking. The more I watch it, the more imaginative I realize the film is. If you are referring to that one scene when the kid is sitting in on a lecture of existentialism in the beginning of the movie, I don't think I even paid attention to that scene. If I remember, the professor explains to the metrosexual looking kid, that one person’s existence does matter, and one person can shape the world, but in order for these things to be true, one must choose to do things. That’s some pretty down-right advice on the professors part, but I can see why you don’t particularly enjoy the scene in the classroom, as he’s just some typical “Professor Dingleberries” giving his optimistic take on the world. The more you watch the movie, the more you’ll understand these less than impressionable scenes. But meanwhile, there's dozens of more scenes through out the movie that get better. Just take the time to finish it.

[softwareNerd]

I think the movie was aimed toward more of the right-minded type people, who believe in more than what they read. You wouldn't find it in anyone's movie collection that subscribed to this forum.

I can't figure out what you mean by "right-minded", "believe" and "more" in this context.

[Jon P]

I can't figure out what you mean by "right-minded", "believe" and "more" in this context.

I believe I elaborated on what I mean in the second half of the sentence. "....aimed toward more of the right-minded type people, who believe in more than what they read..." did you read more than the first couple lines, before you replied to the post?

[softwareNerd]

... who believe in more than what they read...

Repeating it doesn't help me to understand. Let's see if we can find referrents for this idea "people who believe more than what they read". Is it people who believe what they see on TV (as opposed to written material) or it that not what you meant? Or did you mean people who believe what other tell them, regardless of how silly it sounds? As I said, it isn't clear what you mean by "believe". The word is sometimes used to include rational conclusions and at other times it is used to mean belief using faith as opposed to rational cognition.

If "people who believe more than they read" is "a good thing", then it would mean something like this: people who do not take everything they read or hear as being true, but instead evaluate the source and the method by which the source claims to know what they know; people who evaluate whether the information integrates with the other things they know.

Here's the problem I have with that interpretation, though: if that's a good thing, how do I square it with your other comment that: "You wouldn't find it in anyone's movie collection that subscribed to this forum." Since you're here on the forum, I assume you respect your audience. So, this second sentence causes me pause. Do I assume that "people who believe more than they read" is "a bad thing"? If so, what does it mean. Do you see the source of confusion?

... did you read more than the first couple lines, before you replied to the post?

Yes. However, I was more interested in your evaluation of the members of the forum than in your evaluation of the movie. Edited November 2, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Jon P]

Repeating it doesn't help me to understand. Let's see if we can find referrents for this idea "people who believe more than what they read". Is it people who believe what they see on TV (as opposed to written material) or it that not what you meant? Or did you mean people who believe what other tell them, regardless of how silly it sounds? As I said, it isn't clear what you mean by "believe". The word is sometimes used to include rational conclusions and at other times it is used to mean belief using faith as opposed to rational cognition.

Essentially, right-minded people according to my understanding of the expression, are those who are creative, less semantic type of thinkers. The number of left minded people out weight the number of right minded people. Neither is better than the other as far as I know, unless you think I have the ability to judge among these two brain hemispheres regions? On an objectivist forum, I would expect this to be a place even more inclined to outweigh "right minded people." In reality, I meant nothing by the statement, other than to start my post with a thrust of my own train of thought.

I'm not going to explain what I meant by starting a statement with the words "I believe..." If you want to dig out the very nature of using these two words in the beginning of a statement, then you might want to find someone who doesn't mind discussing such an elementary topic. Frankly I don't care to elaborate on it, but I will if you must respond to this, insisting I do.

If "people who believe more than they read" is "a good thing", then it would mean something like this: people who do not take everything they read or hear as being true, but instead evaluate the source and the method by which the source claims to know what they know; people who evaluate whether the information integrates with the other things they know.

That sounds like my type of thinkin'!

Here's the problem I have with that interpretation, though: if that's a good thing, how do I square it with your other comment that: "You wouldn't find it in anyone's movie collection that subscribed to this forum." Since you're here on the forum, I assume you respect your audience. So, this second sentence causes me pause. Do I assume that "people who believe more than they read" is "a bad thing"? If so, what does it mean. Do you see the source of confusion?

Yeah, I really don't know, but i'm getting kicked off the computer, got to cut this post short. Sorry

Hi back, this is actually an interesting way of seeing it. I see where your confusion is coming from, yes. Okay let me make a few things a little more clear. "people who believe more than what they read" was just my little synonymous expression of "those who are creative, less semantic type of thinkers." It's not to be taking literally and interpreted to all ends. And I see where you want clarification on the word "believe" it self.

But it's interesting how you would be wondering if "people who believe more than they read" is "a bad thing"? It can be bad yes, if you are assuming that the things they believe beyond "written text" are dilapidation forms of information, and misguided irrational ideas that really have no base, and haven't been thought through.

But to clarify, the "beliefs" I was referring to would be the insights and interpersonal knowledge you have gained through first hand experience, and this doesn’t require a right-hand brain. Left minded brains would just be more apt to tear the shit of these experiences with their factual knowledge.

Edited November 2, 2005 by Jon P

[softwareNerd]

Thanks for clarifying that you were referring to the right-brain/left-brain idea. There was some discussion of it earlier (link).

[Jon P]

Yes. However, I was more interested in your evaluation of the members of the forum than in your evaluation of the movie.

You're right, reading over my first post, I really didn't like what I wrote myself. I might have come off in a particular way, but I didn't mean to. Sorry, I must have been in a bad mood or something, I really don't even remember writing it that way. I SOUNDED LIKE AN IDIOT. But if you read these posts backwards to forwards, you might not get the wrong impression that was implied. Sorry softwareNerd.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Jon P

[softwareNerd]

... if you read these posts backwards to forwards,....

I'll keep that in mind next time.

[Ranil]

I didn't like this movie at all.

As far as I was concerned, the maker (I think his name is Linklater?) seemed to have a lot of unconnected thoughts in his head and decided one day to make a movie out of those thoughts, with no consideration to plot whatsoever. Considering for me, the plot is the most important part of a movie, this one rated very lowly.

I also hated the sense of hopelessness all throughout the film.