Imagine a man who shows up for a job interview wearing a torn T-shirt, sneakers, and sunglasses. The manager interviewing him can't believe that someone would have the audacity to show up like this but he can't help being impressed by this guy's intelligence, charm, sensitivity, and work-ethic...skills which every employer desires in a potential employee. Well, "Waking Life" is like that smart but sloppy man showing up for the job interview, and the employer is us, the audience.
I've read the other User Comments and the common complaint among those who hate this movie is the fact that it meanders, is filled with seemingly endless, tedious philosophical ramblings, and has no characters we can connect with in a deep, emotional way. And to those people I have to say this: You're absolutely right. This movie is all of those things. It also happens to be one of the most exciting, inspiring, eye-opening and haunting experiences I've had at the movies in a long time.
For me, the movie ultimately succeeds in spite of its long, non-cinematic, abstract discussions because it's a movie about a DREAM. And aren't dreams the ultimate abstraction? How can you make a movie about something as abstract as dreams without also being abstract to some degree? This is a legitimate case of the Form matching the Content. And I truly feel that this movie accurately--very accurately-- illustrates the landscape of dreams. Some people have felt that the rotoscoping animation grates after a while but I feel that it's probably the movie's greatest asset: the live-action painted over by computer animation results in images that look both real and unreal, that look more to be based on something that's real than being real itself--and that's exactly how images look and feel in dreams (at least in my dreams).
That said, I won't go so far as saying this movie is a cinematic masterpiece, as some people have asserted. Long, static, philosophical discussions and a bunch of Talking Heads don't really belong in a movie, which needs developed characters and a consistent conflict that runs like a thread throughout the story. On that level, the movie falls short.
At its best, though, the movie works on two levels: On one level, it's the story about a guy who's trying to "wake up" from a metaphorical sleep of ignorance and unawareness. On a second level, which is more speculative and ambiguous than the first, it's the story about a guy who has just died and is experiencing nearly 120 minutes of post-mortal consciousness.
Some might disagree with the second story possibility, but I personally believe that it's the movie's Real story. There are some hints scattered throughout the film which seem to indicate that Wiley Wiggins' character is dead (spoilers ahead): 1. early in the movie, right before Wiggins gets hit by the car, he gets a ride in a boat-car which has a skull-and-crossbones banner hanging from it; 2. there are three scenes where Wiggins rides on a train, which implies that some kind of transitional Transportation is taking place--he's moving from one realm (life) to another (death); 3. the film starts in the daytime and gradually builds to nighttime where it ends--in literature (which this movie alludes to several times), night has always represented Death; 4. in the scene where Wiggins tells the red-headed woman that he believes he's dreaming, he ends by saying "But this dream is different--it's almost as if I'm being prepared for something": RIGHT AFTER he says that, we see him briefly on the train again, and right after that, we see him on a bridge which, like the train, represents transition, a change from one state to another; 5. in the Night scenes at the end, random people pass by Wiggins, making cryptic comments about death (i.e.- "Kiergegaard's last words were 'sweep me up'."): it's as if these people are trying to tell the Wiggins that he's dead.
Seen from this latter perspective, the movie plays almost like a tragedy: a man, about to die, looks back on his life (just like the old woman whom Julie Delpy mentions early in the movie) and realizes that he has been none other than an observer, a watcher, a listener rather than a Doer. And by the time he realizes this, it's too late--he's pulled into the sky/Eternity/Death.
I've read the other User Comments and the common complaint among those who hate this movie is the fact that it meanders, is filled with seemingly endless, tedious philosophical ramblings, and has no characters we can connect with in a deep, emotional way. And to those people I have to say this: You're absolutely right. This movie is all of those things. It also happens to be one of the most exciting, inspiring, eye-opening and haunting experiences I've had at the movies in a long time.
For me, the movie ultimately succeeds in spite of its long, non-cinematic, abstract discussions because it's a movie about a DREAM. And aren't dreams the ultimate abstraction? How can you make a movie about something as abstract as dreams without also being abstract to some degree? This is a legitimate case of the Form matching the Content. And I truly feel that this movie accurately--very accurately-- illustrates the landscape of dreams. Some people have felt that the rotoscoping animation grates after a while but I feel that it's probably the movie's greatest asset: the live-action painted over by computer animation results in images that look both real and unreal, that look more to be based on something that's real than being real itself--and that's exactly how images look and feel in dreams (at least in my dreams).
That said, I won't go so far as saying this movie is a cinematic masterpiece, as some people have asserted. Long, static, philosophical discussions and a bunch of Talking Heads don't really belong in a movie, which needs developed characters and a consistent conflict that runs like a thread throughout the story. On that level, the movie falls short.
At its best, though, the movie works on two levels: On one level, it's the story about a guy who's trying to "wake up" from a metaphorical sleep of ignorance and unawareness. On a second level, which is more speculative and ambiguous than the first, it's the story about a guy who has just died and is experiencing nearly 120 minutes of post-mortal consciousness.
Some might disagree with the second story possibility, but I personally believe that it's the movie's Real story. There are some hints scattered throughout the film which seem to indicate that Wiley Wiggins' character is dead (spoilers ahead): 1. early in the movie, right before Wiggins gets hit by the car, he gets a ride in a boat-car which has a skull-and-crossbones banner hanging from it; 2. there are three scenes where Wiggins rides on a train, which implies that some kind of transitional Transportation is taking place--he's moving from one realm (life) to another (death); 3. the film starts in the daytime and gradually builds to nighttime where it ends--in literature (which this movie alludes to several times), night has always represented Death; 4. in the scene where Wiggins tells the red-headed woman that he believes he's dreaming, he ends by saying "But this dream is different--it's almost as if I'm being prepared for something": RIGHT AFTER he says that, we see him briefly on the train again, and right after that, we see him on a bridge which, like the train, represents transition, a change from one state to another; 5. in the Night scenes at the end, random people pass by Wiggins, making cryptic comments about death (i.e.- "Kiergegaard's last words were 'sweep me up'."): it's as if these people are trying to tell the Wiggins that he's dead.
Seen from this latter perspective, the movie plays almost like a tragedy: a man, about to die, looks back on his life (just like the old woman whom Julie Delpy mentions early in the movie) and realizes that he has been none other than an observer, a watcher, a listener rather than a Doer. And by the time he realizes this, it's too late--he's pulled into the sky/Eternity/Death.