What is a slacker? The question is beginning to sound as inane as the answers that have sprung out of the media. It cannot be true that a slacker is in transition between college and the real world, since this demands an acceptance of the concept "real world." Linklater's film seems to suggest that a slacker is in a transition, not between school and employment, but between the dominant conception of reality and his or her own construction of reality. Linklater has superbly crafted this film to fit the style of the community and characters he tries to portray. The camera never remains focused on one character or event, choosing instead to wander among the nearly 100 characters involved. We see a small slice of the character's life, never to return to him or her again. This can be frustrating to some audiences, but "Slacker" never falls prey to being gimmicky for the sake of the gimmick. The camera's choice is apparently random, but not without significance. In the opening scene, Linklater's character delivers a monologue about a book that he "must have written" while dreaming on a bus. He asserts that in any situation where we make a choice, each possible path we could have taken becomes a reality. Besides the implication that he could have, should have or did stay at the bus station (where, as he says, he probably would have met a girl), Linklater also indicates that the medium of film is the perpetuator of a dominant ideology. "We're kind of trapped in this one reality, restriction type of thing," he says, a clue that the film will concentrate on the importance of reality and film to the future of our generation. From Linklater, the camera begins its journey around Austin. We overhear interesting conversations on a wide range of topics, from the Smurfs to George Bush, light-blue collar families and, of course, JFK assassination theories. The discussions are not only amusing, but often poignant, and show a group of people expressing themselves within a reality all their own. Somewhere in the middle of the film, all of the inaction becomes a bit depressing. We have seen a young man run over his mother, then passively submit to the police; we have seen a guy who can't even go outside and relax because it involves preparation; and in the funniest and saddest scene, we have seen a woman who has a sure-fire way of making money: selling Madonna's pap smear (although someone stoled [sic] one of the pubic hairs). One may want to scream, "What is the point here?" This sentiment is shared by the older generation in the film. Wandering by a woman caught for shoplifting, an old man quips to his daughter, "I'm always glad to see any young person doing something." However, this man is not a member of the dominant, work-hard, capitalist society. He is, instead, an anarchist, with his own subcultural philosophy. Of the man who killed President William McKinley, he says the 100 more like him could have changed the world. This older idealist wishes that young people would act to change the society that they refuse to join, much like he did in fighting the Spanish Civil War. Unfortunately, as his daughter points out, the old man was in Spain in 1955, a bit too late to have been involved in the struggle. Does this mean Linklater is attacking the "left" as crazy ideologues? This seems implausible considering his general reverence toward these people. The fact that the old man didn't fight is one particular reality, but not the reality that he accepts. The Civil War is the embodiment of his beliefs, and he feels he was there, trying to make a difference. Linklater sympathizes with him, as well as the other characters. They have not yet found a framework for destructive, subversive or any other type of action. So the characters have not found "framework." If Linklater suggests no possibility of a means of expression, then the concept of a framework is merely an excuse for inaction. But Linklater portrays video and film as such a framework, a hope for the future. In one instance, a guy with a television strapped to his back talks about the "psychic power" of the televised image. He does not believe in video as an automatic cure-all, but sees its possibilities: "We need it to work for us, not us for it." Indeed, the last group we see experiments with the image in an attempt to make it work for them. Somewhere in the editing of their camerawork lies Linklater's hopes. No review of "Slacker" can do more than scratch the surface. It is a work of depth, one of the most forward-looking, subversive, hopeful films ever produced. Well-acted, well-photographed and carefully crafted, "Slacker" proves that $23,000 and dedication can still result in important cinema. by adam joyce brooklyn, ny 2001-12-24 Excerpt from www.spleen.org