"Your either with choate or your with the Terrorists"

[mattd]

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