The Screen Savers - Richard Linklater on "Waking Life"

Richard Linklater discusses cheap, affordable animation. Originally aired October 17, 2001 on TechTV.

[@SalsaColombiaUS]

I watched this movie like 100 times literally

[@silviashusband497]

me too.

[@rap8209]

Me too!!!!

[@godbluffvdgg]

That's awesome! How do you feel about it 2 years hence; if you're still plugged in? What do you like best about the film?

[@livewithmeterandnomeasureb1679]

Good send it to me i cant find the fucking thing anywhere and me and my bf have never seen it and want to see it. Doesnt it seem that none of these streaming sites have anything truly thought provoking or the movies that are nutorious for that or giving some sort of human feeling or release are never on these streaming sites for free. They have no old or good or thought provoking movies with the possibility of opening someones mind..it sucks. All my fave movies arent on streaming. Including me wanting to see ,"waking life"."

[@fiyu]

Let's unite! Waking life movie lovers..

[@godbluffvdgg]

Truly Linklater's Magnum Opus...it transcends the paradigm. I watched it on VHS when it came out...it's still profound...

[@TheHarmonicWheel]

My new favorite film! Fucking brilliant!

[@shitchops]

+TheHarmonicWheel Hell yes! I loved waking life, flat black films :D

[@hughiedavies6069]

I was surprised to find out this film is over 20 years old but it could have been made yesterday. Brilliant film that asks lots of philosophical questions.

[@dyingcockroach4268]

Super profundo on the early eves of your days, friends!

[@eldiran2]

It WAS Live-action.....filmed with people and then animated over....and not all 'films' have a 'plot'....some are experiences, meant to elicit feelings or ideas...."Waking Life" has both: great ideas mixed with the sensation it wishes to explore: waking consciousness/reality vs Idealology/expansiveness/getting out of the box....

[@alecr117]

It definitely has a plot

[@sunkintree]

@@alecr117 dont tell that to anyone you want to convince to watch the movie, is my suggestion

[@FacialHat]

I think you're both right. The plot really isn't that well defined, and the plot that there is, is a simplistic one dealing with the character's death and his conscious brain's death as well. The point of the movie wasn't the plot though, it was the discussions about existentialist matters and your life and death (both physical and spiritual)

[@CryptoTonight9393]

I miss tech tv

[@anilgajbhare9674]

oh, here are people like me...

[@godbluffvdgg]

:)...And yet; we're all completely different and totally unique...Profundity much?... :)

[@l3p3]

people like you? you call me stupid??? jk lol

[@anilgajbhare9674]

@@l3p3 lol

[@viapju2913]

you are not alone! ;)

[@ASKpq]

There's no difference between rotoscoping and standard film, in the fact that neither of them are a proper reproduction of a physical reality. They are both just a bunch pixels formed to create pictures; and we just assume that standard film is indeed the reproduction of a physical reality, when in fact it isn't. Film is just a conglomerate of pixels on screen, no different to the composition of a rotoscoped image. This is not Richard Linklater in this clip. It's a formation of pixels made to appear as Richard Linklater. I think that's what the use of rotoscope is trying to imply in the film. We look at it and think, "Oh wow, this isn't real." But it's as "real," and thus as fake, as looking at a regular print of 35mm film once it is projected onto our screens.

[@godbluffvdgg]

Spank you helpy helperton...Uh, spank you very much!

[@carlosgcw]

He sounds a little bit like Owen Wilson

[@BigVicTheBadSeed]

lol it wouldn't have worked live action because there was no fucking plot

[@smoothandbold]

It wouldn't have worked live action because the whole movie was a dream, and dreams have no tangible reality. Which, yes, sometimes includes the absence of a plot. Dreams are weird. So is this movie. It's exactly what makes it so good.