A funny thing happened halfway through the completion of this project. I suddenly realized that I hadn’t done a film from my own native country yet. I suppose that this was the consequence of initially focusing on the countries that actually qualified for the 2018 tournament. All kidding aside the fact that our ‘soccer’ team missed that tournament didn’t really bother me, and I refuse to get excessively overdramatic about it. I’m not the type of person who places much significance on the outcome of a sporting match. At the end of the day who wins and losses these games are trifling affairs. The men from our team did the best that they could and even though things didn’t go quite the way that they had hoped, I have no reason not to wish them peace and happiness in life.
As for the cinematic product of America, this was one of the few countries were my options seemed boundless given how many films are made in this country and the fact that I, essentially ‘live here’, so access was not going to be an issue. The greater trouble for this entry was not finding a film to watch, but rather choosing which one to do. I’m not quite sure why I chose Richard Linklater’s second feature film. Although this is a film that I initially watched in my youth and is one that I always thought highly of. To me it still stands as one of the more unique and intriguing exhibitions of life in America, one that really captured the essence of the country well. Despite the fact that I once used a blank VHS cassette tape to record a TV broadcast of the film, for the purposes of this critique I insisted on seeing a ‘theatrical’ version.
To see such a version you would need to either a.) travel back in time to 1991 or early 1992 to see the film during its initial theatrical run when it was distributed by Orion Classics, or if the whole time-space continuum thing is too difficult to deal with; b.) get access to a VHS copy of the film that Orion Home Video subsequently released in the summer of 1992; c.) get access to a VHS copy that was re-released by MGM in 2000; or d.) get access to a DVD copy that was released by the Criterion Collection in 2003. The Criterion DVD is probably your best option and should not be difficult to find. According to worldcat.org there were copies being held at 6 public libraries within a 20 mile radius of where I live. Within 40 miles there were 25 public libraries holding a copy. A copy can also be rented out from Facets, or streamed on Google Play and Amazon Prime. But of course why pay for an online stream, when YouTube exists? No matter when anyone happens to read this, there’s probably an upload of the film sitting on YouTube that you could watch for free. This may be the best way to watch the film in order to fully embrace the ethos of its characters.
For those who have watched this once already it’s an interesting question to ponder; when does one first become aware of the film’s narrative concept (or perhaps its lack of such)? The sluggish pace at the beginning of the film really concealed the premise well, what with the use of two rather lengthy sequences, one involving a talkative man riding in the back of a taxi cab and another of a far more disturbed young man who awaited capture by the police. Perhaps it’s when one sees an additional scene featuring street musician Keith McCormack, or when it dawns on us that performer Jennifer Schaudies was used solely for the purpose of establishing a scene in a coffee shop, where more interesting characters ultimately grabbed our attention, did it become clear what kind of film this was. This was a completely aimless, meandering journey that offered a brief glimpse into the lives of the residents of Austin, Texas on an early summer day in 1989. While the film utilized a lot of local residents for its numerous roles, many of the scenes were still artificially staged, with people playing fictitious characters. This was not a documentary film. Although unlike other films with a similar narrative concept Slacker came across as a remarkably daring project.
For instance in Agnès Varda’s Vagabond the free-form drifting narrative had a central character acting as an anchor for the exposition. Plus in that film some characters would reappear at later points in the film suggesting a certain interconnectedness to the society that it chronicled. In Slacker however there was no gravitational center to the film. There was no central character. When characters left the film, one never saw them again. The narrative in this film was constructed as a one-directional vector that plunged headlong into the density and complexity of a society that was fractured by communal alienation. There was nothing that connected these people apart from a brief, transient geographic proximity which occurred largely by chance. And it was these random encounters that the film staged in order to gracefully transition into the next episodic segment of the film. This tactic created a continuous, indivisible ebb and flow to the action, which helped establish a natural, almost organic tone to the film. Because of its unique structure the film was more interesting to watch, since one could never quite get comfortable with where it was headed.
If there was any other modest connection or perhaps motif among all the characters in the film it was a fascination with the various elements of mass media generated consumer culture. In the absence of communal relationships, people in this film were obsessed with celebrity artifacts, newsworthy acts of violence, past events of historical importance, commercialism, the transcendent qualities of video imagery, crackpot conspiracy theories and other self indulgent modes of thinking that have been conditioned by their consumerist lifestyles. In some ways the narrative structure perfectly fit this overall theme, since it crafted a near cinematic equivalent to the practice of channel surfing. The camera was curious enough to forge an intimacy with the characters in the film, but rarely developed a level of fascination to stick around for very long. In some interpretations Slacker could offer a very dark, scathing critique of modern, American liberal culture.
Given the narrative structure with the additional notion of curious exploration without fascination, it should be fairly obvious that this was not a film that relied on strong acting performances. Due to the paucity of screen time that each performer got in the film, I question whether or not the acting even had to be good at all. But invariably some performances were better than others, and some rose to the level where they really stood out among the rest of the cast. The first performer who really grabbed my attention was Jerry Deloney, who played a completely lunatic conspiracy theorist. While a lot of what he said was absurdly insane, Deloney performed the character with such great personality and energy that he came across as mildly enchanting. I even liked the small nuances in his performance, like the sudden change to a dramatic tone when he said “Except it’s absolutely true”, for which Deloney delivered with great skill. On the other side of the acting spectrum were Scott Marcus and Stella Wier whose idle conversation on the sidewalk was so limp, lifeless and awkwardly passionless that it threatened to ruin the whole concept of the film. Thankfully Teresa Taylor turned the corner and entered the shot to single-handily rescue the scene from the trappings of its intensely felt minutiae. The manic energy and verve in which Taylor performed her two part monologue, the first being a recounting of a fatal traffic accident and the second a desperate attempt to hawk the pap smear of pop icon Madonna, transformed what could have been the weakest part of the film into one of its most iconic and memorable exchanges. Taylor’s performance also helped to establish the film’s subtle, yet absurdist sense of humor with her peculiar mannerisms and body language while doing an impromptu impersonation of Woody Woodpecker. While Slacker wasn’t a straight up comedy per se, it was certainly amusing enough at times to generate some modest laughter. Granted the only character who seemed specifically created for comedic purposes was that of a hopeless schmuck, played by Frank Orrall, who appeared to be eternally beset by bad luck. On the more dramatic side of the ledger Lori Capp’s performance was also intriguing due to how consistently she portrayed the erratic and bizarre behavior of what appeared to be a mentally deranged middle aged women. Her performance was unnerving and yet hypnotic enough to be memorable.
Despite all of this the two most memorable performances arguable belong to that of Charles Gunning and Louis Mackey. Gunning delivered his dialogue in a brazenly forthright and candid manner that really hit its dramatic and fervent zenith during the political interview that he gave. I think the unfiltered and unapologetic manner in which Gunning spoke freely really struck a discordant tone when compared to the rest of the cast, which made him one of the more engaging performers in the film. Mackey on the other hand was far more feeble and good mannered, but yet just as passionate about what he believed in. Granted the steady rhythmic cadence of his speech and the near robotic, mechanical texture of his voice did obscure the wonderful personality that he injected into the character. One saw glimpses of this charm in how he greeted the gun-toting home invader, or in how he discussed his future plans for the Texas state legislature. The best part of the performance though was how confident and authoritative he was in delivering his dialogue and he had some really good material to work with.
Slacker may represent a rare film where the written material was considerably more noteworthy than the people who performed it. The dialogue’s intellectual depth was quite striking and full of thought-provoking ideas that were integrated into the film in a way that didn’t feel forced or inauthentic. Granted how one was introduced to such content was another curious element to the film. The narrative structure often created jarring transitions where one encountered people in the midst of their speech. This occurred when meeting the Dostoyevsky wannabe in the cafe, the amateur political pundit, or the mentally disturbed women in the restaurant. There were also strange transitions like the commentary by the anti-traveler which gave way to the stories told by the psychic. Of course a good portion of the work that we encounter wasn’t really dialogue at all. It’s not impossible to see this film as a series of disconnected monologues being performed in the presence of others who either didn’t seem too interesting in hearing the speech or who didn’t quite know how to respond to it. Slacker was a film that chronicled rugged individualism by making a spectacle of indulgent self-expression. And yet it also showed ever so subtly the intellectual social fragmentation that occurs when people relegate themselves into a world of their own personal self-interests. For instance it was not wrong for John Slate’s character to be fascinated with the JFK assassination, and Slate does nothing to suggest that this was an unhealthy obsession. But yet his character still failed to connect with those who showed no real interest in this particular niche subject matter. The notion of shared interests here occurred on a much more base and trivial level. In one of the more legitimate dialogues that the film offered, we see two disheveled, unkempt college students discuss the philosophic underpinnings of Saturday morning cartoons among a cluster of empty beer bottles.
This scene was also noted for some awkward camera movements where the filmmakers couldn’t seem to figure out how to properly stage the action. The framing was not particularly good in this film and I think it suffered from a clear desire to utilize long, moving takes in order to support the stream of consciousness approach in the exposition. This desire was apparent early on during a long, gradual pull back shot before the hit-and-run son made his reappearance into the film. One of the more unusual aspects of the cinematography was its lack of focus on the speaker of the written material. At times there was some subtle coy humor in this approach, especially when we hear commentary about a large non-voting majority while watching two college students play a strange, childish, nondescript game with a comb. Apart from this though, the cinematography was not particularly compelling. It’s singular moment of flair was seen during the ‘pixelvision’ segment near the end of the film. In this sequence the poor image quality managed to disembody the verbal commentary from any distinct human form. Thus the ruminations on freemasons was cast as a notion floating freely in the ether.
Overall this was a fascinating and incredibly unique film that relied on its narrative structure, intellectual depth, and modest humor to create an enjoyable cinematic experience, one that doesn’t lose much of its charm on repeated viewings. Decades later the film may also serve as an intriguing time capsule film that preserved the essence of American life before the onset of the Internet age. In a contemporary age where computerized platforms have lifted self-expression to excessively exalted heights I don’t know if a film like Slacker could be made today.