Slacker

Image courtesy wikipedia

Does a movie always have to be about 'something', 'someone', or about having a message? Do we always have to categorise movie's, music, books into  'genres'? What if we want a vignette of a time and place, by meeting myriad locals, getting a glimpse, and moving on without having to be judgemental about anyone? This is exactly what Richard Linklater does in 'Slacker', his 1991 movie which he wrote, directed and produced. His other movie's are 'Dazed and Confused' and 'School of Rock'.

Slacker defies conventional film making. There is no one 'storyline'. The glimpses of life of one or two people are presented as realistically as possible. Someone else comes into the frame, and we follow the routine. This continues till the end of the movie. The camera might well be me and you walking around randomly in town, with no particular destination in mind. The people are as real as they get. We meet the youth, mostly unemployed and with a lot of free time to spare - slackers.

There is a lot of food for thought. Linklater makes a cameo appearance when the movie begins, and tells us about how each and every choice which we did not make spawns its own reality, and speaks really profoundly and at length about this! Then we move on, presented with the quirks of a host of others. It is basically a slice of life from a town in Texas. There are conspiracy theories abound, there is lounging (a lot of it!), there are anarchists, assassination theories, there is the bizzare talk. Most of the talk is anti establishment, from the fringes of society, from people who may be neglected by authority and from people who have their own take on things. Some of the ideas make us think, as they might not be 'the norm' or 'acceptable'.

Linklater is a director from another mould. This is his third movie which I have watched and I am thoroughly thrilled at all the three!

*I do not own any of these images. All pictures courtesy their respective owners*