A Scanner Darkly

[Trader47]

Richard Linklater is back with a second foray into animation done with a process called rotoscoping (or scaping, maybe?)...not sure which, but either way, it's a fantastic process in which the film is actually shot in live action, and then it's all traced over to produce the animated effect, and allow for fantastical transformations and sequences that couldn't be done in a standard live action film. Ralph Bakshi actually did something similar with a few films back in the seventies, including his animated version of the first half of Lord Of The Rings. Unfortunately, although it was a noble and daring effort, there were a lot more problems with that film than the way it looked, and it ended up apparently being too poorly received to warrant ever making the second half as Bakshi had planned to do.

Linklater's first use of the process, (which seems, on a visual level alone, to be much improved these days), resulted in Waking Life, an almost indescibable trip through philosophies and histories both arcane and mundane...phantasmagoric, eerily disorienting, and completely fascinating from start to finish, it would make it's way easily onto my list of the best films of the decade. So I guess it'd be pretty obvious that I'd be looking forward to the release of a new one.

For his return to the process with A Scanner Darkly though, Linklater chose, instead of creating his own story, to adapt one of the best known novels by the late visionary sci-fi writer Phillip K. Dick to the screen... and if the result feels a little less spectacularly mindboggling than the first film, it's I think mainly due to a different set of ambitions. While strange enough in it's own right, the film is an amazingly faithful adaptation of Dick's novel, and as such, tells it's story in a more straightforward and slightly more conventional way.
However, this is not to say that the film is actually straightforward and/or conventional, LOL...only a little, in comparison to the first one.

Dick's novel, while set seven years in the future and using a few trappings of traditional sci-fi, is essentially a chronicle of his own struggles with drug addiction...the personal toll it exacted on him, as well as the insanity of the endless governmental wars on drugs. It's not a new story, and most of the insights it contains are not exactly new either...but here, in both novel and film, it IS at least told in a somewhat new and original way. And while this sort of story can often become a grim sermon, existing only to deliver whatever message it deems important, fortunately neither this film (nor the novel it's based on) ever make that mistake...it keeps it's focus on the story it's telling, eschewing any preachiness and managing as a result to keep things interesting.

The cast includes Keanu Reeves, giving what I think is one of his best performances, as a narc under deep cover, who's sense of identity and reality become increasingly murky as the drugs he uses, initially as a part of his cover, and the 'scramble suit' he wears cause things to begin spiraling out of control. He's joined by Winona Ryder, Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson...all looking, due to the type of animation used here, very much like they actually appear in life... and all brilliant in their roles, with Downey and Harrelson particular stand outs for me, bringing their characters to life with a kind of manic and muddled intelligence that is picture perfect.

And as for the story itself, it does pretty much what you'd want a story like this to do, engagingly twisting it's way through labyrinths of deception and delusion to a conclusion that actually manages to startle...but, as I mentioned, although the trappings feel original enough and capable of producing some real surprises, the story ultimately remains one that most of us have probably heard before, in one way or another...like Zeppelin once said, the song remains the same.

However, Dick's vision did contain a clarity that is somewhat rare, refusing to either romanticize or trivialize the tragic toll that mind altering drugs so often exact, while at the same time refusing to either condone or trivialize the tragic impact of mutton headed governments and the never ending din of the terminally righteous, perfectly united bedfellows in their determination to declare war upon their own citizenry, eternally raining down as much fire and brimstone as they can muster on the heads of those who will not cooperate and destroying countless lives in the process while, in true zealot style, managing to keep their collective conscience free of any guilt concerning the cost of their actions, firmly convinced, as always, that they are serving a 'greater good.'

And so this film, which serves that vision so well, has no real heroes or easy villains...just fascinating and authentic feeling characters lost in their own labyrinths, all brought to life with a bleak and unblinking honesty. Not to mention a visual style that is as unique and stunning as any you're likely to see. It's obviously not everyone's cup of tea, (but why do I say that about things...I mean is ANYTHING everyone's cup of tea?) LOL, I don't know, I guess a few things feel a little like they probably are when it comes down to it, but whatever the case, if this sounds like it might be yours, I'd highly recommend going to the bit of trouble it might take to seek it out. IMO, it's definitely one of the years best.

[Lisalou]

Hey Trader is this done similar to Final Fantasy? I know this process was done (for some of the parts) in the film Immortals. (which imo is the worst film I have ever seen, watched 15 minutes of it and walked out of the theater.) Is that the style that your talking about??

[Trader47]

Hey Lisa. No, actually the process used for Final Fantasy was completely different...everything, including the people in that film, was generated by CGI effects. I remember hearing some critics and industry people saying that the effects were so realistic that it was going to change the way films were made...it was going to eliminate the need for any real life actors at all, LOL. In fact, at least to my eyes, while the effects were definitely stunning, the people didn't look quite as real as a number of folks were claiming...I thought they looked like animated poser figures, actually LOL. But that's not a dis on the film...I could dis on it a bit for not remembering to tell an interesting story, but it did look incredible.
But like I said, the style used on ASD is completely different...it's actually not as photo-realistic as FF...the animation more closely resembles the older cartoony traditions...it definitely looks drawn, but drawn with incredible detail. And I think it's the first time a film done this way has had four such well known actors starring in it...it really is a trip to see these animated versions of them which are so completely recognizable, LOL. Anyway, I think it's great that so many new styles are being developed for this field, and so many of them are working real well on all the story levels too...a trend that'll hopefully continue.

I'll have to confess you've stumped me with that movie Immortals...not only have I not seen it, but haven't even heard of it that I can remember. I NEVER walk out of movies though...just too cheap, LOL...I figure if I paid for it, I'll stay till the bitter end no matter what. (Actually, I do remember leaving one once...I was by myself at a theater somewhere in L.A. and the movie was such a snoozer I couldn't stay in my seat any longer...I can't even remember what the movie was though, LOL.) And I will have to admit that I'd have walked out on Ron Howard's version of The Grinch if I'd been by myself at that one...but as it was, I stayed until the bitter end, and figure now that if I can sit through that, I can sit through anything. :rolleyes: :D

[Lisalou]

Immortals came out in 2004 maybe :o
The trailer makes this film look so futuristic and great. But after 10 minutes it becomes obvious that this film had a cheap budget and bad actors. At times they replaced real actors with CGI and it's so obvious. although I guess they thought that the audience would not notice the real person speaking to the CGI guy. (who by he way is just like final fantasy) Strange way to compile a film and really it was poorly done. But maybe you will think differently if you saw it.

[Trader47]

But maybe you will think differently if you saw it.

Well, maybe, LOL..but I think the way you've described it is good enough to make it a pretty sure bet I won't go to any effort to track it down. It doesn't sound like a very good idea, LOL. It IS mysterious though that I've never even heard of it...don't come across those too often, especially in these sorts of genres. :confused:

[Lisalou]

(BTW if you saw Chronicles of Riddick in the theater, this was the preview that was plugged the hardest) Does that make sense?? :confused:

This movie was written after the french comic books "La Foire aux immortels" and "La Femme piège" The movie takes place in New York in 2095. In a strange pyramid floating in the sky, the gods of ancient Egypt are judging Horus. In the city, a young women with blue hair and tears is arrested, but she has a secret power, and she doesn't know it.

I read one comment from a critic which went something like this. "This movie is so mind numbing that your children will even fall asleep in the theater if you bring them along. The only people who would like this film are idiots and mindless drifters." So of course with a review like that I had to see it. Yeah for once the critic was right. Soooooo...... But sometimes you and I agree and disagree. Maybe you would love it. Who knows.. I for one LOVED the Village. I did not think it was predictable or fell short in any way. But yourself and others thought that. So maybe you would like Immortals. But probably not!! :D

[_DTB_]

Rotoscoping is done on almost all films with special (with and without visual) effects. With rotoscoping you can change colours of objects, remove objects (like harnesses, bungie chords etc...) or just change the mood of a scene for example, make the scene appear like it's night time when it's actually day. It's a lot like photo retouching but with movies. It's one of them jobs you have to be very patient with it as sometimes requests such as selecting individual leaves from a tree can be asked of you by the filming director. Directors would be lost without rotoscopers, cause a lot of the time, when the director is running out of time and needs things done quick, he/she'll film a bunch of scenes, then get the rotoscopers to clean them up instead of cleaning the scenery and setting the lighting up properly before hand.

Some really cool stuff can be done with rotoscoping for sure. A Scanner Darkly is visual proof of that, as in general, changes made by rotoscoping to films are un-noticable, which in a rotoscopers eyes is a good thing, cause if you can see something was changed, they havn't done their jobs properly.

Hope that info helped you out a little.

[Trader47]

"This movie is so mind numbing that your children will even fall asleep in the theater if you bring them along. The only people who would like this film are idiots and mindless drifters." So of course with a review like that I had to see it.

ROFL...yeah, a comments like that from critics do tend to push films to the top of my must see list...that sounds like something Rex Reed would say, LOL. I passed on Chronicles Of Riddick though, and guess I must have missed the previews for this one somehow...maybe it's one of those that didn't get much of a release in the States. Thanks for the additional info, anyway.


Who knows.. I for one LOVED the Village. I did not think it was predictable or fell short in any way. But yourself and others thought that.


Yikes, LOL...I HAVE to try and clear this one up...I also LOVED The Village, and...hm, saying it fell short in some way, I don't know...I have a hard time describing it that way because I liked it so much. It IS a flawed film, because it cheats in its set-up and that set-up is what the whole illusion it creates is based on. And when I talk about that, I state it more dogmatically than statements I usually make about films, because that cheating isn't something that's a matter of opinion...it's simply there in the film. But while I make note of it, and can understand other folks displeasure with it, I can't say that it seriously weakened the film for me. If I hadn't liked it so much, overall, I could certainly use it as a bashing point, LOL..but NO, LOL...I loved the movie, and actually ended up considering the cheating a minor quibble as a result. I do have friends that accuse me of having a blind spot when it comes to Shyamalan...my response to that is usually something like, "well, maybe so...but I think my vision is quite clear...it's the rest of humanity that has the blind spot." LMAO. Anyway, my viewpoint about that film might be confusing..but I hope that cleared it at least a little. It was actually one of my favorite films of the year in which it was released.


Hope that info helped you out a little.


Yeah, I'm definitely no expert on visual effects terminology, and probably used this term incorrectly. I think there is an actual name for the type of animation used for Scanner, but rotoscoping may not be it. Or maybe they just make so much use of it with this particular animation process that they simply adopted the name of the technology to label it? I'm not sure, but whatever the case, the animation process used on this film (and Waking Life) certainly produces completely unique and (I think) incredible looking films. Thanks for the additonal info.

[Lisalou]

Trader buddy I am lost.... :confused: Can you tell me in what way you thought that The Village cheated? It's the word cheated that has me confused. I really could not have guessed the ending and so for me it kept me on my toes and therefore to me it was a great movie. But when you and Dan talked about cheating I got lost in the conversation because I am not sure what you mean by cheating or what part of the film cheated. At this point I'm LOST IN TRANSLATION :confused: (lol)

[Trader47]

LOL...No prob, Lisa... an explanation follows...needless to say, for anyone who hasn't seen The Village, if you ever plan to, please read no further, LOL...MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD.



Ok, the thing is, as the film starts, Shyamalan obviously wants us to believe that we are looking at a 19th century village hidden away in a remote forest somewhere. This is of course later revealed to be false...but in the opening scene, we see one of the characters burying his son, and the date on the headstone is eighteen hundred something or other. Now my question would be, if these folks had decided to create their little garden of eden as they do in the film, would they take the pretense so far as to actually CHANGE the current date? And if so, why? Are they planning on pretending that time doesn't pass and making it 1800 forever?

Actually, the whole conceit is a little funky. These are educated, learned people who've decided essentially to create a world that contains only innocence...fascinating concept to be sure, but why would they use the nineteenth century as a model, and go through the huge rigamarole of even adopting the style of dress and speech mannerisms...all of them must surely be aware that any ideas concerning the 'innocence' of this period of history are purely romantic notions...no such innocence actually existed in this era, any more than in our own, and even much of the literature that came out of the era is ample proof of that...so why go to the trouble of making it their romantic ideal, when their goals should have been able to be pulled off just as easily without such elaborate pretenses? (Of course, as it turns out, looks like good ol' original sin is going to eventually raise it's head no matter what anyway, eh? LOL, but that's beside my current point.)

But anyway, ok, that point CAN be rationalized somewhat, and I would have thought it great if we had actually managed to be fooled into thinking we were looking at the nineteenth century without being spoonfed any direct references to it. But showing us that date on the headstone just goes too far I think. There's just no reason to think their pretense would include pretending the DATE, which is going to obviously continue to progress no matter what, is 100 or so years earlier than it actually is....and if this were a real life situation, it's highly unlikely that they would do so. Which makes it simply a movie contrivance, there for no reason other than to directly fool the audience, and using that sort of contrivance to sell your twist is something I consider cheating. No big deal? Maybe not, LOL... like I said, I loved the film overall, too...but Shyamalan had always been so incredibly tight in his storytelling before this...his films had always earned their twists by showing us what was there without any silly contrivances or movie trickery...to whatever extent they fooled us, they did so with honest fair play...so for me, suddenly resorting to this sort of trick to tell this story was a little disappointing, and something I hoped, (and still do hope) he doesn't decide to start making a habit of. Still, as long as he keeps making films that are so compelling, unique, and great to look at all at once, I'm sure I'll keep on being completely willing to forgive him nearly anything...it would definitely take problems a lot worse than these to change my mind, anyway. :D

[Lisalou]

Ok I see what you mean. But I also get where Shyamalan was going with this. The whole idea is this....
If you lived in the year 1812 (let's say) and as a society you never progressed. i.e no t.v. radio, guns, drugs etc then with that theory in mind you could easly progress to the year 2005 and still not have radio, t.v, drugs, guns etc. If we never had the Wright Bros or other such people, we would not now have airplanes. If british aristocrates had never flown to india and partook of Opium, and then brought it back with them to england, and then brought it to America, would we now not have drugs? (I'm not blaming the brits for americas drug problem..... just so we're clear here)
If we had never invented the t.v. then we would not now have shows about murder, meyheim, etc. We would not even have motion pictures. If old man Winchester had never figured out how to upgrade his rifles then we would not now have machine guns. Each one of the characters had violence in their lives which altered their lives forever. Each violent thing falls under one of the problems plaguing america today. Shyamalan was trying to say that if you had a loved one that was killed by a gun, would you wish the world was free from guns? If you had a love one killed in a assault type manner and the person then said they say it on t.v. and thought they would try it, would you then loath your t.v. when you got home that night after you identified the body at the morgue? And if you had so much money that you could stop time and stop things from progressing among yourselves would you? If your heart was so broken would you change time if someone offered it? I think that is the point, and I know that you know that, in both cases anyway I understand your point, and Shyamalan's. Trust me soemtimes I wish we lived in 1750's. Women were women and men were men. women wore dresses and acted like ladies concerned for their virtue, and men valued things like family and honor. But alas this is 2006 and it's just not that way with people anymore. Well not with everyone.... their are still people out there with a sense of proprietary. ;)

[Trader47]

If you lived in the year 1812 (let's say) and as a society you never progressed. i.e no t.v. radio, guns, drugs etc then with that theory in mind you could easly progress to the year 2005 and still not have radio, t.v, drugs, guns etc. If we never had the Wright Bros or other such people, we would not now have airplanes. If british aristocrates had never flown to india and partook of Opium, and then brought it back with them to england, and then brought it to America, would we now not have drugs? (I'm not blaming the brits for americas drug problem..... just so we're clear here)


Exactly so...but see, this really IS my point about the cheating. Shyamalan's villagers have created a world where what you speak of is the reality...they ARE in fact living in 2006, but have raised a generation of kids who know nothing of these types of modern advances...it is a completely insulated community, with steps taken by it's creators that are intended to assure that it stays that way. So there's no reason for them to pretend the year is 1812, (or whatever, lol.) The sense of purity/innocence they're attempting to propogate with their experiment is something they believe can be timeless, so long as they keep it free of what they consider to be corrupting influences...it's clear, however, that their intention is to have the experiment continue into future generations, and equally clear that they can't stop the passage of time, and are not attempting to pretend that it doesn't pass..so lying about the actual DATE seems superfluous at best...and really, seems like something done not for the inhabitants of the village, but rather for a modern audience viewing them that need to be fooled for awhile into thinking they really are living in that time period.

Shyamalan was trying to say that if you had a loved one that was killed by a gun, would you wish the world was free from guns? If you had a love one killed in a assault type manner and the person then said they say it on t.v. and thought they would try it, would you then loath your t.v. when you got home that night after you identified the body at the morgue? And if you had so much money that you could stop time and stop things from progressing among yourselves would you? If your heart was so broken would you change time if someone offered it? I think that is the point, and I know that you know that

Hmm...so onto more important matters...the actual meat of this film. This is a point, certainly...but do you think it's the WHOLE point, Lisa? I actually think it cuts a little deeper. Don't forget, something happens...somehow, the serpent manages to sneak into the garden anyway, in spite of all the manufactured safeguards...deliberate violence suddenly erupts of it's own accord, in spite of the best laid plans, lol. And when it does, how does the council of elders react...with the exception of William Hurt, they're adamant in considering the protection of the illusion they've created paramount...it's only Hurt who seems to fully realize the nature of the beast...he has to forcefully explain to the others that if they simply sit and allow one of their own to die as a result of viiolence from within, then everything they've attempted to do becomes a lie...and even after being reminded of something they should understand without having to be told, they remain extremely reluctant to gamble the illusion away to save a life...some points to ponder.


Trust me soemtimes I wish we lived in 1750's. Women were women and men were men. women wore dresses and acted like ladies concerned for their virtue, and men valued things like family and honor. But alas this is 2006 and it's just not that way with people anymore.


Well, I think most of us feel that way at times, in some way or another. For me, the trappings are a little different, but as an example of my own feelings, yet another one of my favorite films from last year that I don't think I ever said much about here was Terrence Mallick's The New World. I really loved this film, not particularly for the story it told, which varied little from the standard mix of myth and fact we've all become used to with this stoy, but rather for the incredibly effective evocation of a time, still not that far removed, when the world was still vast, with so many truly new places and experiences still left to explore...vastness and mysteries, concepts all but lost now I think...and that's what this old fool longs for in the dead of many a night.

Societies and all Man's doings, though? I don't know...I doubt they've really changed all that much...only the surfaces. You know, back in the dark ages when I was in school for awhile, I had a history professor who became a good friend later in life. When I first met him, he was teaching the freshman level general survey class I'd taken, but his main field was ancient Greece, and I've never forgotten a day when he began to talk about Athens...he said something like "You know, every time I start to teach these segments on Athens, a tear comes to my eye. The people were so noble, and their accomplishments so great...our present day society seems so puny and base by comparison." Then he paused and said "Of course, I never had to LIVE among the ancient Athenians."

LOL, he was, of course, right about that...and in fact, had you been born in an earlier time, the chances are good that the trappings of whatever society you found yourself in might not seem quite as attractive when viewed at ground zero rather than through a glass darkly. Pick an era, any era...you MIGHT have had your throat cut by Jack the Ripper, been condemned as a witch and tortured to death by the moral majority, rotted in the dungeons of the Catholic Inquisition, been enslaved by Caesar or Alexander or a countless and endless host of others. Today, you might be massacred by an uzi weilding lunatic who got a specific idea from his tv set, have Osama Bin Laden run a plane into you, or George Bush drop a bomb on you...LOL, it's all the same...because this is who we are, and it's who we've always been. Fortunately, throughout all of those thens into all of our nows, it's never been ALL that we are...we're also capable of discerning and creating great beauty, exhibiting traits such as loyalty, courage, possibly even to some degree nearly selfless love...now as then, it's the same dance...only the style of clothing has changed. :)

[Lisalou]

Shyamalan's villagers have created a world where what you speak of is the reality...they ARE in fact living in 2006, but have raised a generation of kids who know nothing of these types of modern advances...it is a completely insulated community, with steps taken by it's creators that are intended to assure that it stays that way. So there's no reason for them to pretend the year is 1812, (or whatever, lol.) The sense of purity/innocence they're attempting to propogate with their experiment is something they believe can be timeless, so long as they keep it free of what they consider to be corrupting influences...it's clear, however, that their intention is to have the experiment continue into future generations, and equally clear that they can't stop the passage of time, and are not attempting to pretend that it doesn't pass..so lying about the actual DATE seems superfluous at best...and really, seems like something done not for the inhabitants of the village, but rather for a modern audience viewing them that need to be fooled for awhile into thinking they really are living in that time period.
Don't forget, something happens...somehow, the serpent manages to sneak into the garden anyway, in spite of all the manufactured safeguards...deliberate violence suddenly erupts of it's own accord, in spite of the best laid plans, lol. And when it does, how does the council of elders react...with the exception of William Hurt, they're adamant in considering the protection of the illusion they've created paramount...it's only Hurt who seems to fully realize the nature of the beast...he has to forcefully explain to the others that if they simply sit and allow one of their own to die as a result of viiolence from within, then everything they've attempted to do becomes a lie...and even after being reminded of something they should understand without having to be told, they remain extremely reluctant to gamble the illusion away to save a life.


Some great points here to ponder...I agree....
Your right about the serpent thing though. If someone believed the story of Adam and Eve then they also know that the old snake will appear whenever and where ever. In the beginning of the movie Hurt is praying for the dinner and he says "We are thankful for the time we have been given here, in this place." Later in the movie he prays and says it again. That line confused me a little. But I thought everyone in the vllage would be killed..LOL Oh was I way off.
And I think no matter what time period we live in there is always going to be problems. There as been evil since the beginning of time and there always will be.

Your right about "The council of elders." I was shocked that they were willing to gamble a persons life to save face. I was so shocked theat they even complained when the person sent beyond the borders was a BLIND GIRL!! What is a blind girl going to do; stare people to death? LOL I was disappointed that the blind girl killed at the end of the movie. She was so willing to keep the secret with her father that she killed the one person who was willing to help her. So they actually bread more evil into the village then what was there all ready there. Committing the vary act of violence they were trying so hard to escape.

OK all this I get.....

Still.....

I think it's an interesting concept. Shut yourself away from the world for 18 years. Do it so well no one knows your there. Never teach your children evil... What would a world such as that be like? I know that there is no such thing as paradise. Hollywood stars think they can find it. Take Johnny Depp for instance, he wants a peace of paradise so bad he bought an isle all for himself. Even if the paparazzi never know which isle he owns, the minute his feet touch main land they will be there to take his picture. In the end I guess it can be said that the things we try so hard to escape are the things that always find us.....

[Trader47]

I know that there is no such thing as paradise. Hollywood stars think they can find it. Take Johnny Depp for instance, he wants a peace of paradise so bad he bought an isle all for himself. Even if the paparazzi never know which isle he owns, the minute his feet touch main land they will be there to take his picture. In the end I guess it can be said that the things we try so hard to escape are the things that always find us.....

LOL, that is for sure. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Whatever the case, one thing I've always felt sure of...whoever you are and whatever your circumstances, you surely won't find your peace by running away from whatever you perceive your problems to be. You have to find your own peace, create it inside of you...and I don't think you can do that by running away. Some words of what, to me at least, passes for wisdom, from one of my favorite song writers, Neil Finn: Everywhere you go, you take the weather with you. :)

<!-- / message -->

[Lisalou]

Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Whatever the case, one thing I've always felt sure of...whoever you are and whatever your circumstances, you surely won't find your peace by running away from whatever you perceive your problems to be. You have to find your own peace, create it inside of you [/I]

<!-- / message -->

AMEN TO THAT!!!

[premonitionqueen]

i thought this movie was amazing..