Director: Richard Linklater
Year: 2006 Country: U.S. Gender: Animation / Science Fiction Score: 08/10
Cast: Keanu Reeves , Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder and Rory Cochrane
"A Scanner Darkly" takes place in the near future, when the fashion addiction is the "Substance D", a psychotropic drug with strangers bipolar effects. There we find the officer Fred (Keanu Reeves) and continue the research conducted around a low-level drug dealer named Bob Arctor, who spends the day in his squalid home, using drugs and inconsistencies chatting with friends. But , to work in the underworld, and Fred might be addicted to "Substance D", which will make it much more difficult to research, although Bob is closer than you imagine Fred. In general, the highlight of the film is the effect of "rotoscoping" technique had been used by Richard Linklater in the masterful " Waking Life," but this time applied with extreme beauty, which makes I spend the hour and a half watching the movie just move the drawings. Some approaches of the film are also interesting, and by the end of the film we'll be wondering who the good and bad, what is behind the play of appearances, masks, shadow play, in that great theater of the world I think Linklater. However, to get to the central and really important to the plot.
When I saw the film first, I was with some trepidation, because even in the hands of one of my favorite directors, I feared that the legendary novel by Philip K. Dick was not well adapted to the big screen, as has happened with almost all films based on his work {other than "Blade Runner" (1982) and "Minority Report" (2002)}. In the case of "A Scanner Darkly", the result is true to the book, also the director brings originality to the story. The novel in question is one of my favorite titles of Philip K. Dick it not only tells a story of unusual strength and intelligence, but take on a delirious that surrounds us in the unstable state of mind of the protagonist. With this, simultaneously experiencing the "alternative reality" and immerse ourselves in the context of the book, allowing for greater identification even if the character is highly dysfunctional, or if the situation is incredibly bizarre. Despite my fanaticism, try to be as objective as possible. Do not expect much. I understand the enormous difficulty of bringing to the screen the books of Philip K. Dick. Their arguments are brilliant, but usually so exuberantly original if not for its unique narrative style (simultaneously profound and prosaic) seem ridiculous or even incomprehensible.
The point is that "voice" of the author is the first thing you lose when adapting a novel to film, so the director Richard Linklater had to find the balance between form and substance, between situations who narrates the book and the way Dick and reinterprets the account. I think that's the justification for the visual style that Linklater used for this film. At first glance it seems that the "rotoscope" (drawing pictures on videotaped footage) is a simple trick to decorate the belt, but is actually an emulation of the fractured perception of the protagonist, which can never be sure of the supposed "reality." And, of course, the technique of "rotoscoping" is as old as cinema itself, but its digital interpretation has become more economically and efficiently, allowing Linklater create exotic landscapes and unusual images that otherwise would have cost too much for this experimental semi-independent production. However, a negative consequence of this technique is that somehow mitigates the actions of the cast, and only the most frantic performers (Robert Downey Jr., of course) manage to give life to their characters. Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder and Woody Harrelson to lose considerable expressive power (well, maybe not so much Keanu), which definitely affects the emotional level of the film. In other words, if not "feel" like the characters is difficult absorbed in the plot.
Speaking of the plot, I think the adaptation of the book is sometimes too faithful, leaving intact scenes that change pitch without the aforementioned "voice" omniscient writer. For example, the discussion that arises when a car breaks down is as simple comedy, instead of getting mad atmosphere of one of those repetitive and inescapable nightmares that produce fever. Perhaps Linklater should further boost the creativity of its leaders in some of those moments, to emphasize image what the script and failed to generate action muted, despite that Linklater leaves us many messages hidden in an argument of drugs, betrayal, corruption, and that makes us questions like ... the end justifies the means? how we are manipulated by governments? what kind of society do we live? we are a society alienated? or else we are "alienated"? The movie is good even leaving aside the visual considerations. It would have been difficult to include in a normal movie hallucinations and changing clothes without retouching squeak and give kicks to the eyes (as is often done). The "rotoscope" fulfills its function, give an air of unreality to everything and easy to accommodate the "effects" from the rest of the image, and I get tired and makes me crazy. "A Scanner Darkly" is a bold film with a script to be structured as the film progresses.
Philip K. Dick was not living a recognized author on the basis of his written works, it is known by all who have read his works usually referred to consuming all sorts of drugs and had friends of questionable repute with whom he shared all kinds of experiences unimaginable . This partly autobiographical film is a part of that life as intense as it was degrading, but that gave us as short stories and novels heritage of unquestionable quality and imagination, the film immerses us in this world to show us in all its cruelty and personal decline, the failure of a social system unable to get solution to all this chaos, but if so the protagonist has become a sort of spy in the service of that system it is supposed to be and must be faithful to betray his fellows, thus entails sacrifice for himself. The feeling is watch the film in question is genuine thrill and anxiety as if into a dark tunnel where there is an entry, but no outlet or light where you see the end of the trap for our illustrious protagonist. The story is a manifesto full of philosophical dialogues and moral decisions that alter this unpredictable story of loyalty and betrayal, where nobody is what it seems, not even the same.
"A Scanner Darkly" far from being a masterpiece, proposes to see a man who faces his own personal ghosts, having to make a decision very moral. Some episodic moments are extremely funny and original, but its outcome is where it appears the drama and tragedy compounded by the previous history. His final turn gives some light to the darkness in his character has been drowned leading the viewer to analyze this idyllic future and our present reality. I can hardly make an objective assessment of "A Scanner Darkly" (No, really?). On the one hand, is a skillful and faithful adaptation of the book that brings to life the bizarre concepts of Philip K. Dick and his puzzling characters. On the other hand, tends to be so confused that I'm not sure to forward the eloquent message of the novel. As psychedelic band will surely be enjoyed by many people in the "alternative" consciousness, but as intellectual discourse on paranoia, addiction, and believe government control was a little short. However, I have to recommend it if only as a fascinating experiment that partially fulfills its potential targets. And if one of them was to promote the book so that more people read it, you can already consider that the experiment had a major success. With its faults and its virtues, is a strange and complex film, but if it means we will enjoy to the fullest and never be forgotten.
"It's a win, but it is a clever interpretation of the subversive spirit"
0 comments:
Post a Comment