Slacker(1991) directed by Richard Linklater

adj. slack·er, slack·est

1. Moving slowly; sluggish: a slack pace.
2. Lacking in activity; not busy

Richard Linklater's pivotal debut film, Slacker, has as much importance as its "lacking" conventional substance. It was a key element in the early 90's cultural wave, the so called generation x. What exactly is generation x though? To this day, there's still some debate about it and what it means. Basically, generation x are the children of the baby boomers(people born after WWII). However, some will argue that they have to be born in the 60's and 70's to fit in with a particular subculture. Music in the late 80's and early 90s drastically changed and completely new forms of rock and hip hop were entering the mainstream. Naturally, to be a part of this wave, people were generally in their teens and 20's. That means that they were probably born in the 60's and 70's. That's the argument anyways. It differs for everyone. You could easily be 8 years old and be a part of it one way or another. Basically, it was a generation of new ideas, music, films, and fashion. It's often compared to the 60's. What's funny about this is that the term stemmed from the baby boomers trying to figure out what the next generation was all about, as if it had to have meaning. Ultimately, the only thing it meant was nothing. It must be hard for aging yuppies to comprehend the fact that this generation had no social unity. Unlike the 60's political orgy of free love, drugs, and music, generation x is more of a "fuck you, do whatever, say whatever" mentality. This is where slacker shines.

Unlike 99% of all films, Slacker has no main characters or story. This $20,000 indie film is about a moment in the day in the life of about a hundred or so different slackers living in Austin, Texas. It might sound boring but it's quite facinating and funny. It has a unique usage of narrative. The film opens with a man(none other than the direct himself) catching a taxi cab at a bus station. During the cab ride, the man(first slacker) spends about 5 minutes talking to the driver about dreams and seperate realities. He emphasizes that every choice we make fractions off and becomes it's own reality. He goes far enough to suggest that the reality you are living in right now is perhaps a dream from another reality. After his philosophical rant, he gets out of the cab, walks down the street to the next intersection. It is there where he witnesses a hit and run and then decides to call the police. From this point on, we follow the driver who hit and ran. We watched him go back to his home where he lights up a shrine. The police show up and arrest him. While he's being walked to the police car, a couple of bystanders watch. From this point on, we follow the bystanders to a coffe shop. Around this point in the film, you begin to understand the way this film works. It just circulates around austin, from one slacker to the next, over a 24 hour period. If you don't like the person you are following, wait a few minutes because you'll meet someone new. Each has their own little philosophy. This film created itself. The people you'll see are more realistic than MTV's the real world. It's a small film for a small audience. However it's made a big impact on independent film and Austin. The Texas city is now home to one of the largest film festivals in the United States, SXSW. Coencidence?

It might put you to sleep or it might make your day. One thing is for sure, Slacker is one of kind.

A-

Bully(2001) directed by Larry Clark

Larry Clark's third film, Bully, is like a cousin to his critically acclaimed film debut feature, Kids. While watching Kids, you'll spend an hour and a half viewing a day in the life of a group of contemporary teens. Kids has very little plot as well as very few real actors. You watch a group of urban teens with no direction, have sex and take drugs. It's a parent's worst nightmare that acts as a wake up call. Why did the film get so much acclaim? The hype most likely stemmed from the appreciation in a film that beautifully photographs something that is so hauntingly realistic and unconventional. Bully falls into the same realm.

Bully, like Kids, is about a dysfunctional(a term that Larry Clark might contest) group of Floridian teens who take drugs and have sex. The film, again like Kids, is a parental nightmare as well as glimpse into lives of today's troubled youth. However, Bully does have a story to tell. Whereas Kids was more of a statement. Bully revolves around the friendship between two boys, Martin(Brad Renfro) and Bobby(Nick Stahl). Martin is a high school dropout surfer boy who's IQ, judging by his dialogue, is well below average. Bobby, however, is an arrogant teen who actually has a sense of direction in life. His grades are good and his dad has paved a way for his future. Their childhood history is the core of their friendship. If it wasn't, they probably wouldn't be friends. Bobby, the smart one(or at least average) is one cruel person. He physically hurts and belittles Martin. The remaining friends in their gang experience it as well.

Their gang of friends include two whorish girls, Lisa(Rachel Miner), Alice(Bijou Phillips), and a human joke named Donald(Michael Pitt). They, like Martin, are dumbfounded teens with no sense of reality. The drive around, drop acid, smoke weed, drink beer and have sex. All of which takes place in their upper middle class neighborhood. The only thing that disrupts their corrupt life style is Bobby, who's as corrupt as they are. He antagonizes everyone repeatable to the point where they can't take him anymore. They come up with a plan to rid Bobby out of their lives, but at a horrifying price.

The film is based on a true story that occurred in 1993. However, I am unaware of how accurate the film is. I simply do not care. Bully doesn't have the realistic edge that made Kids so unforgettable. It does have a story to tell though. However, that's not to say it's a significant one. It has much more sex and drug use. Yet, it doesn't seem to provoke near as much as Kids did. I guess it proves that style can override content. Bully is, however, probably a more important film in terms of Clark's aesthetic. It's a signature piece. We can now consider Larry Clark to be auteur. Should Clark or Bully be respected though?

This seems to be a controversial debate amongst film critics. Clark's films have all captured edgy youth culture. If you were to take out the sex and drugs, his films would be bare, leaving him with nothing other than his photography skills. The acting wouldn't be enough to carry to weight although his films have jump started the careers of some talented young actors. Some critics feel that Clark's films are an excuse to get barely legal teens to undress. Some view him as nothing more than a dirty old man using explicit content for shock purposes. It's hard to say. It should be noted that his characters end up in worse places due to their life style choices. Perhaps Clark is sending out a positive message here? Clark could easily be all these things or he couldn't. Ulimately, he's created a space for himself in the world of contemporary film making. Should Clark be respected though? I think he should be acknowledged as a director, respected as a photographer, and ignored as a storyteller.

As for Bully, it has its moments of shame as well as it's moments of pleasure. If you can survive on cinematography and a talented young cast, see it. If are quick to morally object sin cinema, ignore.

B-