I had seen these two movies before. A few times. I have actually seen all of Richard Linklater's movies and I think I'll go ahead and say it, he is my favorite filmmaker. His repertoire of films is near flawless, and I'd go as far as saying the Before Sunset trilogy is the best trilogy in cinema history. Fight me.
Sure Linklater's work isn't the most visceral. There's no explosions. He's not out in the desert making the best action movie of all time (Mad Max) or pioneering new CG technics like James Cameron. But Linklater's work is the most human, and in my life experience, I'd say some of the most personal works I can relate to. I hope I get to meet Richard Linklater before I die, if only because he's from Austin, Texas (awesome, awesome city), and he's the kind of dude I'd love to just have a beer with and talk about life and cinema.
Anyways!
I love these two films and a friend of mine admitted she had never seen either so we watched them back-to-back last night, so I thought I'd share my thoughts.
Dazed and Confused
Now this is a film I used to watch all the time as a kid. When I was in middle school, my friend's older sister had a VHS collection which included it. We'd always throw it on, and being kids, we'd be half-paying-attention or watch a bit of it here and there, and never really gave it (or any movie) a hard dedicated watch. However, the characters and scenes definitely resonated. We'd often say 'oh hey! this is the part where this happens!' and watch and laugh. We knew the movie, and always considered it a 'cool movie'.
The thing that blows me away about this film is that when I watched it as a kid, I had no idea the movie was made in 1993. It legitimately felt like a movie from the '70s. I can't put my finger on it, but not only is the setting and characters pure '70s, but the look and feel of the filmmaking somehow felt '70s. Maybe it was the crappy indie film stocks they used or the older audio recording tech? Anyways, this lends itself really well to the movie and is something we'll see again in EWS.
I know a lot of responses to this thread will show apathy towards this film. Yes, not much happen. It follows a handful of kids on the last day of school, some kids get hazed, there's beer buying, vandalism, partying, some hook ups, and then everyone goes home. It all takes place within a contained and set timeframe of one day. This is another stylistic choice carried over in EWS.
There seems to be one central conflict with the character Pink not wanting to sign a document for the football team - agreeing to not drink or do drugs. He is the school's quarterback and seemingly very popular, and he also smokes weed and parties. At the end of the film, he decided not to sign the document - even though the rest of the team does it just to get the coach off their backs. The other team even wants him to sign, and encourages him to play next near. Pink doesn't want to do it. He mentions being a writer or being in a band at some points, and he seems to be against the concept of popularity being linked to his athleticism. It seems like kind of a petty point to rest his conflict on, and while I don't necessarily think he did the right thing (he should have just signed it), it does make for a realistic arch showing his teenage angst and sense of self. He also has a girlfriend yet makes out with another girl at one point, so he isn't necessarily a morally conscious character, albeit it a very likeable one (he is really nice to everyone including the youngen Wiley). I'd be interested to hear other opinions on Pink and his central conflict as if carries across the film.
Taking place in middle America, the cast is mostly white, and the central characters are male. I will not fault Linklater for this, because it seems to be a film based on real life experiences from his high school life, and very much has the feel of little-town residential America.
The thing I admire about the film is that it feels so real yet it's so fun. It reminds me of high school partying and the different archetypes people inevitably fall into. None of the characters really have any rich character development, but many of them have these little relatable arch's over the course of the night. The film might seem like it's about nothing, but it's really a whole lot of something- like any Linklater film (and why I think he's so brilliant).
It's a real look at adolescence. It's a stoner movie on the surface, but it has a whole lot of soul. To me, it's about being a kid. Plain and simple. I watch this movie to have fun and get a serious does of nostalgia. Nostalgia not only for my experience watching the film as a kid, but also for my experiences in high school.
My lady friend was not a huge fan of this movie. She found it boring, pointless, and wasn't as into the humour or music. I can understand that, as she is a non-white female who never really partied. It made me realize that this film really isn't for everyone, it certainly speaks to a very specific crowd. If this movie isn't relatable to you, perhaps see it from the perspective of looking into a foreign lifestyle. I love movies that don't relate to me because I get to learn about different lifestyes and traditions, but in American film that's all-too-rare (yes I made the regrettable topic last week about inclusion in movies, so I am very acutely aware and understanding of this now).
One other thing I'd like to note is the incredible music. How the hell did an indie film get the license to so many popular tracks? I feel like EWS didn't have the same level of iconic music, but maybe that's because in 1993 it was easier to acquire music license?
I would love to hear some impressions and thoughts on this film from you guys. What did you think about it when it came out, what do you think about it now, and how do you interpret the themes?
Everybody Wants Some
EWS was my favorite movie from 2016. I just love it. Where D&C was the 70's high school story, this is the 80's college story. EWS is a spiritual sequel to D&C and it's hard not to see the stylistic similarities even though the two films don't have any of the same characters.
Just like D&C, EWS truly feels like a movie made in the 80's. Again, it's hard for me to put my finger on it, but it's something beyond the characters, setting, art direction and music that make it truly feel authentic. You could really fool someone into thinking it's a movie made in the '80s. I looked up what camera it was shot on too, and it was an Alexa! All digital! How did they make it feel so 80's where other movies fail?
As whole, EWS is less relatable to me because it centres around a baseball team at college. Being on a neogaf, you can probably guess I'm not much of an athlete or a jock, so it was a little bit of looking into a different life. Perhaps one many people envy, which might be hard to enjoy for some. However, the film is done in a lighter tone than D&C. In many ways, it's more absurd, more comedic, more wild, and a little less 'real' feeling.
The film is also within a confined timeframe. It takes place the weekend before class starts. The moment class starts, the movie ends. It's a very interesting perspective because who would have thought a movie about college baseball players doesn't have a single baseball game (ok, they do practice once).
So why do I love this movie? Well, it's really funny! It feels a little over-the-top compared to some of Linklater's other work, but it's so lively and fun, and really shows a varied batch of testosterone fuelled characters on a college adventure. It shows them in various party settings, which is something I can relate to in my single year at college (the club, the country bar, the punk show, always looking for pussy, etc). The comradery, drinking, weed-smoking, hopping from place-to-place, it all does remind me of the pace of that first few days of college, and I'd be interested to know how a college athlete would relate.
Like D&C, there's no real conflict and the story doesn't really go anywhere. Again, the film might seem like it's about nothing, but it's really a whole lot of something.
The main character, Jake, is a new pitcher arriving at the college baseball 'house' (I guess the team all stayed in the same off-camus house), and you are really experiencing it through his eyes. All of the characters have their quirks, and where D&C contains a few little story arch's, this movie mostly just established every character's quirk, has fun with it - and that's it. There is basically no conflict. There is a little bit of Jake finding his identity - coming from a highschool where he was the star athlete to a college where he is just another one - but the film doesn't develop this theme or get too far into it. He falls for a girl who is a drama major, and there is a little more fleshing out of the 'college identity' stuff, but I'd say the movie is more just a fun romp, much like D&C.
My lady friend liked this movie a lot more than the D&C. I won't lie, we ended up having sex for last 3rd of the movie, so we missed the ending (although I had seen it twice before). I guess it was an appropriate way to finish the night. Thanks Linklater
Overall
It's interesting to compare these two films because they both seem like they are about nothing, but they really are more about something than most movies. What do I mean by this? Well, where most movies seem to have a central conflict, character development, a rising action, climax, conclusions, all along with some lessons learned and themes, these two films just feel like genuine slices of life with genuine characters with some genuinely realistic perspectives.
The thing I love about these two movies is they are really fun slices of life. They are happy times with friends. Partying. Sex. Being young. I feel really good watching both, reminiscent of the best parts of growing up. I'm sure some could criticize the films for lacking emotional depth, but I would disagree. They both just implore the emotion of being happy, being fun, exploring the good thing's in life. Many films don't do that.
Somehow Linklater gives the character realism yet thoughtfulness. Conversations are rich. The way he directs actors really makes you believe these people. It feels so incredibly real. The confined timeframe really gives way to this approach, as if you are looking through a window at young people actually living their [fun] lives.
I think it could be argued these two films are about finding your identity as an adolescent/young adult, and I wouldn't disagree. D&C seems to carry more of a range of personalities than EWS, but both film's main protagonists (Pink and Jake) do a little soul searching, and both sort of land on their feet by the end - knowing who they want to be and where they want to go. Definitely feel-good endings.
Both films are absolute required watching. I promise you, go in with an open mind and just have fun spending time with these characters. I'm really interested to hear everyone's impressions of the films, how they relate to them taking into account their own experiences, and what they think of the themes and characters.
Richard Linklater, thank you.
Sure Linklater's work isn't the most visceral. There's no explosions. He's not out in the desert making the best action movie of all time (Mad Max) or pioneering new CG technics like James Cameron. But Linklater's work is the most human, and in my life experience, I'd say some of the most personal works I can relate to. I hope I get to meet Richard Linklater before I die, if only because he's from Austin, Texas (awesome, awesome city), and he's the kind of dude I'd love to just have a beer with and talk about life and cinema.
Anyways!
I love these two films and a friend of mine admitted she had never seen either so we watched them back-to-back last night, so I thought I'd share my thoughts.
Dazed and Confused
Now this is a film I used to watch all the time as a kid. When I was in middle school, my friend's older sister had a VHS collection which included it. We'd always throw it on, and being kids, we'd be half-paying-attention or watch a bit of it here and there, and never really gave it (or any movie) a hard dedicated watch. However, the characters and scenes definitely resonated. We'd often say 'oh hey! this is the part where this happens!' and watch and laugh. We knew the movie, and always considered it a 'cool movie'.
The thing that blows me away about this film is that when I watched it as a kid, I had no idea the movie was made in 1993. It legitimately felt like a movie from the '70s. I can't put my finger on it, but not only is the setting and characters pure '70s, but the look and feel of the filmmaking somehow felt '70s. Maybe it was the crappy indie film stocks they used or the older audio recording tech? Anyways, this lends itself really well to the movie and is something we'll see again in EWS.
I know a lot of responses to this thread will show apathy towards this film. Yes, not much happen. It follows a handful of kids on the last day of school, some kids get hazed, there's beer buying, vandalism, partying, some hook ups, and then everyone goes home. It all takes place within a contained and set timeframe of one day. This is another stylistic choice carried over in EWS.
There seems to be one central conflict with the character Pink not wanting to sign a document for the football team - agreeing to not drink or do drugs. He is the school's quarterback and seemingly very popular, and he also smokes weed and parties. At the end of the film, he decided not to sign the document - even though the rest of the team does it just to get the coach off their backs. The other team even wants him to sign, and encourages him to play next near. Pink doesn't want to do it. He mentions being a writer or being in a band at some points, and he seems to be against the concept of popularity being linked to his athleticism. It seems like kind of a petty point to rest his conflict on, and while I don't necessarily think he did the right thing (he should have just signed it), it does make for a realistic arch showing his teenage angst and sense of self. He also has a girlfriend yet makes out with another girl at one point, so he isn't necessarily a morally conscious character, albeit it a very likeable one (he is really nice to everyone including the youngen Wiley). I'd be interested to hear other opinions on Pink and his central conflict as if carries across the film.
Taking place in middle America, the cast is mostly white, and the central characters are male. I will not fault Linklater for this, because it seems to be a film based on real life experiences from his high school life, and very much has the feel of little-town residential America.
The thing I admire about the film is that it feels so real yet it's so fun. It reminds me of high school partying and the different archetypes people inevitably fall into. None of the characters really have any rich character development, but many of them have these little relatable arch's over the course of the night. The film might seem like it's about nothing, but it's really a whole lot of something- like any Linklater film (and why I think he's so brilliant).
It's a real look at adolescence. It's a stoner movie on the surface, but it has a whole lot of soul. To me, it's about being a kid. Plain and simple. I watch this movie to have fun and get a serious does of nostalgia. Nostalgia not only for my experience watching the film as a kid, but also for my experiences in high school.
My lady friend was not a huge fan of this movie. She found it boring, pointless, and wasn't as into the humour or music. I can understand that, as she is a non-white female who never really partied. It made me realize that this film really isn't for everyone, it certainly speaks to a very specific crowd. If this movie isn't relatable to you, perhaps see it from the perspective of looking into a foreign lifestyle. I love movies that don't relate to me because I get to learn about different lifestyes and traditions, but in American film that's all-too-rare (yes I made the regrettable topic last week about inclusion in movies, so I am very acutely aware and understanding of this now).
One other thing I'd like to note is the incredible music. How the hell did an indie film get the license to so many popular tracks? I feel like EWS didn't have the same level of iconic music, but maybe that's because in 1993 it was easier to acquire music license?
I would love to hear some impressions and thoughts on this film from you guys. What did you think about it when it came out, what do you think about it now, and how do you interpret the themes?
Everybody Wants Some
EWS was my favorite movie from 2016. I just love it. Where D&C was the 70's high school story, this is the 80's college story. EWS is a spiritual sequel to D&C and it's hard not to see the stylistic similarities even though the two films don't have any of the same characters.
Just like D&C, EWS truly feels like a movie made in the 80's. Again, it's hard for me to put my finger on it, but it's something beyond the characters, setting, art direction and music that make it truly feel authentic. You could really fool someone into thinking it's a movie made in the '80s. I looked up what camera it was shot on too, and it was an Alexa! All digital! How did they make it feel so 80's where other movies fail?
As whole, EWS is less relatable to me because it centres around a baseball team at college. Being on a neogaf, you can probably guess I'm not much of an athlete or a jock, so it was a little bit of looking into a different life. Perhaps one many people envy, which might be hard to enjoy for some. However, the film is done in a lighter tone than D&C. In many ways, it's more absurd, more comedic, more wild, and a little less 'real' feeling.
The film is also within a confined timeframe. It takes place the weekend before class starts. The moment class starts, the movie ends. It's a very interesting perspective because who would have thought a movie about college baseball players doesn't have a single baseball game (ok, they do practice once).
So why do I love this movie? Well, it's really funny! It feels a little over-the-top compared to some of Linklater's other work, but it's so lively and fun, and really shows a varied batch of testosterone fuelled characters on a college adventure. It shows them in various party settings, which is something I can relate to in my single year at college (the club, the country bar, the punk show, always looking for pussy, etc). The comradery, drinking, weed-smoking, hopping from place-to-place, it all does remind me of the pace of that first few days of college, and I'd be interested to know how a college athlete would relate.
Like D&C, there's no real conflict and the story doesn't really go anywhere. Again, the film might seem like it's about nothing, but it's really a whole lot of something.
The main character, Jake, is a new pitcher arriving at the college baseball 'house' (I guess the team all stayed in the same off-camus house), and you are really experiencing it through his eyes. All of the characters have their quirks, and where D&C contains a few little story arch's, this movie mostly just established every character's quirk, has fun with it - and that's it. There is basically no conflict. There is a little bit of Jake finding his identity - coming from a highschool where he was the star athlete to a college where he is just another one - but the film doesn't develop this theme or get too far into it. He falls for a girl who is a drama major, and there is a little more fleshing out of the 'college identity' stuff, but I'd say the movie is more just a fun romp, much like D&C.
My lady friend liked this movie a lot more than the D&C. I won't lie, we ended up having sex for last 3rd of the movie, so we missed the ending (although I had seen it twice before). I guess it was an appropriate way to finish the night. Thanks Linklater
Overall
It's interesting to compare these two films because they both seem like they are about nothing, but they really are more about something than most movies. What do I mean by this? Well, where most movies seem to have a central conflict, character development, a rising action, climax, conclusions, all along with some lessons learned and themes, these two films just feel like genuine slices of life with genuine characters with some genuinely realistic perspectives.
The thing I love about these two movies is they are really fun slices of life. They are happy times with friends. Partying. Sex. Being young. I feel really good watching both, reminiscent of the best parts of growing up. I'm sure some could criticize the films for lacking emotional depth, but I would disagree. They both just implore the emotion of being happy, being fun, exploring the good thing's in life. Many films don't do that.
Somehow Linklater gives the character realism yet thoughtfulness. Conversations are rich. The way he directs actors really makes you believe these people. It feels so incredibly real. The confined timeframe really gives way to this approach, as if you are looking through a window at young people actually living their [fun] lives.
I think it could be argued these two films are about finding your identity as an adolescent/young adult, and I wouldn't disagree. D&C seems to carry more of a range of personalities than EWS, but both film's main protagonists (Pink and Jake) do a little soul searching, and both sort of land on their feet by the end - knowing who they want to be and where they want to go. Definitely feel-good endings.
Both films are absolute required watching. I promise you, go in with an open mind and just have fun spending time with these characters. I'm really interested to hear everyone's impressions of the films, how they relate to them taking into account their own experiences, and what they think of the themes and characters.
Richard Linklater, thank you.