A Scanner Darkly (2006) March 18, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Richard Linklater
Richard Linklater likes a challenge, that much is clear. But to take a difficult Philip K. Dick novel, formulate a screenplay, then shoot the entire movie only to have every frame traced over and re-shaded during postproduction, is surely madness. Then again, he pulled off a PG-rated Jack Black movie, so maybe he really can do anything?
Dick’s novel of the same name provides the basis for the story, revolving around substance abusers in the very near future. Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is an undercover cop, working to track down and arrest users of ‘substance D’, a new drug that’s addictive nature causes hallucinations and eventual brain damage. Unfortunately, Bob is also a user. His double life slowly starts to blur into one as the mounting pressure causes him to question the reality he lives in.
First of all, this movie has a wonderful aesthetic value which can be attributed to the process of rotoscoping, whereby an artist traces the frames of the film into a computer and then cell-shades them to give it that ‘unreal’ look. What you’re left with is visuals somewhere between traditional cell animation and a modern computer game, and while there seems to be some inconsistencies at times (foreground objects don’t quite stay together with the background during pans), the overall effect is stunningly real.
However, rotoscoping could be considered old news since this is actually Richard Linklater’s second feature to utilise the process (Waking Life was first in 2001). Its use here is purposeful though, giving the viewer a slightly ‘trippy’ experience just like most of the characters throughout the movie. The cast enjoy their eccentric personas, especially Robert Downey Jr. and Rory Cochrane who get vastly different, but equally bizarre parts. Even Reeves shows that if you put his acting style into the right context, it can work.
I really wanted to like this film, yet somehow it made that simple desire very difficult for me. I loved the style, but the slight meanderings in narrative got to me over the length of the flick. I think the characters are interesting, if slightly underdeveloped, and the sci-fi elements didn’t feel out of place in a movie which is more of an anti-drug piece than anything else. Of course, this is mostly down to the nature of the original novel than something the filmmakers have done.
If there’s one thing that this movie proves, it’s that rotoscoping is a workable and interesting cinematic technique, although undoubtedly time-consuming to do. I think that it’s a style best suited to these off-beat movies and I’m glad that this was one of the first because it sets a president that you should match style to content. We can only hope that all genres of film don’t try and jump on the bandwagon now – a rotoscoped comedy, we don’t need.
Comments»
I think the rotoscoping, or some form of animation, was probably the only way to film the novel with any degree of faithfulness. This looked a lot more polished than Linklater’s first effort. In the U.S., we have these commercials for Charles Schwab, a brokerage company, that look rotoscoped. It’s somewhat embarassing and unnecessary.
I did like the movie a little more than you though. It’s visually stunning for sure and I thought the plot washed over me enough to sort of work successfully. The ending was really great also and the acting, I thought, was top-notch all around. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit more than I thought I would, as someone not usually inclined to sci-fi or Keanu Reeves.