Review of Scanner Darkly

Review of Scanner Darkly

Now, after a long day of collecting my thoughts about Richard Linklater's Scanner Darkly in the false hope of arriving to some a clear and unambiguous assessment of the film, I am still in the same state of mind as this morning. I also can neither give a thumbs up or down to this film or a numerical rating from which you, the reader, will gauge my true opinion of the film whether good or bad. In all honesty, I never cared for reviews which used such methods to judge a film. However, the main cause of my difficulty is the film, itself, which has left me with considerable mixed feelings and it is thus only appropriate for me to express them.

First, I will openly admit that I have a tendency to like Philip K. Dick adaptations (Blade Runner rules!!), although not all. So, when I finally saw the film, I was a little disappointed with the result, but not so much that I disliked the film. One of my main problems with the film is that the film seemed to lack coherency and proper pacing as if Linklater did not take enough time to edit the film thoroughly. Although, a logical counter-argument could be that the film's lack of structure is meant to reflect the disorienting drug-induced confusion plaguing Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves), an undercover agent who acts as a man addicted to a drug named Substance D in order to get closer to higher echelons of the Substance D market. Yet, I have always felt that , within other films revolving around drug use such as Requiem for a Dream or Trainspotting, there always seemed to be a sense of structure within the erratic pace and disorienting style of both films and this film simply does not seem to have it.

In terms of acting, Keanu Reeves is playing Keanu Reeves once more, but oddly his mediocre performance seems masked by the use of rotoscoping in the film. Like in Richard Linklater's previous film Waking Life, he uses the stylistically interesting technique known as rotoscoping, but now applies it to a more narrative-oriented film. The technique, itself, although now lacking in originality, is still amazing to see and its use in this film is a definite improvement over Waking Life. Now, back to my argument. In addition to Reeves, most of the actors from Robert Downey Jr. to Woody Harrelson all appear to overact in the film, but rotoscoping perfectly conforms with their acting style to such a degree that I forgot about this flaw. While in Waking Life, some have argued that the use of rotoscoping managed to hide and mask average performances. This may be true, but, possibly, I am surprised as to how rotoscoping can accomplish this. While others criticize the deception, I am amazed by the results, which are, in my opinion, inseparable from the product. Although, I would argue that the film's poor acting is not masked by the technique of rotoscoping, but that the often over-the-top acting of Downey and Harrelson simply fit the technique which depicts the world in an unrealistic light (perfect for a science fiction story) and thus their acting style is actually good as it achieves the desired result. If you have noticed that I did not refer to Keanu in this equation, it is merely because he is simply not very good (although not as bad as usual). However, like in The Matrix (only the first, not the sequels), the interesting material allows the viewers to rise above this flaw. As for Wyona Rider, she is passable and does not lower the film's quality.

As for the film's content, Linklater manages to blend comedic aspects with Downey and Rory Cochrane within the actual narrative fairly well. The film delves into topics such as the increasingly excessive nature of private surveillance (take note Americans) and the dangers of drug abuse use to one's consciousness as well as the often immoral and even hypocritical means which law enforcers use to suppress it. The film even appears to criticize an increasingly authoritarian state and its ability to misinterpret one's reality as easily as that of a disoriented drug addict. Both can experience a dislocation from reality like that which Arctor experiences and the government scanners will always see darkly. Yet, the film's story may be difficult to follow for some due to its seeming lack of adequate plot development and, as the film ends, the viewer may be left as disoriented as the drug addicts portrayed in the film (New Path? who are they?). However, aside from rotoscoping, I would consider this characteristic to be the film's second draw. After spending a while thinking about the film, some of the various pieces began to fall in place and I was able to understand the film's later developments, although I was still left with an artistic creation which did not feel as whole as it could have been given proper pacing, editing, coherency, and better acting from Keanu and Rider. Yet, I still loved to see a science fiction film which did not spoonfeed the viewers all the answers, even though the film is not that ambiguous or complicated. I was thus left with mixed feelings with the final result, but still enjoyed enough to give it another watch in the future.

Tomorrow, will post more on Toronto Film Festial (or the Venice film Festival) while also potentially taking some time to write about the strange and eccentric micro-movement of the mid-1990s known as dogma 95. Or possibly some more trailers or films to watch out for, whatever pleases my fancy.