Initial Review by Drew

What a documentary.

This is one of my favorites and let me explain why and I will get to that but first the documentary itself.  Scott Thurman has an agenda and it is to infuriate the country and embarrass Texas voters by showing how the State Board of Education (SBOE) has made education a political issue and shifted information to the right.  He was successful on the former, not so much on the latter.

Viewers are exposed to some people who can be casted as “good” and “bad.”  I like to put it as the “smart” and the “dumb” ones. We are introduced to Don McElroy at the film’s start as it shows his hearing as the Board’s Chair and then get to see how he is as a person.  Quite frankly, McElroy is a great guy.  I would love for him to be my neighbor, maybe even my dentist, but there is no way I vote for him.  He is a right wing ideologue, who had an agenda while serving on the Board.  His agenda, however, was not for the betterment of students, although it was disguised as such.

His views were better articulated by Cynthia Dunbar, or whom I like to call Cynthia “Dumbshit.”  There is no question that she, like McElroy, is out to fight a culture war through education.  She was trained by Pat Robertson at his institution of Regent University and views the world through a black and white lens. Her arguments are not valid, historical points, as they are Robertson’s perspective on science, history, economics, government, etc.  Those characteristics are ever so present when she is featured.

We met their opponents Kathy Miller and Ron Wetherington when they discussed textbook adoption on scientific standards. Miller is a lobbyist for the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) and attempts to educate voters on the importance of this governmental body.  Her attempts have been in vain but that keeps her fighting. She appears to be a down to earth person, whereas Wetherington can come off as a snob. There is, however, no doubt he is an expert in the field of anthropology.  He represents the facts on science and can extensively argue history and politics.

My take on The Revisionaries is Thurman had some manipulation taking place.  He does not do what Michael Moore does, which is fantastic.  Moore presents his pieces as if he is writing a paper. He narrates and directs the viewer to see what he wants them to see.  Thurman does not manipulate in that way.  He presents what he sees as important and the viewer derives an opinion from that.  For instance, Thurman presented Mary Helen Berlanger’s rightful fit on discrimination (throwing the books on the ground) with the impression that others were paying attention to what she said.  Maybe there were, maybe there were not but Thurman does not care about that.  Another example is when Ken Mercer says he wants to put “Hussein” between “Barack Obama.”  It is a sliver of the presentation but viewers’ take from that, or at least they should, the question of “why?” 

Thurman’s influence is a reason it lands in the “B” range.  The positives are tremendous.  We see how politicized the process was and can be, how voting matters, and all elections are important.  I show this documentary in my Texas Government classes every semester and every time, a few students get upset.  That is fantastic.  I do not show them the film to make them angry, but there is context that I will conceal from you because it is boring education stuff but know I make no attempts indoctrinating students. 

There are many tangents that can arise from this but I urge us to stay on topic. The ongoing debate of teaching religion or science in the classroom is hotly discussed, especially in Texas.

Having stated that, I strongly encourage people from all political sides to watch it.  I welcome a good discussion on the film from everyone and hope this does the trick.

Grade: B+

Initial review by: Bobby

Dream is destiny... That's it, that's the movie, right? Do I have to actually write anything else?

This is a difficult movie for me to review, as you can't really pick out any specific acting performances or recall any vital scenes that push the plot or act as game changers. Waking Life is mostly about what's being said, be it through the words of the characters or the animation. For most people, this is going to be a take it or leave it type of movie... an almost all or nothing. 

First thing you notice is the rotoscoping... it's as if we're watching a Tell-Tale game. This stylistic choice definitely pushes the dream like atmosphere. Thirty-one (31) animation artists were used to restyle the live footage that was shot. This gives us different, be it slight or drastic, views of the world and our protagonist. This is a big plus for me and really plays into the "It's all about what you do with the crayons you're given" statement we hear early on, and see quite literally throughout the movie. 

The visuals, in general, are really entertaining to watch and are still quite different from how most films are presented to us. I'm sure plenty of people will say this movie would be (or is) much better on drugs.. but even so, it's quite impressive without. The rotoscoping and art on their own stand out as a positive. 

Basically, what we're given is a series of monologues, with a few conversations, as the main character listens.. at least for the first half or so of the film. We cover a wide range of philosophical issues. they are all presented with and with enough uncertainty in the tone and look to make the view think, and not just accept whatever each person says or believes. 

What the main character sees and experiences is usually highlighted by the use of certain colors, shades and artwork or by the setting in general. He later becomes involved in the conversations as he steadily reaches the realization that all of this has been, and still is, a dream. We, the viewers, are given every chance to realize this due to the floating objects, moving backgrounds and general appearance of everything... yet still we follow him on his philosophical journey. The self-realization is ultimate goal... the separation, if any, between the dream and this waking life. 

There are some lines and visuals that stood out to me for whatever reason, so I'll hit on a couple of those. 

One of the first people we encounter is the car-boat driver. He describes his ride, and life, as 'see-worthy.' It's his way of remaining 'in a state of constant departure while always arriving.' 
I think this was a good, and light, start to things.. and who doesn't like a good pun? 

One of my favorite portions was the anger man screaming through his megaphone while driving. Watching him turn colors.. red as he became angrier, black/grey as he spoke of slavery, purple as his rant went on... all while nobody around him could possibly hear his message as he's constantly on the move, jumping from thought to thought. 

I thought it was a key point that the first bit the main character isn't directly listening to is the couple in bed.. in which they're talking about everybody being telepathically connected.... as if that's how the protagonist is seeing/hearing this conversation. 

The conversation between the two women, as one says "I'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been." This instantly made me think of Mitch Hedberg pointing out how ridiculous it actually is to say, "this is a picture of me when I was younger."  Then, however, they jump right into the Thesues' ship argument and whether we're even at all the same people we once were. Which is all the more interesting in the realm of a dream, or an existence of an instant that is stretched out within a dream. 
But, my point isn't to get philosophical here. 

One of my favorite lines comes in the final conversation (which is actually Linklater playing the pinball): "I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but I don't know what you're talking about." Which is a lead into that self realization and "how do you really wake up?" 

In the end, the philosophy jargon is either going to keep you listening and thinking or it's going to push you away. I think this is where the movie holds some negative. There isn't much in the way of light banter or humor to break up the constant down pour of each character's thoughts. Being in his dreams, I think it would have been okay and welcomed to see something a bit out there in terms of humor and absurdness... and it could have come before he realized he was stuck in a dream or even after when he started actively participating. I mean, when you're in that lucid state... why not take advantage and have fun. Just like the light switch guy said, right?

The only real constant throughout the movie is Wiley Wiggins, playing our protagonist. It's difficult to really judge his performance as he was always covered up by the animation. That said, I think his tempo and tone were great whenever he was speaking, fitting to whatever conversation he was in.  We also see a few familiar faces throughout... such as Ethan Hawke and Adam Goldberg. There were also multiple non-actors... writes and thinkers essentially playing themselves. 

I first watched Waking Life a good decade or so ago.. when I was much more into reading my philosophy books and thinking about any and everything. It's interesting to think about how we see and think about those topics at different points in our lives... or for some, stop thinking or caring about them all together. For me, it was a pleasant re-watch with a different view. 

I'm sure I could ramble about a lot of what is said and shown here, but I'll wrap this up and get to the grade! Waking Life a movie I could see myself putting in every now and then when I'm in a mood for the material. It's definitely not a movie for the masses, but is really well done for what it is. If you don't appreciate the philosophy, you're stuck with just the art... which while outstanding, won't likely make it a good movie for you. It would have definitely been nice to see some humor and fun thrown in. So, it's not perfect, but it's still a great piece of work for me, A-