A Scanner Darkly - to be a movie

[PistolPete]

Bear in mind that I haven't read the book (though I plan to now), but I just saw the movie yesterday and while I get the movie the psycadellic effect of the rotoscoping made me feel like I didn't quite "get" it. It is as if there is some piece of subtext in the movie that is just out of my grasp. Is the book like this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

<i>A Scanner Darkly</i> in my mind is an absolutely outstanding work of fiction. It takes a while for the full plot to unravel, but once it does it is crystal clear. It may be that reading the book will help clarify the film for you (I am going to see the film on July 29). Dick often deals with many issues and themes simultaneously in his works making them difficult to adapt effectively. He does not necessarily resolve all the points he touches on, so some feel his works have loose ends. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[calliann]

<font color="yellow">Was the overall review good, bad or mediocre?</font><br /><br />Neither, really. It was mostly about the rotoscope technique. It did say it was a "faithful adaptation."<br /><br />Here's a link you might be interested in. You can find tons of movies reviews from this site.<br /><br />http://www.mrqe.com/lookup<br /><br />And to save you time, here's the list all ready for "A Scanner Darkly."<br /><br />http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?isindex=a+scanner+darkly<br /><br />And, of course, you know about Rotten Tomatoes, right?<br /><br />http://www.rottentomatoes.com/<br /><br />"Scanner" rated "fresh" at 61%.<br /><br />http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scanner_darkly/<br /><br />Enjoy!

 

[jmilsom]

Thanks for those links. I have read a few of them and it has heightened my anticipation. The fact that there are such wildly differing views of the film seems to indicate that Linklater has got it right.<br /><br />I enjoyed these three reviews below:<br /><br />http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=14178&reviewer=389<br /><br />http://www.nycfilmcritic.com/display_film.php?id=213<br /><br />http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-060707-movies-review-scanner,0,3472551.story<br /><br />I read a couple of the more negative reviews, but they show very little understanding or appreciation of Dick's work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[calliann]

You're welcome! I will check out the reviews you recommended after I see the movie. I find that I like to watch a film first and then see what everyone had to say about it.<br /><br />Yeah, most of the time when I see a negative review of a movie I like, it seems to me that the critic just didn't "get it." Not that I feel defensive if someone doesn't like a movie I like, but just that it frustrates me when it's obvious they didn't understand it.

 

[calliann]

I can't believe it took me so long to figure this out! The guy who plays Charles Freck is Rory Cochrane, who played Speed on CSI: Miami.

 

[calliann]

Here is a link where you can watch the first 24 minutes for free.<br /><br />http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/670/670907/vids_1.html <br /><br />Here's a question for anyone who's seen the movie. Someone on another board asked this question and no one there seems to know --<br /><br /><i>The number 709 shows up at least twice in the movie. It is the number that is assigned to the lodge where Fred is giving his speech towards the beginning (numberless in the book) and it is Bob Arctor's house number (do not recall if there is one in the book). It might show up in other places, but I never caught it.</i><br /><br />Can anyone answer the question <font color="orange">What is the significance of the number 709?</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Can anyone answer the question What is the significance of the number 709?</font><br /><br />Well... a bit of semi-diligent googling yields several bits of information that may be salient (or not).<br /><br />The number 709:<br /><br />* Is an area code in Newfoundland, Canada.<br />* Was the year that Saelred became king of Essex, and that Ceolred became king of Mercia (after his cousin Cenred abdicated to become a monk in Rome).<br />* Denotes a rather imposing looking (albeit thoroughly archaic) IBM mainframe. (Check out the pictures - http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/ibm709.html )<br />* Denotes a school district in Illinois. ( http://morton709.org/ )<br />* Was the year of death for Saint Adrian of Canterbury (Jan. 9), Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (May 25), and Wilfrid, English archbishop and saint (April 24).<br />* Denotes the Marietta, Ga. lodge of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union. ( http://www.local709.org/index.html ).<br /><br />I'm sure there are others -- but these seemed a good start.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Of course, others have wrestled with this very question. Including this person:<br /><br />http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Features/Westfahl_AScannerDarkly.html<br /><br />The relevant paragraph, quoted in full:<br /><br />"Indeed, any analysis of the often-enigmatic works of Philip K. Dick must inevitably conclude with some unanswered questions. For example, what is the significance of the number 709, which is both the number of the Brown Bear Lodge which Fred addresses and the address of Arctor's house? Extensive internet searches along a variety of vectors have uncovered no plausible connections. However, in keeping with the themes of conspiracies and paranoia that so often permeated Dick's works, I am going to assume that the number represents the film's subliminal message that the very best day to produce and publish a review of this film would be 7/09; so, at the moment I am writing these words — the afternoon of July 9, 2006 — I will shortly send this review to Mark R. Kelly of <i>Locus Online</i>, in the hopes that he will be posting it on the same day, thus fulfilling the conspiracy." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

It is worth noting that the review was indeed posted on July 9.<br /><br />However, the date is formatted like this: "Saturday 9 July, 2006" -- not exactly a ringing endorsement of the writer's theory.<br /><br />It may be that we need to pluck a few more layers off that onion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Well I got all excited about the prospect of this film in 2004 and finally yesterday I saw it at the Melbourne Film Festival.<br /><br />And I was not disappointed. Having seen all the Dick adaptation films with the exception of <i>Barjo</i> the French version of <i>Confessions of a Crap Artist</i>. I would say this is the closest adaptation of one of his novels to date. My fears about Keanu are quelled. He suited the role of Bob Arctor well and was convincing. In fact I thought, perhaps through commitment to the spirit of this novel, the entire cast was great. A lot of the focus on the film has been discussing the rotoscoping animation technique. I personally think it worked exceptionally well. So much of Dick's work deals will the issue of discerning illusion from reality and the technique allows Linklater to explore this issue in a way not possible with regular film. It treats the drug issue effectively, urgently - and conveys Dick's critique well, as eminently relevant today as it was when the book was written.<br /><br />The movie has received a lot of outstanding critical reviews and a few poor ones. Most SciFi sites and the more academic review circles are rating it highly, so if you are a PKDick fan you will not be disappointed. In fact the link you gave lampblack is very close to my reading of the film. I see this film has had a range of reviews from 2 stars to 5 out of 5. I give it 4.5. I take off a half a point mainly because I thought it was a little too self explanatory and resolved at the end rather than revelatory in its irony and lack of resolution. There was one particular detraction from the book at the end (relating to Donna Hawthorne) that I did not like - but this fact will make it much more approachable for a larger audience so is probably a good thing.<br /><br />At the film festival BTW, <i>A Scanner Darkly</i> played to full house at the large Regent Theatre and got a rousing applause at the end of the film. Congratulations to Linklater and the t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tom_hobbes]

I watched the first quarter as posted by CalliAnn above but couldn't help feel that the animated style was a big mistake.<br /><br />I wanted to absorb the actual performances as part of the narrative, rather than having to continually marvel at how the visual style portrays them. Because the technique itself is such a slavish method, interpolated rotoscoping simply regurgitates the actors every move with an extra veneer, adding absolutely nothing of substance apart from it’s own heavy glaze of superficiality. As a medium it sits like a dead weight on top of the whole enterprise, drawing attention to itself with every frame, reinforcing it's artificiality. Thus far, nobody has adequately explained to me why this enhances Dick's vision. In fact the responses seem to confirm my point. Instead of being transported into the heart of Dick’s world view as in the novel, reviewers instead find themselves marvelling at the technique. As any artist worth his salt will tell you, technique should be thoroughly submerged, operating smoothly beneath the surface but never seen, never drawing attention for it’s own sake. It exists to serve the purposes of the artist through the medium. Here the technique is literally the surface. It has become the medium. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Hi Tom, <br /><br />I did not think about the rotoscoping much. I am an animation fan. I think it is a marvellous, under-used technique in film. I do not know if your are familiar at all with Jan Svankmajer's work. You ask "why". But I say "why not?" If the film-maker chooses to use such a technique because he is artistically inclined that way, it surely is his prerogative.<br /><br />And I think that it works. The first words of <i>A Scanner Darkly</i> are "Once a guy stood all day shaking bugs from his hair." Yes with computer technology you could have had a real life person crawling with real life bugs but this would have been macabre - something we have seen before in a hundred B-grade horror films. The animation in a way stands more effectively midway between reality and fantasy. The scramble suits work very well. It may have been more disorienting were it Star Wars style animation. And to illustrate the dissociation of reality and illusion and the split brain issue, I belive the technique gave an effective mechanism to do this that may not have worked if it were real video with computer animation. I was always worried about the outcome of this film, but was truly pleasantly surprised. It really is a great film - and I am sure I can count on just one hand the number of films that so faithfully bring a book to life. <br /><br />I guess knowing the book well, I did not pay much attention to the rotoscoping but to the story. I let the medium wash over me and felt like I was in a PKDick book. Before you go and see it, read the book again and try not to focus on the rotoscoping too much. Did you read that link of lampblack's above. Read paragraph 3 - quite a good take also on the effectiveness of the rotoscoping in this film. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">As a medium it sits like a dead weight on top of the whole enterprise</font><br /><br />Reading your post, I just simply do not agree with you and may be just a matter of artistic taste. I would say that as a m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Tom, I've been thinking about my last post and I feel myself a bit lame initially responding to 'why' with 'why not!'<br /><br />In reading the various reviews, those negative ones seem to have felt as you do. They have condemned the rotoscoping, but, in my mind, have not looked beyond it. The film is a remarkably good adaptation of the book.<br /><br />I guess my short answer to 'why it enhances Dick's vision?' is:<br /><br />1. A common theme of Dick's was to explore mental illness and the sometimes vague boundary between illusion and reality.<br />2. Animation gives a little more flexibility to explore this theme. As the rotoscoping starts with original film, as a media it also blurs the boundary between reality and illusion (and so in my mind enhances or at least gives an interesting take on Dick's vision)<br />3. It is probably useful to at least experiment with and try different media to get this vision across.<br /><br />I guess it does come down then just to artistic preference. I realise you are artistically inclined so may have more refined aesthetic sensibilities than me - but I liked it. I really felt the film worked. Will you be able to see it on the big screen soon over there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tom_hobbes]

Don't worry mate, you made a forceful enough argument for the film and the advantages of it's style. I just haven't been around much. I'm definitely going to see the film, partly as a result of your enthusiasm, partly because I can't resist Dick anyway. Ahem.<br /><br />These things are inevitably subjective, and you make a valid argument for your case, a much better argument than I did! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>