No drugs


I just watched this film for the first time and found it a very interesting and faithful capture of the 90s as I remember it. Although I was very young when this was released and grew up in the UK not America, I definately identified with the styles, culture and dialogue, particularly from the side of my family who were more hippy orientated.

I did notice however that for a film which captures a time and culture so well, the lack of drugs seemed quite a glaring omission. Of course it is implied that they get high and a few of the characters seem like addicts/regular drug taker, but it seemed odd that such a major part of the lifestyle would be completely ignored. To be fair, the film does skate over the issue of sex too, with only one direct reference to it.

Do you think this was for a reason? Was Linklater trying to avoid controversy (which makes sense given the circumstances that the film was made in), or do you think he just wanted to place the focus on the different areas of people's life.

Something else I wonder is, for people who watched this on release, did you feel it captured the world as you knew it? The film captures a 90s nostalgia perfectly, but I have noticed that whenever films come out that "capture the time" none of them ever seem remotely realistic (such as Thirteen for example) and only retrospection gives them a gloss of realism. I suspect people will look back at Superbad in twenty years and think "man, that totally captured the late 2000s" but few people who watched it on release considered it a realistic depiction of modern times. What do you think?

reply

[deleted]

I thought drugs reached their nadir in the 90s, what with George Bush.

reply

I think he wanted to focus more on the people.

I hears there's lots of drugs in Dazed And Confused though.

reply

Was Linklater trying to avoid controversy (which makes sense given the circumstances that the film was made in), or do you think he just wanted to place the focus on the different areas of people's life.


Wanted to place the focus on different areas of people's lives.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

I read something about the making of Dazed and Confused and how Linklater had a pretty hard-nose attitude towards drug use among the cast, despite the movie having a lit joint going in nearly the entire film.

If I had to guess, Linklater might have just been trying to avoid making a "stoner" movie. There's so much more texture in this kind of bohemian milieu than *just* drug use and Linklater partly seems to want to normalize or show these characters and situations without "oh, they're just high" as a deflection from their characters.

He might also just be the kind of guy who is turned off by drug use. There's some subset of people I've known on the bohemian side of life who just don't like drug use at all, especially if they're ambitious about something (like filmmaking). It's kind of easy to live in a bohemian world where everyone is a pot smoking slacker and not get anywhere.

As for your question about whether it captured the world as I knew it, I would say absolutely. I was literally this movie's demographic when it came out and could easily identify people I knew or had known among the characters in this film. I was living in a bohemian area of a different city but it was like they filmed it in MY city among the kinds of people I lived, work, drank and partied with.

To this day this film gives me a weird sense of deja vu/flashbacks to this time in my life.

What's also pretty impressive about this film is that it's kind of one of the last generation films that came before the Internet took off. It has an authenticity to it that isn't really around anymore in a world dominated by social media or the instant awareness of everything. There were social niches outside of any mainstream awareness, you weren't one blog click away from being a bohemian insider.

reply

[deleted]