MovieChat Forums > Waking Life (2002) Discussion > Its INCREDIBLE how many people missed th...

Its INCREDIBLE how many people missed the significance of 'Waking life'

posted 14 years ago by toiletseat505-1
28 replies | jump to latest

So many negative and confused comments regarding "Waking Life"

Basically - This movie honestly takes a certain level of education and intelligence to fully understand. Even then, it needs to be analyzed and broken down further.

Too all you confused commentors, keep asking questions and looking for more answers, your on the right track! The more you learn the more connections you will make to the seeing BIG picture... and its an INCREDIBLE sight ;)

Too all you negative commentors, Just cause you don't comprehend it right away, does NOT mean its a "garbage movie". You don't have to stay in the place you are...just try to keep and open-mind.

This movie is absolutely.... ABSOLUTELY amazing, inspiring and life changing! (if you can understand it all)

Hint - its one of those movies you have to watch several times.

[–] mikoush 14 years ago

I completely agree, brother/sister (what is the gender of a toilet seat?). I remembering watching this for the second time, at least year after I had first seen it, and feeling like I had to go outside and experience life, because this movie shows you how beautiful life is.

Too many people are missing the point :(

[–] y2koool 13 years ago

(what is the gender of a toilet seat?).

that was really witty 'mikoush'

I LMAO for minutes wen I realised OP is some 'toiletseatETC'

no offence to any1 ,,, it was genuinely funny/witty. worth a admiration reply post.

[–] dcw-12 14 years ago

Ahaha you couldnt be more wrong its the opposite of what you say. Its a film to poke fun at intellectuals.

I mean when the film tells you to 'wake up' didnt that make you realize what it was all about.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] creaturefeeture 13 years ago

It's not to poke fun at intellectuals, it's to show that there is no "truth." There is no concrete definition of reality.

[–] Rookwood1105 11 years ago

You can't have philosophy without contradictions, these are questions with many possible answers. But so far, and maybe it's as far as it goes, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know everything for sure.

"It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence."

[–] sixpetite 14 years ago

@dcw Interesting, good call out on that.

[–] goatvveezer 14 years ago

OK toiletseat505-1, lets hear your break down of this movie. I want to hear your analysis, I want to hear the big picture. You sound like the typical douche bag who claims a movie is so intellectual and deep and yet are unable to actually write anything interesting about it. Instead of telling us how great it is, show us.

[–] my-left-foot 14 years ago

Are you guys serious? To those who need the message of the movie spoon fed to them, think.

You want to hear "his" analysis, I'll give you my break down, and I'll "show you".

I assume your going to immediately judge my intellect strictly by my ability to persuade you to think this movie was of deep philosophical value. But I want you to look passed the words I use, and attempt to really see where I am coming from. I'm also not pretending to be anymore intelligent than you, just offering a perspective.

The real value of this movie comes from the beautiful way the directors and editors brought about a deep theme through the use of rotoscoping. The question that is asked is a very general one, but often under-looked, which is, "what is the nature of reality?" It engagingly seeks answers to questions related to dreaming, lucid dreaming, death, and the beauty of waking life. Not only does it attempt to answer these questions, but it does so by using various perspectives. Some being hard to grasp and understand fully, but allows the viewer to think and leaves room for personal opinion. It asks that the viewer puts aside his conditioning as a defined member of society, and opens up to the mystery of life.

Now, all of this may seem corny to someone who doesn't realize we are apart of an existence of which we have no answers. But once one is open to this, we may see the perspective that says, "What other movie have I seen recently that gave a shot at tackling some of the truest and purest questions of life." And, in that way, "Waking Life" deserves more credit than what you critics are giving.

[–] wildride316 14 years ago

Toiletset was trying to sound intelligent, and make other people think he's intelligent for getting the movie.

then he forgot how to use grammar, and couldn't tell the difference between "your" and "you're", thus making him a moron.

[–] andy123127 13 years ago

And then you came along, Mr. "wildride316"... forgetting how to use capital letters and referring to someone named "toiletseat505-1" as "Toiletset", you must be one of the smarter ones one here, right?
Come on.... attacking the OP's spelling? Are you really feeling that intellectually inadequate?

I enjoyed the movie thoroughly because of it asking questions without trying to forcefeed you the answer afterwards.... it's all about feeling the wonder and awe related to the very nature of our existence... the physics of the universe and our often distorted and/or misleading perception of "reality".
Any movie that encourages thinking outside of the box, so to speak, deserves credit... God knows there's a LOT of nonsensical drivel disguised as "entertainment" out there these days.

[–] pinglenarmin 14 years ago

I absolutely agree with you. I've seen it many many times and it still gets me every time.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

I'm totally with you, except that I have only seen it once, more than a decade ago. I am reluctant to watch it again for fear that without the psychedelic state I was able to get into the first time, it will be a bit of a letdown.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] stevh177 9 years ago

Just my two cents, having been in the same boat...I first saw it in a movie theatre in 2001 (more or less), on the evening of my first day of fasting, and after sunbathing, doing yoga, and taking steam and sauna baths all day. I was in an extremely open state; the experience was visceral, cerebral, emotional (definitely teared up), inspiring, awakening.

14-15 years later, I watch it again, this time in front of a computer. Certainly its not as overwhelming as before, there were some parts I definitely _didn't_ like that I hadn't remembered, some scenes felt more "pretentious" or "preachy" to me (at least I could better understand that perspective), I was less impressed by some of the monologues, and slightly annoyed by some others.

But I still loved it, still found it to be a GREAT movie for sooo many reasons, not least of which its incredibly creative and groundbreaking use of animation (which I have yet to see surpassed), most brilliant use of a musical score since "The Graduate", the actual depiction of states of being and _thinking_ not otherwise accomplished anywhere. It is an ingenious work, which I hope will one day be recognized for the tremendous contribution it is to cinema, art, and yes, with all its flaws, even philosophy and the human endeavour.

It creates a world, a whole new set of cinematic realities that could be explored (and scarcely have been) in other movies. It continually refers to itself, reflects in images the ideas it espouses. Themes and motifs repeat, like musical ideas. Its self-reflexion is part of its message, but it does so in a compelling, humorous way to those who are aware of it. I would like to start giving examples, but I think that they could almost be considered spoilers.

In closing, though slightly tarnished, is still a gem of a movie. I recommend that you do watch it again, knowing it won't be the same...or maybe you will want to wait another four or five years, like I did...but also, its streaming on Netflix for three more days, if you happen to read this...

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

Oh wow, it's about to expire? Okay, thanks for the warning.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

So it is a kind of philosophical soap opera, made from throwing in together a number of superficial ideas (some of them incorrect or just plain crazy, others rather funny) on the (some of the) big questions of the human condition.

A false statement was, for example, in the scene with the holy moment, when the film critic's (or was it a director, I don't remember exactly) theory that we are all manifestations of God was described as being Christian, while it is clearly inspired by the pantheism of Spinoza (at best heretical, but more exactly akin to paganism or even animism). Christian dogma of all denominations that I know of clearly states that the Creator and the creation (the world with all in it, including the material universe and ourselves) are strictly distinct beings, belonging to altogether different ontological statuses. For example, while God is eternal, the world is limited in time. Even human souls, created as immortal, have a beginning, while God exists since forever.

The most absurd theory was the one professed by the protagonist trying to infer from the postmodern multiplication of narratives (discussed, for example, in "The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge" by Jean-Francois Lyotard) some kind of access way to a universal mind and a pure objectivity (when it is patently the case of an endless proliferation of subjectivity).

Other theories presented are tendentious, narrow-sided. There was one guy in the movie who asked why has mankind produced so few philosophers (seeming to consider all other human beings as not worthy to live), continuing then to say that the answer can be found by identifying the most common human trait, which is, in his opinion either laziness or fear (probably related to thinking for oneself). The beginning of the first movie of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy has more profound philosophy than this: when it explains the origin of the magical rings, it defines with one-liners the various races, and about the race of men it is said that above all they desire power. Greed and its results (imperialism, alienation etc.) could also explain the low number of philosophers in the general population of humankind. With an acute observing spirit, Aristotle wrote that philosophy was born out of leisure. Ancient Greece, where classical philosophy has been invented, was a slave-owing society, so the owners had plenty of time to cultivate their minds. Ancient India also had philosophical schools studying metaphysical subtleties. It also had a rigid caste-system. Enlightenment was linked to the rise of the burgeoisie to a dominant position in economy. And so forth. The working man has neither the education nor the time to ponder philosophical questions. The business man, is, on the other hand, well, busy with his stuff (mainly making the working man work for him). The highly specialized scientist is also busy keeping himself up-to-date in his constantly evolving narrow specialization (for he has to be competitive). The politicians are busy at fundraising and making themselves look important. So we are left with the professional philosophers and some amateurs (not used here in pejorative sense).

Oh yeah, and the funniest was the line about loving and making love to the paradoxes that bug you.

On a more serious and urgent note, you should all know and bear witness that there actually is only one true answer to all the great questions on life's mysteries, and it is .......... ...... ........ ..... ....... ...... .. ....... ........ .... ..... ...... ....... ......... ..... ........ . ... ... ......... .... ........ ...... ....... ........ ........ ...... ......... ........... ...... ...... .......... .......... ...... ........ ....... ....... ......... ........ ........ ......... .......... ..... .... ..... .... .... ...... .... ..... .... 42.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]