[Movie] A Scanner Darkly - proto-cyberpunk, maybe?
[Movie] A Scanner Darkly - proto-cyberpunk, maybe?
All of Philip K. Dick's writings pre-date cyberpunk as a genre but were very influential in the creation of cyberpunk. So he represents a proto-cyberpunk period in time. Also, most of his books are about drug use and questioning reality.
When his books are only used as the foundation of a movie, amazing things can happen (Blade Runner, Minority Report, Total Recall). But when you create a faithful adaptation of his works it always ends up... kinda weird. A Scanner Darkly follows its source material very closely. So even though the movie was made in 2006, it really represents a proto-cyberpunk point in time. And it's all about taking drugs and questioning reality.
The movie has big-name actors (Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr, Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder) but the majority of the movie is just a bunch of junkies sitting around their house being weird. The rotoscoping animation style is really cool (and used to great effect here) but it isn't enough to get me to care about the story. I don't know, I guess I'd call this movie interesting but I'm not sure if it's good.
Here's a trailer. I don't think it's streaming anywhere though.
I don't know, I guess I'd call this movie interesting but I'm not sure if it's good.
It's good, imo, but not the sort of thing you watch with someone else or recommend. You have to come by it alone.
Also, it features Alex Jones when he was still just "That Crazy Guy" and not "This Fucking Guy >.> scoots away"
I think maybe it wasn't a great choice to try to make it a faithful adaptation for a couple reasons, the biggest one is pacing. It throws a lot at you very quickly and it's pretty difficult to follow what is going on, with the book there is obviously more time to mull it over. Another is how much is conveyed through wordplay and the way things are phrased.
One thing I like about it is how it explores the themes of the difficulty of trusting others when it's impossible to know what reality is, the difficulty of caring for or not betraying them, and how that can also be extended to yourself.
I saw this in the theater when it came out.
I knowI would say it's definitely cyberpunk.
I found the movie kinda bland when I saw it but I just read the book and it was really good. Not sure why the movie made it kinda hard to care about the characters
You should read up on how Dick and his drug usage led to his own paranoia. This is practically a diary.
I also think you are confusing films made from his work with the actual work itself. To comment on the worlds Dick was creating you need to look at the text rather than adaptation that came decades after cyberpunk was already a thing (in some cases). An aesthetic veneer of cyberpunk works well with his narratives but not neccessarily with the writing style.
The book is excellent and the audiobook narrated by Paul Giamatti is so good it ruined the text for me - I couldn't do the voices as well in my head as he could. First and only time that's happened.
Whichever form you take, the book is very worth reading
I understand this novel is practically a diary, but that doesn't mean it has to be a good movie.
I've read a lot of PKD's books and while i won't stop anyone from enjoying them, I personally felt like he had great ideas/worlds but struggled with telling a story in that world. So I'm not confusing the films made from his work with the actual work, I'm specifically only referring to the films. I think when films use his novels as a template for world-building, it turns out great. But attempting to accurately portray his novels on film tends to fall flat.
It's perfectly fine if you to disagree with me, but I wasn't making any comment about the novels or his writing style. I was only making broad generalizations of the film adaptations.
I'm specifically talking about the difference in time between when he wrote the story and when that film was made.
That is, one is pre- the conception of cyberpunk as a formal genre and the other is very much post- it.
I wasn't attacking anything you said, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.
Also, I'm not saying anything about the quality of the films made of his work. I sort of agree with you. They make fine books, but film is a different form and requites different ways of exploring narrative. If anything his work acts as a good launching point to explore ideas in film, rather than acting as templates for a movie.
Slightly unrelated but if you liked it check out Waking Life