...or "A Scanner Dorkly" as my buddy's girl put it, as she wished us a good time at the movies..... Alright, I realize I’m a bit behind the times here, but I just got out to see this flick last Friday, and, as a big PKD fan, wanted to offer my thoughts here. First off, I’ll say that I generally enjoy Bob Sabiston’s rotoscope technique. However, about 20-30 minutes into the film, I was beginning to question why they had chosen it for this film- how it was serving the story. Around that point, something happened in the story- I forget exactly what, at the moment- that clued me in to the fact that the visuals were actually intended to present the audience with an immersive experience of the perceptions of a Substance D user (and this is later made explicitly clear, when “Hank” is having his final conversation with Arctor, and, for just a second or two, Arctor’s visual perception comes into a “real-world” focus)- a facsimile of how the world looks and feels to someone on the drug. Thereafter, I was able to appreciate and enjoy it much, much more- suddenly it wasn’t just animation for animation’s sake. I like that no one explicitly says that the scramble suit’s images modulate according to the wearer’s emotions/state of mind/intent, although that’s clearly what’s being shown. I don’t remember Dick writing of any such feature of the suit in the book, and really, wouldn’t such modulation undermine the suit’s purpose somewhat? Maybe all the tuned-in modulations are supposed to portray Arctor’s perception of the suit’s action as his mind decays- what he thinks he’s seeing on others’ scramble suits, what he believes is being projected on the outside of his own. But then, when the POV has generally shifted to other characters (like Barris, when he’s in the office w/ Hank and Arctor), we see this occurring on Arctor’s suit as well- so maybe it represents a perceptual change that’s occurring on the part of all D users in the presence of this suit….or perhaps it’s meant that people who are on the D (and the only two scramble-suit wearers portaryed in the film are both clearly on it) actually, thru some drug/biology/technology voodoo-interaction, begin to project these sorts of things thru the suit, mainly perceptible just to other users- but, under times of great duress (like Arctor’s breakdown during the speech in the first few minutes of the movie), non-users (like the all-cop audience, assuming most are not on the D) can begin to perceive it, too. In any case, the ambiguity seemed to be by design, and I think it served well the general disorienting mood of the story. The big problems for me were the ensemble scenes and the casting. Some of the scenes worked, portraying in a funny and exact way the particulars of stoner interaction- but some just fell flat or were hokey. Also, every moment that Harrelson, Downey, or Reeves were onscreen (but more so Harrelson and Downey for me, for some reason), I just couldn’t see/feel anything but these big-name actors doing their drug-user schtick. “ROBERT DOWNEY JR” in big lights across my mind, every monologue he delivered. Featuring Mr. “WOODY HARRELSON” as the fun n’ lovable, slightly dangerous country cousin addict. And I do like these actors, but you just can’t forget who they are, and you know this casting was just insisted upon by suits, to justify the investment in the film….lesser-known actors would’ve served the whole enterprise better….ah well….. All in all, still my most fave Dick adaptation yet, largely just for its ambition. Thanks for reading! -Mike
I posted a review of this somewhere but can't find it now. Anyway, I like your assessment of the scramble suit and overall perspective of the movie. Did you notice that in Donna's apartment, the background elements seemed not to be rotoscoped as much, or at all? In light of the ending I think there was definitely some significance to that. I liked the casting choices, though, and I definitely thought it wasn't coincidental that most of them were actors with substance abuse problems. This was my favorite movie of the year so far. I saw it twice, and I echo your sentiment that it's the most faithful Philip K. Dick adaption so far. I'm re-reading the book for the first time since college and I'm really enjoying it all over again.
Hey, really good review, Roger! You know, I was surprised by how moved I was by the end, especially because I knew what was coming (and because I generally have a hard time feeling empathy for Keanu)- it was heartbreaking. Huh- no, I didn't notice that about Donna's apartment- def. something I'll keep an eye out for next viewing. And yeah, last time I read it was about 15 years ago- I am definitely feeling inspired to re-read it now...
Thanks, and yeah, I even got choked up the second time I saw it, I guess I was thinking a lot about the people I know who have struggled with substance abuse. Re-reading the ending of the book, Dick spells it out that he is one of the people on that list, which makes it even sadder. I'm curious to hear what you think about the scene at Donna's. Either the backgrounds are completely non-rotoscoped, or they were computer generated for maximum realism. I just finished re-reading the book myself, it's time well spent.
