‘Slackers’ the film that fueled independent cinema

By Rafael Abreu
Cult Classic

Filmed in 1989 and released in 1990 and 1991, Richard Linklater’s “Slacker” is a unique piece of film experimentation that helped fuel the flame of American independent cinema in the 90s. Before Linklater created “Dazed and Confused,” the “Before” trilogy, and most recently, “Boyhood,” he created this plotless look at the people who populate the city of Austin, Texas.

Starting with a man coming off a bus and ending with a group of friends playing with cameras, “Slacker” goes from one character to the other, tracking a myriad of people over the span of a single day. Each person remains memorable for one reason or another: for how they look, how they act, what they talk about or what they do.

The conversations cover an interesting array of topics, including philosophy, conspiracy, music, pop culture and local events. Some of these conversations stick to being of a local flavor, while others, while talking about things that were relevant then, still are relevant today due to the actual content of the conversations.

“Slacker” is known for its massive amount of characters, all of whom are named by their circumstances and such; for example, being named in the credits as the “Should Have Stayed at the Bus Station” character.

Each new character leads us to our next characters, and this continues throughout the film. This helps the film from being boring, since the camera is always moving, observing and following the denizens of the college town.

The characters are mainly young folk who don’t have much to do–college dropouts, graduates–and occasionally the film will come across older individuals with out-there opinions and personalities. When watched on a scene-by-scene basis, the conversations between the characters tend to be bizarre or interesting either because there’s no resolution or beginning to these conversations, or because they are bizarre in nature, for example, conspiracies involving space travel, pap smears.

Something “Slacker” is able to do it make characters be memorable for just being who they are. We get the weird guy with weird things in his home, the hippie chick who graces the film’s cover and marketing material, the guy who goes to his local market in nothing but a robe, the guy who has multiple televisions and others. Combine these images with their conversations, goals and possible aspirations, and you’re bound to come across a character or two that’ll really stick with you, no matter how fleeting their appearance may be.

For all the praise and appreciation one can give to “Slacker,” it’s possible that this film may not be appealing to everyone. The film’s lack of plot could be seen as problematic, and the way the film navigates from one character to another with no resolution can also be either boring or frustrating for some.

If you understand that the film is simply a day in the life of Austin folk, then you’ll be well prepared for the random way the film goes about portraying everything. Engagement in the film might be difficult as well, but at least for me, the very nature of the film kept me hooked. The very fact that it’s an experimental film should clue the viewer that it isn’t conventional. And that alone would make “Slacker” worth recommending, but the fact that it puts us in a place and time so well and is enjoyable throughout makes it that much more of an excellent motion picture.