Disclaimer: The rotoscope angles and constantly shaking/moving frames are bound to impart terrible headaches to few viewers. Such audience are hereby advised to get an eye exam and also ensure adequate sleep.
So the beginning note, Dream is Destiny. Quite true. For most of us, our lives are (mostly partial) manifestation of our dreams. The extent obviously depends on the strength of our belief, amongst other factors. Thereafter, the movie drifts into a random, convoluted loop of switching between dream-dream, dream-reality, reality-dream etc. The central character is the key subject with too many predicate characters that appear in his dreaming and waking life alike.
The discussions are though provoking to the genuinely interested folk. In true honesty, I never belonged there. It was not my cuppa tea. But then love in its purest form, chaturbhuj gulabjamuns, and possibly some integrated delta amounts of genuine interest pulled me back to the lcd to witness what has been aptly termed "Waking Life". The topic under fire is existential evidence of our beings. Do we really exist or is it just a dogmas preserved, enjoyed and passed on to us. Is everything that happens around us real? If so, do we have any said control over it? Do we REALLY have choices? Debit/Credit or Paper/Plastic are outstanding examples presented in context. Such thoughts reflect again in the car-driving-loud-speaker, who pretty much sounds like running for the next GoP nomination, all fired up, mentions how all pools of thoughts have only chained the human thinking and creativity to a certain limit. Agreed. +1. Like.
Progressing with the timeline, the next scene that stood out for me was the discussion shared between two people that the lady in the scene feels like she is an old woman just living the memoirs of her youth. If my grey cells don't fail me, there was this Japanese tele-series aired on Doordarshan some 2 decades ago. It had a similar theme. To me, since then, it has been an inspiration, to live the present to the best. Best that can be passed on to, say the future generations with the flashbacks propelling time-travel. Without drawing a longer tangent, so yes, the lady, who also mentions time lapses, wherein she sees a 12 minute dream with a minute of sleep- which again, has been experienced by yours truly, commonly painted in a horrific theme, minutes before the few very important academic feats. So dreams could very well be our lives - though that wouldn't make up for a very pretty world. And the said study that is supposed to support the notion of "collective memory" - BS. It's a shameful ignorance of the fact that questions are never about seeking the correct replies. It is always about expected replies. And the expectations, once shared, spread out fast. Also, the fact that the NYTimes crossword archives can be browsed using a demi-god-like-search-tool conceived by a money-minting corporate in Mountain View, has been disregarded with utmost carelessness.
Next, the premise of free will is brought up. And a very striking fact that human bodies are mostly constituted of water, is presented. Which breeds a thought that asks- "is that the restless nature of water that the human minds are capable to run multiple streams of thoughts, all at different pace and spatial/temporal/ethical directions and switch between them in sub-second-timeframes? Connecting further in the movie is a scene where a woman is trying to share her picture, taken when she was a baby. And to relate to the audience, some set of common information has to be shared to convey the metamorphosis/photoshop/animation between her past and present. This is collective consciousness - a form of shared knowledge, unique to the human mind. Though the pace at which it picks up, varies per individual.
Several not-so-appealing-nor-memorable sequences later, the central character is found to be in the middle of a discussion. Here, among other things, it is mentioned that dreams are real only as long as they last. Then someone proposes the same concept can be applied to the notion of life. Um, not exactly true for dreams I say. Dreams, I think, hold more energy than life itself. They run the capacity to fuel life, to add meaning/color/direction to life. Or lack thereof. So no, dreams are real for much longer than they last. Or should I submit to a tingling thought that the ones that last forever are the ones that are utmost real? You say!
Moving along, the "confrontation of souls" appealed as an inspiring example. However, residents of the National Capital Region are strongly advised to exercise due caution initiating the process of confrontation. The results might involve a trip or two to a hospital. Say, it could be worse.
Closer to the closing, some remarks are made about the theory that we all existed in the past and the present is all about a dead man's world. Another remark that stuck with me, was about our existence in the instant. This resonates quite well with the theory of parallel universes. Of the fact that there could be infinitesimal numbers of me's, you's and the world's - all existing with the lifespan of an instant. And once that instant is over, it's only the reminiscence that continues to live - not the matter. This is a hazy presentation of my crazy albeit infectious comprehension of Modern Physics. The cat being the source of my wisdom, I shamelessly avoided sharing such thoughts with physics teachers of the time. Reading, comprehension and late-night bakar-bakar's have always ruled and ridiculed the core understanding of Modern Physics. Where the world of physics and philosophy converge, its best to let the air flow freely outside the confines of academic-statuette-motivations.
So all said-n-done, or better, seen and typed, Waking Life is a decent attempt to present the question or question the present thoughts of existentialism, lucid dreams, freedom of being and the overall concept of reality and its connection with un-reality. Though a sincere attempt, I have to confess the movie does seem a bit of a drag at times. While I totally understand that proving a mathematical or logical theorem doesn't constitute the goal or process of the movie - and that it cannot be expected to belong to the closure of the movie, some focus has to exist. Randomness for 99 minutes becomes too random to handle, connect or observe attentively.
The whole exercise, if complimented with effective music/audio effects, could have been directed towards a bestseller audio book. Somehow, in all honesty, I cannot for god-sakes adapt to rotoscope.
Amen.
PS: Under any circumstances, if the 1000 grams of the said precious element is not delivered within hours of publishing this post, "somebody gonna get a hurt real bad".
