WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.299 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're tackling 00:00:02.299 --> 00:00:05.360 a filmmaker who, well, he isn't just telling 00:00:05.360 --> 00:00:07.660 stories about life. He's actually using cinema, 00:00:07.799 --> 00:00:11.500 fundamentally, to capture the whole messy, ordinary, 00:00:11.740 --> 00:00:15.259 relentless act of living itself. We are diving 00:00:15.259 --> 00:00:17.879 into the world of Richard Linklater, born July 00:00:17.879 --> 00:00:21.829 30, 1960, Houston, Texas. He's become this sort 00:00:21.829 --> 00:00:25.350 of unparalleled cartographer of casual but also 00:00:25.350 --> 00:00:27.629 really profound time. Yeah, that cartographer 00:00:27.629 --> 00:00:29.469 of time idea, that's exactly it. That's what 00:00:29.469 --> 00:00:32.049 makes his work so, so unique. I mean, sure, he 00:00:32.049 --> 00:00:34.549 engages with suburban culture. We see that. But 00:00:34.549 --> 00:00:37.369 his real signature, it's that methodological 00:00:37.369 --> 00:00:40.469 obsession, you know, with the effects of time 00:00:40.469 --> 00:00:43.109 passing. He's really changed how we think about 00:00:43.109 --> 00:00:45.770 narrative structure. He prefers just observing, 00:00:45.869 --> 00:00:47.890 letting conversations happen rather than, you 00:00:47.890 --> 00:00:49.710 know, relying on traditional plot mechanics. 00:00:49.869 --> 00:00:52.229 Absolutely. So our mission today is really to 00:00:52.229 --> 00:00:55.049 unpack the career of this American auteur whose 00:00:55.049 --> 00:00:57.689 method, I mean, it often is the story, isn't 00:00:57.689 --> 00:00:59.329 it? Right. We're going to trace his path from 00:00:59.329 --> 00:01:01.509 those super micro -budget indie roots back in 00:01:01.509 --> 00:01:05.109 Texas all the way to these sprawling multi -decade 00:01:05.109 --> 00:01:07.989 experiments like Boyhood, which landed him on 00:01:07.989 --> 00:01:12.030 the 2015 Time 100 list. Pretty influential. He 00:01:12.030 --> 00:01:14.390 basically figured out how to film a process, 00:01:14.469 --> 00:01:17.290 not just a contained story. And I think if you're 00:01:17.290 --> 00:01:19.129 trying to get your head around the Linklater 00:01:19.129 --> 00:01:22.010 universe, you've got to hold these two almost 00:01:22.010 --> 00:01:24.150 contradictory styles in your head at the same 00:01:24.150 --> 00:01:27.189 time. First, there are those huge high concept 00:01:27.189 --> 00:01:30.549 time lapse projects, real tests of patience. 00:01:30.590 --> 00:01:32.450 We're talking the before trilogy, obviously, 00:01:32.569 --> 00:01:35.670 and boyhood using the exact same actors over 00:01:35.670 --> 00:01:38.609 years and years. Decades even. And then the second 00:01:38.609 --> 00:01:40.609 thing, the other pillar is that other style. 00:01:41.120 --> 00:01:43.840 These really philosophical, very loosely structured, 00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:47.019 dialogue heavy films that often happen entirely 00:01:47.019 --> 00:01:49.019 within a really condensed time frame, like a 00:01:49.019 --> 00:01:51.799 single day. Exactly. Like Slacker or Days and 00:01:51.799 --> 00:01:53.819 Confused or even something like Tape. Right. 00:01:53.920 --> 00:01:55.700 So it feels like two sides of the same coin, 00:01:55.780 --> 00:01:58.459 doesn't it? This time coin. In one, he's exploring 00:01:58.459 --> 00:02:00.400 time by stretching it out, making you feel every 00:02:00.400 --> 00:02:03.019 year. And in the other, he explores the pressure 00:02:03.019 --> 00:02:05.659 of time by cramming everything into one day. 00:02:06.180 --> 00:02:08.120 We're going to dig into how those two approaches 00:02:08.120 --> 00:02:11.240 actually feed off each other. Okay, so let's 00:02:11.240 --> 00:02:14.560 unpack this unlikely path that actually led Linklater 00:02:14.560 --> 00:02:17.259 to filmmaking because, honestly, it starts miles 00:02:17.259 --> 00:02:20.419 away from any film set. Deep in Texas athletics. 00:02:20.860 --> 00:02:22.740 It's a really interesting backstory, yeah. He 00:02:22.740 --> 00:02:25.139 went to Huntsville High for, what, grades 9 through 00:02:25.139 --> 00:02:27.560 11, played football there. He was actually the 00:02:27.560 --> 00:02:29.939 backup QB for a team ranked number one in the 00:02:29.939 --> 00:02:32.379 state. Wow. Which, you know, right away it tells 00:02:32.379 --> 00:02:33.979 you something about a certain kind of focus, 00:02:34.039 --> 00:02:36.080 maybe a competitive drive, even if it wasn't 00:02:36.080 --> 00:02:38.719 aimed at movies yet. Then he switched to Bel 00:02:38.719 --> 00:02:41.180 Air High for senior year. Focused more on baseball. 00:02:41.360 --> 00:02:43.520 Kept playing that at Sam Houston State University. 00:02:43.960 --> 00:02:45.599 That athletic discipline. I wonder if you can 00:02:45.599 --> 00:02:47.680 kind of see a thread there. Looking forward to 00:02:47.680 --> 00:02:50.099 the boyhood commitment. You know, that 12 -year 00:02:50.099 --> 00:02:52.340 thing. A different kind of endurance test, maybe? 00:02:52.800 --> 00:02:56.039 Possibly, yeah. A sustained focus. And interestingly, 00:02:56.199 --> 00:02:59.039 even back then during that athletic phase, there 00:02:59.039 --> 00:03:02.120 was this little hint of his artistic side. He 00:03:02.120 --> 00:03:04.560 won a Scholastic Art and Writing Award as a teenager. 00:03:04.819 --> 00:03:07.360 Oh, interesting. But the real pivot, the moment 00:03:07.360 --> 00:03:09.460 everything changed direction, was when he dropped 00:03:09.460 --> 00:03:11.740 out of Sam Houston State. Right. That's the key 00:03:11.740 --> 00:03:14.400 turning point. Definitely. He left college, took 00:03:14.400 --> 00:03:16.879 this really tough job working on an offshore 00:03:16.879 --> 00:03:20.560 oil rig, Gulf of Mexico. And you can just imagine, 00:03:20.759 --> 00:03:23.240 right, the isolation, the sheer repetition. of 00:03:23.240 --> 00:03:26.719 that work, it feels like almost the perfect setup 00:03:26.719 --> 00:03:29.020 for the kind of philosophical wandering, the 00:03:29.020 --> 00:03:32.060 aimlessness you see in his later films. Yeah, 00:03:32.080 --> 00:03:34.860 like a strange kind of incubator. And that environment, 00:03:34.939 --> 00:03:37.360 it accidentally became the place where his creative 00:03:37.360 --> 00:03:39.659 spark really caught fire. Apparently he read 00:03:39.659 --> 00:03:42.620 novels constantly out there, just devouring books 00:03:42.620 --> 00:03:45.039 to escape the grind. Then when he got back to 00:03:45.039 --> 00:03:47.400 shore, that reading habit turned into something 00:03:47.400 --> 00:03:50.050 else. He started going to this repertory cinema 00:03:50.050 --> 00:03:52.229 in Houston over and over again, fell totally 00:03:52.229 --> 00:03:54.590 in love with film. That's the aha moment right 00:03:54.590 --> 00:03:57.229 there. The passion shifts from the page to the 00:03:57.229 --> 00:04:00.189 screen. He realizes, okay, filmmaking, that's 00:04:00.189 --> 00:04:03.270 what I have to do. And crucially, he didn't just 00:04:03.270 --> 00:04:06.610 dream about it. No waiting around. No. He took 00:04:06.610 --> 00:04:08.689 his savings from the oil rig job, which must 00:04:08.689 --> 00:04:10.770 have been pretty decent money, and made a really 00:04:10.770 --> 00:04:14.810 strategic move to Austin, Texas. Bought his own 00:04:14.810 --> 00:04:17.649 gear, Super 8 camera, projector, editing equipment, 00:04:17.930 --> 00:04:21.050 the whole starter kit. And moving to Austin wasn't 00:04:21.050 --> 00:04:23.750 just about changing cities, was it? It feels 00:04:23.750 --> 00:04:25.810 like a fundamental commitment to doing things 00:04:25.810 --> 00:04:28.269 his own way, outside the system. Totally. He 00:04:28.269 --> 00:04:30.709 used that money and that location to deliberately 00:04:30.709 --> 00:04:33.089 build a support structure outside of Hollywood. 00:04:33.560 --> 00:04:35.560 So this is where the Austin Film Society comes 00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:38.620 in. Exactly. In 1985, he co -founds the Austin 00:04:38.620 --> 00:04:40.779 Film Society. And look who he founded it with. 00:04:40.980 --> 00:04:44.040 Shala Foose, a college professor. Charles Ramirez 00:04:44.040 --> 00:04:47.079 Berg, another UT professor. Luis Black, who later 00:04:47.079 --> 00:04:50.199 founded SXSW. Wow, quite a crew. And Lee Daniel, 00:04:50.439 --> 00:04:52.420 who became his longtime cinematographer. This 00:04:52.420 --> 00:04:54.879 wasn't just some casual film club. No, it sounds 00:04:54.879 --> 00:04:56.319 like laying the groundwork for independence. 00:04:56.740 --> 00:04:59.120 Like a statement. We don't need L .A., we can 00:04:59.120 --> 00:05:01.569 build it here. Precisely. They created their 00:05:01.569 --> 00:05:04.089 own intellectual and practical hub. It gave them 00:05:04.089 --> 00:05:06.629 resources, a place to screen those obscure classics 00:05:06.629 --> 00:05:09.009 that clearly influenced his early style. And 00:05:09.009 --> 00:05:11.029 it built a community financially, creatively, 00:05:11.110 --> 00:05:13.550 that let these unconventional ideas actually 00:05:13.550 --> 00:05:17.250 happen far from studio pressures. And that independent 00:05:17.250 --> 00:05:19.730 hub, that whole Austin scene, it started producing 00:05:19.730 --> 00:05:22.250 results pretty quickly. First with some, you 00:05:22.250 --> 00:05:24.250 know, experimental shorts and just figuring things 00:05:24.250 --> 00:05:26.529 out. Right. His very first feature film kind 00:05:26.529 --> 00:05:29.329 of embodies that whole process over product idea, 00:05:29.430 --> 00:05:31.550 doesn't it? It's impossible to learn to plow 00:05:31.550 --> 00:05:35.110 by reading books from 1988. I mean, the title 00:05:35.110 --> 00:05:37.009 alone. Tells you everything. He was shot over 00:05:37.009 --> 00:05:39.750 a whole year, then edited for another year, all 00:05:39.750 --> 00:05:42.149 on that Super 8 gear he bought. It's a real artifact. 00:05:42.509 --> 00:05:44.589 If you're curious, you can actually find it on 00:05:44.589 --> 00:05:46.350 the Criterion Collection release of his next 00:05:46.350 --> 00:05:50.220 film. Which is Slacker. 1990. And slacker. I 00:05:50.220 --> 00:05:52.779 mean, it's not just an indie success. It practically 00:05:52.779 --> 00:05:56.079 defined the Gen X indie film movement. Made for 00:05:56.079 --> 00:05:58.079 almost nothing. How much was the budget? Just 00:05:58.079 --> 00:06:02.019 $23 ,000. Astonishingly low. But the budget wasn't 00:06:02.019 --> 00:06:04.259 really the point. It was the film itself. Right. 00:06:04.339 --> 00:06:06.019 Tell us about that, because it's not really a 00:06:06.019 --> 00:06:08.139 plot in the traditional sense, is it? Not even 00:06:08.139 --> 00:06:10.339 close. The structure is the statement. It basically 00:06:10.339 --> 00:06:12.540 just follows this meandering, aimless day in 00:06:12.540 --> 00:06:15.379 Austin. The camera literally drifts from one 00:06:15.379 --> 00:06:18.339 center character to the next, sometimes mid -conversation. 00:06:18.560 --> 00:06:20.339 Just eavesdropping on the city. Pretty much. 00:06:20.500 --> 00:06:24.060 Long rambling talks about, well, everything. 00:06:24.180 --> 00:06:26.519 Destiny, conspiracy theories, the meaning of 00:06:26.519 --> 00:06:29.680 Scooby -Doo, the anxiety of just existing. It 00:06:29.680 --> 00:06:33.019 just perfectly captured that feeling of a generation 00:06:33.019 --> 00:06:36.139 that felt a bit lost but had a lot to say. And 00:06:36.139 --> 00:06:38.560 people responded to that. The box office showed 00:06:38.560 --> 00:06:40.639 there was an audience hungry for something different. 00:06:40.819 --> 00:06:44.779 It grossed over $1 .25 million. Incredible return. 00:06:45.079 --> 00:06:47.860 That cemented him, didn't it, as this viable, 00:06:48.079 --> 00:06:51.160 low -risk indie filmmaker who could create buzz 00:06:51.160 --> 00:06:54.079 just from ideas and dialogue. Yeah. And that's 00:06:54.079 --> 00:06:55.819 when he set up his production company, Detour 00:06:55.819 --> 00:06:58.079 Film Production. Named after that old film noir, 00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:01.000 right? Yeah, Edgar G. Ulmer's 1945 Noir Detour. 00:07:01.259 --> 00:07:04.060 A nod to resourceful, low -budget filmmaking 00:07:04.060 --> 00:07:07.160 fitting. So he builds on that cult buzz. But 00:07:07.160 --> 00:07:10.759 the next one, Dazed and Confused in 93, felt 00:07:10.759 --> 00:07:13.639 a bit broader, maybe. Drawing on his own high 00:07:13.639 --> 00:07:15.639 school days in Huntsville. Definitely broader 00:07:15.639 --> 00:07:17.660 appeal. Yeah. Set on the last day of school in 00:07:17.660 --> 00:07:21.000 1976. It's still got that loose conversational 00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:23.519 feel, but it's more structured than Slacker. 00:07:23.660 --> 00:07:26.060 More recognizable characters and situations. 00:07:26.579 --> 00:07:29.279 It didn't exactly explode at the box office initially, 00:07:29.379 --> 00:07:32.160 only about $8 million domestically. But then 00:07:32.160 --> 00:07:35.480 came VHS. Oh, yeah. VHS turned it into a phenomenon. 00:07:35.480 --> 00:07:38.420 It became the 90s movie about the 70s, reached 00:07:38.420 --> 00:07:40.959 a massive audience that way. It's less a comedy 00:07:40.959 --> 00:07:44.120 and more like a sociological time capsule capturing. 00:07:44.240 --> 00:07:47.040 that teenage tribalism, the end of an era feeling. 00:07:47.300 --> 00:07:49.480 And you absolutely have to mention Matthew McConaughey 00:07:49.480 --> 00:07:52.240 when you talk about Dazed. Cannot forget McConaughey, 00:07:52.319 --> 00:07:54.680 his breakout role. Wooderson, apparently those 00:07:54.680 --> 00:07:56.759 iconic lines were largely improvised by him. 00:07:56.779 --> 00:07:58.160 All right, all right, all right. Exactly. That 00:07:58.160 --> 00:08:00.420 role, that laid back kind of philosophical cool 00:08:00.420 --> 00:08:03.220 he had, it just clicked with people. Launched 00:08:03.220 --> 00:08:06.220 his whole career right there. Fellow Texan too. 00:08:06.439 --> 00:08:08.939 So from high school haze, he takes a complete 00:08:08.939 --> 00:08:13.360 left turn into romance. 1995, Before Sunrise. 00:08:13.920 --> 00:08:16.759 The start of the before trilogy. A total dialogue 00:08:16.759 --> 00:08:19.639 masterpiece. And it got him immediate international 00:08:19.639 --> 00:08:22.579 attention. Won the Silver Bear for Best Director 00:08:22.579 --> 00:08:24.660 at the Berlin Film Festival. He co -wrote that 00:08:24.660 --> 00:08:27.120 one with Kim Krasan. Establishing that collaborative 00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:29.199 writing style that became so key to the whole 00:08:29.199 --> 00:08:31.000 trilogy, right? Bringing actors into it later 00:08:31.000 --> 00:08:33.559 on. Absolutely. Feeding their perspectives, their 00:08:33.559 --> 00:08:36.600 voices into Jesse and Celine. But yeah, that 00:08:36.600 --> 00:08:39.620 first one set the stage. Intense connection forged 00:08:39.620 --> 00:08:42.059 purely through conversation. But it wasn't all 00:08:42.059 --> 00:08:44.440 smooth sailing in this period. After the indie 00:08:44.440 --> 00:08:46.860 success, he sort of flirted with Hollywood more 00:08:46.860 --> 00:08:49.259 directly. And it didn't quite work out initially. 00:08:49.460 --> 00:08:51.919 Right. There were a couple of bumps. Suburbia 00:08:51.919 --> 00:08:54.700 in 96, based on an Eric Bogosian play, didn't 00:08:54.700 --> 00:08:57.019 really connect critically or commercially. And 00:08:57.019 --> 00:08:59.019 then his first big studio picture, The Newton 00:08:59.019 --> 00:09:01.539 Boys in 1998. That had a proper budget, right? 00:09:01.659 --> 00:09:03.940 Yeah. Twenty seven million dollars. A historical 00:09:03.940 --> 00:09:06.700 crime story about Texas outlaws. But it just 00:09:06.700 --> 00:09:09.620 tank grossed only about ten point five million 00:09:09.620 --> 00:09:12.789 dollars back. Ouch. That feels like a crucial 00:09:12.789 --> 00:09:14.929 moment, though, like maybe a confirmation for 00:09:14.929 --> 00:09:17.929 him. I think so. It's that classic story. Talented 00:09:17.929 --> 00:09:20.889 indie director, tries the studio system, realizes 00:09:20.889 --> 00:09:23.509 the demands, traditional plots, marketing needs 00:09:23.509 --> 00:09:26.190 just don't fit his style. Linklater's work needs 00:09:26.190 --> 00:09:28.450 patience. It needs room for conversation to breathe. 00:09:28.889 --> 00:09:31.149 Hollywood doesn't always value those things. 00:09:31.309 --> 00:09:33.850 That experience probably just reinforced his 00:09:33.850 --> 00:09:36.889 decision to stay rooted in Austin, to keep control. 00:09:38.060 --> 00:09:41.220 OK, so moving into the 2000s, Linklater starts 00:09:41.220 --> 00:09:43.480 doing something really interesting. He's mixing 00:09:43.480 --> 00:09:45.399 more commercial projects with these genuinely 00:09:45.399 --> 00:09:49.100 weird, innovative, artistic swings. And this 00:09:49.100 --> 00:09:52.559 is where he really gets wider artistic recognition, 00:09:52.879 --> 00:09:55.200 partly through the hits, but maybe even more 00:09:55.200 --> 00:09:56.899 through pushing technological boundaries. This 00:09:56.899 --> 00:09:58.700 is the rotoscope era, right? Using that distinctive 00:09:58.700 --> 00:10:01.120 animation style. Exactly. Adult animation, but 00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:03.620 not like anything else. It defines two of his 00:10:03.620 --> 00:10:05.980 most philosophical and visually striking films. 00:10:06.679 --> 00:10:09.659 Waking Life in 2001, and then the Philip K. Dick 00:10:09.659 --> 00:10:13.179 adaptation, A Scanner Darkly, in 2006. Can you 00:10:13.179 --> 00:10:15.500 just quickly explain rotoscoping again? Because 00:10:15.500 --> 00:10:17.740 it's not traditional cartoon animation. Right, 00:10:17.799 --> 00:10:20.360 not at all. You shoot the entire film live action 00:10:20.360 --> 00:10:23.480 first, real actors, real sets, edit it like a 00:10:23.480 --> 00:10:26.460 normal movie. Then artists come in using Bob 00:10:26.460 --> 00:10:29.840 Sabiston's RotoShop software and they meticulously 00:10:29.840 --> 00:10:32.940 trace over every single frame. Wow, frame by 00:10:32.940 --> 00:10:35.379 frame. Frame by frame. It creates this incredible 00:10:35.379 --> 00:10:38.259 fluidity, this subjective feeling that traditional 00:10:38.259 --> 00:10:40.659 animation or even live action just can't quite 00:10:40.659 --> 00:10:43.070 capture. And the results are, well... They're 00:10:43.070 --> 00:10:45.190 perfectly suited to the themes he was exploring 00:10:45.190 --> 00:10:47.129 in those films, weren't they? Absolutely. For 00:10:47.129 --> 00:10:49.370 Waking Life, the animation makes everything feel 00:10:49.370 --> 00:10:51.929 like a dream. It's fluid, unstable, constantly 00:10:51.929 --> 00:10:54.889 shifting, which is perfect for a film about lucid 00:10:54.889 --> 00:10:57.649 dreaming, existentialism, the nature of reality 00:10:57.649 --> 00:11:00.690 itself. The visuals are... The philosophy, in 00:11:00.690 --> 00:11:03.509 a way. And then for A Scanner Darkly, it serves 00:11:03.509 --> 00:11:05.789 a much darker purpose. Totally different vibe. 00:11:05.870 --> 00:11:08.690 The rotoscoping there enhances the paranoia, 00:11:08.690 --> 00:11:10.970 the identity breakdown that's central to Philip 00:11:10.970 --> 00:11:13.470 K. Dick. The world itself looks unstable, constantly 00:11:13.470 --> 00:11:16.309 being redrawn, mirroring how the characters are 00:11:16.309 --> 00:11:18.389 losing their grip due to drugs and surveillance. 00:11:18.450 --> 00:11:20.840 It makes you feel... visually anxious. Roger 00:11:20.840 --> 00:11:24.559 Ebert really nailed it when he praised that semi 00:11:24.559 --> 00:11:27.340 -real quality. It's this uncanny bridge between 00:11:27.340 --> 00:11:30.120 animation and something more like cinema verite. 00:11:30.220 --> 00:11:31.879 And it wasn't just a one -off experiment for 00:11:31.879 --> 00:11:34.159 him either. He came back to it much later with 00:11:34.159 --> 00:11:36.700 Apollo 10 and a Half. A space -age childhood 00:11:36.700 --> 00:11:40.159 in 2022 shows he's committed to the technique 00:11:40.159 --> 00:11:42.759 when the story demands that kind of subjective 00:11:42.759 --> 00:11:45.659 viewpoint. These films really cemented him as 00:11:45.659 --> 00:11:48.419 a genuine innovator, not just a dialogue guy. 00:11:48.730 --> 00:11:50.649 But critically, while he's doing these arthouse 00:11:50.649 --> 00:11:52.789 experiments, he's also having massive mainstream 00:11:52.789 --> 00:11:56.230 success. School of Rock in 2003 was enormous. 00:11:56.629 --> 00:11:59.409 Huge hit. Huge worldwide hit. It really broadened 00:11:59.409 --> 00:12:01.370 his audience, showed he could handle studio material 00:12:01.370 --> 00:12:03.809 effectively, especially when it tapped into that 00:12:03.809 --> 00:12:06.190 genuine youthful energy he captures so well. 00:12:06.309 --> 00:12:08.850 That film made, what, $131 million globally? 00:12:09.210 --> 00:12:11.149 Still the biggest commercial success by far. 00:12:11.350 --> 00:12:13.230 And I think it works because Linklater is so 00:12:13.230 --> 00:12:15.769 good at capturing authentic passion, right? Whether 00:12:15.769 --> 00:12:18.029 it's Jack Black's character's love for rock or... 00:12:18.029 --> 00:12:20.230 or the kids discovering their talent. It feels 00:12:20.230 --> 00:12:23.309 real. Exactly. And he followed that up with the 00:12:23.309 --> 00:12:26.730 Bad News Bears remake in 2005. Again, working 00:12:26.730 --> 00:12:29.549 within a studio genre framework, but keeping 00:12:29.549 --> 00:12:32.289 his observational touch. This period also saw 00:12:32.289 --> 00:12:34.909 him digging into more direct social commentary, 00:12:35.129 --> 00:12:37.190 didn't it? Yeah. Kind of circling back to the 00:12:37.190 --> 00:12:39.830 political undertones of Slacker. Yeah. There 00:12:39.830 --> 00:12:43.909 was that HBO pilot in 2003, $5 .15, co -wrote 00:12:43.909 --> 00:12:46.690 it with Rodney Rothman, about minimum wage restaurant 00:12:46.690 --> 00:12:48.830 workers. You can see the themes brewing there 00:12:48.830 --> 00:12:51.379 that came out fully in his next. Which was Fast 00:12:51.379 --> 00:12:54.980 Food Nation in 2006, adapting that massive nonfiction 00:12:54.980 --> 00:12:57.460 bestseller by Eric Schlosser. Right. A really 00:12:57.460 --> 00:12:59.960 ambitious film tackling the whole U .S. fast 00:12:59.960 --> 00:13:02.059 food industry machine, weaving together multiple 00:13:02.059 --> 00:13:04.980 storylines. It got into Cannes, which was prestigious. 00:13:05.379 --> 00:13:07.830 But the reception was a bit mixed. Kind of mixed 00:13:07.830 --> 00:13:09.889 reviews when it came out more widely. Maybe audiences 00:13:09.889 --> 00:13:11.809 just weren't expecting that kind of sprawling, 00:13:11.809 --> 00:13:13.809 almost journalistic approach from the guy who 00:13:13.809 --> 00:13:15.889 just did School of Rock. Meanwhile, while all 00:13:15.889 --> 00:13:18.629 this is happening, the rotoscoping, the blockbusters, 00:13:18.690 --> 00:13:21.570 the social commentary, he's quietly, patiently 00:13:21.570 --> 00:13:24.029 building the next stages of the Before trilogy. 00:13:24.269 --> 00:13:26.269 That's the amazing thing. Before Sunset comes 00:13:26.269 --> 00:13:30.009 out in 2004. Then Before Midnight in 2013. Both. 00:13:30.519 --> 00:13:34.240 Huge critical darlings. Both got him Oscar nominations 00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:36.240 for Best Adapted Screenplay. And sharing that 00:13:36.240 --> 00:13:38.279 nomination with the actors, Ethan Hawke and Julie 00:13:38.279 --> 00:13:40.980 Delpy. That feels so unique to this project. 00:13:41.259 --> 00:13:43.419 It really is. It speaks to how authentic those 00:13:43.419 --> 00:13:45.559 conversations feel on screen because they were 00:13:45.559 --> 00:13:47.779 developed collaboratively over those long gaps 00:13:47.779 --> 00:13:50.639 between films. The characters aged, the actors 00:13:50.639 --> 00:13:53.340 aged, the perspectives evolved together. The 00:13:53.340 --> 00:13:55.259 trilogy really becomes about the weight of time 00:13:55.259 --> 00:13:57.700 itself, doesn't it? Using those nine -year gaps 00:13:57.700 --> 00:14:00.929 as the actual dramatic engine. showing us what's 00:14:00.929 --> 00:14:03.149 gained, what's lost, how relationships weather 00:14:03.149 --> 00:14:06.029 the years. And those nine -year gaps, they feel 00:14:06.029 --> 00:14:08.690 like the perfect lead -in to the ultimate experiment 00:14:08.690 --> 00:14:11.309 in filming time. The absolute peak of his career, 00:14:11.450 --> 00:14:14.840 arguably his masterpiece. Boyhood. Yeah, Boyhood. 00:14:14.899 --> 00:14:17.440 It almost needs its own genre category, doesn't 00:14:17.440 --> 00:14:19.500 it? Released in 2014, it wasn't just filmed over 00:14:19.500 --> 00:14:21.500 a long time. It was a genuine 12 -year commitment. 00:14:22.139 --> 00:14:25.159 Sporadic filming between 2002 and 2013 with the 00:14:25.159 --> 00:14:27.960 exact same cast. Watching the main character, 00:14:28.120 --> 00:14:31.379 Mason, literally grow up on screen. From 6 years 00:14:31.379 --> 00:14:35.539 old to 18, the sheer audacity, the patience required. 00:14:36.799 --> 00:14:39.460 It's hard to even comprehend. It really is. And 00:14:39.460 --> 00:14:41.500 the fact that he cast his own daughter, Lorelei 00:14:41.500 --> 00:14:43.659 Linklater, as Mason's older sister, Samantha, 00:14:44.019 --> 00:14:46.940 that just adds another layer. Yeah, it makes 00:14:46.940 --> 00:14:49.299 it even more meta somehow. Totally. It wasn't 00:14:49.299 --> 00:14:51.580 stunt casting. It meant the film was capturing 00:14:51.580 --> 00:14:54.480 something deeply personal, a version of his own 00:14:54.480 --> 00:14:57.059 family's passage of time embedded right there 00:14:57.059 --> 00:14:59.659 in the fiction. It elevates it beyond just a 00:14:59.659 --> 00:15:01.820 movie into this kind of observational document. 00:15:01.879 --> 00:15:04.820 And the critics. They just went wild for it, 00:15:04.860 --> 00:15:06.820 didn't they? Unanimous praise doesn't even cover 00:15:06.820 --> 00:15:09.559 it. It got that perfect 100 score on Metacritic, 00:15:09.559 --> 00:15:12.220 which is incredibly rare. Critics basically ran 00:15:12.220 --> 00:15:14.899 out of adjectives trying to describe the commitment, 00:15:15.019 --> 00:15:16.940 the emotional impact. The awards just rolled 00:15:16.940 --> 00:15:19.340 in after that. Swept the board for directing. 00:15:19.960 --> 00:15:22.779 Golden Globe, Critics' Choice, BAFTAs for Best 00:15:22.779 --> 00:15:25.960 Director and Best Picture, and crucially, Boyhood 00:15:25.960 --> 00:15:28.379 got him his first Oscar nominations for Best 00:15:28.379 --> 00:15:30.980 Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best 00:15:30.980 --> 00:15:34.159 Picture. Finally, the Academy recognized this 00:15:34.159 --> 00:15:37.120 decades -long independent vision at the highest 00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:40.159 level. After hitting that absolute peak of structural 00:15:40.159 --> 00:15:43.179 ambition, what does he do next? He immediately 00:15:43.179 --> 00:15:46.659 pivots back to his other signature style, the 00:15:46.659 --> 00:15:49.389 single -day film. Right back to it. 2016, he 00:15:49.389 --> 00:15:51.929 releases Everybody Wants Some. He called it a 00:15:51.929 --> 00:15:54.809 spiritual successor to Dazed and Confused. Set 00:15:54.809 --> 00:15:56.610 in college this time, right? Baseball players 00:15:56.610 --> 00:15:58.730 in the 80s. Yeah, that first weekend of college, 00:15:58.850 --> 00:16:01.149 all about hanging out, chasing girls, finding 00:16:01.149 --> 00:16:03.429 your place. And this film is such a perfect example 00:16:03.429 --> 00:16:05.750 of that critical commercial split in his career. 00:16:06.049 --> 00:16:08.429 How so? Critically, it was a home run. Critics 00:16:08.429 --> 00:16:10.669 loved it, saw it as a welcome return to that 00:16:10.669 --> 00:16:13.549 loose, funny, observational style. Got great 00:16:13.549 --> 00:16:16.590 scores, like 88 % on Rotten Tomatoes, 83 % on 00:16:16.590 --> 00:16:17.960 Medicare. critic but audiences didn't really 00:16:17.960 --> 00:16:20.860 show up nope commercially it just didn't connect 00:16:20.860 --> 00:16:23.720 make only 4 .6 million dollars on a 10 million 00:16:23.720 --> 00:16:25.940 dollar budget and it really makes you think you 00:16:25.940 --> 00:16:28.919 know Why did critics embrace it and the mainstream 00:16:28.919 --> 00:16:31.600 ignore it? Maybe because it demands that patience 00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:34.379 again. Yeah. It asks you to just enjoy the conversations, 00:16:34.620 --> 00:16:38.360 the camaraderie, the slacking off without needing 00:16:38.360 --> 00:16:41.059 a big plot. Exactly. It assumes you value just 00:16:41.059 --> 00:16:43.120 being with the characters over watching things 00:16:43.120 --> 00:16:45.659 happen to them. Maybe only his dedicated fans 00:16:45.659 --> 00:16:47.799 were fully on board for that ride this time. 00:16:47.919 --> 00:16:49.799 He kept mixing it up after that, though. Yeah. 00:16:49.860 --> 00:16:52.659 Last flag flying in 2017, which is connected 00:16:52.659 --> 00:16:55.179 to Hal Ashby's The Last Detail. Yeah, sort of 00:16:55.179 --> 00:16:57.730 sequel focusing. on older veterans. Then he did 00:16:57.730 --> 00:16:59.710 the adaptation Where'd You Go, Bernadette in 00:16:59.710 --> 00:17:02.470 2019. And more recently, he had a real critical 00:17:02.470 --> 00:17:05.250 hit with Hitman in 2023. That one felt like a 00:17:05.250 --> 00:17:07.890 smart blend, didn't it? His dialogue focus, but 00:17:07.890 --> 00:17:09.950 wrapped in a more high -concept genre package. 00:17:10.210 --> 00:17:11.950 Absolutely. Co -wrote it with the star, Glenn 00:17:11.950 --> 00:17:14.089 Powell, an action rom -com, premiered at Venice, 00:17:14.309 --> 00:17:17.029 got great buzz, Netflix picked it up. It worked 00:17:17.029 --> 00:17:18.950 because the smart talk about identity and deception 00:17:18.950 --> 00:17:21.150 was packaged in a way that was really marketable. 00:17:21.430 --> 00:17:23.390 And he's not exactly resting on his laurels. 00:17:23.470 --> 00:17:26.980 The output is still relentless. Two films already 00:17:26.980 --> 00:17:29.960 done for 2025. Yeah. Blue Moon about Loren's 00:17:29.960 --> 00:17:32.960 heart and the opening night of Oklahoma and Nouvelle 00:17:32.960 --> 00:17:35.380 Vague about the making of Godard's Breathless. 00:17:35.400 --> 00:17:37.779 Plus, he did that episode for the HBO doc series 00:17:37.779 --> 00:17:40.380 God Save Texas last year, focusing on the prison 00:17:40.380 --> 00:17:42.819 system in Huntsville. Back to his roots again. 00:17:42.960 --> 00:17:45.759 But the real follow -up to the ambition of Boyhood, 00:17:45.880 --> 00:17:49.079 the big ongoing project, that's the Sondheim 00:17:49.079 --> 00:17:51.519 musical adaptation Merrily We Roll Along. That's 00:17:51.519 --> 00:17:54.779 the one. This is his current most mind -bogglingly 00:17:54.779 --> 00:17:57.660 ambitious project. Like Boyhood, it's being filmed 00:17:57.660 --> 00:17:59.819 over many years, but this time it's presented 00:17:59.819 --> 00:18:01.920 in reverse chronology, just like the musical. 00:18:02.140 --> 00:18:04.140 Following a character's life backwards, from 00:18:04.140 --> 00:18:07.660 disillusioned failure to youthful idealism. Exactly. 00:18:07.660 --> 00:18:11.019 And the time frame here? It's potentially even 00:18:11.019 --> 00:18:13.579 longer than boyhood. Filming is planned to continue 00:18:13.579 --> 00:18:16.779 sporadically until at least 2042. 2042. That's 00:18:16.779 --> 00:18:19.240 nearly two decades from now. It's staggering. 00:18:19.380 --> 00:18:21.440 He's committing the next phase of his working 00:18:21.440 --> 00:18:24.900 life to watching this cast age backwards on screen. 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:27.799 It solidifies him as maybe the most patient filmmaker 00:18:27.799 --> 00:18:32.359 alive today. So if we try to sort of synthesize 00:18:32.359 --> 00:18:34.880 Linklater's signature style, his core ideas. 00:18:35.710 --> 00:18:38.289 Beyond just the long term projects, the main 00:18:38.289 --> 00:18:40.569 theme is always time, isn't it? The passage of 00:18:40.569 --> 00:18:43.049 time, how memory works, how relationships evolve, 00:18:43.269 --> 00:18:46.170 how conversation itself marks time. And we talked 00:18:46.170 --> 00:18:49.150 about the duality. Yeah. The super long time 00:18:49.150 --> 00:18:51.170 lapse films versus the compressed single day 00:18:51.170 --> 00:18:53.029 films. Yeah. How do you see those two working 00:18:53.029 --> 00:18:54.809 together thematically? I think they reinforce 00:18:54.809 --> 00:18:57.049 the exact same core idea, actually, which is 00:18:57.049 --> 00:18:59.309 the sort of simultaneous banality and profundity 00:18:59.309 --> 00:19:02.430 of just everyday life. The single day films like 00:19:02.430 --> 00:19:05.380 Slacker or Deez or Before Sunrise. They capture 00:19:05.380 --> 00:19:07.519 that pressure cooker feeling. Decisions need 00:19:07.519 --> 00:19:09.180 to be made or conversations have to happen now 00:19:09.180 --> 00:19:11.420 before the day ends. Time feels limited. Exactly. 00:19:11.460 --> 00:19:14.039 Then the time -lapse projects, Boyhood, the Before 00:19:14.039 --> 00:19:16.460 Trilogy, they show you the long -term consequences 00:19:16.460 --> 00:19:18.759 of those single days, those conversations years 00:19:18.759 --> 00:19:21.240 down the line. They give weight and meaning to 00:19:21.240 --> 00:19:23.240 all that talk by showing how it shapes a life 00:19:23.240 --> 00:19:25.380 over the long haul. And underpinning both is 00:19:25.380 --> 00:19:28.200 that focus on human interaction, on conversation, 00:19:28.539 --> 00:19:32.519 on mood, rather than strict plot. The structure 00:19:32.519 --> 00:19:35.480 feels like it emerges from life itself, not from 00:19:35.480 --> 00:19:37.660 some screenwriting formula. Definitely not three 00:19:37.660 --> 00:19:40.160 -act structure most of the time. And if you want 00:19:40.160 --> 00:19:42.720 to understand where that comes from stylistically, 00:19:42.859 --> 00:19:44.599 you have to look at his influences, especially 00:19:44.599 --> 00:19:47.000 classic international cinema. He's mentioned 00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:49.460 seeing Scorsese's Raging Bull as being a key 00:19:49.460 --> 00:19:51.319 moment, right? Saying it brought her to a boil, 00:19:51.440 --> 00:19:54.119 made him realize film could be this immediate 00:19:54.119 --> 00:19:56.700 intellectual outlet. Yeah, that was a catalyst. 00:19:57.319 --> 00:19:59.680 But his deeper influences, the ones you really 00:19:59.680 --> 00:20:02.299 see in the texture of his films, it's a who's 00:20:02.299 --> 00:20:05.420 who of patient, thoughtful world cinema. Like 00:20:05.420 --> 00:20:08.039 who? We're talking Robert Brisson with his austerity 00:20:08.039 --> 00:20:10.839 and precision. Yasujiro Ozu, the master of observing 00:20:10.839 --> 00:20:13.900 family life with that calm, still camera, just 00:20:13.900 --> 00:20:16.660 letting moments unfold. You can really see Ozu 00:20:16.660 --> 00:20:18.940 in boyhood, can't you? That quiet observation 00:20:18.940 --> 00:20:21.400 of domestic life, the marriage slowly dissolving, 00:20:21.400 --> 00:20:24.119 the kids growing up, without big dramatic events 00:20:24.119 --> 00:20:26.369 necessarily. Absolutely. And then, of course, 00:20:26.450 --> 00:20:29.589 the French New Wave looms large, especially directors 00:20:29.589 --> 00:20:31.730 like Eric Romer and Francois Truffaut. Romer 00:20:31.730 --> 00:20:33.769 makes perfect sense. All those films that are 00:20:33.769 --> 00:20:36.029 basically just long intellectual conversations, 00:20:36.130 --> 00:20:39.670 people debating ethics and romance for. 90 minutes. 00:20:39.829 --> 00:20:42.289 That's the before trilogy right there. Jesse 00:20:42.289 --> 00:20:44.630 and Celine's entire relationship is built on 00:20:44.630 --> 00:20:47.150 their talk, their philosophical back and forth, 00:20:47.190 --> 00:20:49.650 very Romer -esque. And tying all this together, 00:20:49.750 --> 00:20:52.589 all these influences and styles, is that fierce 00:20:52.589 --> 00:20:55.710 commitment to independence. Staying in Austin, 00:20:55.910 --> 00:20:59.309 refusing to really live or work in Hollywood 00:20:59.309 --> 00:21:01.829 long term. That Austin base isn't just geography. 00:21:02.130 --> 00:21:05.440 It's part of his method. It keeps him insulated, 00:21:05.440 --> 00:21:07.640 gives him the creative control he needs for these 00:21:07.640 --> 00:21:11.930 unconventional, time -heavy projects. Could boyhood 00:21:11.930 --> 00:21:13.970 have happened if he was constantly dealing with 00:21:13.970 --> 00:21:16.470 studio notes in L .A.? Probably not. No way. 00:21:16.569 --> 00:21:18.410 You need that distance to maintain that kind 00:21:18.410 --> 00:21:20.910 of long -term vision, keep the cast available 00:21:20.910 --> 00:21:24.109 for over a decade without interference. And just 00:21:24.109 --> 00:21:26.309 briefly on the personal side, which kind of reflects 00:21:26.309 --> 00:21:28.950 that sustained philosophy, he's been with his 00:21:28.950 --> 00:21:31.549 partner, Christina Arison, since the 90s. Yeah, 00:21:31.630 --> 00:21:34.029 long -term relationship. They have three kids, 00:21:34.049 --> 00:21:36.970 including Lorelai, who is in boyhood. And just 00:21:36.970 --> 00:21:39.190 as a small detail that sort of underlines his 00:21:39.190 --> 00:21:41.430 consistency, he's a parent. been a vegetarian 00:21:41.430 --> 00:21:44.509 since his early 20s. It's just another example 00:21:44.509 --> 00:21:47.930 of a sustained conscious choice mirroring the 00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:50.430 commitment you see in his art. Okay, let's crunch 00:21:50.430 --> 00:21:53.710 the numbers a bit because the data, the critical 00:21:53.710 --> 00:21:56.329 reception versus the box office, it really tells 00:21:56.329 --> 00:21:58.869 the story of a career built on different priorities 00:21:58.869 --> 00:22:02.380 than mainstream Hollywood. He succeeds. but very 00:22:02.380 --> 00:22:04.180 much on his own terms. His critical standing 00:22:04.180 --> 00:22:06.099 is remarkably consistent, especially when you 00:22:06.099 --> 00:22:07.579 think about how many different kinds of films 00:22:07.579 --> 00:22:09.819 he's made. His average Rotten Tomatoes score 00:22:09.819 --> 00:22:13.740 is, what, 81 %? Metacritic average is 75? That's 00:22:13.740 --> 00:22:16.440 incredibly high over such a long career. And 00:22:16.440 --> 00:22:18.640 the peaks are just stratospheric. Boyhood with 00:22:18.640 --> 00:22:22.279 97 % RT, that perfect 100 on Metacritic. The 00:22:22.279 --> 00:22:24.460 later before films, Midnight and Sunset, both 00:22:24.460 --> 00:22:26.660 scoring way up in the 90s on Metacritic too. 00:22:26.859 --> 00:22:29.079 He's just maintained this incredibly high artistic 00:22:29.079 --> 00:22:32.220 standard for decades. Commercially, though, it's 00:22:32.220 --> 00:22:34.779 not a steady climb. It's more like peaks and 00:22:34.779 --> 00:22:36.839 valleys on an indie road trip. You've got the 00:22:36.839 --> 00:22:40.440 massive outlier, School of Rock, making $131 00:22:40.440 --> 00:22:43.400 million worldwide. Proof he can play the studio 00:22:43.400 --> 00:22:45.519 game successfully when the project fits. Absolutely. 00:22:45.720 --> 00:22:47.940 But then you have the other extreme, Slacker. 00:22:48.460 --> 00:22:53.180 costing $23 ,000, making $1 .25 million. The 00:22:53.180 --> 00:22:55.200 percentage return on that is probably better 00:22:55.200 --> 00:22:58.019 than most blockbusters dream of. It shows the 00:22:58.019 --> 00:23:00.740 power of a killer concept and minimal overhead. 00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:02.579 And then there are the films that brought him 00:23:02.579 --> 00:23:05.220 all the awards prestige but weren't huge moneymakers 00:23:05.220 --> 00:23:08.980 in theaters, like Boyhood. Cost $4 million, won 00:23:08.980 --> 00:23:11.619 Oscars and Golden Globes, but grossed only $48 00:23:11.619 --> 00:23:14.380 million worldwide. Which is a fantastic return 00:23:14.380 --> 00:23:17.180 on a $4 million investment, but it's tiny compared 00:23:17.180 --> 00:23:19.740 to other Best Picture nominees or winners. And 00:23:19.740 --> 00:23:21.559 that's the key, isn't it? Yeah. The financial 00:23:21.559 --> 00:23:23.839 data shows he operates outside Hollywood's scale 00:23:23.839 --> 00:23:26.579 obsession. He doesn't need a $100 million gross 00:23:26.579 --> 00:23:28.839 to validate his work or fund the next project. 00:23:29.099 --> 00:23:32.140 A $48 million return is a huge success on his 00:23:32.140 --> 00:23:34.640 terms, giving him the freedom for the next personal, 00:23:34.759 --> 00:23:37.240 time -consuming film. Right, compare that to 00:23:37.240 --> 00:23:39.099 the outright commercial flops like the Newton 00:23:39.099 --> 00:23:41.619 Boys, which lost money despite studio backing. 00:23:41.900 --> 00:23:45.259 Or even Everybody Wants Some, which critics loved 00:23:45.259 --> 00:23:48.670 but didn't recoup its $10 million budget. His 00:23:48.670 --> 00:23:50.829 career shows that critical acclaim and cultural 00:23:50.829 --> 00:23:53.549 impact don't always track with box office numbers. 00:23:53.789 --> 00:23:55.930 Not at all. And looking at the major awards, 00:23:56.250 --> 00:23:58.630 the pattern is clear. He's highly decorated, 00:23:58.849 --> 00:24:01.190 yes, but especially for writing and directing, 00:24:01.349 --> 00:24:04.809 reflecting that core focus on dialogue, observation, 00:24:04.869 --> 00:24:08.950 and vision. Five Oscar nominations, total screenplay, 00:24:09.109 --> 00:24:12.349 directing, picture. And those wins often reflect 00:24:12.349 --> 00:24:14.849 that early international recognition, like the 00:24:14.849 --> 00:24:17.069 silver bear for Before Sunrise way back in the 00:24:17.069 --> 00:24:19.519 Berlin film. festival. Exactly. That early credibility 00:24:19.519 --> 00:24:21.539 probably gave him the leverage he needed to go 00:24:21.539 --> 00:24:23.579 back to Texas and say, look, I need independents 00:24:23.579 --> 00:24:26.150 to do things like boyhood. The later wins the 00:24:26.150 --> 00:24:28.809 Golden Globes, the BAFTAs for boyhood. They felt 00:24:28.809 --> 00:24:31.369 like a validation of that entire patient, independent 00:24:31.369 --> 00:24:34.210 career path. So as we wrap up this deep dive, 00:24:34.410 --> 00:24:36.289 it feels like we've mapped out the journey of 00:24:36.289 --> 00:24:39.190 a truly singular American filmmaker. Richard 00:24:39.190 --> 00:24:41.829 Linklater uses Texas independence, that love 00:24:41.829 --> 00:24:44.309 for real conversation, and just unbelievable 00:24:44.309 --> 00:24:47.009 cinematic patience to make the passage of time 00:24:47.009 --> 00:24:49.130 itself his great subject. Yeah, what really stands 00:24:49.130 --> 00:24:51.660 out is how he blends these deep... philosophical 00:24:51.660 --> 00:24:54.480 ideas, you know, the weight of choices, the way 00:24:54.480 --> 00:24:57.680 potential fades with narratives that feel incredibly 00:24:57.680 --> 00:25:00.500 accessible and conversational, whether it's Jesse 00:25:00.500 --> 00:25:02.920 and Celine talking for 18 years or watching Mason 00:25:02.920 --> 00:25:05.700 grow up for 12. The feeling you get as a viewer 00:25:05.700 --> 00:25:08.039 is recognition. Like you're not watching some 00:25:08.039 --> 00:25:09.779 contrived drama. You're actually watching life 00:25:09.779 --> 00:25:11.839 unfold, much like your own life is unfolding 00:25:11.839 --> 00:25:13.920 while you watch. And that leaves us with a pretty 00:25:13.920 --> 00:25:16.539 fascinating, maybe even unsettling final thought 00:25:16.539 --> 00:25:19.099 to leave you with. It centers on that ongoing, 00:25:19.279 --> 00:25:22.400 nearly two -decade commitment to filming barely 00:25:22.400 --> 00:25:24.720 we roll along. Yeah, just think about the sheer 00:25:24.720 --> 00:25:27.680 difficulty, logistically, ethically, artistically, 00:25:27.700 --> 00:25:30.000 of locking in a cast and crew for a 20 -year 00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:32.799 project, filmed in reverse, scheduled to run 00:25:32.799 --> 00:25:35.980 until at least 2042. When a filmmaker invests 00:25:35.980 --> 00:25:37.900 that much of his own life and the lives of everyone 00:25:37.900 --> 00:25:42.000 involved into one single narrative, filming the 00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:45.460 actors aging in real time, what does that even 00:25:45.460 --> 00:25:48.339 mean for the final film? It starts to feel less 00:25:48.339 --> 00:25:50.640 like telling a story with an ending and more 00:25:50.640 --> 00:25:54.400 like capturing the inescapable reality of time 00:25:54.400 --> 00:25:57.579 itself. The finished film becomes almost a historical 00:25:57.579 --> 00:26:01.220 document, a relic of actual time past. It stops 00:26:01.220 --> 00:26:03.059 being just a movie. It becomes a life's work, 00:26:03.180 --> 00:26:05.380 yeah. An exercise in temporal commitment that 00:26:05.380 --> 00:26:07.660 might just be unprecedented. For Linklater, the 00:26:07.660 --> 00:26:09.440 film set isn't just a place to shoot scenes. 00:26:09.599 --> 00:26:11.819 It's become a kind of measuring stick for decades 00:26:11.819 --> 00:26:14.160 of his own life, marking not just his actor's 00:26:14.160 --> 00:26:16.720 growth, but his own journey, too. It really makes 00:26:16.720 --> 00:26:18.920 you wonder. What will those conversations be 00:26:18.920 --> 00:26:22.579 like on set in, say, 2040? How will those older 00:26:22.579 --> 00:26:24.960 actors grapple with these idealistic younger 00:26:24.960 --> 00:26:26.799 selves they filmed 20 years before?