Before Sunset

[cine]

I felt an instant connection with the characters in Before Sunrise.. and the events that transpired (that are spoken about in the second installment) make the ending of the film that much more touching. Looking back, I can tell that seeing the first one made the second film that much better. Yes, GB liked Sunset without seeing the first one, but as he's pointed out, after seeing Sunrise, the sequel became the best film of the year. So as you can see, the film experience is heightened.. which was my point all along.

[Jeremy Blackman]

BTW, none of it was improvised. Linklater talked about how they didn't really have time for any improv, due to the shooting schedule, so just about every little line or gesture was written and rehearsed well beforehand.

That's pretty amazing.

[modage]

Does nobody else have a cynical view of their nonstop talking?

yes, i usually hate it, but i still loved this movie.  and i didnt particularly care for the first one, or think i had much chance of liking this one, but STILL this movie pulled me in and really made me care.

[Gold Trumpet]

Does nobody else have a cynical view of their nonstop talking?

yes, i usually hate it, but i still loved this movie.  and i didnt particularly care for the first one, or think i had much chance of liking this one, but STILL this movie pulled me in and really made me care.

I'm almost stunned that a feeling of agreeance with modernage is happening. Though not cynical to this type of film, I liked the new one while not caring for the first. I liked its concept, but the conversation wasn't that moving for me and I think I was about annoyed with half the things Ethan Hawke said in that movie. Delpy was fine, but she only called him on a minimal of the dumb things he said. Arrogant and immature he was the entire film and that was a problem because to really fall for the film the way the filmmakers wanted was to fall for the characters. Hawke's character grew up in the second and I found myself captivated the way the film wanted me to.

[UncleJoey]

I thought it was almost going to happen on the stairs, but then Ethan Hawke came up with that stupid line "I love these old staircases." The conversation was so evasive sometimes. How is that changed by seeing the first movie?

I think pretty much everyone would say dumb stuff like that in his situation. Imagine how hard you would be trying if you were in his place? I thought stuff like that just added realism.

It was 80 minutes of tension and torture.

Exactly. Only getting to spend 80 minutes with your true love after a nine year absense is a pretty torturous experience.

[abuck1220]

saw this last night, and i like it much more than the first one. i got annoyed with their ultra-philosophical, ultra-romantic, ultra-coffee house attitudes in the first one. ethan hawke's character just reminded me of too many people i knew in college that walked around with a five o'clock shadow and tolstoy under their arm, living their tortured life and talking about romance. their characters were much more realistic in their thinking, and therefore relatable this time around.

[Gamblour.]

I dunno...a friend and I watched both of these films back to back. I really liked the first one, it put me in a very romantic, ideal, and hopeful mood. Then I watched the second one.......MY GOD. I fucking hated it. I hated it so much. It's 2 unbearable scenes and then 2 good scenes, but I hated who these people had become. The coffee shop was soo fucking long and uninteresting. The boat ride was horrendous. The van was by far the best, but unfortunately I really hated how angry Delpy got and how much she almost regretted their first encounter because it drained the love out of her. The song was great, but the dancing.....geez, cute but pointless. I don't care if it was more realistic. I couldn't connect at all. Ethan Hawke's character was twice as obnoxious, I dunno why a woman as smart as Celine would even want a guy like him.

I guess this could be boiled down to my expectations of what should happen weren't met. And that's that.

[brockly]

Though not cynical to this type of film, I liked the new one while not caring for the first. I liked its concept, but the conversation wasn't that moving for me and I think I was about annoyed with half the things Ethan Hawke said in that movie. Delpy was fine, but she only called him on a minimal of the dumb things he said. Arrogant and immature he was the entire film and that was a problem because to really fall for the film the way the filmmakers wanted was to fall for the characters. Hawke's character grew up in the second

yeah, im glad Hawke actually had control over his character's dialogue this time round. there really wasnt much to like about him in the first film, which has nothing on the sequel. after a second viewing, this has become my favourite film of the year.

[matt35mm]

saw this last night, and i like it much more than the first one. i got annoyed with their ultra-philosophical, ultra-romantic, ultra-coffee house attitudes in the first one. ethan hawke's character just reminded me of too many people i knew in college that walked around with a five o'clock shadow and tolstoy under their arm, living their tortured life and talking about romance. their characters were much more realistic in their thinking, and therefore relatable this time around.

I also like the second one better, and find the two more interesting in that stage of their life.  However, I feel that the two were just as realistic in the first one.  Yeah, Jesse was one of those five o' clock shadow philosophy reading coffee house dwelling guys--but you yourself admit that they exist.

I mean, people go through many phases in their life and that's a very realistic phase, and one that very realistically leads into who Jesse becomes in the second movie.  They both recognize how deluded they were in the first movie, and we have all looked back and have seen some delusion in our own past phases, but the experience of being in that moment at the time was still wonderful.

If you were to make a movie that to show the magic of young love, you've gotta show the silliness that comes with that youth.

I like that these two are obviously flawed.  Jesse's a bit of a dick (in both movies) and Celine is a bit too idealistic, neurotic, etc.  But the movie's about the connection between the two, and in that, most of the people who watch either of these movies can see some genuine moments of magic to the degree that is very rare in romance movies.

[Myxo]

Thanks to everyone who made me aware of Before Sunrise. I'll be buying that soon and hope for an even greater experience when I do see Before Sunset.

[picolas]

i agree with Gamblor. they both became lamer. its a sad, unspoken, unintentional undercurrent of it. though the the quality of their conversation picks up a little as they go. i'm shocked at how many people prefer this to Sunrise, which is so amazing it has an aftertaste of making nearly every other movie romance seem a little shallower for about a week and Jeremy should watch it. the only thing i like better by comparison about this one is the ending which is perfectly, optimistically ambiguous. and not about words. i also think the choice of real-time messed things up. they become so unendingly talky when you get rid of the notion that this footage is selected moments of their relationship and time has passed in between and maybe they aren't always THIS talkingly engaged.

[cine]

I'd like to remind everybody that you can vote ANY film from 2004 as the BEST FILM for the XIXAX AWARDS.

Couldn't think of a good thread to put this in.. so I chose this one.. BEFORE SUNSET.. at random.

Thanks.

[modage]

Yes, ANY film.  Actually, this one's okay.  You can vote for this.

[cine]

this one's okay.  You can vote for this.

Mod! Nobody is supposed to be campaigning films!!  

[MacGuffin]

As I’ve stated before in previous introductions I was in film school in the early 1990’s. Therefore my friends and I had enjoyed Slacker many times on video and we all hit the theatre when Dazed and Confused came out. So Richard Linklater has had a very strong but also very subtle influence on me. I think it was after seeing those films that I first realized that it was possible to write a movie the way people actually talked and also for them to smoke out of a bong.

I also specifically remember seeing Before Sunrise in the theatre and thinking that Ethan Hawke’s character was such a pussy. Did he actually think that him and Julie Delpy’s character could ever have a future?

Well nine years later I got my answer and it is a definite no. Jesse [Hawke] is now a best selling writer who’s book is about the night he spent with Celine [Delpy]. He is on a book tour through Europe and in Paris he bumps into Celine again. They spend the next hour and half just walking through Paris talking about how they might have always been in love but they both had to move on with their lives since they were young, stupid and never exchanged numbers.

Daniel Robert Epstein: How much of Before Sunset reflects your personality?

Richard Linklater: To some extent I’ve heard that all films reflect a director’s personality. So that’s probably fair enough. I think this film reflects Julie and Ethan as well as myself. They are my collaborators all the way down the line.

DRE: Is it split in the middle, are they your feminine and masculine side?

RL: I don’t even think of it in those terms. I don’t relate to one of those characters more than the other. In a lot of ways like life-wise I am more like Celine. I feel equally split though.

DRE: At this point in your career is it easier to do a dialogue driven film?

RL: It must be what I am innately interested because I keep doing films where all they do is talk. At my core it was something I was interested in early on, pre even picking up a camera, because I thought that what people are and are not saying was always interesting to me. That’s all we have outside of the artistic constructs we build to house stories. All we have is this communication, even now you have to glom onto what I am saying and judge my personality because that’s all you are getting from me. To me that’s life and the majority of our experience. We don’t live in action films and we don’t live in these hyper real worlds. It’s much more mundane.

DRE: How often do you find yourself in a truly memorable conversation? Besides this one.

RL: Floating through life you have to make that decision all the time. When you say to someone, “How’s it going today?” Do you want to hear “Fine” then keep going or do you really want to sit and talk? Do you care enough about that person to be honest with them? There are all these different levels of what we are admitting about ourselves in the world and does it matter. I love to talk but I wonder what the value in it is sometimes. I wasn’t ever the kind of guy who would sit in a coffee shop and have conversations with people. I was too busy reading and doing stuff. I didn’t want to talk or hear other people talk. But when I went to make a film it was people talking all the time. It wasn’t how I saw the world but that’s how it came out.

DRE: What was the rehearsal process like?

RL: We talked about doing the movie for years then we outlined it very specifically and then we wrote it together. We were in the same room only sporadically but when we were together it was very intense and fun. We communicated by email, faxes and everyone jumped on the scenes they wanted to write. It was a long process, over a year.

DRE: What were the key points to making the movie?

RL: We were overwhelmed with the possibilities but they shrunk once we distilled it to a real time encounter. He’s catching a plane and then they run into one another. Once we got the parameters of that we were in the zone.

DRE: Was it tough shooting the movie like it was in real time?

RL: That was the cinematic trick we had to do. Every film has their own challenges both formally and content wise. That was the big idea of this film. I thought we could pull it off but it was still very tough. It was like being painted into a corner because nothing could be cut out. It all had to work geographical and also be like a play. Everything we shot got into the film. There will be no scenes on the DVD because there is nothing else.

DRE: What was the rehearsal process?

RL: It was interesting for Julie and Ethan to go from co-writers to actors because the enormity of their task was apparent and they had to make it seem as natural as possible. We wanted it to seem like we just turned on the camera and they’re talking. That took a lot of rehearsal and we had to plan it out to nth degree. It was like a puzzle.

I wanted the audience to not notice that they were acting or even that a film is being made. For it to seem like you are encountering an old friend and you're happy to see him. They were some pretty difficult Steadicam shots but hopefully they weren’t flashy.

DRE: Was there any improvisation?

RL: It was a 100 percent scripted. There is no room in the formal design of the movie to just keep going. Everything minute gesture was scripted. I’ve never figured out how improvisation works in cinema form. I know other people have had luck with it but I’ve never thought in those terms. Maybe it’s the writer in me.

DRE: How was it doing this movie without [Before Sunrise co-writer] Kim Krizan?

RL: It was just natural. Julie, Ethan and I all worked on the first script a lot as well. They had to give so much that it was just natural that we would all write it together. Kim probably could have worked on it but she elected not to.

DRE: When you finished Before Sunrise did you expect all this to happen to the characters?

RL: Naw I don’t think I could have ever expected this. We didn’t even expect to make another film. I think we had to live nine more years to see what happened. I think they may have gotten together six months after the first movie like they were supposed. Maybe I’m just a romantic.

DRE: I think I liked the characters in Before Sunset more than I did in Before Sunrise.

RL: People can be kind of merciless on young people. They are tender on them up until about 17 then you hit a rough patch. No one has any sympathy for anyone that’s 19 to 23 years old. I’ve done several films about people that age because so much comes crashing down on them. If you're older you're glad you're not that age anymore but you have to go through it. They say you're personality is kind of formed by the time you are 25. I think it’s much earlier. It’s a trying time in your life but it’s much more exhilarating.

DRE: How do you think people will react to the way you ended the movie?

RL: For what this is, short of going into a new movie, it has to end the way it does. Certainly that was the plan all along. I couldn’t imagine going any farther than I did with this movie. I’ve had so many people say that it’s the perfect ending.

DRE: Is Julie’s character the perfect woman?

RL: Ethan and I talked about that. We thought we might be making her too perfect but she does talk about how neurotic she is as well.

DRE: She’s kind of the imperfect perfect woman.

Will you be working with Ethan again on something non-Sunset related?

RL: No current plans but I would love to work with both of them again.

DRE: Do the characters try to seduce each other in the film?

RL: I think they do. What’s going on between them is this subtle interplay of flirtation and seduction. That’s what people do when they are attracted to one another.

DRE: School of Rock was a big hit. What did that do for your career?

RL: None of it makes sense on paper. But I love that I am able to jump and do different size films. A filmmaker who is making big films can make a small film but the question is, do they want to? It’s just as hard, if not harder and there is no money in it. I am lucky because I have all these smaller films that I want to make.

On the other hand it’s fun to make a film that has a bigger canvas. On School of Rock I needed a light show for the end of the movie and we had the budget so I got it. If I need to clear a Andrew Lloyd Webber song, I can. That’s what that budget is for. These other films don’t require as much.

DRE: How come people don’t smoke pot in your movies anymore?

RL: [laughs] Maybe because it feels like a teenage thing to me. I don’t really know. I did shoot a movie, which is like a drug movie. It’s A Scanner Darkly and its set in the near future in the middle of a drug epidemic.

DRE: Are you a science fiction fan?

RL: I was when I was a teenager. I can’t say I am in the typical sense but I do like Philip K. Dick. I’ve read quite a bit of his stuff. A Scanner Darkly is one of my favorites of his, because it seemed the most personal. I was lucky enough to get an option on it a few years ago, so I just wrote an adaptation of it and thought it would be an interesting animated movie. It’s not really that science fiction either. To me, it has one science fiction element, but beyond that, it’s pretty realistic. I love that about Dick’s stuff, paranoia plus a generation equal reality. It’s like we’re living in his science fiction as we speak, so it seemed really timely to me.

DRE: Many of Phillip K. Dick’s stories have been turned into action films. What is going to be your take on this one?

RL: A lot of Phillip K. Dick’s stories and novels have always been adapted, but usually, they are taking some cool idea and making it work in some genre like an action film, and that can work. I like that novel so much that I wanted to do that story and I want to be very faithful and tell the whole story. What drives me crazy is that I think Philip K. Dick is hilarious. He’s a really funny writer. I laugh when I read the books or I chuckle, and I wanted to make a movie like that. It’s really darkly funny. I’m kind of making a comedy, but it’s a weird comedy. Who knows how I pull it off, but I approached it like that. I hung out with his daughters a lot, and they liked my approach to it. They liked that someone was actually doing the story, not just plucking an idea and running with it. This is the story. This is that book. It feels pretty good. Keanu is great as Bob Barker, the lead character. He’s an interesting guy. His thinking is such that I thought he would be perfect.”

DRE: [Thirteen director] Catherine Hardwicke was the production designer on your films, SubUrbia and The Newton Boys. Do you still keep in touch with her?

RL: Yeah I saw her a couple of nights ago in LA when had a screening of Before Sunset. I loved Thirteen but now she is shooting the fictional version of Dogtown and Z-Boys.

DRE: Will there be a sequel to School of Rock?

RL: [Producer] Scott Rudin told me he got a call asking for one right after the first weekend saying “Sequel or series?” But I don’t think there will be a sequel. Maybe some things are better left alone.

DRE: Has [School of Rock and The Good Girl screenwriter] Mike White sent you any scripts?

RL: Not recently. He was a great collaborator so I would love to work with him again. Truth is, if Mike had a great idea for the story and Jack liked it then who knows.

DRE: Do you have any tattoos?

RL: No, none. I’m not that brave.