THE SEDUCTIVE SLACK OF
BEFORE SUNRISE
GLEN NORTON
I
n 1991, Richard Linklater, Generation-X
film-director personified, offered his
eponymous film to a generation of
slackers; since then there have been imita-
tions and variations of the Gen-X genre too
numerous to list here. Typical slacker fare
embraces a bunch of bored twenty-some-
things prone to random, cynical diatribes
concerning romantic love, hope for the fu-
ture, and an irrational world left to them by
uncaring Boomers. Gen-X characters in-
variably have a penchant for self-analysis,
and are constantly searching for meaning in
a world that has outgrown it. What makes
Linklaters films the epitome of the Gen-X
genre is their embodiment of this formula in
the text itself, not just by the characters
within. The wandering, searching, seem-
ingly random aspect of his work mimics the
Gen-X culture it wants to represent. It is not
enough to define Generation-X film simply
through character and plotline; a seductive
slack, one which seduces the viewer as well
as the characters, delineates this genre. Se-
ductive slack is not just an attitude, nor is it
simply part of a characters outlook. It de-
lineates an overall textual strategy.
Seductiveness between two people or
between a text and a person is similar: one
seduces not through mastery and denota-
tion, but weakness and connotation, a no-
tion commonly referred to now as slack.
The slacker seduces not so much by impart-
ing ideas or values, but by enigmatically
Volume 19, No. 2
casting them off. By the same token, it is not
strong signs that seduce but the slackness of
weak, tentative and sometimes even non-
sensical discourse. What is seductive is that
which we cannot hold: the disappearing
flash of a pure and shared meaning between
two people; the faint and tenuous grasp of
meaning we think we share with a text.
Thus it is the play in-between subject and
object, the infinite connotations of meaning
between two entities, that seduces.
There are few films seductive enough
to engender real emotion; what is deemed
emotional by the current pack of media
critics-slash-pundits seems contrived, re-
signed, and without risk. Not so Richard
Linklaters Before Sunrise (1995). It produces
an array of responses within the immediacy
of its viewing, without resorting to the reso-
lute clichs of less seductive work. The task
of this essay is to try to understand these
powerful, illusive, and contradictory re-
sponses, not simply delve into and illustrate
some inherent meaning. To dissect it,
tease out latent purpose and theme,
and then derive some Generation-X tem-
plate from this, would do a tragic disservice
to the film. An analysis that works chrono-
logically through the film, however, high-
lighting moments of major importance, and
mimicking as closely as possible an imme-
diate viewing (without, of course, ever be-
ing able to return to its innocence) will
hopefully prove fruitful in gaining an un-
65 Post Script
 note that Linklater in-
serts a shot of Cline
to be looked at, one
in which she does not
return Jesses stare.
Rather than reducing
this shot to Laura
Mulveys notion of
the male gaze, this
insert must instead be
understood as the cat-
alyst for seduction: it
is not Clines to-be-
looked-at-ness that
Richard Linklater directing Before Sunrise: The wandering, is seductive, it is her
searching, seemingly random aspect of his work mimics the lack of a returned gaze.
Gen-X culture it wants to represent.Photo by Gabriela Seduction is the
Brandenstein. 1995 Castle Rock Entertainment. power of weak signs
over strong. Here
Linklater gives the se-
derstanding of the films particular ebb and ductive power to Cline, one that Jesse can
flow of expression, its currents of connota- not help but reciprocate. Thus he is the first
tion, and its seductive slack. This seductive to break the silence between them, asking if
slack works on at least two levels: the play she has any idea of what the German couple
of discourse between the two main charac- are fighting about, adding the corollary,
ters and the play between text and viewer, Do you speak English? in response to her
the latter facilitated through the triad of ac- puzzled look. Here the confusion over lan-
tor/character/author. guage is doubled: different languages, dif-
ferent modes of discourse. It is within this
confusion that the couple actually meet. Se-
THE INITIAL ENCOUNTER duction here comes full circle: after Cline
It is within the first meeting between replies My German is not very good, Jesse
the couple that we can map out a seductive turns away from her gaze, a seductive ges-
schemata. The action is played out in a de- ture Cline cannot help but reciprocate, ask-
ceptively simple shot/reverse shot pattern: ing, Have you ever heard as couples get
Cline moves back toward Jesse, turns her older they lose their ability to hear each
back to him and stores her bag above her other? Here is the beginning of a pattern
seat. Jesse checks her outhis eyes flash that will play itself out through the rest of
from her upper torso to her lower torso in a the film.
long lingering look. As she sits down,
Cline gives him a glance, then another.
Jesse glances again; Cline gives no re- THE LOUNGE CAR
sponse. Jesse wipes his brow, sighs, and Language problems persist: Jesse de-
continues to read. This pattern of glances, scribes the trouble he has conversing in
set in the context of ill communication (i.e., French, and, indeed, Cline must correct his
the continuous sound of the quarrelling pronunciation. Jesse again takes the lead
German couplesound not intended to be after an awkward pause (Um, so where are
understood on a denotative level by either you headed?), and bypasses disclosure of
Cline, Jesse, or the viewer), begins the personal aspects of his life (his friend in
couples seductive play. It is interesting to Madrid). The seduction here is subtle. There

Volume 19, No. 2 66 Post Script

is not yet open and honest discourse (if THE BRIDGE
there can ever be such a thing) between the Here it is not so much the discussion of
two: he rambles on about a dream of a the cow play that captures ones atten-
twenty-four hour cable access show, and at tion, but its reflection produced by temps
the end asks: What do you think? The mort concluding the scene, a device linked
important thing to note during this conver- to the nouveau roman movement in its mod-
sation is that Jesse takes up most of it, offer- ernist use of microrealism. Temps mort, in
ing his opinions on the world for Clines its definitive cinematic use by Michelangelo
approval. He is working toward linear com- Antonioni, allows the camera to linger upon
munication with her; she, it seems, has ei- a scene after the main action has finished
ther not wished to enter
into his denotative dis-
course (she disapproves of
his idea), or is seductively
remaining on the edge of
power, refusing to match
his persuasive discourse.
Here one is tempted to
essentialize the characters
along gender lines: Jesse as
productive male, produc-
ing denotative meaning to
impress and conquer
Cline; Cline as seductive
female, staying mysterious,
not revealing too much of
her past, her thoughts, her
emotions. Yet this reverses
itself in the very next se- The power of the temps mort lies precisely in our inability
quence: it is now Jesse who to define it; within the immediacy of viewing, it is nothing
talks of ambiguity (the am- more than a flash of insight and emotion.
biguity of everything, even
death) while Cline be-
comes the pragmatic realist, afraid of death or moved onthus temps mort defines a
twenty-four hours a day. The poles are scene retroactively. In Antonionis films,
starting to reverse themselves: the two are temps mort heightens the oppressive nature
coming closer to the attempt of true com- of the landscape, giving it a life all its own,
munication. one that threatens to overpower the incon-
Jesses attempt to get Cline to check sequential humans previously inhabiting
out the town with him reverts back to di- its space. What had previously been set-
rect denotation, complete with annoying (or ting for the characters suddenly becomes
cute, depending how you look at it) ges- the protagonist itself.
tures with his thumbs. This allows him to It is hard to give a precise definition of
efface his real feelings, turning a sincere, the feeling evoked by the temps mort after
heart-felt act into a comical gesture. this bridge scene; it comes the couples first
real discourse with other people, and a hu-
morous one at that. It is not so much an op-
pressive landscape that is signified here
there is more of a pictorial aspect at work.

Volume 19, No. 2 67 Post Script

The camera lingers upon a river, cars driv-
ing by majestic trees and buildings in the
background, and a bridge railing centred in
the frame, roughly dividing it into two
halves. One could say much about this: the
dualism of the characters, or the ying/
yang, life/death aspect at work throughout
the film (not to mention literalizing the
meaning of dead time). This, however,
would be a disservice to the shot itself, sub-
ordinating its meaning to the theme and
structure of the film as a whole. One could
also pontificate on the ramifications of this
shots effect upon the viewer. As a time of
Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt, it makes one
think. Yet what do we achieve by this? Per-
haps the power of the temps mort lies pre-
cisely in our inability to define it; within the
immediacy of viewing, it is nothing more
than a flash of insight and emotion. One
might go so far as to call it a filmic equiva-
lent of Roland Barthes notion of readerly
jouissance: pure energy released through a
violent rupture of the text, resulting in a
momentary loss of subjectivity. As with
Antonioni, this lingering shot embodies the
purity of ambiguity, and as such, cannot be
defined by any language other than film it-
self. The characters walk around, talk, re-
veal something of themselves, then cover
themselves once more. This mode of dis-
course certainly draws the viewer into the
world of the film and is necessary in defin-
ing its Gen-X context of discursive games-
manship, yet it is the temps mort, occurring
via various techniques throughout the film,
which thoroughly seduces the viewer by
refusing to denote anything. It is the shots
own weakness, its seductive slack, which
makes it so powerful. This moment, and
others like it, are essentially indefinable.
They are the soul of the film, moments that
build to a crescendo in the final sequence.
Q & A TIME
The seductive game of give and take is
now literalized, yet still not equalised in
terms of power. Here it is Jesse who initiates
the game, asks the first question, gives the
Volume 19, No. 2
least revealing answers (the one word an-
swer yes compared to Clines complete
answer), and chooses when to end the game
(Lets get off this damn train). Jesses
comment that saying I love you is not al-
ways a beautiful thing will become clearer
in the context of subsequent scenes. Also
here is the first attempt of real physical con-
tact: Jesse reaches out to sweep Clines
hair, but the attempt is thwarted. Jesse also
corrects Clines grammar (media for
medias), mirroring her correction of him
on the train. Their relationship is beginning
to balance.
THE LISTENING BOOTH
Subtle communication without words
is seductive in itself, so much so, it seems,
that Linklater has to efface what happens at
the end of this scene. All of Cline and
Jesses looks and smiles and withheld out-
bursts seem to be enough for him. To con-
clude with the ending of the song (we might
imagine the needle of the record player end-
lessly playing the same empty groove)
would change the scene altogether. Instead,
Linklater suggests a link between the seduc-
tive silence between the couple in the booth
and the beauty of the city beyond. The song
is continued in a bridge from diegetic to
non-diegetic sound as the couple wander
around looking at art, carefully composed
for the viewer in static shots. Jesse declares
This is beautiful. It seems that there is
beauty in the world all around; love too
might be beautiful, but, as Jesse points out
in the previous scene, it must be an unself-
ish, giving attempt.
THE CEMETERY
The rabbit suggests something upon
first viewing: it is a reflexive sign of the au-
thor, for such randomness is only cap-
tured on film by careful planning. This will
become more apparent during the pinball
scene. Along with the obvious continuation
of the theme of death is another temps mort
shot: as the two actors walk out of the
frame, the camera lingers on the trees in the
68 Post Script
background. Again, it is hard to pinpoint
emotional context hereone might literal-
ize the theme as dead time, but again, the
totality of these shots surface through the
inexpressible. They are the epitome of the
art form; any attempt to define them must
resort to using images to describe images.
THE FERRIS WHEEL
For Jesse, the view is gorgeous; for
Cline, beautiful. And like the still images
of statues that preceded the couples visit to
the cemetery, the viewer is invited to look
as well. Here the viewer is completely wo-
ven into the narrative look. As the camera
sweeps over the view of the horizon, Cline
comments upon it: Thats the Danube over
there. We strain to see what she is point-
ing out to us. The couple is drawn closer
here, but still Jesse has trouble communicat-
ing: Are you trying to say you want to kiss
me? asks Cline, to which Jesse nods like a
little boy asked if he wants some candy. The
two kiss, and there seems to be real contact
between them. This kiss reflects the whole
structure of the film: they come close, move
away, hide and reveal themselves in turn,
are unsure then confident of themselves. It
is when Cline moves in for a second kiss,
then turns away and instead turns it into a
powerful embrace that we see her at her
most vulnerable, and thus her most seduc-
tively powerful (at least for the viewer). It
is Cline, seemingly the stronger of the two,
who gives herself over to weakness first.
We will not understand why, but of course
this is what makes her so seductive to us,
and to Jesse as well.
THE AMUSEMENT PARK
Another couple walks by Cline and
Jesse at random (portrayed in a carefully
staged match-on-action cut) causing Cline
to say, Do you know anyone whos in a
happy relationship? It is this random con-
fusion of Generation-X which Linklater
wants to portray, yet it is one which must
be controlled (as with the rabbit, above, and
the pinball game, below) if it is to work in
Volume 19, No. 2
the film. Linklater has not yet totally cap-
tured the arbitrariness of life he wants to
immerse the film in; the viewer is still using
linear thought, is still not totally seduced by
the charms of the film, is still noticing the
strong discourse of the director attempt-
ing to portray the slack, random, seductive
moments of life.
THE FORTUNE TELLER
The secret kissJesses power over
Cline is a confident one now, as he reverts
back to an un-seductive, forceful discourse,
tricking her to kiss him, something he
could not even bring himself to say in the
Ferris wheel. We are reminded by the for-
tune teller that a womans deep strength
and creativity comes from resigning one-
self to the awkwardness of life, something
Jesse does not seem to take seriously, claim-
ing how every random element of life
seems to be planned (the fortune tellers for-
tune a calculation, and, later, the poets
poem already written).
SEURAT
Jesse playfully kicks Cline for atten-
tion in another subtle reminder how a
strong, forceful discourse must subordinate
itself to a weak, seductive one (she reverts
to French to call him ridiculous). Trying
to get attention by forceful play only gets
ignored.
The environments are stronger than
the people. This statement by Cline seems
an homage to Antonionis use of temps mort,
and indeed the final shot of this scene is a
variation of temps mort which holds on a
Seurat painting connoting death. It is a
variation because, apart from the formal
difference (it could be subordinated to a
characters point-of-view), the shot, like the
landscape Cline describes from the Ferris
wheel, is a pictorial rendering of a
characters discourse, something com-
mented upon and then presented to the
viewer for closer inspection, just as the stat-
ues were presented subsequent to the lis-
tening booth scene.
69 Post Script
 Transitory. Instead of being cor-
rected, it is now Cline who asks to be
helped in her discoursea sign of seductive
confidence, one in which she embraces her
weak discourse rather than fear its weak-
ness. The closeness of the couple allows her
to be weak; this is actually her strength. We
are not sure (see the secret kiss and the
kicking game, above) how Jesse fits into this
pattern yet, or if he does at all. He may still
be holding back, trying to win through a
powerful discourse rather than giving him-
self over to Clines now fully seductive dis-
course.
THE CHURCH
Another random element, as a car
almost runs them over in front of the
churchstill, this seems too obvious. We
are not yet seduced.
Life is all memories for her, a dress re-
hearsal for him. The Quaker wedding re-
minds us of the listening booth scene in its
reference to pure communication without
speech.
THE POET
In a preamble before they meet the
poet, Cline declares her hatred of power-
ful seduction, admitting how she plans her
strategies of seduction over the opposite
sex. Once the poet is writing for them, Jesse
declares how he detests the competitiveness
ingrained within us. Cline wonders if this
isnt the reason he asked her off the train, as
if she were a challenge to his manhood.
They are testing the waters with this first
fight, both testing if the others feelings are
genuine, both not wanting to return to the
mind-games and pettiness of the past. As
Cline says, conflict is healthy sometimes,
and so it is here. Both are striving to connect
on some level beyond a superficial one; this
scene relates the sincerity of this attempt.
This attempt, however, is contrasted by
the romanticism of the poet. For Jesse, he
undercuts the attempt of true connection
because, as he says, the poem is not realit
Volume 19, No. 2
is pre-planned. Yet Cline seems to accept
the poems beauty. Just as they come close,
the wedge of an un-seductive, pre-planned
poem is driven between them. What attracts
them to each other is also what keeps them
from getting too close. Thus the poet seems
to symbolise something: as he reads the last
line (Dont you know me by now?) it is
the way he stares, the way he stops reading
and speaks from his heart that seems sym-
bolic, as if he represents fate. Do we not
know fate yet? Do we not know we are pre-
destined, as Jesse says, to have no new
thoughts, no new passions? Can anyone re-
ally connect with anyone? A Generation-X
mantra, to be sure, one brought about by a
slackers offeringa poet who seemingly
does nothing but lounge by the water and
write for passers-by.
PINBALL
This scene is the core of the film, where
character and actor seductively melt into
one. The game of pinball represents many
abstract thingsarbitrariness, randomness,
fateand memories of other films surface
here, especially Jean-Luc Godards pinball
sequences from films such as Vivre sa vie
(1962), Deux ou trois choses que je sais delle
(1966) and Ici et ailleurs (1974). Here the ran-
domness that seems to be the films objec-
tive finally comes to fruition. Cline tells
Jesse of how her shrink told her to con-
centrate on bright colours. He asks Well,
did it work?, and as Cline begins to reply
she loses her turn at the game, prompting
what seems to be the improvisational,
Didnt help your pinball any from Jesse/
Ethan Hawke. The randomness of the pin-
ball game makes the actors react to the
scene. Surely their lines are scripted, and at
least two takes were made (from different
angles), but, like the way the characters met,
like the random things that happen to them
in the film, now they must deal with forces
thrown at them that are beyond the direc-
tors control. This tiny, seemingly inconse-
quential bit of improvisation is the heart of
seductiveness in the film; it wins the viewer
70 Post Script
 not as close as they might
like: she looks up at him, he
turns his head away. They
reach out to each other, con-
nect, then must separate
again, each to ponder the in-
congruities of life alone.

THE TELEPHONE CALL

Different people, differ-
ent discoursesthey all, ex-
cept for the American
couple, speak the same lan-
guage, but the pace and ban-
ter of their speech is differ-
Isnt all communication (especially seductive communica- ent: some seem to argue with
tion) an implied game, a give and take, an attack and parry conviction (the five young
with dull sword, conversation with weapon and sheild one people), some use games to
in the same? facilitate communication
(the card game), others argue
with slow, subtle persuasion
over by allowing the randomness of life to (the men with long beards), some are alone
spill over into the actual making of the film. with their thoughts (the woman by herself),
and some communicate through humour
(the trio that concludes this short montage).
THE STREET/BIRTH DANCE It seems Jesse and Cline, throughout the
Here the couple finally gets down to film, have explicitly used games to facilitate
biological essentialism, with their talk about their communication (i.e., the question and
the island of either one-hundred women answer period, the small arcade game
and one man or one-hundred men and one which Jesse uses to impress Cline with
woman, as well as the protective vs. sensi- his strength, the pinball game, and now the
tive man. Jesse gives a little speech about his telephone call). Yet isnt all communication
ex-girlfriend pissing off a bunch of tough (especially seductive communication) an
guys and how he would have to be the one implied game, a give and take, an attack
to protect her. They agree to disagree, for and parry with dull sword, conversation
here the discourses will never meet, yet it is with weapon and shield one in the same?
the attempt which is the important thing, a Here, by substituting a literal game for the
notion Cline will bring up later. The space implied game of conversation, Jesse and
in-between is the theme of the filmit is Cline can let down inhibitions and try to
where seduction exists, where two dis- get closer, which is what conversation is all
courses must meet if they are to have any about.
chance of understanding each other.
The sequence ends with a variation of
the temps mort, only now the couple are in- THE SHIP
cluded in the shot. It is a little easier to give Linear, logical discourse tries to push
meaning to this shot, as it comes right after its way through here, with the couples
the couples deepest conversation about mature, rational decision to make this
love, one that highlights the theme of the their one and only night together. Of course,
film. This is the closest they will be, yet this rational logic has nothing to do with attrac-
static two-shot emphasises that this still is tion, romanticism and seductive slack;

Volume 19, No. 2 71 Post Script

therefore, this pact will have to break down
if there is to be any meaningful relationship
between the two. Even though they hate
how people exchange phone numbers,
addresses, [then] end up writing once, call-
ing each other once or twice, it seems that
is the only way people will get together.
Each of them, throughout the film, has
given him or herself over to the irrational,
illogical discourse of romantic love. This
scene now shows the pretence of their re-
versal toward logical, finite love, and calls
into question any notion that loves prede-
termined life-span can be romantic. The
couple say their good-byes beforehand, as
if to convince themselves that a rational,
calculated, finite romance can exist.
This decision to revert to rational, un-
seductive discourse is highlighted with
overtly symbolic musical accompaniment:
Jesse says Well just make tonight great,
Cline responds OK, lets do that, and
Jesse confirms the pact with an OK of his
own, pointing out the source of the now-ris-
ing diegetic music, a meagre two-piece en-
semble. This authorial comment is another
calculated attempt at randomness in the
film, now manufactured with such a perfec-
tion of timing that the viewer cannot help
but sense the ironic nature of this insert,
treating it, and thus the couples pact, with
mistrust.
THE BAR
This scene contrasts the previous
scenes rational logic with the romanticism
of the one-night stand. Jesse tells the bar-
tender that this is his and Clines only
night together, and that if he gives them a
bottle of red wine, it will make their night
complete. Handing the bottle to Jesse, the
bartender comments: For the greatest
night of your life. The notion that, for all
intents and purposes, a one-night stand can
be the greatest night of your life is highly
romantic, one that conflicts with the ex-
panding intellectual relationship the
characters are actually experiencing. One
begins to wonder if this one night can ful-
Volume 19, No. 2
fil the intellectual needs of a romantic en-
counter such as this.
THE GRASS
Cline remarks: You couldnt possibly
know why a night like this is so important
to my life right now, but it is. This line re-
fers back to the Ferris wheel scene, and how
Cline, without clear reason or warning,
gives herself over so completely to Jesses
embrace. Thus it is this secret element of her
personality that keeps us from understand-
ing every facet of her character; it is this hid-
den side that makes her truly seductive,
both to Jesse and the viewer.
The couples rational, adult decision
is brought up again, yet quickly dismissed;
the characters, as close as they are, still hold
back the one thing that might truly bring
them together: the abandonment of rational
logic and the confession that they want to
try and stay together.
Cline brings up essentialism once
again, claiming that not wanting to sleep
with Jesse is a female thing, and very
stupid. Jesse, on the other hand, lays claim
to romantic bullshit (i.e., irrationality) as
a perfectly good reason to sleep together
(although he puts it in much more respect-
able termshe would marry her rather
than never see her again). Here Cline sums
up this scene with her line: Actually, I
think I had decided I wanted to sleep with
you when we got off the train, but now that
weve talked so much, I dont know any-
more. Why do I make everything so compli-
cated? It is this play between the irrational
and the rational, between romantic and in-
tellectual love, between seduction and pro-
duction that encompasses the film. Linear
discourse (their talking so much) is nec-
essarily detrimental to romantic love, for, as
Jesse points out, if they were to be together
all the time, the secret aspect of their rela-
tionship would be lostthe seductive side
that makes two people enter the space in-
between their individual hold on power
would gradually slip away. The seductive
play of shared discourse would eventually
72 Post Script
turn into the linear, rational, predetermined
lifestyle of their parents. Cline would be-
come just as sick of Jesse as he is of him-
self; there would be nothing left to dis-
covershe would know every aspect of his
personality beforehand. Of course, she says
exactly the opposite during the fountain
scene (below), yet this arbitrary, indefinite,
vacillating character trait is exactly what
makes her so seductive.
THE HARPSICHORD
Whether the couple have sex or not is
unclear; this in itself is seductive to the
viewer, who is left with the reasons, both
pro and con, still resonating in their minds.
The answer to the question is more of a re-
flection of the viewer than an inherent point
of meaning within the film. In fact, the film
does not really ask one to decide; this does
not imply apathy, only submission to the
seductive indeterminacy of the films narra-
tive.
The inclusion of the harpsichord acts as
a counter-balance to the inclusion of the
musical duo on the ship, yet with one sig-
nificant difference: here it is the couple who
stumble upon the music, rather than Link-
later inserting music into the narrative at
exactly the appropriate time. The music
here is heard throughout the scene; cer-
tainly it is still a random encounter, but
now the characters are the random element,
not the music.
The embrace here seems the same as
the one in the Ferris wheel: her eyes closed,
his (for the most part) open. The dichotomy
of emotion vs. intellect (she closes her eyes
to feel emotion; he opens his to ponder the
consequences of their action) could be im-
plied, but it seems best not to read too much
into this. Eyes that are open or closed have
as much ambiguous emotional impact upon
the viewer as anything else in the film.
Temps mort is back, again in an interest-
ing variation on the theme. This time one
could apply Antonionis definition to the
shot; the characters walk out of the bottom
left-hand corner of the framesmall beings
Volume 19, No. 2
in a large, empty world. This really is dead
timeno one else seems to be around save
the couple. Two more shots of cityscape
are included here as a bridge to the next
scene; these shots also imply a calm, empty
city, one which, for the moment, is Cline
and Jesses alone.
THE FOUNTAIN
The low-angle that Jesse is shot with is
incongruous with the rest of the films cam-
era height. One must subordinate this
choice of form to narrative if one is to weave
it into the film: Cline is looking up at Jesse,
so we get a low-angle, point-of-view shot of
him. Yet it is not quite a point-of-view shot:
he looks down and to the left at her, and the
camera is to the right. Naturally, Cline is
shot with a high-angle, but the effect is not
as dramatic because she is lying down; we
see her face essentially in a frontal view. If
these are not meant to be point-of-view
shots, then what is the viewer to make of
them? The shots do denote a formal mean-
ing that has become somewhat of a clich;
certainly one could cite examples of this
technique throughout cinematic history,
Orson Welles being the master. Citizen Kane
(1941), for example, is filled with low angle
shots of Kane, denoting power, and high-
angle shots of Susan Alexander, denoting
weakness. Ones initial reaction to this
scene, then, tends to fall back upon this no-
tion of inherent meaning: Jesse is pow-
erful, Cline is weak. Why, after strug-
gling so hard to bring these characters
closer together, does Linklater tear them
apart with such graphic force? It is the most
out-of-place and jarring sequence in the
film. One is reminded of the cover of the
video for the film, which places Ethan
Hawkes head above Julie Delpys: is this
the slick manipulation of marketers, or a
direct quotation from the film?
THE GOOD-BYE
Here we have the final reversal of their
rational decision. The major question of the
filmwhether or not they will meet
73 Post Script
againis the concern of this scene, yet it is
undercut by the precise logic of the deci-
sion. They decide to meet again, but when?
Cline suggests they wait five years, but this
would be too much like a sociological ex-
periment. Cline then suggests one year;
Jesse counter-offers six months. Its gonna
be freezing, claims Cline. These logical
objections by Cline might lead one to be-
lieve she will not be there to meet Jesse in
six months. On the other hand, Jesse is the
one who, ironically (since he is portrayed as
the rational one throughout the filmthis is
not a qualitative judgement, merely a
speculative one), finally abandons his last
hold on rational thought. He is the one who
brings up the fact he wants to see her again;
he is the one who initially rejects five years
as too long; he is the one who cuts Clines
suggestion of one year in half. Yet he also is
the one who tells her to say good-bye. The
poles between rational and irrational deci-
sion are collapsing; even after numerous
viewings, it remains hard to say with any
authority who is being the more rational
here, or whether the reversal of their pact is
a rational or irrational decision. This does
have impact upon the way the scene is per-
ceived in terms of romantic
love; the less rational the
decision, the more roman-
tic it might appear to be.
relate each shot back to the appropriate
scene in the film and tease out the links of
meaning; one could subordinate the mean-
ing of these shots to Linklater himself, as his
final comment on the film, on filmmaking,
or as a certain homage to great filmmakers
of the past (specifically Antonioni). Imme-
diacy, however, must place these shots be-
yond an interpretative method, for, like the
other temps mort shots in the film, they
evoke pure emotion. In the early waking
hours, the places the couple have visited are
now practically deserted, creating an al-
most surreal sequence. Certainly these
shots give one time to reflect on the film as
a whole, and their composition specifically
denotes the places where Cline and Jesses
bond grew. What is leftthe environ-
mentis still an intrinsic part of this bond.
During the harpsichord scene, Jesse tells
Cline that Im gonna take your picture, so
I never forget you. He then pauses, and,
looking around at the cityscape, adds, or
all this. It is the space in-between you
and all this that the final sequence at-
tempts to describe.
In its endeavor to define the relation-
ship between human interaction and the en-

THE FINAL TEMPS

MORT SEQUENCE
Eleven separate shots,
starting with the bridge
and ending at the grass, ex-
emplify the power of temps
mort. This succession of
shots transforms the film
from Gen-X conversation
piece into modernist art.
Again, so much could be
said of these shots: one
might take a dialectical ap- In its endeavor to define the relationship between human
proach and compose a interaction and the environment in which it takes place, Be-
study of their over-all com- fore Sunrise is possibly the first modernist Gen-X film.
bined meaning; one could 1995 Castle Rock Entertainment.

Volume 19, No. 2 74 Post Script

vironment in which it takes
place, Before Sunrise is possi-
bly the first modernist Gen-X
film. In literature, James Joyce
and Virginia Woolf try to link
environmentcolours,
shapes, movements to the
thought patterns of the char-
acters who inhabit this envi-
ronment. In film, Godard de-
scribes the trouble he has de-
ciding what to shoot in the
auto-garage scene from Deux
ou trois choses que je sais delle.
Which provides a more accu-
rate picture of peoples
thoughts and emotions The seductive secret in Before Sunrise . . . is the hidden
shooting the people (their in- emotional state of each character. 1995 Castle Rock En-
teractions) or their environ- tertainment. Photo by Gabriela Brandenstein
ment (the trees; the leaves)?
Antonioni, of course, is the
master of this internal/external dichotomy, it is difficult to determine if he is smiling or
revealing the relationship our environment crying. On the train, Cline stares pensively
has with our psyche. Think of the cold, op- out the window, smiles, then grows weary
pressive and vacant buildings of Lavven- and closes her eyes as if to sleep. We are not
tura (1959); the polluted factory desert of certain what each of them are feeling here
Il Deserto Rosso (1964), with its dead colours Jesse even less so than Cline, due to the
and desolate decay; the commodified city of composition of shadow. These two shots
Zabriskie Point (1969), choked in its own ur- add a final, crisp note to the ambiguity of
ban clutter of billboard signs and endless the film. This is the final seduction of the
freeways. In Before Sunrise, it is the now- viewer, who, struggling to come to terms
empty spaces that embody the couples at- with how she/he identifies with the
tempt at an intellectual and spiritual bond. characters emotions, must also try to come
These empty spaces reflect the impossibility to an understanding (an understanding
of true communication; Jesse and Cline which is never much more than a gut feel-
came as close as two people possibly could ing) of what these emotions are. The se-
toward real lasting communication, but ductive secret in Before Sunrise, then (and
watching this final sequence only heightens this is not a criticism, but the highest of com-
the reality of the situation, the reality that pliments), is the hidden emotional state of
two people, no matter how close, can never each character, rendered through stunning
truly know each other, never communicate ambiguity in these final two shots.
their intrinsic truth (one might venture to
say their soul) to each other. Before Sunrise is a film that affects ones
consciousness, remaining there long after
THE FINAL TWO SHOTS the last images have faded from the screen.
An attempt at objective criticism would
On the bus, Jesse looks behind him (an
obvious symbolic reference to the time that imply a denial of these feelings; instead, this
has passed) then seems to grimace, but af- essay has focused upon the ambiguity
within the immediacy of viewing. Who has
ter this, since his face is mostly in shadow,
not felt like one of these characters at least

Volume 19, No. 2 75 Post Script

once in his or her lifetime? Confusion
reigns; the irrationality and intensity of
emotion carry the characters through their
seemingly random encounter. Thus the
form of the film tries to mirror this ran-
domnesssometimes with obvious tech-
nique bordering on pretension (the rabbit),
sometimes with subtle and seductive im-
provisation (pinball). Randomness and con-
notation will always prevail over the pre-
Volume 19, No. 2
tence of direct denotation; it is the at-
tempt of communication that is important,
both the films attempt to communicate
with us, and Cline and Jesses attempt to
communicate with each other. Both inter-
twine to create one of the most beautifully
complicated and seductive works in the
short history of films by, for, and about
Generation-X.
76 Post Script