Dazed and Confused: Analyzing Our Attraction to the 70’s

Dazed and Confused— a movie which made just enough in the box office to cover its cost— has become a modern cult classic especially among GenZ, a generation which seemingly has very little in common with the contents of the film, including hazing, cruising, and an end of the year party with the whole school invited. So why does it make us feel almost nostalgic? And, if we are connecting to something in the characters, what is making us feel some sort of longing to live as them?

 Interestingly, in this movie, director Richard Linklater wanted to highlight the way in which he thought that the 70’s “sucked”, but I don’t see it in that light. I more or less ignore things like the frequent bullying instead to see the social etiquette and informality as the “point” or the highlight of the movie. I might be inclined to focus on the overall culture compared to the minute firstly because Linklater also intentionally made the movie without a real plot. He focuses on the seemingly meaningless activities and feelings of a wide variety of teenagers. The thing is, all these teenagers are feeling noticeably similar, perhaps exemplified in different manners, but still the reason behind these actions are comparable. They are connected through their “teenage-ness”: disconnect from the real world as well as an anxiety and cluelessness that overcomes them when faced with it. This is a quintessential part of generations of teenagers’ existences; as Linklater himself said, “teenage life is more like you’re looking for the party, looking for something cool, the endless pursuit of something you never find, and even if you do, you never quite appreciate it.” And because nothing very dramatic is happening plot-wise, the character’s “teenage-ness” is really highlighted as we see them in their natural and candid states.

Another surprising thing we might notice is that everyone is openly nice to each other (clarification: this is true for those who aren’t fortified enemies). Linklater doesn’t pretend that all teenagers are the same in personality or goals, he purposely shows us different “groups” in the high school: definitive dorks and stoners and jocks, partially separated into their own friend group, but these divisions do not negate the connection between the class as a whole. Just going to the same school provides a certain acknowledgment of respect that I think we as a generation might crave to be more present between us, or at least I do. For example, an incoming freshman gets dragged into a more or less harmless freshman initiation where the large majority of their class and the senior class is hanging around— being together. It doesn’t seem that special, but I’ve never experienced something like this; maybe the closest thing would be school assemblies but those aren’t even close. Furthermore, the senior girls drive this freshman (they had barely talked and nothing special happened) back to her home and then invite her to a party. I don’t think most of us even talked to a senior our freshman year, not because they didn’t like us, but instead because they didn’t know of or acknowledge our existence whatsoever. The inter-group dynamics in this movie is the opposite of competitive or exclusive social norms seen in later time periods— think 10 Things I Hate About You, Clueless, and Eighth Grade. These attributes are all things I crave, and I think as a generation, we wish we had between each other.

I might be focusing more on their social culture specifically because it’s so different than ours now. Our generation, experiencing the same time in life as those students in Dazed and Confused, now have an overwhelming ability and pressure to separate ourselves into groups. I can only really speculate why this is, but I wonder if it’s simply because we have the means to choose this obviously easier and safer life, so why wouldn’t we? After this comes the comfort we find in our groups, be that natural or forced by social norms that creates a fear to expand. Everyone is obviously more comfortable when they don’t have to be put in vulnerable situations, which include meeting and being vulnerable with new people. With these norms, social standards are quite policed. I end up not wanting to start a conversation mainly because I don’t think that x person would want to talk to me and they want to be in their own bubble so then I stay in mine— it’s cyclical. In Dazed and Confused’s version of the ’70s, there is an understanding that you can’t ignore people who are around you all day, every day, and who are so similar to you in terms of point in your life, because you have a specific connection of dealing with the same antagonist, if you will— it makes sense.

So then what connects these characters, or, really, all people this age? In Linklater’s film that came out two years after Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, a character states, “if there is any kind of magic in this world, it must be in the attempt of understanding someone, sharing something.” In Dazed and Confused, this innate connection is the characters’ shared time in space and life, in the ’70s and being a high schooler and the feelings that come along with it; it’s the connected experiences like the freshman hazing and the big end of year party. They share the essence of being a teenager: the contrary feeling of rebellion and reluctance, the feeling that you are outgrowing your situation alongside ill-preparedness. In interviews with Linklater, he assures his audience that this feeling is not specific to a romanticized movie universe of the ’70s, but rather to all teenagers of any generation. It’s my opinion that we now ignore this connection, and I feel like we missed out on a lot because of it. I don’t want to act like I was acting in a similar way to these characters in rebellion to my generation (I’m not that cheesy), but that’s the problem: I feel that most of us would have likes to, and we were all simultaneously pushed against our will like magnets.

When you watch the movie sans rose colored glasses, hazing and bullying are highlighted issues, as was Linklater’s purpose; I think, though, that those in our generation who admire the content of the film might be collectively looking over the aforementioned negative things and unconsciously focusing on something that was surprising to them: the social norms and culture. I would argue that because Linklater purposefully highlighted negative aspects of 70’s culture like parental/teacher over-aggression, gross male hostility, etc., our attraction to the movie is not based on a glorified portrayal of the time— because that’s not what the director was doing— but rather in those underlying differences in the social culture that we compare to our culture now. The aspects of the movie that are so normalized and underplayed might be what attracts us to it; the overarching social lifestyle and normalities are obviously not Linklater’s point, but nonetheless a huge sign of the times. We as a generation find this portrayal so authentic because we feel those feelings; we find it so nostalgic because this overarching connection highlighted in the film is lacking between us; we find this so beautiful because we want it.

 I do believe that Gen Z has acknowledged this disdain and wants to gain connections similar to those presented in the film while simultaneously dealing with how our social culture has simply changed on a deep level, and thus it being hard to do so. I think that our generation has an incredibly intimate relationship with ourselves— in the best way— but this might mean that we long for the type of friendships where others know us. This movie feels close to us, where there is both a sense of untouchability and longing as well as genuineness. As Richard Kelly wrote in his analysis of why the film has become a cult favorite, “Dazed and Confused is self-consciously time-bound: its narrative is not simply aware of the passage of time and commenting on it, but formally determined by it.”