839 Boyhood

[mfunk9786]

Nothing was meant as a slam on you. And you're not supposed to care about the philosophy, you're supposed to care about the fact that it's something we all share - a time in our lives when what makes us ourselves is coming together.

[knives]

I suppose that's valid, though it further poses the question f why such an annoying philosophy especially when Linklater has tackled this aspect of growing up so well in the past.

[mfunk9786]

It's a different experience for everyone - I didn't find teenage Mason's philosophy too annoying - if anything, it was just predictably older teenage liking-to-hear-yourself-think prattle. But the film would've felt inauthentic if Linklater had gone out of his way to make Mason saintly merely to make sure that there was nothing off-putting about his lead character, wouldn't it?

[knives]

I certainly wouldn't want saintly (as much as I've batted it the GTO scene was authentic in a really good way). My annoyance probably has more to do with just not wanting to hang out with this specific person. When he's with his family the annoyance drops a lot because they call him out on his stuff and just give a really great interaction for him. Scenes where he just prattles on like the college ones or with the girlfriend just wallow in his annoying aspects too much for me. Linklater has certainly made a real, authentic, and real life character, but that in and of itself doesn't make for a great film or experience especially when the voice of the author seems to really love him for these qualities I don't like. So I don't want Mason to be a saint, but if he's the guy I'm saddled with as POV I don't want to be annoyed by him either. Without a doubt there's a middle ground which Linklater has accomplished many times over the years.

[mfunk9786]

I think (and I don't mean to try to project something onto Linklater through overanalysis) that it's not a matter of the director really loving the character, but merely loving everyone that's grown up from being very small to adulthood, and survived it pretty much in tact. Does that make any sense? What I got out of the film was that it's an incredibly fast transition, and while adults in one's life are changing very little, or struggling through changes like, say, finishing school or deciding to settle down and buy a minivan, their children are transforming at an alarming speed, and need to absorb so much that'll form them into what they're going to become as adults. For every moment of bliss that we see young Mason go through, we see moments of sheer terror (the stuff with his first stepfather feels so achingly real for someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent), or moments that could've resulted in some awful injury (car accident from peering down at a cell phone, drunken mishap in a house under construction). And the idea that anyone makes it through that process, even if they're a bit rough around the edges, with an optimistic eye toward the future, is the miracle of childhood.

[knives]

With that I think you are actually providing a false dichotomy onto the film. Yes, the adults don't change as much as Mason does, but that's because we don't spend the same amount of time with them. Hawke and Arquette go through a lot of changes over the course of the film often as dramatically as Mason does. As adults they're better capable of dealing with that change which goes back to the passive thing I mentioned in my first post, but that doesn't mean they stop growing. That's where I think the quality of Arquette's final scene comes in. She's prioritized youth in a way where she thinks without it she has no more growth with death as the only milestone left. But Linklater as Mason tells her no. There's still about 40 years of growth to go. Life doesn't end with the end of boyhood. Raiding children, growing old, having a job, retiring, romance, and so on are all also incredibly fast transitions we can't really appreciate until a decade or so have past. Linklater doesn't really have a character who has became. Even the grandmother is still becoming. All of that and even the moments you cite are where the film excels (notice my examples of frustration for the character occur when he is a little older), but that doesn't make the film without fault. For me that fault lies in having a lead who becomes someone I want nothing to do with. Yes that he's a good person by the end is a wonderful thing, but that's true of Arquette too and she doesn't become such an annoying character.

[mfunk9786]

Adult transitions happen more slowly and deliberately than childhood ones. We change in adulthood, sure - but are more comfortable being who we are for longer stretches of time while we change. In childhood, we're constantly reinventing and discovering. I didn't mean to imply that adulthood is the end of transformation. I'm really not sure how to debate a character being "annoying" much more than I have, though, so I'm going to politely bow out of this particular discussion.

[zedz]

It's a great film, notwithstanding the gimmick - and that's the important thing. If it were just 'that film that was shot over twelve years', it would only last until the film that was shot over fifteen years comes out. In fact, I wonder if the most significant aspect of the gimmick is that it relieves Linklater of the obligation to supply any further gimmick or hook in the form of an over-elaborate plot, tricksy structure or any such thing. And so we actually get a reasonable stab at ordinary life, which is breathtaking rarity for American indie cinema. Mason is indeed something of a cipher, a little self-regarding, a trifle annoying, but isn't that the point? He's a teenager, he's not yet fully formed as a person, and the plot doesn't impose on him any dramatic imperatives to have a burning life goal, race into the workforce to support his family, or get married too young (thank God). That's how too many films, pressed for time, artificially impose 'growth' or 'character arcs' on young protagonists, and the last thing we need is another character like that. I think for most of us, self-actualization was a halting, fumbling, accidental thing, not a three-act structure.

Linklater's ease with the material also allows us to see things that hardly any other films have time for. I actually think the parents have far more interesting and dynamic evolutions than the children, but they're beautifully underplayed. In both cases, there's a little paean to the huge value of ongoing education, since both parents manage to pull themselves out of their own traps of complacency by knuckling down and studying (Mom's degree, Dad's actuarial exams). There's even a secondary character who's introduced expressly to make this very point. It's never too late to effect positive change, and Arquette gives a terrific performance as a character whose secret strength is that she can tackle tough decisions at the right time.

My favourite grace note of the film (if I read this correctly), which really gets to the heart of Linklater's smart and generous approach:

SpoilerShow

the Nicole who Mason hooks up with in the final scene being the same Nicole who showed him kindness when he had that forced haircut, and more to the point, the fact that neither of them seem to be aware of this fact. It's a little detail that the two of them will have the pleasure of discovering somewhere down the road, and might just seal their relationship as a 'fated' one if they discover it at the right time and in the right circumstances. As the film indicates more than once in its final stretch, timing is everything.

It makes me wonder whether Linklater is a big fan of Nabokov's The Gift.

[swo17]

Wait, this film has someone taking actuarial exams? Get out of my head, Linklater!

P.S. Those things are almost as hard as being a teenager.

[knives]

Yeah, Hawke makes a comment on it being his second such exam passed. It's a nice little detail that really evidences the quality of thought put into even the smallest characters.

[swo17]

If that's all he's passed, then he still has a ways to go. Like, maybe he'll be done by the end of Manhood.

[knives]

That was earlier in the film. Presumably by the end he's done more than that.

[StevenJ0001]

I was extremely disappointed. Growing up is painful, exciting, frightening, thrilling... yet I saw none of that in this film. I found it to be an incredibly tame and polite depiction of childhood, adolescence and young adulthood, lacking any sense of surprise or rawness, and devoid of those unique, sometimes shocking moments that define one's early life. This felt like the CliffsNotes version--all the touchstones were there, but rendered as generic and bland. I also found the performances very self-conscious, especially from many of the young actors (the scene with our hero and his friends camping out with the older boys being a prime example--the dialogue and acting was so on the nose, and felt contrived to me, like a gathering of kids envisioned by adults. That's what it was, of course, but it could have been disguised a little better.)

Michael Kerpan compared this favorably to Kore'eda earlier in the thread, which is interesting, because while I was watching the film, his work came to mind (Nobody Knows in particular), and I was struck by how much more real and nuanced the young performers are in his work, and in many other non-American films, than they were in this.

But, to each his own, I guess! I should add that, conceptually, the film is ingenious by its very nature, and I applaud Linklater for his inventiveness in coming up with the idea and actually executing it. I just had big problems with its dramatic content.

[Peter-H]

^
That's basically what I was trying to say.

I suppose my problem with it was the approach. I guess they where trying to go for a documentary "objective" feel. But by their very nature fiction films are subjective because the director is choosing to show certain scenes and have the camera capture what he wants to capture. I think if it was subjective, it would be far more interesting because we're see the struggles Mason (or whoever the director decided to have the movie focus on) goes through. In the end I never felt that I got any sense of Masons desires. That's the crux of most movies, the character has a desire and is trying to fulfill it. This goes with l;ice too.

I'm sure everyone here has some sort of struggle they are going through, and almost all struggles are a result of some desire not being met, and you want to resolve that struggle by fulfilling that desire. But in this movie I never got much of a sense of the two kids goals or desires or motivations, so it ended up feeling hollow.

[zedz]

I guess they where trying to go for a documentary "objective" feel. But by their very nature fiction films are subjective because the director is choosing to show certain scenes and have the camera capture what he wants to capture.

I think this is a false dichotomy: directors of documentaries are making exactly those same choices all the time. And I don't see any aspect of Boyhood in which Linklater is striving for a documentary effect. Stylistically, this is a standard independent drama.

I'm sure everyone here has some sort of struggle they are going through, and almost all struggles are a result of some desire not being met, and you want to resolve that struggle by fulfilling that desire. But in this movie I never got much of a sense of the two kids goals or desires or motivations, so it ended up feeling hollow.

Well, this right here is where I disagree strongly. Every other film has this kind of artificial narrative arc, but in my experience it's really not that common in everyday life, where most people I know tend to muddle through dealing with the everyday rather than being driven by deep, photogenic passions that shape their adventures. Over the duration of my childhood, I can probably count on one hand the number of people who had a strong life goal from a young age that they went on to fulfill. Then there's another small handful of kids whose parents sort of decided for them what they were going to do and they ended up actually doing it. All the rest of us followed vague and contingent pathways and either ended up in unexceptional standard positions, or places nobody ever anticipated. Some of these people developed career- and life-shaping passions later in life (and followed narrative arcs you might well approve of), but those were almost always quite unrelated to whatever it was that occupied their teenage years. I see the listless, undynamic evolution of Mason in this film as far more true to life than conventional coming of age dramas. Who knows? Maybe he will one day become a great photographer (and everything in the film will click into place)? Maybe he'll become a great investment banker (and everything won't)? Maybe he won't ever be a great anything? Why would you expect to understand the ultimate fate of any person by the time of their first day at university?

[Dansu Dansu Dansu]

I'm tentatively reading these comments because I had a truly special experience with this film and would like to keep it "pure" as long as possible before I have to start contextualizing it with objective reality, but I figured I could trust zedz's comments, so just to add to "maybe he won't ever be a great anything,"

SpoilerShow

there's an interesting overlap in that the mother's arc begins with her going back to college, follows her as she achieves her goals with straight A's, is professionally successful, attempts to find domestic stability, and finally, ends the film on what she claims is the worst day of her life. In other words, whatever anyone achieves during or after the film is not as simple as "struggle plus effort equals payoff." This film exists in a world where a dramatic payoff doesn't even exist. A baseball game with his father, egocentrically feeling a lonely connection with a girl at a party, and getting lost in creative work are the successes of his narrative, simply because in the "now" of those moments, everything fell into place. I think the last words of the movie are in reference to this--there is no arc, only moments that happen then pass without dramatic context, and later we weave them into a narrative. The reason this works in Boyhood is because it is automatically structured as an initiation story simply from the societal structure of these years in his life before the great abyss of post-college, where you have to attempt to define yourself with very few structured passages remaining. The mother even states that she hit the major milestones of her children graduating and leaving the house, and now she's only facing death, as if there's no further structure to her narrative.

[Jeff]

I don't know what I can add that hasn't already been said better by Manohla Dargis. Suffice it to say that Linklater more than surpassed my very lofty expectations. I kind of get the few complaints lobbed here, but the loose semblance of a plot is really just a series a small moments (and the careful elision of others) that somehow coalesce to create this portrait of how we make the decisions that ultimately determine who we are. These are flawed human beings who are genuinely striving to be something, even as they struggle to figure out what that something is. It's a masterpiece.

[Drucker]

I loved this film. I haven't seen many Linklater films, but out of the few I've seen, this is miles above and beyond the others. The topical scenes were good signposts, and I don't think were annoying. (Lady Gaga in 2009 was absolutely something that a new, Catholic parent might find bizarre and that a 17 year old girl would think is cool and use her iPhone to watch).

I've read most of knives's comments, and I think I see what you're saying, but I propose the idea that this film actually works best just from Mason's point of view. With the second father, he certainly is written harshly, and right from the get-go there is a bad vibe about him. But I think in this moment, those most salient qualities can be accented because that's what sticks out to Mason (him being a harsh disciplinarian at the dinner table, then with the yardwork). If Mason is afraid of this guy, then this guy doing scary things will stick out and be accented. In contrast, dad three carries on some of these unfortunate qualities, but Mason mostly blows them off.

I think there are other aspects that show this film from Mason's perspective really well. One of those is that his sister is frequently remarking how much she hates him and doesn't want to share a room with him. I understand that this is mostly meant in jest, but surely for an introverted little sibling, this couldn't feel great. For his sister to pick on him after having his hair forcefully cut, for example, for not wanting to go to school...that would feel harsh. He could feel picked on. That's how I read these scenes. Even at the end, at the dinner table, she makes a comment all these years later about not sharing a bed with him at the new apartment. This is a salient trait of his sister's, I think. Lastly, dad is almost always seen in a positive light, and mom's struggles have a heavy sympathy (which the sister, for example, doesn't always share). To me, it always points to Mason being the perspective.

I hope this is a valid response to the idea that the film works in a documentary, observing from a distance way. I agree it's shooting style does to some extent, but to see the film from anyone else's perspective seems wrong to me.

The film really is beautiful. Early scenes looked like film used to look to me. We spend a lot of time on this board talking about film-like bluray transfers, color timing, etc. etc. and I have 46" LED TV and I often try to tune these talks out. My set-up is fine for me and I think it looks alright. I can't believe when people remark about what a 20-year old print looked like. But here, I have to say, this film looked different than most films released. I can remember going to the cinema as a kid, and the film just...had the look this one did. I really enjoyed it. For anyone who wishes it was more dramatic, I guess there's always American Beauty? I don't know, I remember fighting with my parents growing up, but also a lot of time just wasted in the background, watching TV, while my parents talked about money. I wasn't the focus of life in those moments. That's what the film did so well. Show the world from a kid's perspective, even if he's not the center of every moment.

[hearthesilence]

I'm sure everyone here has some sort of struggle they are going through, and almost all struggles are a result of some desire not being met, and you want to resolve that struggle by fulfilling that desire. But in this movie I never got much of a sense of the two kids goals or desires or motivations, so it ended up feeling hollow.

Well, this right here is where I disagree strongly. Every other film has this kind of artificial narrative arc, but in my experience it's really not that common in everyday life, where most people I know tend to muddle through dealing with the everyday rather than being driven by deep, photogenic passions that shape their adventures.

Right on the mark, I remember liking the film for the same reason, and I wasn't surprised when a few days later, Linklater talked about his seeming aversion to plot (in reference to a number of his films) by expressing his distaste with contrivances that usually come with building a plot-driven film.

[Roger Ryan]

Practically everything that Linklater has done well with his previous films is tapped into with BOYHOOD, an epic of some of the smallest moments imaginable. I can't agree with the idea that Mason, Jr. is a cypher or an annoying protagonist. Surely, his defensiveness and low affect, self-absorbed personality is, at least in part, determined by the circumstances of his life: the absence of his father, the frequent moves, the distrust of mom's new relationships. As soon as he has a chance to grow comfortable with his surroundings, his stability is undermined. It's not surprising that the teenage Mason keeps to himself and allows life's events to wash over him.

As others have noted, the point of the film is not exclusively found in Mason's growth from first year in elementary school to first days at college. For me, the emphasis is on the dichotomy between goal-setting and achievement to impose a construct on one's life and the happenstance moments that hold equal, if not more, influence on our lives. Those who impose rules or follow a code of ethics are not guaranteed fulfillment and, oftentimes, the happiest moments occur unexpectedly (even in the presence of those who may have differing cultural or religious beliefs). Linklater handles this in an impressively deft manner with too many grace notes to count in one viewing. Among the numerous moments that shook me emotionally, perhaps my favorite was...

SpoilerShow

...the scene of Mason moving from his first home. As he looks out the rear window of the car, we're treated to a POV shot as Mason sees his friend (whom he didn't have a chance to say goodbye to) following on his bike and just starting to wave before being obscured by overgrowth.

This one shot is worth the price of admission. To Linklater's credit, BOYHOOD is filled with dozens of seemingly effortless moments just like it.

[mfunk9786]

[non-Criterion] Blu-ray combo listing up on Amazon

[eerik]

Why is it listed as a Paramount release? I would have thought that if there was going to be a barebones release first, it would be through MPI or Criterion themselves.

[cdnchris]

I'd say it was obviously a mistake. As far as I can tell Paramount has nothing to do with this film so I can't see any reason as to why they would distribute it, especially since they obviously have so little interest in distributing their own films.

[Zot!]

Practically everything that Linklater has done well with his previous films is tapped into with BOYHOOD, an epic of some of the smallest moments imaginable. I can't agree with the idea that Mason, Jr. is a cypher or an annoying protagonist. Surely, his defensiveness and low affect, self-absorbed personality is, at least in part, determined by the circumstances of his life: the absence of his father, the frequent moves, the distrust of mom's new relationships. As soon as he has a chance to grow comfortable with his surroundings, his stability is undermined. It's not surprising that the teenage Mason keeps to himself and allows life's events to wash over him.

As others have noted, the point of the film is not exclusively found in Mason's growth from first year in elementary school to first days at college. For me, the emphasis is on the dichotomy between goal-setting and achievement to impose a construct on one's life and the happenstance moments that hold equal, if not more, influence on our lives. Those who impose rules or follow a code of ethics are not guaranteed fulfillment and, oftentimes, the happiest moments occur unexpectedly (even in the presence of those who may have differing cultural or religious beliefs). Linklater handles this in an impressively deft manner with too many grace notes to count in one viewing. Among the numerous moments that shook me emotionally, perhaps my favorite was...

SpoilerShow

...the scene of Mason moving from his first home. As he looks out the rear window of the car, we're treated to a POV shot as Mason sees his friend (whom he didn't have a chance to say goodbye to) following on his bike and just starting to wave before being obscured by overgrowth.

This one shot is worth the price of admission. To Linklater's credit, BOYHOOD is filled with dozens of seemingly effortless moments just like it.

For all these "effortless moments", this film was littered to my mind with equally cliched clunkers that do nothing but drive the supposedly unimportant story. Like the pep-talk in dark-room, or that preposterous moment with the waiter in the restaurant, or for my money the entire denouement, which seemed like a hollow approximation of the joyous coda from Slacker. I'm afraid it was more Bad News Bears and less Before... in my approximation.

[mfunk9786]

Regardless of your opinion of the success of the film, comparing it to Bad News Bears is a pretty absurd bit of trolling.