839 Boyhood

[Kirkinson]

Even without a switch to digital, there could be a noticeable difference simply in the evolution of film stocks and changes in Linklater's preferred lighting & production techniques, not to mention simply the natural aging of the film itself and that Linklater must have had it processed as he went on (probably by several different labs, as they've been dropping like flies since he started production).

[whaleallright]

however, even if only part--or none--of the film was shot digitally, digital post could enable Linklater & team to color correct, add/remove grain, etc. such that footage shot on different stocks and processed in different labs looks more or less the same. personally I think it'd be neat if each time period had a slightly different look.

[Movie-Brat]

however, even if only part--or none--of the film was shot digitally, digital post could enable Linklater & team to color correct, add/remove grain, etc. such that footage shot on different stocks and processed in different labs looks more or less the same. personally I think it'd be neat if each time period had a slightly different look.

Yeah that's the sort of thing I'm talking about like, wouldn't it be neat if the footage presented as it is but it shows giving the film its charm and to coincide with the theme of growing up?

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

If no one here has seen the James Benning/Richard Linklater doc, it sheds a lot of light on this films production. He even says he used the same film stock throughout the production and the lab that produced it shut down only weeks after the shoot wrapped.

[hearthesilence]

IFC is giving a special sneak preview on Thursday, July 10 at 7:25pm with director Richard Linklater & star Ellar Coltrane in person for a Q&A. THEY STILL HAVE TICKETS! (Regular engagement starts the next day on Friday, Jul 11.)

[mfunk9786]

Very useful detail on when & where this will be opening. You'll need to X out of the trailer to see the full list.

[AMalickLensFlare]

^Thanks for that. Happy to see it's eventually going to play here.

[Michael Kerpan]

Arrived in Boston yesterday -- and we managed to see it today. Kendall Square must be expecting this to be popular, as it was showing it on two screens. We had a good sized crowd even for the 3:30 show.

This really was a lovely film overall -- the two kids, father and mother were all really good (and I especially liked Hawkes in this). My favorite Linklater so far...

[eerik]

Megan Ellison on Boyhood: "BOYHOOD is a wondrous show of epic genius. It's a perfect film. The work of a masterful visionary. Fuck. I think my life just changed."

I wonder if she'll start throwing money at Linklater now?

[Movie-Brat]

Oh I don't doubt she will. She's smart enough to go for such talent.

[hearthesilence]

Linklater confirms that it's coming to the Criterion Collection with lots of bonuses.

[Movie-Brat]

Linklater confirms that it's coming to the Criterion Collection with lots of bonuses.

That was fast. So which number would that make it?

[criterion10]

I was lucky enough to see this yesterday at a special screening with Ellar Coltrane in attendance for a Q&A. This is simply a remarkable film that I can't recommend highly enough.

While the film may deal with standard clichés and tropes found in the coming-of-age sub-genre, everything is dealt in such a realistic manner that instead becomes a rather moving portrait of life, depicting both the pain and pleasure of it all.

As a director, Linklater’s work is astounding. He often chooses to hint at or show what follows a specific event rather than the most dramatic moment in question. Some characters even drift in and out of the story, some disappearing and never returning, while other reappear at certain moments.

This approach greatly emphasizes the film’s unique approach to storytelling, where scenes flow together in a loose, fluid form, almost like a stream of consciousness or a collection of memories, largely a result of Linklater never interrupting the narrative with title cards or clear definitions of what age Mason currently is. The film truly is a collage of life-like moments, merely slices of life in its true essence.

And I think that this ultimately is Boyhood’s greatest achievement as a film – being able to capture the true essence of both childhood and life in a universal way. One way or another, everyone will be able to see a little bit of their own childhood in Richard Linklater’s epic. My favorite film of the year so far, and it will be hard for anything to top this.

[dad1153]

Caught this at NY's IFC Center during its opening weekend. Narrowly missed Richard Linklater and Ellar Coltrane who were there for the Q&A before the showing I attended, but at least they were kind enough to shake the hands of the standby line for the next showing.

Linklater's a director whose movies I prefer to read about more than to watch or discuss with others. "Dazed and Confused" is the closest one of his movies has come to enthralling me, and I'm happy to report that "Boyhood" feels like an super-charged extension of the former's easy-going, casually-observational style which resonates much more deeply here because it encompasses 12 years in the lives of many characters (big and small, young and old, likable and unappealing) as opposed to one day in the life of a handful of 70's teens. This is a groundbreaking movie that's a one-of-a-kind revolutionary stand (a loud "This is how to do this right!" shout) which unfolds with the casualness and self-assured confidence of a film that doesn't need to show-off to know it's the coolest flick on the block. Only a director in complete control of what he wants to tell and how to tell it as Linklater could achieve something like this so deep into his career.

While watching "Boyhood" I felt that Mason was a cipher and uninteresting character at the center on which this amazing cinematic masterpiece was unfolding. Then the ending hit. I won't spoil it, except to say that if you put yourself in that same situation Mason's in and look back at who your friends were in that same spot of your life and see how many of them remain friends/part of your life today (or not), the impact of what "Boyhood" achieves will hit you like a ton of bricks. It did to me, and in the days since I've seen it I've come to terms with Ellar Coltrane's portrayal of Mason being like Optimus Prime being the leader of the Autobots (G1 cartoon): he's not the best character to be the leader, but given every other alternative he emerges as the only logical choice on which to focus/ground the narrative.

My one and only complain (a nitpick basically) is that the movie's title and the eulogizing of Ellar Coltrane's performance sell short "Boyhood's" accomplishments and reduce the movie down to a couple of easily-marketable taglines ('12 years in the making,' 'see an actor grow from kid to teen before your eyes,' etc.). Why shouldn't Lorelei Linklater's aging publicity pics be shown side-by-side with Ellar's? In her own non-acting, awkwardly-odd mannerisms I think Lorelei gives as good a performance as Coltrane. Ethan Hawke only shows up sporadically but he shines; his scene with Patricia Arquette late in the film was perfectly understated. Shoot, just the fact Linklater trusts his audience enough not to spoon-feed them on-screen graphics or hand-guide them to musical montages (and not shying away from having political opinions and a point of view, something most commercial-prospect films trying to reach multiple quadrants avoid like the plague) are just two of the many appealing fabrics of the cinematic textures that a movie with the simplistic title of "Boyhood" sells short. Guess "Alcoholic Stepfathers from Hell" was too blunt and obvious.

Most movies released these days are playing to the cheap seats and will be a footnote in most people's memories that will be quickly forgotten (like Mason's and Samantha's stepbrothers with Prof. Welbrock... ouch!). Richard Linklater is aiming for immortality, and with "Boyhood" he has achieved it by seemingly trying not to do that and being coy/casual about it (not true but that's how unhurried and unassuming the movie comes across). Heck, I liked "Boyhood" so much I'm seeing Linklater's "Newton Boys" in 35mm at Anthology Film Archives Thursday night. :)

[AMalickLensFlare]

Linklater was interviewed on The Daily Show last night. I don't have a link, but it should be on Comedy Central's site.

Edit: Here's the link(later?):

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/richard-linklater" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[FrauBlucher]

Last night I got to see this at the NY DGA Screening. Linlater was there for a Q&A with Todd Haynes moderating. Unfortunately it was getting late I was not able to stay as I get up at 4AM. It was being recorded so perhaps it will make onto the blu/dvd as an extra.

As for this gem of a film, it was an obsverational masterpiemce that captures 12 years of a Texas family. Linkater's ability to not force or contrive the drama is what makes this feel real. For example, as with this sequence

SpoilerShow

Bill forces Mason to get a haircut. Other filmmakers would have over dramatized this scene. Linklater lets it just happen as a build up to eventually what comes as the payoff a few scenes later.

The cast is terrific. For me, the stand out is Lorelei Linklater. As dad1152 notes Lorelei's performance is just as good as Coltrane's, and deserves to be getting some of the publicity for this film. Coltrane's character, Mason feels so real to me, as real as any kid character produced for a movie. Just a regular kid trying to grow up in a world that can be unkind and unsettling to say the least.

As time goes by, this will be Linklater's master work. It is brilliant in chronicling this family over the 12 year span that has an ebb and flow that gives it a very natural pace. I have a feeling this will become one of the most discussed films on this board.

[Michael Kerpan]

I agree -- the acting was uniformly wonderful.

This really reminded me a lot of the work of Kore'eda -- in its patient, non-judgmental (but acute) observation of ordinary people. I didn't get this same sense from other films of his.

This really has been an extraordinarily good summer -- in terms of films showing up in theaters near me.

[djproject]

I saw this a couple of days ago and I really enjoyed it. It is the best film I have seen all year (and no, I haven't seen everything that has come out) and I think whatever accolades this film receives are well-earned and well-deserved. In fact, if this gets one of the ten nomination slots for 2014 Best Picture Oscar, it will be truly well-deserved.

A few random thoughts:

1) It's nice to know Linklater has not lost his touch concerning slice of life storytelling involving both particular and self-contained moments (a la Slacker and Dazed and Confused) and long continuous stretches of time (Slacker again and the Before... series)

2) I know that Linklater likes to throw in Ulysses whenever he can. But here, I can see this as his own A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. This becomes apparent when

SpoilerShow

1. Mason was once accused by his teacher when he was around five or so of "staring at the window" and "daydreaming" (equivalent to Stephen imagining green roses)
2. Mason is discovering and developing his love and talent for photography
3. While I don't think it is as radical compared to Stephen's, Mason does have a sexual awakening of sorts when he hits his teenage years. He certainly has awakenings of other types.
4. In his adolescent years, he has a penchant for going into philosophical discussions and especially with his high school sweetheart Sheena.

3) It was interesting to see this also as a time capsule for "what was important at the time"

SpoilerShow

especially whenever politics were brought up.

4) It was even more interesting to see how any drama is played for real and not solely or exclusively as a drama. This, of course, can frustrate the hell out of an audience who may expect more dramatic storytelling (think the derision The Tree of Life got). But then again, Linklater has been known to do this (though it doesn't stop him from telling dramatic stories if and when needed).

5) There is definitely no denying Lorelei's paternity =]

All in all, I'm very pleased =]

[mfunk9786]

I felt more raw emotion during Boyhood than I have during any other film - my reaction is totally irrational, but I can't think of another I like more - period. This feels like it, it's the top of the mountain for what movies can do for their actors and for their viewers. I loved it for the same reasons that I didn't care much for The Tree of Life - there was no whispery narration, no dinosaur sequences, no attempts to answer the big questions - because there are no answers. It's about the passage of time, and the ways that children change so rapidly while adults, despite their best efforts, so often stay the same. I can imagine that seeing this film with your teenage child would be overwhelming in ways I can't even fathom, so good luck to anyone who'll be doing that. It's the funniest, warmest, scariest, saddest, and most tenderly optimistic film I've seen this year. What a gift Richard Linklater has given us here.

[knives]

It's really unfortunate when a great if flawed film in the throngs of its highest praise because that only makes the weak points all the more evident. In the case of this the flaws are so closely tied to what makes it great that it only adds another layer to the frustration that personally can overwhelm the greatness (and I would argue this is significantly more great than any other quality). A fantastic example of this is the father situation. Hawke is presented as the father and with certain story based baggage. This baggage is typical, trite, and frankly not used in an interesting way at all. Linklater seems to realize that as he drops many of these qualities for Hawke almost immediately allowing him to develop one of the film's best and most interesting characters. The film becomes a meta-commentary about Linklater's growth as an artist and eventually recycles Hawke twice with two more father figures carrying or commenting on the same usual traits Hawke abandoned. The middle of the three is easily the least interesting with rough writing and an overall plot presence that can be predicted with his introductory frame. Linklater's commitment to the misfortune of reality beyond documentary does aid this by closing in an ambiguous fashion. The final attempt at this story really shows Linklater's growth and is amazing in its subtlety and quiet difference from type. It's a fairly nice take on the material, but how it goes about doesn't make sense for the reality so perfectly etched out. Emotionally it makes sense for Mason to leave this guy behind, but not for the mother who hasn't had any major onscreen problems with dad III. This only heightens how wrong Mason often is on their arguments. It makes sense for the character who is a typical, young, arrogant, idiot. That's not the otherwise perfectly sketched reality though.

That brings up the one problem of the film that isn't directly related to any of the great moments, so overeager in its ambition. Mason, as written and acted, is absolutely noxious. This isn't particularly relevant to the early parts of the film where he takes a passive role as is the case for all people at those ages. When though he gets over, jumping past puberty, to be a grown ass the problems arise. Simply put the performance is a stiff monotone that depends entirely on the costume and words which Linklater and his crew have provided. Sadly this stone tablet is the worst sort of teenager. To clarify before I move any further my complaint is not in the writing itself, but rather the choice for having this particular character to be our main character. He is absolutely true to a certain type of person at that age having known more than a few during my short life. This though is a horrible person to spend time with and I really would rather be with someone else during my two and a half hours. Linklater provides us with so many different people across these twelve years, so why should I care about this particular one? In fact right before the ending the movie provides a perfect actual end with the mother sobbing that her nest is finally empty. It's a bit overdone and out of place with the whole ending starting with the graduation coming across like the finale to the American Office and even having a Crash moment. For those problems though it does work and truly feels like the end of a journey with people who've changed so much. Yet there's still Mason's adventures at college to go through. I'd be shocked if they actually took up more than ten minutes, but they feel like ten useless minutes as nothing new comes about beyond Mason going further up his own asshole.

I suppose this does reach on one positive no one's really talked about with regards to the movie. The use of audience POV or rather the absence of it is amazing and hardly heard of. It's obvious who Linklater sympathizes with and what he hopes we feel, but he never forces it and really allows the audience to stand in anyone's shoes at any point in time. For me I spent almost the whole time seeing this world as Arquette and Hawke do. Stuff like with the selling of the GTO I couldn't help but live through the film as them basically thinking everything they were doing which is a hell of an accomplishment by any standard. Though I suspect much of that has to do with where I am in my life. Five years ago I'd probably have been as enraptured by Mason as I was Antoine Doniel when I first encountered him and who knows where the future will lead me to sympathy and nostalgia wise with regards to this film.

[hearthesilence]

I'll have to find time to post a more thorough response later, but I didn't have any of those problems with the film, and it sounds like you're aware why you probably had a different experience, especially when you say you "spent almost the whole time seeing this world as Arquette and Hawke do" - I don't think there was a single moment where I did that, not unless it was Mason empathizing with one of his parents (like towards the end in Arquette's very last scene).

[mfunk9786]

Knives, I'm not surprised to hear that reaction to the film, as you've expressed disgust with teenagers who don't firmly fall in line in films in the past on this forum. I just again can only offer my perspective that many lower middle class children have bumps in the road, ups and downs in their personalities as their hormones are raging. They're not always gentle, they're not always angelic, and they're not always wonderful people to spend time with. I don't know how that can be a fault found with the film - showing someone as they truly are, or at least truly can be. Especially in the context of Mason - when is he problematically insufferable until his late teenage years, when he's merely annoying because of his trying to piece together his philosophical belief system and his, I don't know, staying out too late and missing class to go to the darkroom? This is hardly Ferris Bueller. I have to say that I'm sort of baffled, though unsurprised, by your reaction to the character, who feels like a very real young man.

One more observation re: Dad 3 - you couldn't read into the subtext of his depression and alcoholism, simply because we didn't see Arquette's character have issues with him onscreen? I'm not suggesting that he was overtly abusive like Dad 2, but it's entirely possible (probable) that a person in his state isn't going to last very long in his marriage.

[Peter-H]

I saw this last night and here are my first impressions. It's a very long and ambitious film so it's hard to formulate clear thoughts on it so soon after seeing it, but these are my initial impressions.

After the film was over I was left wondering why I felt no real connection to Mason, the main character. Surely after seeing his entire life unfold I should feel something for him right? It's honestly hard to pinpoint what aspect of the film caused me to feel this way. Something that I felt, was that we never get a sense of any kind of internal struggle. We never seem to see him at his most vulnerable moments, for instance breaking down in tears as a result of something happening. In fact I never really felt we got a sense of how the main character felt about anything that happens in the film. Sure we see all sorts of dramatic things happen. Dealing with a slacker dad, and an alcoholic stepfather, some vaguely defined trouble with his girlfriend. Yet I never got any sense of how the character actually felt about any of this. He just kind of stands idely by while these things happen, all the while seeming unaffected. How did that alcoholic stepfather effect his view on life, or effect anything at all? I don't know. The incident just kind of happens and then we never think about it again.

Furthermore, it seems impossible to try to show someone's entire lives in one movie. I felt it would have worked much better as a 10 hour mini-series rather than a movie. We see only very brief snapshots of various stages of his life, that are only able to shallowly scratch the surface of those experiences, and vast and important formative stages in life are quickly glossed over.

In the end i'm just left wanting to know more. What internal or external struggles have shaped the child into the young adult that he is? Sure, we see his dad is a slacker and outsider, so he kind of turns into one because he sees the opposite of that in his mothers various husbands. But there has to be more that could be explored there.

I don't know, those are just my first impressions. It's hard to digest a film this ambitious right after seeing it, so maybe my impressions will change.

I've tried my best to explain what made it feel like something was "missing," but ultimately it's very hard to describe why. zUltimately, I think it was because trying to show someone's entire life in a movie will result in only being able to scratch the surface. As I said I think it should have been a mini-series. To be honest I think that the film might have been as good as it could've been given the medium, but it's not the right medium for this story.

[mfunk9786]

I think you're expecting too much from the character - he never exists to provide some sort of profound perspective, he's just an average kid in the middle class United States - the idea is that we see, not entirely, but in spots, pieces of our own childhoods while watching his. In other words, the viewer isn't supposed to be seeing the world through Mason's eyes, so much as seeing the context of everything surrounding the simplicity, the joy, the sadness, the terror of his childhood. Linklater went out of his way to show relatively unremarkable moments in his life (though some moments, like the one with the first stepfather, are bigger than others) - no major injuries or milestones or traumas outside of a few incidental ones (we see one birthday, for example). The idea isn't to put us into Mason's mind, but to leave us in the perspective of the voyeur, and invite us to try to layer our own childhoods over the one we see on screen. If there's not many spaces that match up - that's no problem, because we don't only see Mason's childhood playing out, we see wide swatches of the lives of Hawke's character, Arquette's character, and Linklater's character as well - and the way those 12 years affect and change this entire family is what the point of the movie is, if there is one. I don't know that it was ever supposed to be approached from the "inside the mind of Mason" type of perspective, but more of a documentary perspective. But what makes the film so unique is that the inherent dishonesty of shooting a documentary like this (because the people in it would be informed by the fact that they're being watched/filmed) doesn't need to stand in the way, because Linklater can craft the story as he sees fit as a work of fiction, and therefore, in my opinion, have it come out feeling more genuine and authentic than it would have were it merely a peek into a boy's life each year. Hopefully any of that made sense.

[knives]

Knives, I'm not surprised to hear that reaction to the film, as you've expressed disgust with teenagers who don't firmly fall in line in films in the past on this forum. I just again can only offer my perspective that many lower middle class children have bumps in the road, ups and downs in their personalities as their hormones are raging. They're not always gentle, they're not always angelic, and they're not always wonderful people to spend time with. I don't know how that can be a fault found with the film - showing someone as they truly are, or at least truly can be. Especially in the context of Mason - when is he problematically insufferable until his late teenage years, when he's merely annoying because of his trying to piece together his philosophical belief system and his, I don't know, staying out too late and missing class to go to the darkroom? This is hardly Ferris Bueller. I have to say that I'm sort of baffled, though unsurprised, by your reaction to the character, who feels like a very real young man.

One more observation re: Dad 3 - you couldn't read into the subtext of his depression and alcoholism, simply because we didn't see Arquette's character have issues with him onscreen? I'm not suggesting that he was overtly abusive like Dad 2, but it's entirely possible (probable) that a person in his state isn't going to last very long in his marriage.

I can't tell if the middle class thing is a slam on me or not, but I only wish I could have grown up any sort of middle class. Anyways I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, though I still have to wonder why I should care about Mason's developing philosophy over the problems the other characters find themselves in when it is, as you seem to admit to, very insufferable. As Hawke seems to tell him at the end I just don't see any reason to empathize with Mason's annoying self involvement. It's understandable for such a character to be that way, but to be asked to unconditional empathize with him seems off to me at least. I was sort of reminded of Raging Bull with him.