Boyhood

[neveragain]

Very interesting film coming out soon, filmed over twelve years so that the characters and actors could age together.

Hope it was worth it.

[Blinder Data]

ts;nmi[nb](too short; need more info)[/nb]

[imitationleather]

I saw Winterbottom (hehe) do a Q&A on a film where there was yer man from Human Traffic and he had these kids and it was filmed over five years so you could see them grow up and the cunts basically did not change at all. I dunno, maybe the parents weren't feeding them or something. But it was a total disaster and a shit film and he's not a good director.

[Bored of Canada]

I love this film purely because of the old thread.
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=42038.0

Not trying to post that as a Check Out This Dunce thing. More just as a great example of people playing into an absolutely preposterous set of claims on the internet and arguing with them before thinking.

Great fun.

[tookish]

I'm really interested to see how this comes out. That's a huge, huge investment (and risk) for everyone involved to make, particularly the child actors. I mean, what if somebody in the cast died? Or just turned out to be a bit shit when they got older? Or lost interest?

As you said, neveragain, I hope it's worth it. That's a long fucking time to work on something, year after year, without getting to reap the fruits of their labour.

[scarecrow]

I saw this this afternoon and really pissed my friend off by sighing in exasperation at various points throughout. I felt that while there was something inherently moving about the central conceit, the script was a bit lacking. Anyway, I realised that my sighing was a testament to how involving the movie is, and that the kid is possibly supposed to be kind of a pretentious doofus, the way most of us are at 17.

That said, it's the sort of movie where any criticism can be deflected by acknowledgement of life's imperfections. 'Of course that wasn't a laughable attempt at profundity on the scriptwriter's part, that's just how people speak when they've been raised on Hollywood.' I'm not entirely convinced.

Certainly, it was more low-key than I was expecting, and didn't feel like the work of people putting all their eggs in one basket.

[olliebean]

I mean, what if somebody in the cast died? Or just turned out to be a bit shit when they got older? Or lost interest?

At least two of those three things happened during the Harry Potter films.

[Puce Moment]

I saw Winterbottom (hehe) do a Q&A on a film where there was yer man from Human Traffic and he had these kids and it was filmed over five years so you could see them grow up and the cunts basically did not change at all. I dunno, maybe the parents weren't feeding them or something. But it was a total disaster and a shit film and he's not a good director.

Yeah, that was utter fucking gash. If you are going to take advantage of that conceit you need to have an amazing script and concept. Instead, he thought the gimmick would carry the film, and it didn't, fading away and dying a death. I think he's a good director, though.

[tookish]

At least two of those three things happened during the Harry Potter films.

That is a very salient point and one which renders my entire post dead in the water. Fuck youuuuu.

[popcorn]

That is a very salient point and one which renders my entire post dead in the water. Fuck youuuuu.

Actually, I think the Potter films are different, because they're a) a series of films with breaks between and b) not built on the very premise of watching actors age.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I saw this tonight and really really enjoyed it, but I don't think it's the masterpiece some critics have been claiming. I enjoyed the early years a lot more than the latter ones too, the kids really impress acting wise and it's a joy to see them slowly age and mature and deal with the uncertainties of life. But as scarecrow mentions, once he becomes a slightly pretentious teenager it drags a little bit at times, mostly during the part when

Spoiler alert

he's 16 / 17 and dating a girl, which frustratingly is a lot longer than many of the other segments, but a lot less enjoyable as it's dialogue heavy but not that interesting.

[close]

Still, it's a minor complaint in what is a very enjoyable film, I just don't think it's quite as profound as the director thinks it is.

[Olarrio]

I thoroughly enjoyed this, although also wouldn't go so far as to proclaim it a modern classic.

It had the vibe of my favourite kind of Linklater films - a series of related/unrelated vignettes. I loved the way the film just kept dropping in on largely arbitrary moments throughout this boy's upbringing, much like our memories of our own childhoods tend to be.

I'm sure every male, particularly of my generation or thereabouts, and in fact all children (it could realistically have been called "Childhood") could relate to numerous aspects of the story, but I felt a particular resonance at times. Even just at scenes like when

Spoiler alert

Mason is made to have his hair cut

[close]

. Due to that it's been running through my head since I saw it and has brought up a load of my own childhood memories/experiences.

All the cultural references - the soundtrack, technologies, haircuts etc - felt perfectly at home and not at all crowbarred in.

One question for those who've seen it -

Spoiler alert

Was I right in thinking Pat Arquette's second husband, the former soldier, was suffering from PTSD (I'm thinking of the scene when he comments on Mason's finger nails) or was it merely that the domestic situation was very tense at that point?

[close]

[CaledonianGonzo]

Two and 3/4 hours of this kid upspeaking and doing his best Joey Tribbiani 'smell the fart' acting expression was a little more than I could happily cope with in one sitting, I'm afraid.  It didn't quite get to the point where I was checking my watch, but I wasn't far away from it either - especially, as noted, the wandering round Austin with his girlfriend scenes.

Though that's kind of the reaction I've had with a number of Linklater's other films, so it's probably more a case of me being out of step with the style and themes of his ouevre in general rather than this being not a good example of his work.

[Small Man Big Horse]

One question for those who've seen it -

Spoiler alert

Was I right in thinking Pat Arquette's second husband, the former soldier, was suffering from PTSD (I'm thinking of the scene when he comments on Mason's finger nails) or was it merely that the domestic situation was very tense at that point?

[close]

Hmm, that's a good question, and would certainly go some way to

Spoiler alert

explain the sudden shift in the character's actions, though I couldn't say for sure.

[close]

I know what you mean about the soundtrack too, though the fact that the film opens with Coldplay's Yellow concerned, for obvious reasons!

[scarecrow]

That solo Beatles compilation cd actually seemed quite poorly sequenced.

[Blinder Data]

I enjoyed this film quite a bit, but talk of modern classic is wide of the mark and just the media getting excited about the unique way in the which the film was made. Like others I felt the pace sagged when it was focussing on the protagonist and his girlfriend towards the latter parts of his life, and the stuff when he was a kid was generally much more interesting.

The film had a mixed tone though, which stuck out occasionally. The main kid and the other children were very naturalistic and some of the humour, like with his dad, felt organic and infectious, and the use of real buildings and locations added to the realism evident in the film. But then you had broad comedy moments (the neighbour fantasising about Obama, the oddball fast-food restaurateur, the mum's friend offering him a 'lift' to college) which, while often funny, felt like they were from a different film. When the hispanic dude turned up at the end to tell them to listen to their mom - the sort of thing you might see in a Hollywood romantic comedy - I thought they mighgt burst out laughing at the serendipity of the moment, but they didn't. A bit odd.

Saying that, the performances were largely great, especially Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. The laid-back easy charm of the film rubbed off on me, and it made me laugh and think - a heady combo. Some of the earlier scenes with various stepdads struck a chord, and it's a film that stays with you for a while, I find. Not sure I'd watch it again though.

'I just thought there would be more.' Ooooft. Boy, do I look forward to reaching the age when that line feels relevant!

[Puce Moment]

I was generally impressed by this, and I say that as someone who really dislikes the Before films with something approaching nausea. To say I was cynical was an understatement and the 'looking at the clouds being serenaded by Chris Martin' opening fair made me want to run for the exit. What a gash way to start a fucking film.

But it starts working its magic I think around the first leap forward, although I think it is the sister who seems to change the most physically, and who acts as a better guide to the linear jumps. And it really does help that Linklater employs jump cuts over interstitial titles or any other kind of date marker as it makes the forward movement more interesting and lets the audience do some work.

I guess this was a film about boyhood, but I also thought it was a film about family, and motherhood, particularly as Arquette's character seems so much more central to the plotting than the boy. Her final scene is really quite heartbreaking, particularly after everything she has achieved.

It is not without fault, and I found the first alcoholic abusive husband far too broad and televisual and really jarred with the naturalistic tone of the rest of the film. He was like a headmaster in a John Hughes movie. I also agreed that some of the more indulgent stuff later on could have done with some more judicious editing, although I imagine Linklater was relieved that the boy becomes quite a neat little actor, with a lackadaisical early Depp/di Caprio feel about him.

Some things really stuck with me, most of them a bit too personal to share here, but it did occur to me that amongst all of the chaos in the boy's life, he ends up in a very stable, supportive environment with people who encouraged him, and paid for him to follow his dreams into Higher Education. In that sense, it is notably unrepresentative of most boys, which is fine, but problematic given the title.

[Noodle Lizard]

I was more interested in watching Ethan Hawke slowly turn into a skeleton than the boy's progression.  What happened to him?

Anyway, good film, I like it.

[QDRPHNC]

Watched this last night, have a list of thoughts here about it.

- Acting uniformly very good, especially Ethan Hawke. Patricia Arquette's performance took a while to get going, but the moment she broke down in tears was probably the strongest of the film, coming right after her son's comment about the photograph. Evoked strong memories of saying something which doesn't seem like a big deal but which stabs your parents through the heart, even though you're too young to properly understand why.

- Film lifted and was a joy to watch when Hawke was onscreen, but I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop with his character. He was just a bit too cool, carefree, clever, fun to be around. There were some subtle suggestions that he could have been a more responsible single dad, but he seemed like the cartoonishly good flipside to the cartoonishly bad first husband. Too evil, too much of an asshole. And too much of a coincidence that Arquette ends up with a second drinker after him. My girlfriend pointed out that the film may have been suggesting that this is Arquette's relationship pattern, which may be true, but it may have been stronger underlined by suggested a history of alcoholism on Hawke's part. Just a thought, Richard!

- Film started to drag near the end. Too much stoner philosophizing, the kid just seemed a bit too wise for his age. His teachers were too cool, his new roommate was too boss, his roommate's girlfriends were too pretty (and, as my girlfriend again pointed out, kids at college don't give away drugs, they're too poor).

- Thought the main kid's acting was a little weak around the 11 - 14 years or so, but got better as he got older from there. I like how he just acted very naturally as a 17 year old, not really making much eye contact with his teachers and talking to his chest a little (as my dad used to reprimand me for). He wasn't trying to Act, and it worked.

- During the early years, I thought the kids were really great, and they seemed to bring out a more casual side of the adult performers too.

Overall, B+. Thought it was very good, but wouldn't watch again.

[zomgmouse]

"I thought there would be more" is exactly my reaction to the film. It's the first Linklater film I haven't immediately fallen in love with. And I don't think I will. I mean, it was pretty good, it more or less kept itself up for the length of the film, there were some great little details and moments (I think my favourite was when

Spoiler alert

the kid had to paint over the height measurements on the doorframe

[close]

) and the whole "filming over 12 years" thing is impressive - but it did sort of fall flat for me. I probably admire the dedication it takes to film over 12 years more than I do the film itself. I can't tell if the emotional distance/disattachment that I felt was just my particular mental/emotional state or if it was a deliberate ploy on Linklater's part to convey the drudgery of time and the helplessness of not being able to stop time from moving on. Or maybe it's just how the main character acted (then again, maybe he acted like a damp introvert as a reaction to his volatile childhood, I dunno) but it really did not feel like the "OH MY GOD MY EMOTIONS" thing that most people have been proclaiming it to be. I felt very disconnected from the film.
Linklater's usually great at doing "life stuff" in a non-"life stuff" type of way, i.e. "here's a thing that happened and then here's another thing that happene, oh look something else happened", but that's exactly what this film felt like to me, unfortunately. I mean, Dazed and Confused did the whole apathy/uncertainty thing a thousand times better, simply because it did it with energy, unlike Boyhood.
Also Linklater is usually adept at choosing soundtracks but this just felt so "whiny man with guitar"-ridden. I was not expecting there to be so much of that. Like the opening song, whatever it was, set the tone of disappointment in the film, I think.
Oh well.

[popcorn]

Also Linklater is usually adept at choosing soundtracks but this just felt so "whiny man with guitar"-ridden. I was not expecting there to be so much of that. Like the opening song, whatever it was, set the tone of disappointment in the film, I think.
Oh well.

It was Coldplay.

I thought the soundtrack worked really well. It requires you not to judge each song on how much you personally like it or what emotions it elicits in you, but to empathise with what the kid was listening to at that time. When he was that age, Yellow by Coldplay was a big song. It doesn't even mean he liked that song - it was just part of the fabric of his life and circumstance back then. Somebody That I Used to Know plays in a scene when he's in college.

[up_the_hampipe]

Felt like bringing back this dusty thread. I just watched this for the first time and want to talk about it. Surprised there isn't more than 1 page for this film.

The concept is a lot more interesting than the film itself. Mason's teenage life, in particular, was pretty frustrating to put up with. The awkward mumbling flicky-haired teenager is a character I never have time for. I was never like that and had no interest talking to anybody who was, so it was a shame to invest time seeing this character grow up into a pretentious teen turd, but it's realistic I suppose.

The childhood story, especially life with his mother, was the most interesting for me. The shuffling from house-to-house under his mother's pursuit of love, but her bad taste in men results in some traumatic experiences.

I did like how this film didn't settle for many cheesy "it all got better" nonsense with some of the characters. Even if it was difficult to swallow at times. For example, the first husband's kids are left there with him and not seen again. Depressing but real. Also, his meaningful high school relationship with that absurdly pretty girl ending in a very stupid and abrupt way with the only resolve being to just move on. She didn't come back, they didn't rekindle the love, that was that and onto the next chapter. His mother is last seen feeling hopeless and lost. There's no moment where we see her meet a nice new man or find some sudden meaning to the rest of her life. That was that. Maybe she got comfortable with it, maybe not.

Overall a good film, I just wish Mason became something worth investing so much time for. I wish he'd become a sex worker not a wanky photographer.

[Noodle Lizard]

Completely agreed, the lack of resolutions was something I really liked about it.  But yeah, Mason himself is just dull - especially when he hits teenage years.

Like Frodo in LOTR or Lemmiwinks in South Park, a lot of stuff happens around him, people telling him what to do, great peril, great elation etc., but he himself he doesn't actually do very much or seem to care either way.  I suppose the idea of filming him over 12 years was to replicate or at least realistically depict the experience of growing up, but it astonishingly fails to do so.  Growing up is an active experience, not a passive one, and in the case of young Mason it just seems to be another thing that happens which is "kind of y'know whatever or something".

Some of the later sequences were so banal I half expected it to cut to Charlie Brooker in his living room despondently grumbling: "Okay.  That's the end of that bit."[nb]Realistically, there should have been a full year's worth of footage of him furiously wanking over anything and everything he sees, but I GUESS THAT'S NOT PROFOUND ENOUGH FOR LINKLATER[/nb]

[wooders1978]

I'm up to where he has the girlfriend and fackin hell - I'm struggling to remain interested, then I realized thus has been the case through the whole film - soldier dad is also an alchy? Fackin 'ell....
Is he meant to be so dislike able? No one appears to like him, including me...