love

Author Topic: Boyhood  (Read 9627 times)

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2014, 04:59:56 PM »
It's puzzling to me that a lot of the discussion around this film here essentially seems to imply "if you're not from Texas, you won't get Boyhood" or rather, "if you don't love Boyhood, you must not be from Texas, must not be a real Texan." What other films do we say that about? Do we have to be Belgian to "get" the Dardennes' films? Iranian to get Kiarostami's? Polish to get Kieslowski's?  And if a person doesn't whole-heartedly love one of their films, is it legitimate to say to that person, "well, you just don't get it because you're not Belgian/Iranian/Polish"? Our film discussion on this forum does not operate that way; why should it in this case?

I think this is an interesting question. I don't write all that much about Swedish movies - partly because there's many of them aren't all that good, so I don't go to see them, partly because it's unlikely that most of them ever will reach an international audience. Since I write in English it seems pointless to write about something that never will cross the border.
But there are movies that do go abroad, or have the potential to do so at least. However, as much as I love some of them, a thought that often pops up in my mind is: "this is untranslatable. You need to understand the context. No one outside of Sweden will ever get that. They don't get the nostalgia aspect they don't get the references to certain people, tv-shows or other all-Swedish cultural phenomena. And I think: "they don't get the Scandinavian melancholy, the mood that is presented here. They can get a view of it from a distance, but they can't feel it in their bones. They're not breathing it, they don't live it, they don't see it the way I do.". And then I think: it's surely the same way with foreign films I watch. I think I "get" a French movie, but in  fact I don't because I'm missing out on half of the associations that would be obvious if I was French.

Regarding the Texas scenes here, I had no problem with them whatsoever and then I'm not even American. But again, all Europeans know that in US, everyone is religious and devoted to weapons, right? ;)
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2014, 05:19:40 PM »
Offended was probably to strong of a world. It just seems that a lot of people seem to have issue with certain parts that I think at least as Texan I don't really see as implausible or far-fetched, in part because I've experienced or witnessed things quite similar to those moments in the movie.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2014, 05:27:33 PM »
I was certainly born to understand Scandinavian melancholia. It's the one thing I was born to do.

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2014, 05:51:47 PM »
The guns and Bible didn't strike me as a Texas stereotype or cliché as much as it just felt like a very plausible tradition in many rural areas all over North America. Also, there's been a few points raised about how well Mason Sr.'s in-laws know the kids and therefore how realistic are the gifts. To this point I'd argue that (unless there were specific indications either way I'm forgetting) the manner in which the film is constructed makes it difficult to say for certain; its elliptical design omits periods of time and leaves it to the audience fill in what's not shown. Though this was our first encounter with Mason Sr.'s new wife and in-laws, that doesn't mean they are brand new to the kids. I got the impression that this family was new-ish, but that the in-laws were already familiar with and really fond of the kids and eager to deepen their bond with their new grandchildren. From their perspective, these gifts were a means to connect Mason Jr to traditions that they value, which seemed totally believable and rather sweet.

As usual, you guys are burying the lead. The flagrant problem with this part of the film is we again had to endure Ethan Hawke singing.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

sdb_1970

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2294
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2014, 06:48:16 PM »
I don't think the issue has much to do with Texas specifically. It could have been set in any number of places and the same point would apply: There are things about growing up that are universal, but there are a lot of other things that are more specific to the particulars of your location/culture. I strongly disagree that there's anything about the movie you need to be a Texan to understand (I'm pretty ignorant in that regard myself), instead I just think you should be open to the idea that some of the things presented can still be reflective of true experiences even if you don't relate to them or haven't had similar experiences yourself.

Speaking for myself only, given the multiplicity of stereotypes involved, I don't agree that the scene in question can be characterized - at least in an intellectually honest way - as "reflexive of true experiences"; rather than ringing true, I think what we have here are two stereotypes laid on top of each other for a cheap joke.

I saw Boyhood in Austin - Linklater's hometown - on opening night; and the scene got a groaning laugh from the audience because it fits exactly into the things that Austinites hate about the rest of Texas.  I suppose we could also call attention to the fact that the boy's father is a Democratic activist.  What say you, lifelong Texans, about the odds of THAT being the case in good 'ol monolithic Texas?

Once again, it really doesn't matter whether someone knew someone who knew someone else who it happened to, or whether it actually happened to Linklater himself - finding anecdotes to fit a stereotype does not validate its use.  To wit, a stereotype is "a widely held but fixed oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing," and the extent to which it's true or not in X% of the cases is beside the point.  As a person, you can act/or not act in recognition of another's applicable stereotype, or you can choose to treat the person like an individual.  Likewise, as a fillmmaker you can either choose to spend your scant time with two characters by: (a) contributing something meaningful to the narrative or (b) appealing to the obvious stereotypes for humor based on the audience's own prejudices.  And aside from adding a THIRD gift of cowboy boots (that's what I got from my Texas relatives at 15), I cannot imagine a more stereotypical portrayal of rural Texans than in Boyhood.
 
Now, filmmakers like Tyler Perry peddle in stereotypes for laughs all the time, we dismiss it, and rightfully so.  But in the context of a movie with a "100 metascore," few detractors, and a lot of hyperbole ("it will change your life") surrounding it, it IS worth pointing out the extremely low hanging fruit.  What kind of irks me is that I've been reading this board long enough to know that if a film rated this highly portrayed it's only black men as prisoners, it's only women as dutiful housewives, and it's only homosexual men as strung-out drag queens, at least half of you would be up in arms.  I'd be hearing tons about "perpetuating stereotypes" and shouting down anybody who presented a confirmatory anecdote as racist, sexist, and homophobic.  But why wouldn't those same arguments against such oversimplified, dehumanizing portrayals not apply here - especially when used by a filmmaker involved is described by critics with such terms as "the ultimate humanist" (Mark Kermode)?
letterboxd

[insert pithy expression of false modesty here]

saltine

  • Administrator
  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9800
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2014, 07:06:35 PM »
The specifics are there to tell THAT boy's story.   What is generalized from the specifics can be ANY boy's story.

As a Texan I feel the specifics get at the experience of growing up in my state.  The generalizations drawn from that can be much more generally understood across many boyhood experiences.
Texan Down Under

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2014, 12:39:11 AM »
Now, filmmakers like Tyler Perry peddle in stereotypes for laughs all the time, we dismiss it, and rightfully so.  But in the context of a movie with a "100 metascore," few detractors, and a lot of hyperbole ("it will change your life") surrounding it, it IS worth pointing out the extremely low hanging fruit.  What kind of irks me is that I've been reading this board long enough to know that if a film rated this highly portrayed it's only black men as prisoners, it's only women as dutiful housewives, and it's only homosexual men as strung-out drag queens, at least half of you would be up in arms.  I'd be hearing tons about "perpetuating stereotypes" and shouting down anybody who presented a confirmatory anecdote as racist, sexist, and homophobic.  But why wouldn't those same arguments against such oversimplified, dehumanizing portrayals not apply here - especially when used by a filmmaker involved is described by critics with such terms as "the ultimate humanist" (Mark Kermode)?

There's been a lot of good points raised on either side of this particular disagreement, but I wanted to respond to this because even beyond the scope of Boyhood it's a point I'm interested in. Firstly, I don't think it's a fair argument to "know" how people would respond to a hypothetical situation (especially since execution and context is extremely important to these types of things) and I also don't think anyone here is likely to accuse people with those labels just for defending a movie. But to the point, is it completely unacceptable to put those types of stereotypes onscreen at all? I could understand the complaint if every Texan in the movie was portrayed this way, but it's only two of a vast cast of characters we meet, so I don't understand your analogies of portraying the "only" person of a race/gender/sexuality. Furthermore, it strikes me that Linklater's portrayal of the grandparents-in-law is overwhelmingly affectionate. He's not condemning them for their beliefs or lifestyle, and Mason seems to like them and enjoy his time there.

I guess to put it in another light, if you are making a movie steeped in the culture of black men or homosexual men, is it more or less disingenuous to include characters that fit the stereotypes of those groups?

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #47 on: September 13, 2014, 12:45:30 AM »
I think this is an interesting question. I don't write all that much about Swedish movies - partly because there's many of them aren't all that good, so I don't go to see them, partly because it's unlikely that most of them ever will reach an international audience. Since I write in English it seems pointless to write about something that never will cross the border.
But there are movies that do go abroad, or have the potential to do so at least. However, as much as I love some of them, a thought that often pops up in my mind is: "this is untranslatable. You need to understand the context. No one outside of Sweden will ever get that. They don't get the nostalgia aspect they don't get the references to certain people, tv-shows or other all-Swedish cultural phenomena. And I think: "they don't get the Scandinavian melancholy, the mood that is presented here. They can get a view of it from a distance, but they can't feel it in their bones. They're not breathing it, they don't live it, they don't see it the way I do.". And then I think: it's surely the same way with foreign films I watch. I think I "get" a French movie, but in  fact I don't because I'm missing out on half of the associations that would be obvious if I was French.

That is an interesting consideration! I certainly know there's a lot of things I miss out on by not being as familiar with foreign cultures and events. That obviously doesn't mean I can't enjoy or appreciate a foreign movie where certain things are lost on me, but there are other times where I'm sure it has a negative effect. I think some of my favorite cases are where a movie grabs me enough that I feel compelled to read up on it, then can re-watch it with a deeper appreciation for the subtleties.

Also, I really love reading your reviews on Swedish films! It's a bummer that not more of them make it into the international market.

sdb_1970

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2294
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2014, 03:07:48 AM »
Firstly, I don't think it's a fair argument to "know" how people would respond to a hypothetical situation (especially since execution and context is extremely important to these types of things) and I also don't think anyone here is likely to accuse people with those labels just for defending a movie.

To be clear, that wasn't part of my "argument" whether this film in particular was dealing in stereotypes and the efficacy thereof.  Given the noticeable lack of criticism here of the white stereotype at play in the sequence in question, I was simply expressing my ire with the hypocrisy of the politically correct double standard that tends to be applied in assessing stereotypes.  If you're not willing to acknowledge that there is ANY such double standard - not just on this board, but elsewhere - then we simply disagree.

Quote
I could understand the complaint if every Texan in the movie was portrayed this way, but it's only two of a vast cast of characters we meet, so I don't understand your analogies of portraying the "only" person of a race/gender/sexuality.

I clearly referred to RURAL Texans - not EVERY Texan.  Outside of the sequence in question, the entire character set in Boyhood is drawn from Houston, San Marcos, Austin, and a college campus (i.e., "city folk").  For the record (and you can go re-read my first comment), I'm not the one who attempted to characterize Boyhood as - and nor do I agree that it is - somehow a distinctly TEXAS film just because it happens to be set in Texas.  From my experience, Mason and his dad could have been visiting in-laws in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, etc. in the sequence in question - the same gun-toting-bible-thumping stereotype is applied throughout "backwoods" of the southern red states.  And if you noticed my earlier reference to the Texas map sequence in Bernie, as somebody who had lived and traveled throughout Texas for 15 of the last 25 years, I don't think being a "Texan" means much of anything given the very real differences in demographics between, e.g., Orange on the east entry of the I-10 and El Paso on the west.

Quote
Furthermore, it strikes me that Linklater's portrayal of the grandparents-in-law is overwhelmingly affectionate. He's not condemning them for their beliefs or lifestyle, and Mason seems to like them and enjoy his time there.

I don't agree with that rosy characterization of Mason's reaction, but then again, he's not the most convincing actor in terms of emoting (but that's another issue).  More to the point, let me get this query straight in terms of the actual argument I made (and have always been making) about this sequence:  if I as a filmmaker appeal to a couple of the most obvious stereotypes all at once, it shouldn't be perceived as lazy and uncompelling storytelling as long as I'm "affectionate" and "[non-]condemning"?  Um, no, not in my book anyway.  Frankly, I could care less about how nice a filmmaker plays with his fictional characters, and that was not a part of my argument except in so much as humanized characters are generally more interesting and/or engaging than walking stereotypes.  (Distinction should be made between the terms "humanized," "interesting," and "engaging" and attributes like likable, agreeable, etc.)

Quote
I guess to put it in another light, if you are making a movie steeped in the culture of black men or homosexual men, is it more or less disingenuous to include characters that fit the stereotypes of those groups?

Sorry, but your "other light" is not comparable to Boyhood or my examples because, once again as I see it (and always have), the relevant subculture at play in exploiting perceptions/prejudices is not "Texans" (as explained above).  That is, if anything, Boyhood is "steeped" in urban/suburban culture - we only get one notable representation of a RURAL Texan couple, and they bear gifts of bibles AND guns.

Bottom-line:  If you (and everyone else except, by my count, one), in all intellectual honesty, think that bible-and-a-gun sequence is NOT played PRIMARILY for a cheap laugh at the expense of those silly country bumpkins, but is PRIMARILY there to convey a fundamental truth, enrich the narrative, or or achieve whatever other lofty "humanist" agenda Linklater is pursuing, then there is really nothing more to discuss - we just fundamentally disagree.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2014, 03:10:51 AM by sdb_1970 »
letterboxd

[insert pithy expression of false modesty here]

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #49 on: September 13, 2014, 11:58:48 AM »
There was nothing in that scene that suggested to me that the old couple was being sneered at. Although guns and Bibles do conform to a certain "country bumpkin" stereotype, I didn't read it as if they were being condescended to.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.