love

Author Topic: Boyhood  (Read 9629 times)

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2014, 01:22:38 PM »
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.

You specifically referred to this board in that comment, so I responded to that. I'm not stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that double standards exist at all, but I'll need to see a link where "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" accurately describes an interaction that has happened here to believe it.

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.

Okay, sorry, the rest of the discussion colored my response. This distinction doesn't exactly shake my point of view, but it's fair to say that this part of my response didn't address yours.

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.
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"?

Of course not, but context and presentation are extremely important to storytelling, so stripping away all of that kind of makes it impossible to discuss. I didn't intend for that point to stand alone, it's one part of several reasons why I didn't have a problem with the scene.

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.

Well, it's a good thing this phrasing isn't loaded at all. That would make it hard to disagree with your viewpoint without looking silly!

Here's what I'll say for my final piece. Boyhood isn't a movie of profound revelations, it's a compendium of (mostly small) experiences. The scene in question hits on a couple of things that I can certainly recognize from my own life, including an inherent awkwardness to the multi-generational gap and religious disconnect. Some people will certainly find that awkwardness amusing, so if it garners a laugh there's nothing wrong with that, but I see no reason to believe from the content of the film itself that Linklater created that couple just to be the butt of a joke. Does the scene come on a bit strong? Absolutely. Is is the only blaring example of a scene that does so in a sea of otherwise perfectly subtle moments? Definitely not.

Pink

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2014, 11:26:59 AM »
I chuckled in the theater at the bible/gun scene, but I think that's more of a reflection of me than the intent of the film. I heard this on the radio...whether Linklater's intent comes through in the execution is up for debate, but I found it pretty illuminating. He talks specifically about the inspiration of the scene. Great interview all around but hit the 23:50 mark for the discussion. Apologies if this interview already came up in the thread.

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/10/330291891/filmed-over-12-years-boyhood-follows-a-kids-coming-of-age

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2014, 10:06:33 AM »
What it left out makes it less realistic.

How so? The choice not to show certain things is maybe my favorite thing about the movie.

Not talking about the graduation scene and certain life events that were left out those are what truly make the film great, not even saying that he had to have a best friend of another race or nationality, it just would have been more real to have some kind of interaction. Its just that these encounters of people that are different than you are inherently apart of growing up.

It wasn't in my growing up but I'm a far way from Texas,  I suppose for that reason it didn't really occur to me.  though my community didn't have much diversity to begin with.
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #53 on: November 26, 2014, 09:14:22 AM »
I appreciate the non-reactionary tone of your review (which seems to have plagued others here and abroad), but I just don't know by what you mean that he becomes a less interesting character. What I seem to get from your review is that there was a lot of heavy drama early on, but not nearly enough later? Is that it?

That's it, and I can't say what led me to that opinion, but I have three theories.
1. Mason's apathy is an accurate depiction of his generation. He hadn't yet developed what he's truly passionate about. Even his photography seems to be something he enjoys, but he could stop any day and only keeps doing it because it makes him happy and other say he's especially good. As a child he is pushed forward through life, but now he is sailing under his own power and is largely content just to drift. So it's an accurate portrayal, but a much less engaging one.

2. Being older, I don't easily see myself in Mason the way that I connect with his Mom and Dad. There's a scene towards the very end where a pretty girl gives drugs (I think peyote) to Mason and he takes them in a way so casual I was shocked. It doesn't lead to anything, but it was very surprising to me. I am not a fan of Patricia Arquette, but I think of the best moments from the film and it's her having to say out loud that she's made bad choices. That she doesn't know the right thing to do, but can only do the best she can. For me, the film should've ended when Mason went to college and the Mom says "I thought there'd be more." That was a great scene, but it was great because her character is more of an emotional storm.

3. I don't know how the script was crafted. Was there an end point already written on Day 1 of filming or was Linkletter working on it through the years? Not just revising. I know that happens always, but did he have an end point already in mind? It seems like to make a script like this you have to write as you go. Make a list of moments - Harry Potter book release, iPhone chat - and then turn those into new scenes that you film. That means Linkletter could work on this alternate reality forever. A real life Synecdoche, New York. Working that way, the moments aren't going to build or add up and this lack of overall dramatic momentum becomes more obvious as the film enters its 3rd hour.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #54 on: November 26, 2014, 09:46:51 AM »
1. Mason's apathy is an accurate depiction of his generation. He hadn't yet developed what he's truly passionate about.

There has been, on occasion, the talking point about how the Millennial generation (of which Mason and I both belong) is entitled and thinks they deserve to be great without time and effort. I think the apathy/lack of passion is actually an inverse, it is a generation of people so broken by lack of opportunities to excel (as a result of bad management by Baby Boomers, primarily) that they turn to not caring for emotional protection. To care about anything too much, even a hobby, it to set up for failure. I know so many really smart, talented people who are just coasting by (probably including myself in that) as a result.

And even though drug use among this generation is actually down relative to previous generations, I do think this same sense of resignation is what would lead one not to agonize over drug use, especially since we know how full of it the anti-drug crusaders are (I'm a DARE graduate). Point is, I will always take the drugs the pretty girl gives me.

I'd say my more fundamental objection to your view is that you treat Mason more like a main character than maybe he deserves. Despite the title, I do think this is about all of them. I was interested in all of them, even Samantha.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #55 on: November 26, 2014, 09:56:41 AM »
I'd say my more fundamental objection to your view is that you treat Mason more like a main character than maybe he deserves. Despite the title, I do think this is about all of them. I was interested in all of them, even Samantha.

It's about all of them until Sheena enters the film. Then it stays with Mason and the rest just drop in occasionally. I think Hawke is only around for the graduation and the phone chat in the final hour. When Samantha and the Mom return, I'm just thinking "where the hell have you been?" Mason comes off better reacting to them. With Sheena there's none of this. 

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #56 on: November 26, 2014, 06:15:03 PM »
always take the drugs the pretty girl gives me.
Or really from anyone. In this economy who can responsibly turn down free drugs?
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #57 on: November 26, 2014, 11:28:19 PM »
Yeah, but they don't stay free for long.

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 15508
  • it's all research
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2014, 10:41:39 AM »
There's no such things as free drugs.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Boyhood
« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2014, 11:43:38 AM »
1SO, you definitely have legitimate concerns of the film, which only makes me want to watch it again. I was so bowled over by the emotion of the piece on its first time around that I didn't figure in a whole lot of criticism of it.

I think the lack of drama is attributed to a lot of what your first point is about. Mason is about 5 or so years younger than me so I could understand a lot about him. His "yeah, whatever" sentiment is attributed to his lack of wanting to get into drama in his life when he's been so pulled through it already. He doesn't appreciate his mom because of this (the sadder aspect of the film) and idolizes his Dad because he never pushed so much baggage on him (other than not being there, but every time he was there, he was happy). He has apathy for his world because he's been disillusioned by it so much. Obama is touched upon, then abandoned because the president doesn't become the "Change" he wanted - he's only another figure to further his disillusionment.

So what is BOYHOOD? It's a portrayal of the current disillusionment generation of America, one that further externalizes the statist nature of the government and the non-progressiveness of the culture that resides around it.