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.