Anticipating Linklater's "Boyhood"

I liked the Obama scene. Nothing particularly to do with Obama

yep, you're Canadian

Before the Jim Beam-behind-the-Tide scene Husband #1 came off as bland and overeager, infatuated with the idea that in his own mind he's a good professor: exactly the man whom a woman in Arquette's situation would choose.

I'm still not sure why Arquette then took up with a second (albeit milder) drunk. If the idea is the obvious interpretation, that there was something about her character that sought these men out, that doesn't jibe with Hawke.

(xpost) We're gonna let that one pass.

Professor, yes, was the one case where she seemed to clearly be striving to build a family the responsible way. I read war vet as a backtrack to the same girlish attitudes that paired her with Hawke.

I thought both of them exhibited a certain maturity, integrity and discipline (at first obv) that would make them good stepdads...unlike hawke

there was also a whiff of the shorthand of Maladjusted War Vet that mildly rankled me.

Professor/Drunk Husband's classroom lecture had a I'm-funny-and-hot-shit air that would lead me to demand a return of tuition, or perhaps just get someone to take notes for me in absentia.

you haven't been to college either

I meant if I was going now in the wisdom of middle age obv

idk where yall are getting this "professor seemed cool at first" shit i immediately thought he was presented as sinister and a bit creepy

also lol at "does she seek these men out" wtf literally neither of them presented any sign of alcoholism until post-wedding from what we see, but sure let's find a way to blame her on some level

"obvious interpretation" gtfo

Where'd you get the idea he blamed her?

To choose these two guys doesn't mean she was a masochist

What are you talking about, Zach? If, in a film or a book, a female character becomes involved with two men in a row who turn out to be two versions of the same basic character--one extreme and one mild--of course it's an obvious interpretation that the director or writer might be saying there's something in her character that causes her to do so. If it's a man and the same pattern, same obvious interpretation. That's basic. On top of which, I was questioning the interpretation--pointing out that Ethan Hawke didn't fit the pattern--not endorsing it. A couple of people offered possible explanations that both seemed reasonable. Your indignation's a little misplaced.

quickest explanation: Texas

how in the world does she "seek out" two men who are nothing alike aside from their varying levels of alcoholism when both present themselves as perfectly charming and sensible men with no hints of impending alcoholism until much later in their relationships? how does that work as an analysis of her aside from some weird subconscious drive she has towards traits lurking deep in the depths of men

now i can sort of understand, and i suspect, that linklater was going for some variation of "poor single mothers tend to overlook/ignore early warning signs in their relationships" but your wording was that she "sought out" these men, which puts a bizarre amount of agency on her

If, in a film or a book, a female character becomes involved with two men in a row who turn out to be two versions of the same basic character--one extreme and one mild--of course it's an obvious interpretation that the director or writer might be saying there's something in her character that causes her to do so.

like how is it so easy to put that interpretation on her agency rather than her environment, her context and the opportunities they offer her? mb you are used to books and films that stick characters in a vacuum

If you had another interpretation--and I'm glad you do, and aren't going to try to argue that the similarity is meaningless, or an oversight by the director--then that's all you have to do: state it, without all that "wtf" and "gtfo" nonsense.

both present themselves as perfectly charming and sensible men

I didn't see the alcoholism coming either. But clearly there are people right on this thread who disagree.

i'm sorry i said wtfgtfo

this was very good
it made me anxious and uncomfortable in the first half and i'm trying to understand just why that is.

the whole point of this film is that there's no patterns to life, shit just happens. she ended up with two alcoholics and it could have been better, could have been worse. a lot of people in the world are alcoholics. mason turned out ok and so did she.

Maybe I'm making the mistake of treating it like a conventionally scripted film, where if A and B happen, and they're linked, they must happen for a reason. And it's not that kind of film, so maybe there's something to your randomness argument.

There was one part that really underscored for me how you're conditioned to expect certain things in movies, and Boyhood avoids that. (I'm not claiming it's revolutionary or anything; in general, good films avoid that.) It was the scene where Mason and his friend were sitting around with the high school guys, karate-kicking the planks and telling lies about all the girls they'd slept with. Towards the end, when his friend stood up to hold a board, he was positioned right in front of that sharp projectile already lodged into the wall. I instantaneously heard murmuring in the theatre where I saw it--"Oh no, there's going to be an awful accident here." That was my first reaction too; I just expect those things in movies. Of course nothing happens, and it just moves on to the next scene.

haha yeah I forgot about that scene and had the same reaction

xpost

Think that last point feeds into forks' observation abt the movie making him anxious - being a parent is to exist in a state of anxiety about your child's health, safety, development etc etc. You could say that the film's point of view is basically parental - and at the end Linklater frames his 'son' in the sunlight like any adoring, proud Dad would. I think this indulgence weakens the movie, tho I concede it's also easy to see it as Renoirian humanist sympathy.

That was my first reaction too; I just expect those things in movies. Of course nothing happens

one critic suggested that when Stepdad swerves the car it's too "movie big" for this movie.

Yes--I think the exact same thought occurred to me. Also, later, when Mason doesn't want to keep the first photo he took and Arquette breaks down crying, I thought that was a nice moment that would have been better without explication; she followed with a movie-ish speech that articulated all the things that were making her cry. I'd rather she had just waved him off and been left to think about that on my own.

It would've needed a couple more framing nuances to show this loneliness, though; otherwise the scene merely plays as Arquette's sadness at her boy going to school

no, prepared for or not I prefer "My fucking life is OVER" angle

otherwise the scene merely plays as Arquette's sadness at her boy going to school

Without her speech, some would interpret it that way, yes--and I don't see that as a problem. Others might think, "There's more to it than that," and see it as part of a bigger sadness--end up where Linklater evidently wants us to. The fact that it's specifically Mason not wanting to save his first picture that sets her off, that opens up other interpretations--except once she tells you exactly what's bothering her, those interpretations are closed off. No hard and fast rules, but I think it's generally better when an artist leaves you to mull stuff over on your own.

not every character has to be undemonstrative though

True. Circling back, it just felt movie-ish to me in a way most of the film didn't, like the words came from Linklater rather than the character.

Like many might say: overlong for what it was -- a series of scenes, some better than others, all periods in this film had their moments but also flagged too. Got very 'Before...' when Mason was dating Sheena, dialogue-wise. Looking at my watch with an hour to go: wasn't anything to do with the last section, more a realization the film wasn't going to say or do anything else.

Just to go back upthread it was totally worth doing. One thing Linklater did was to let the boy's personality get through in all its shades, so having the actor grow in real-time worked quite well.

This was really good.

Teenage Mason looked like/reminded me a lot of a high-school friend whom I had a major crush on. :)

I've seen dismissals of Lorelei Linklater's performance, and I feel like it's mostly sneering at nepotism? Because I thought her acting was totally fine, and I found her to be a welcome presence in the film.

If I have complaints, it's that the second and third husbands both seemed a bit cartoonish. I didn't have the same "Don't do it!" reaction as Dr. Morbius did to Professor Bill -- initially, I just thought he seemed like a big doofus, maybe a sleazeball -- but his big showy abusive-drunk scenes suddenly turn him into such a villain, in a movie that most of the time is more nuanced than that. Maybe the issue with both Bill and Jim is that drunk asshole-dom is a presented as a place that they linearly progress into, like their arcs are too mapped out or something. Thus presented in that way, it's time for the film to move on.

Struck me that so much of the film is about Mason's family and social milieu. There aren't many scenes without him, but there also aren't many scenes where's he by himself, and he's not even the focal point of a lot of the scenes that he's in. I kind of love that. It would be easy to approach this film much more as the Journey of an Individual, Seen Through His Eyes, and I think that could be great in its own way -- but I appreciate that it's not.

Got very 'Before...' when Mason was dating Sheena, dialogue-wise.

Ha, this is kind of true. At first, I was annoyed at Mason's monologues on the Austin trip as being overly Linklater-esque and then I justified it as something he inherited from his dad.

There was one part that really underscored for me how you're conditioned to expect certain things in movies, and Boyhood avoids that. (I'm not claiming it's revolutionary or anything; in general, good films avoid that.) It was the scene where Mason and his friend were sitting around with the high school guys, karate-kicking the planks and telling lies about all the girls they'd slept with. Towards the end, when his friend stood up to hold a board, he was positioned right in front of that sharp projectile already lodged into the wall. I instantaneously heard murmuring in the theatre where I saw it--"Oh no, there's going to be an awful accident here." That was my first reaction too; I just expect those things in movies. Of course nothing happens, and it just moves on to the next scene.

― clemenza, Friday, August 8, 2014 6:45 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha yeah I forgot about that scene and had the same reaction

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, August 8, 2014 6:46 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Me too. Also, when Ethan Hawke warns Mason (I think it's when they're Skyping) not to text while driving, and then a few minutes later, they're on their way to Austin and talking about how smartphones and social media are distractions, and Sheena hands him her phone to show him a photo. And then ... they arrive in Austin.

the whole point of this film is that there's no patterns to life, shit just happens. she ended up with two alcoholics and it could have been better, could have been worse. a lot of people in the world are alcoholics. mason turned out ok and so did she.

― °ㅇ๐ْ ° (gr8080), Friday, August 8, 2014 6:28 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I agree with this. I didn't read the fact that these two guys turned out to be alcoholics as a comment on Arquette's character. If anything, what I found interesting was that she married her teacher, and then she married her student.

his big showy abusive-drunk scenes suddenly turn him into such a villain, in a movie that most of the time is more nuanced than that

I'm not disagreeing with this, but I at least appreciated the all important "I don't like myself either" admission from him.

Saw this last night. My wife had the same reaction in the karate scene. I didn't, because I don't expect those kinds of things to happen in Linklater movies -- though obviously it could've, and that could have been a good scene too, because crazy-bad things do happen in real life.

One thing that struck me was how much it consciously or unconsciously echoed so many of his other movies. Dazed and Confused in the high school section, the Before movies in his scenes with his girlfriend and also obviously in just about every scene with Ethan Hawke, Slacker in the college-visit scene where they're watching the crazy old guy in the booth (who could have been sitting there doing the same thing since 1991), Waking Life in the couple of classroom scenes -- it all seemed like sort of a summing-up of Linklater's whole approach to storytelling and filmmaking, which is to as much as possible just observe and listen to people, and let the cumulative effect create its own narrative arc.

I didn't think everything in the movie worked, and I could have done with at least one fewer stepdad -- but then so could Mason, I guess. But there are scenes I already want to watch again. Overall it's quite a thing.

I was thinking just the other day about how there hasn't yet been much cinematic depiction of the early '00s from a later perspective -- and exceptions like The Social Network and Moneyball are, I think, mostly interested in real-life events that just so happened to take place in the early '00s, rather than in the period itself. But here we get Coldplay and Britney Spears, cordless landline phones and first-generation iMacs! It's enough to make me misty.

And apart from the Coldplay, which I take was added in post, they're all in there, of course, because they were commonplace when those scenes were shot. The film can't make too many winking gestures about a previous era because it has to deal with the footage it has. I still love seeing an early '00s Mac version of Oregon Trail, though.

Like even the kid's name, Mason -- if the movie had been shot last year, I'd accuse it of picking a *currently popular* name for its protagonist, who was born in, what, 1995? Mason has been a top-5 name for the last three years but was outside the top 100 in 1995. But they decided on the name in 2002, when it was merely a fast-rising name! So I guess they were just ahead of the curve. (Mason for the dad's name, too, though? I dunno. Maybe in Texas.)

It will be interesting to see how this movie plays in 10 or 20 years, in terms of all those cues. Right now the timeframe it covers is so immediate that we can all say, "Wow, right, things have really changed since 2002." But to an audience a few decades out, I don't think that stuff will matter in the same way (even the "current" stuff will be so dated -- the whole thing will be a period piece anyway). Which in a way I think will make the movie better -- because the central idea of watching this boy grow up will still hold, and there will be less distraction in noticing which version of GameBoy he's playing or whatever.

I think that's true. All of that stuff is basically ambient (as much as it made me deeply contemplate what it was like to be a teenager in the late '00s who campaigned for Obama and listened to Phoenix and Vampire Weekend).

Loved Samantha showing Annie the Lady Gaga "Telephone" video: "Your mom lets you watch this stuff?" "Yeah, she likes it, too!"

I was disappointed by this. I agree with Aimless's view above - that using the same actors actually added bizarrely little to the film. At the end, it felt like it had been a bunch of different actors, or as though Ethan Hawke had had a lot of make-up applied. The whole schtick oddly didn't come through for me.

It was overlong, and somewhat tedious. The way it kept not ending was like Lord of the Rings. The dialogue was often banal, but in a way that was often OK because it was realistic. Maybe the film had some merits. But it wasn't what some people had cracked it up to be.

I was thinking just the other day about how there hasn't yet been much cinematic depiction of the early '00s from a later perspective

imo one of the most underrated aspects of The Big Lebowski is how its a 1998 film that is a period piece set in 1991.

I loved this movie. but I pretty much howled when Patricia Arquette asked her son if he had just toked, mostly cuz it woulda been a much diff experience in my household!

Felt sorry for the second drunk husband. he wasn't abusive so much (much of what he said to Mason was otm actually, except for the cracks about his personal style or the insult to his bio-father), actively defended his mother. just had an alcohol problem (any thoughts on whether PTSD played a role?).

Restaurant manager guy was hilarious.

imo one of the most underrated aspects of The Big Lebowski is how its a 1998 film that is a period piece set in 1991.

Yes!

what was hilarious about the restaurant guy?
i didn't find that scene unbelievable at all btw

also jaymc otm about teacher/student parallel with the men she became involved with
it also seemed obvious that 2nd husband was obsessed with his perceived role as protector given that he was sitting on his porch hours after being off work still in his correctional officer uniform

restaurant guy was hilarious in the restaurant scene just cos of his uber-serious demeanor about the job. it wasn't unrealistic at all, it was good-natured LOLs due to familiarity...reminded me of bosses I had, though granted the culture in restaurants there is diff than in FL.