Anticipating Linklater's "Boyhood"

oh yeah I'd completely forgotten that guy

I was waiting for him to say "can't the kids watch themselves?"

I think the randomness-of-life is a reasonable explanation, but part of me still thinks something like that isn't accidental in a film, that the director was trying to indicate something about Arquette's character.

I thought it was a desire for stability. She certainly seems to explain as much to Mason after he questions her motives post-haircut.

It is interesting that the student ended w/the prof. and the prof. then w/student. Not so much for creepiness -- as they seemed to be adult/part-time colleges -- but how that could affect the relationship throughout a course/people talk. Boyhood always seeks to avoid the usual drama (as I think Clemenza says somewhere). Except with drunk husband, about 10 mins or so in the piece.

Kind of wanted Arquette to end w/Mason's restaurant manager as the one final go @ this relationship lark!

I meant that, above and beyond the desire for stability that anyone in her situation would want, the odd fact that she ends up with two consecutive guys who have a mean-drunk side to them--one fairly mild, one severe. In a normal movie, I think the director would say we already checked that box, let's make the next husband a friendly, dog-loving eco-activist who kills Arquette with kindness.

glad I kept reading and saw the "with kindness" or this might have become a Cronenberg film

ah ok, see I thought the last guy wasn't even that much of a drunk. Just a guy from a small town who really wouldn't understand anybody too much outside his ow milieu and is simply weighed down by his supposed responsibilties. The end of their relationship isn't shown either.

he wasn't a drunk so much in that he didn't get rowdy or abusive when drinking but I took the frequent scenes of him looking deadeyed with brew in hand in the morning to mean he had an issue. my guess was Arquette dropped him either because she had bad memories of her prior husband, or that he grew colder and distant (as he had little of the warmth he showed in earlier scenes). she might have been worried about his relationship with Mason too, that he wasn't a good fit for him as a father figure.

"Parade of drunken assholes" line suggests he was an alcoholic too

The end of their relationship isn't shown either.

Another thing I found odd--he just disappears--but liked; no need at that point for another break-up scene, and you already get that he's something of a problem.

willing to bet he tried to throw Mason out of the house and she told him to fuck off

Also his marginality in the story reflects his marginality in Mason's life. The first stepdad is significant because Mason's younger, it's a bigger life-change, there are step-siblings etc. By the time guy #2 shows up, Mason's already more wrapped up in his own world and can kind of shrug at the whole thing. (I had friends in high school who acquired step-parents at that age, and the relationships were similar -- everyone just tried to stay out of each other's way.)

I agree with the Film Experience blogcast: the second husband is a better character and better drawn than the first, and Linklater's generous enough to give him the one scene in which I can understand the attraction: he speaks well and is hot and young. The movie's weakest moments of drama occur in the middle between the two husbands.

Am I the only one who was getting a goofy perv vibe from the restaurant manager?

i feel like an asshole writing this, but I thought this was... not very good? it all felt so willful, like every moment (esp. in last 45 minutes or so) was goosed to produce epiphanies and revelations. much of it was charming, I never hated it, but I also was a bit bored. it doesn't help that the lead actor was pretty wooden and didn't produce a sense of individual personality.

maybe i just have a contrary bug or something, but this didn't do anything for me

Am I the only one who was getting a goofy perv vibe from the restaurant manager?

― You are exactly why people root for the apes (Eric H.), Friday, August 15, 2014 4:47 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i didn't think he was a perve. i think he was just an awkward guy. i got a bit of a closeted gay vibe.

I got the opposite impression: it was at times so devoted to an American kind of seventies fiction realism -- a lulling flatness -- that it drifted in the middle.

i think i'd prefer the movie where mason has a bite of the pot brownie and instead of having a bargain-basement epiphany he has a panic attack

the whole thing just felt so calculated. also, i kind of want my movie to be a bit more visually rigorous. linklater's capable of really interesting things visually but lately his films are kind pedestrian-looking

sorry for typos...

i can't read through this whole thread. was anyone else kind of indifferent to this? or am i the only person in the world who didn't think this was a masterpiece?

faculty hanging out w/ their students other than an occasional wine & cheese party on campus seems crepey to me

― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Friday, August 15, 2014 9:31 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think she was making pancakes, not crepes btw

My initial reaction to the film was that this was good...has some cringy moments, but not bad and certainly nowhere near amazing.

It seems most on this thread liked it but I hear no one raving that this is a cinematic masterpiece.

So why the unanimous critical rapture ?

― oscar, Tuesday, August 5, 2014 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

maybe i just have a contrary bug or something, but this didn't do anything for me

― I dunno. (amateurist),

Nah. This has been the only sane place in which to discuss this film without hyperbole.

i have to admit i was sad when patricia arquette left her monster of a 2nd husband and her kids asked if they would ever see their step-siblings again.

but overall i was barely roused... didn't really feel any emotions other than being faintly charmed and amused at times

First husband, no?

was she not married to ethan hawke?

oh right!

imo if you have to watch one new movie where "nothing happens," i'd recommend this one: http://www.fandor.com/films/the_strange_little_cat

yes, i prefer that one too

but you know, it's not an Amerindie and wasn't MADE FOR 12 YEARS

Well Linklater's aiming high, in his keep-Austin-weird way. It's not supposed to be a movie where nothing happens, it's a movie where Life Itself happens. I don't totally buy it, but the flaws are honest and obvious ones (and not surprising ones given his track record).

It still has a lot of great scenes and moments. And I think those come from the patience and the process of the whole thing.

oh shit you can watch The Strange Little Cat online. Been fruitlessly hoping it would come to DC but now I can see it at least. Cheers! xposts

Amateurist I agree with you pretty much, as noted above.

Oh I saw this, and felt the same way as I felt when watching Waking Life. It's impossible to really enjoy this dialogue-ultra-realism without feeling that you're being talked at instead of talked to. Most scenes and situations left me feeling with a desire to participate, like, converse with the characters, but feeling unengaged by the fact that this is meant to be performance, and there is nothing performative about it, it is a recreation of interactivity, but with interactivity removed. I don't know if I can type this as well as I can explain it verbally :/

as usual, i think my disappointment in the film (even though my expectations were low), and the pretty much unanimous critical praise, caused me to be a little harsh. it was definitely affecting at times, and i don't think i disagree with anything tipsy mothra says, although i admit to not being sure what distinguishes an honest/obvious flaw from a dishonest/nonobvious one. i think sometimes linklater coasts on good intentions, or very nearly, and doesn't apply enough filmmaking skill.

i guess the biggest flaw for me was how, for the last 45 or 60 minutes or so, the film felt less like a concatenation of micro-events than a deliberate attempt to track and take stock of "milestones." by the last few scenes this got rather oppressive, with the constant discussions of what college'll be like, etc. it's quite possible to defend these scenes (and all of the banal conversations that take place in them) in terms of "realism," but that doesn't make the experience of watching them any less torpid.

above all, i guess i thought the film could have stood to be a lot weirder--or just more distinctive. i think the childhood scenes in "tree of life" have some of the same flaws, but the scene where the protagonist sneaks into his neighbor's home, masturbates on her nightgown, then desperately flees with it and tosses it in a stream, had about 10x more energy than nearly anything in linklater's 170-minute movie... :(

in a way boyhood felt like observing childhood from the outside, from a distance even, rather than conveying a good sense of the inner life of its protagonist or his family. maybe that speaks to the limitations of the '70s-style realism that one of you points out above.

then again, maybe i just had it in for this film, and all the critics are right. i wouldn't be surprised if that were true.

the unvarnished acting was kind of interesting in itself, but definitely kept me from feeling like i was actually witnessing personalities taking shape.

the main boy grew into a pretty amazingly good-looking dude, i'll grant that.

i did like the moment when BAM! ethan hawke is suddenly uncool. moustache (not a hipster one, either), shirt tucked into pants, minivan.

re. all the "i remember the early '00s" stuff upthread, this film basically documents a period where i was to a greater or lesser extent detached from pop culture so i had few if any of those moments of recognition. this was the first time i had seen anything from a lady gaga video! and i've still never read nor watched anything harry potter. this is far from a criticism but maybe it goes a little way toward explaining why this left me mostly cold?

i'm talking to myself i guess, sorry all :(

i loved this film but it is pretty flawed. i think linklater was maybe so overwhelmed by the scope of the film or maybe he just thought that the concept itself was notable in itself that he couldnt/decided he didnt have to really do much work on the scripting/characters (id be interested to see how much of the screen time has dialogue, as it felt quite minimal). a lot of the plotting was rudimentary, its like a bullet point script of a coming of age movie, i would have liked there to be some more fleshing out. the latino restaurant guy coming up at the end was just bizarre and unnecessary (as well as kind of insulting), two drunks in a row might have been fine had we gotten to learn a bit more about their characters (and it also seemed like a bit of dad-bashing going on), the ending should have been cut when he arrives at uni, i didnt need to see the hiking romance stuff. but despite all that, the film did succeed in making me think that 'fuck, life is short'. and theres lots of lovely little observations and moments, like tolerating others views such as the ethan hawke's new in laws, and just seeing the care between them. it made a change from seeing father/son relationships that lack communication. also just seeing the acceptance of people changing and this not necessarily being a bad thing - i watched dazed n confused after this and it reminded me that RL is just really compassionate to his characters, which is something i really like about him. but the films main asset was simply documenting the passage of time, and that in itself was almost enough.

alternatively, the film also made me think that RL is still (just?) an indie filmmaker at heart... i wonder if the ambition here was too much for him to handle, but this is an indie epic, so i guess i can cut it some slack for being about little moments rather than the bigger picture perhaps.

Its a film that avoided drama - don't think what he replaced that with was that compelling (and not for nearly three hours) but that the attempt to do so was commendable.

But yes it is striking that the one moment me and the friend I went to see with remarked upon the most was the 20 mins of the falling out off 2nd drunk husband and Arquette => the most conventional of the piece.

By coincidence I saw a film about 'boyhood' that is nearly as long at the BFI last night. Hsien's A Time to Live and the Time to Die. Roughly similar times period, but just miles, miles better in nearly every department.

"Its a film that avoided drama - don't think what he replaced that with was that compelling (and not for nearly three hours) but that the attempt to do so was commendable."

thats pretty otm.

i saw that hsien movie at the bfi too. im still thinking about it but find it hard to say why exactly. it felt much less 'scrappier' than boyhood (much more thought behind it).

mark cousins was recommending jeff preiss' 'stop' which sounds very similar to boyhood too:
http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff2012/films/jeff-preiss

The last, most gruesome death, will stay with me for a long time. Just how he takes it further than you were expecting to.

Boyhood was made over a long period - both are unconventional in different ways (and w/additional cultural differences), the Hsien portrayed the growing in far more engaging ways, i.e. I do expect boys in films to get into trouble with other boys, which doesn't really happen - indeed Linklater specifically tells you as much in the scene where two boys get up his face in school, a line he will not develop because it appears to be too conventional. Linklater will be boring in other ways that don't justify the running time.

In Boyhood the adults are much more of a problem. In the Hsien I loved how you do things besides playing and fighting: you will cook and take care of the youngest and eldest - because that will be needed where there are no care services, where the weak and frail have nowhere to go. But still...correspondences are inevitable where you still need the space to 'make yourself': experiment with a new look, find a girl, pass an exam. I like how all that played out much more in the Hsien. In the Linklater there is never a scene as wrenching than the one where Ah-hsiao has to choose between taking part in a gang fight or whether to stay w/his dying mother. The later scene where Ah-hsiao hands over the letter to the girl and her reaction was funnier and more touching than anything going on between Sheena and Mason - of course its cultural differences informing the scenes but Linklater lamely chose to follow a 'Before..' pattern.

I liked it a lot, but I wouldn't sing its praises (and probably wouldn't run out to see it again). It was a... nice experience.
My favorite moments were the things left unsaid - Ethan Hawke jumping from hot redhead at the bowling alley to baby and minivan w/ different woman, "are we ever going to see them again" and never another mention of the step-siblings, etc..

W/ Linklater I'm never sure how much we're supposed to sympathize with the dumb things his characters say (p. much everything teenaged Mason says about the world, or any of the conspiracy theorists/etc. of other films), but I always appreciate his basic kindness - the churchgoing step-grandparents who've completely accepted Mason and his sister and there's never a hint of young liberal Mason rebelling against going to church that one day.

The first stepfather was the biggest misstep in the film - he came off with a creepey 'he's going to be an evil step-dad' vibe from the first moment.

xpost - the last scene in time to live is very gruesome, but also kind of odd and angering (though it made up for it when the doctor showed his judgement of the kids). hsien does like underplaying drama too though... the diff in boyhood is that where you might expect some sort of cause and effect ripples, it was absent. hsien also packed in a lot more political/family detail (at times i think everyone was just talking to each other in reminisces), but i see BH as a deliberate reaction to coming of age movies (like dazed and confused even, which didnt ignore tensions between characters), it just played it a little too neutral. its ordinary could look a bit mannered by the end of it (and the happy romantic ending also killed its previous stubbornness in refusing certain conventions).

in terms of LONG sprawling american teen movies, boyhood made me appreciate margaret more.

Hsien's A Time to Live and the Time to Die

sorry to be pedantic, but the family name is Hou, and his given name is Hsiao-Hsien. so it should be Hou's Time to Live and a Time to Die. that's a devastating film.

btw the Chinese title translates to "some memories from childhood" or more idiomatically "childhood memories." which is a heck of a lot better (and more modst) of a title than the biblical reference that Edward Yang suggested and that ended up as the English title.