Anticipating Linklater's "Boyhood"

I should be able to remember from last night where exactly Hawke first mentions that's he taking actuarial courses, but I can't. Maybe the day they play football and go to the Astros game?

bullying scene wasn't weird to me, he wasn't the kind of kid who gets bullied all the time as part of hierarchy reinforcement but he wasn't the kind of kid assholes aren't assholes to. the shot right after, of him leaning against the wall after school w vonnegut under his arm, was just right: he had a shitty, lonely day. but it wasn't The Plot. whole movie was p much like that.

croup otm re the breakup. there were a bunch of elisions like that that made me feel like entire sections of other movies are just totally wasting my time. (no shit.) i was bored thru most of the second half of this movie but in the weeks since i saw it lil shots/lines keep coming to me unexpectedly and i like that they had such space to happen in, that they weren't propelling an Arc or even pointing in the same direction for the character. part of what the gimmick did for the movie was allow for a realistic level of personal selfcontradiction that would have maybe seemed more incoherent had it been different actors contradicting each other instead of literally the same kid.

also loved what others have described upthread, the moments when it would quietly tease you with a more dramatic version of events that doesn't happen, as in the scene w the circular saws or whatever. the scene towards the end w the cell-phones-while-driving was absolutely eerie: a whole alternate terrible universe is born in yr mind and mason is teenagerly oblivious to it. parent's-eye view.

yeah it wasn't a big thing re: bullying just that high school seemed like pretty smooth sailing afterwards, model girlfriend leaving him for a lacrosse player aside

what a difference Ethan Hawke's yapping puppy dog act makes when he's trying to keep his kid and himself entertained instead of Julie Delpy.

well really the big diff is that the kids aren't gonna call bullshit as much

well Mason Jr's silences and uh-huhs make him look more fatuous (see Annie Hall every time Alvy complains/promotes a book/advises).

xxxp ha well yeah i also feel u on the churlish well-fuck-THIS-kid-then feeling of the last few scenes. but then i thought abt it and was like haha i did alright in high school too i guess, despite having a dece handful of scenes like the one in the bathroom. ymmv tho i would that it did not.

there's irony in Linklater's approach to the same actor and schtick this time

i almost was surprised we didn't get at least one scene where hawke had to deal with them all tantrumy, but considering their homelifes i guess weekends with dad were pretty uniformly a relief.

The daughter aggressively whining as Arquette drops her off at her new school--a day or two after she's been beaten by her husband--is unbearably authentic. No, Hawke got none of that.

(I don't know if "authentic" is the right word--seemed more real than a movie.)

Maybe the day they play football and go to the Astros game?

yeah it's this -- it's after "dad, do you have a job?"

there's sort of a fitzcarraldo aspect to this whole thing where on one hand we're watching a fictional account but on the other it does feel like we're seeing what happens when a kid spends a month a year as the star of a richard linklater movie. from what i've read linklater already has his Burden of Dreams ready for the criterion blu-ray

with Mick Jagger originally cast as Mason, Sr.

yeah it wasn't a big thing re: bullying just that high school seemed like pretty smooth sailing afterwards

which ime is what a lot of experiences with bullying are like, esp for someone like Mason. It fits.

another instance of the "alternate universe" thing. sure, some kids are perpetually bullied/crash while texting/impaled by circular saw...but most have a brush with it her or there.

"Your mother....IS A PIECE OF WORK"

i liked it overall, but it took me a while to get past how amateurish and hamfisted it felt.

the overall experience of this film outweighed any particular flaws

^^co-sign both of these

― ╲╱\/╲/\╱╲╱\/\ (gr8080), Monday, August 18, 2014 9:52 AM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i agree

didn't even feel that amateurish and hamfisted to me either

don't really get the complaints about the acting, especially linklater's kid; i thought both she and coltrane sounded like kids. especially at the end when getting 'profound'.

it moved me a lot, most movies don't.

begins to get nominated for awards

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/gotham-nominations-2014-awards-full-list-1201337272/

Fine, fine, I'll start the detrius thread.

since i'm on the cutting edge i just watched this last night. LOVED IT. my thoughts are:

- i liked the debate upthread about using the same cast over a period of 12 years has on the film. some thought it was pointless or had a pretty minimal effect on the final film, but i disagree. i haven't read any "making of boyhood" articles or anything, but i imagine that linklater was open to the idea of letting the story evolve according to real life events. for example, if the guy who played mason had ended up being a real life jock, or a very shy introverted kind of person, or realized that he wanted to be a woman, that would have substantially changed his character in the movie, and the way he would react to things. i can't imagine linklater ignoring the real life actor's personality and making him play the role of "Mason" as he imagined it when he started filming. so yeah, i think the methodology of filming for so long and using the same actors has an enormous influence on the movie. part of the reason the dialogue sounds so amazingly REAL (imo) for so much of the movie might be that linklater had a chance to live and grow up with the actual actors and write things that they would actually say. it's impossible to say what specific differences the methodology made, but it's certain that the way the film came out was different than it would have been if they shot the whole thing in summer 2003 using different actors.

- i loved how there are so many scenes that show the flaws of the characters, like teenage mason's idiotic pseudophilosophic monologues, or how EH is a struggling musician and plays 2 terrible, embarrassing songs in the movie. and i love that the obama campaign scene is so cringeworthy. i'm glad that he included it, because that was totally a thing in 2008! i STILL have friends who refuse to acknowledge that period of time when they thought obama was going to save the world. there aren't many non-documentaries that address that moment.

- someone upthread said 'By the time Ellar Coltrane hits 15, I had lost the connection to his younger self', and i think that's sorta true, not a big deal, and also another result of the filmmaking process. 15 year old me was completely different from 7 year old me, personality wise, everything. using the same actor and letting him grow up reveals those kinds of crazy jumps that really do happen. writing a script and filming all in the same year tends to erase those kinds of jumps, i think, because it's kind of confusing for the audience, or perceived as a flaw in the narrative/character building.

- i didn't like the restaurant owner scene too much either, but only because it was one of the few scenes that felt pre-planned, like a "movie". earlier in the film, when arquette told the gardener he was smart, it seemed predictable that there would be a scene later that resolved that particular (minor) arc. so it was a bummer when that actually happened. i think a more believable way to resolve it, if it had to happen, would be to have the restaurant owner on the screen, demonstrating that he apparently "did well" (although as my gf said, maybe he was fine with being a gardener?), but without any conversation between the two. but eh, it's not really a big deal either way.

- two thumbs up - WAY UP!!

also i suppose it helps that i realize sympathized with mason's character throughout the film. without getting all TMI there were various things that happened that i know a thing or two about, and so the film functioned as a mix of trauma-revisitation, nostalgia, and alternate-reality. (an example of the latter is that part where EW is driving his kids around and they're giving perfunctory responses to his questions and he's like HEY, TALK TO ME FOR REAL, I'M YOUR DAD, QUIT THIS SHIT, which is what i wished would have happened with me and my dad in a car at some point)

btw aimless, if you're reading this - did you ever watch the movie? and if so did it confirm your pre-viewing opinions or were you surprised by anything?

lol

that part where EW is driving his kids around

oops, typo, sry ethan "the stinkster" hawke

MoMA screened this a couple weekends ago w/ RL and Hawke doing a Q&A after, but I couldn't fit it in. Disc release is Jan 6, i guess that will be fine for a second viewing. I would recommend theatrical viewing if at all possible; I thought the audible reactions of the audience were actually valuable here.

Scrolling through this made we think: Is the series of HP films basically Boyhood with a much better plot?

holding out for proust

would love to see mundane bits of harry potter cut into a boyhood-style trailer

Boyhood had a HP scene iirc.

xpost - yes!

Maybe the first scene where I really loved the movie--about 20 minutes into it?

An interesting take:

Arquette’s character is the hero of Boyhood, and the movie seems to punish her for it. She raises two kids while she gets her undergrad degree, then PhD, and becomes a beloved professor. While we are charmed by Hawke’s ability to “try,” we see Arquette study and study, and pity her for where her decisions lead her. Over twelve years, she has two more failed marriages, one with a husband whose abusive behavior is made explicit, and a second wherein abuse is strongly implied. The echoes in later scenes of Arquette’s second husband don’t feel fatalistic so much as unimaginative. We fill in that the third husband was another abusive man, another bad decision.

Fundamentally, I don’t like what this implies about the filmmaker’s ideas about abuse and women. If being a victim of domestic violence is the supposed flaw in Arquette’s character, that’s a dangerous line of thinking. It’s the textbook definition of victim-blaming, and it invites whatever preconceived notions of violence against women the audience might have to fill in the gaps.

I didn't say it the right away, so somebody jumped on me, but that's exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread--and why I think the one guy's belated appreciation of her in the restaurant is so important. It's a very generous moment, and at least softens the sting of those legitimate questions (questions as to the filmmakers' intentions, not flaws of Arquette's character, just to avoid making the same mistake again).

If being a victim of domestic violence is the supposed flaw in Arquette’s character, that’s a dangerous line of thinking.

I don't think this appears in the writing or the performance...? I'd love for someone to dispute this.

it's also a slightly muddled take, suggesting that her victimization is both her "punishment" and her "flaw." it can't really both.

it's true the movie could allow an audience member to look down on her for marrying abusive men (though the brevity of her 3rd marriage seemed especially pointed - we never saw him be more than boorish and after the previous marriage that alone might have been enough for her and the family to drop him fast) - it's about her child, and people think mothers should protect children. but it's also from the pov of the kid, and kids don't always see their parents actions in the most sympathetic light. did people want a scene where a counselor tells the kid in detail that the mother was not to blame for getting into bad relationships?

my mom awent through grad school and became a professor during my childhood and adolescence as a single parent. that her son doesn't really seem to appreciate what she went through until he's older was pretty resonant for me. it's a thankless job compared to weekend dadhood, and i thought the film captured that well.

probably the most affecting scene for me was her speech as he's about to leave for college, and some of the funniest was hawke's awkwardness at the graduation party (the relative saying his new wife "got him at the right time," him not having any cash, etc)

the one guy's belated appreciation of her in the restaurant is so important.

except that that scene seems to condescend to the latino character. and the scene is horribly staged and unconvincing, which unfortunately was a problem in other scenes as well. i just don't think the execution of this film merits the kind of praise it's getting.

we discussed several months ago that scene with the student. I thought it nailed what it's like for a professor to confront praise, politely and awkwardly, often not knowing who the fuck is talking to you (and I endure this at least twice a year).

except that that scene seems to condescend to the latino character. and the scene is horribly staged and unconvincing,

I didn't look at it this way at all. We saw him once before. He came off believably (over)enthusiastic. Again, I've endured this. I didn't think Linklater staged the scene unconvincingly either: medium shot, he got his say, cut to a dumbfounded Arquette trying to look polite and empathetic.

if you want a scene that DOES look condescending, remember the Asian alum of Marge Gunderson bumping into her in the restaurant in Fargo.

ugh I garbled the verb order but you get it

i don't think the film is perfectly executed by any means - the "thank you" moment is one of the most chekhov's gun in it - but i appreciated it, and recognized similar ones in my own experience as a prof's kid

I mean, the scene is inherently condescending: dark-skinned guy thanking white woman. But context matters too. The movie is in part about Arquette's bad decisions. I thought it was a quiet irony that she doesn't even recognize one of the people who have benefited from her quiet determination to make her career work.

we discussed several months ago that scene with the student. I thought it nailed what it's like for a professor to confront praise, politely and awkwardly, often not knowing who the fuck is talking to you (and I endure this at least twice a year).

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 16, 2015 7:45 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

on her side yeah the scene felt true, but the actor playing the guy who was thanking her was off by a mile, in both of his scenes.

have benefited from her quiet determination to make her career work.

but he wasn't one of her students! he was a workman who she gave a generic, and more than faintly condescending, piece of advice to

that makes it kind of gross IMO, like all this latino dude needed was some white woman to say "you're smart, go to school"

tbh the problems with that scene seem symptomatic of linklater's limitations (and i admire him, generally)