Boyhood, Bears, and Roger Bannister


28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
The biggest film of all time was quickly forgotten? The #1 for 8 weeks in a row was quickly forgotten?
Who talks about "Avatar" today other than occasional references? The reason that film did so well at the box office is because it was the first of the new "3D" films - if any other 3D film had shown before Avatar, it would've gotten most of the box office money that Avatar did

Trust me when I say Boyhood will be remember YEARS from now, when all the other films this year, sadly, will not.
Maybe - I'll be surprised if that's the case though

There were 3D movies out before Avatar. I still hear people talking about. Good or bad, people are talking.

I am burdened with glorious purpose
Sorry, I'm late to the party… I should have known Yoda would have started an interesting discussion of this film. At the time, I should have stopped by. I was dying to talk about it.

The essay was an interesting read. I think the debate over whether Boyhood was art, or even worthwhile, is exactly what the discussion should be.

All I have are questions. No answers.

For me, I wanted a story. As we watch films, we're used to it being a story. Even documentaries are telling a story. To be honest, I turned the film off. And I never do that. Boyhood, for me, was a tedious and torturous experiment that I could no longer even watch. I joked," why should I watch a film that isn't anything more than my life? I raised two boys." I wanted a story -- a narrative structure reaching up to a climax. I kept waiting for something to start.

I'm programmed that way. Ooops, maybe that is a bad thing.

So then, a question would be: if art is an exploration of human nature and if stories are also said exploration, why did I hate this so much? If art is reflective of our lives, why did an actual life feel tedious?

Maybe I want art to encapsulate life? To capture in a moment the feelings of a lifetime like a piece or art? To capture a theme -- say of love and war -- in a photo of a man standing at the Vietnam memorial (which I tweeted today for Shakespeare Sunday, quoting a part of St. Crispin's Day speech from Henry V)? So is that my problem?

Boyhood is a failed piece of work to me. So does it make it art? To answer what I think was Yoda's question in the essay (if I understood) was that I don't think the filmmaking itself is art. I do believe the final product is what defines the art.

BUT… then again, look at this thread. There are some who love this film. They see a story. They felt something. I have no understanding of that at all. Yet, some look at a particular painting and feel something while others don't.

So last question, if art is reflective of life, and humans all have different feelings, then this film was art?

LOL, that felt like cerebral exercise and not sure I said anything.

Interesting essay, Yoda.

I just wanna bump this to add that I'm really mad I didn't remember to call this film 12 Years a Director somewhere in the essay. Big missed opportunity.

Will need to set a few mins aside to read this ASAP!

I'm not on the Boyhood bangwagon. I'm sorry but I thoroughly disliked this movie. And it's not the length, one of my favorite movies is Lawrence of Arabia, which is longer than Boyhood. And it's not that I dislike art house movies, I think movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, There Will Be Blood, and Blade Runner are all fantastic works of art. Here are my problems with the movie.

1. The cinematography is boring. I've seen multiple people try to make the case that the shots in the movie are beautiful, but they really aren't. They're all flat, boring shots that mostly have nothing to do with what's going on.

2. The pacing. The whole first half of the movie flies by ages 6 to 15, then all of a sudden the next 2 hours are about him as a teenager. This makes the movie feel longer than it actually is. And it's not like more interesting things are going on when he older, I found his younger years and all the events happening around him when he was younger far more interesting than his photography career.

3. The characters are poorly written, ESPECIALLY THE LEAD. Our main protagonist is possibly one of the worst in recent memory. Try to write down 5 things about his character (and no, photography doesn't count). Almost all of the characters in the movie are flat, undeveloped and boring. Most people highlight Patricia Arquette's performance was "great," but I think the only reason she stood out was because everyone was so boring and uninteresting.

4. The 12 years thing is a gimmick, nothing more. Most people who praise this movie praise it, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons. The main selling point of this movie was the, "shot over 12 years," aspect. I was drawn to it too, but then I saw the movie. It's like no one stopped to ask the question, does this add to the movie? Apart from the obvious, is this a style of film making that should be used more often? Hell, was it even done well here? Definitely not.

5. The format is restrictive. Anyone else notice in the movie how awful the child actors were once they were older. I was forgiving at the beginning of the film because they were 6, but jesus did they suck towards the end. I can't remember the last time I wanted to reach into the screen and strangle the main character. This was a problem that the format of the "filmed over 12 years" gimmick suffered from. Being forced to use the same actors over this long a time period. What if the main character said half way through, "yeah I don't want to do this anymore." The whole movie would've been ruined.

6. "It's magical to see a child grow up on screen!" No, it isn't. If that's all you care about then go watch the Harry Potter movies. Or go see any TV show filmed over 10 years.

7. It was boring on purpose. I've watched multiple interviews with Linkater to try and get to the bottom of what he was thinking when he made this. It turns out that the main philosophy was, "Sometimes, life isn't that interesting. No great revelation or wise figure, sometimes you just get older, and nothing special happens." While that may work for him and his stoner friends, it should not be the force for a movie (or at least this one and the way it was made).

That's my rant. I feel very strongly that this movie is not only overrated, but also pretty terrible. It most certainly does not deserve the praise it gets from some. I guarantee that a few years from now no one will remember it. Just like "The Artist," or "Ghandi," or "Shakespeare in Love".

I completely agree with Pewieptete's points. I have watched this movie for almost 4 times to see the beauty of it. I was so enticed with the idea of a movie filmed for over 12 years. The first time I saw the movie, I was confused whether if it is just me or did the movie really failed. I checked out the ratings and review from various known websites. It was a 100% from rottentotatoes, an eight+ from IMDB, 100% from metacritic, I convinced myself that it was me that didn't got the film's beauty. So I watched again. And my reaction was worse than the first time I saw the film. It was so boring. There were no character developments. I didn't cared about the characters. I don't why, but tried watching it once more. The more you watch it, the worse it gets. It was the day of revelation of nomination for Oscar's Award. Its so puzzling that Boyhood got so many nominations not just from Oscars, but in BAFTA and Golden Globes, too. And I have tried watching it again, but I couldn't stand the movie that time that I have to stop playing it after more or less thirty minutes.

The only thing I can see how the movie got its high-rated reputation and multiple award nominations was because either they (critics and few audience) saw the film million-meters deep or they just simply sympathizes with Linklater's failed effort.

I wouldn't recommend ANYONE to watch this movie. This is a completely overrated movie. I would rather nominate Movie 43 as Best Picture than this piece of overrated garbage. Yes, I have said it, Boyhood is a garbage.
let's put a smile on that face

I think it's time that people wake up and smell the coffee. Everything concerning The Oscars is politics. It rarely is about the the movie or it's content. I think all people of the industry should revolt and refuse to acknowledge the importance of those awards. What does it mean to get a statue if it has not been for your work but more because some old guy thinks you deserve to get it just because.

You can't win an argument just by being right!
There were 3D movies out before Avatar. I still hear people talking about. Good or bad, people are talking.
Avatar was the first to use the cameron pace fusion camera system.

I dont actually know what this thread is about. better go check the OP.