Boyhood, Bears, and Roger Bannister

"You have to decide whether or not the act of creating a film, rather than the film itself, can be the work of art."

I think what we're seeing in Boyhood is approach, angle, idea as art. While it may never be done again, Linklater created a new genre.

Great read.

Why can't you, it all depends on the film at the end of the day. With Boyhood the difference between the production of the film and the film itself is huge.

And again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not complaining for stuff like lack of excitement in plot, some people seem to be missing the point completely.

I think a better question is: could it have been seen as beautiful? Because we're not saying diametrically opposed things. I am not saying that failure is beautiful. But you are, in fact, saying that it cannot be.

That's the real question: are you inspired or otherwise moved by any films that you also believe are mostly failures as films?

Dig. For the record, I didn't especially like Boyhood. But I think it's worth sussing out exactly why each of us didn't like it, because I think it reveals a lot of presuppositions about the nature of art. For example:

Why is this the case? If you can extract the same kinds of feelings (inspiration, admiration) from witnessing someone's dedication to the process, I'm not sure why that would be any less impressive than extracting them from the film itself. Isn't that the real aim of films? Not to be good films, but to be good films in order to generate those feelings.

It's perfectly valid to simply decide that you're interested in the form of filmmaking, rather than the feelings films generate, but it's important to note that this is simply a choice. One that, in the unusual case of Boyhood, is probably worth questioning.

Why did you think him saying this was directed at you? It seemed quite general, and the only person he quoted in that post was gbgoodies.

Well, yes, if there was more artistry and subtext within the film, it definitely could have. Failures may be beautiful but I've yet to see one (naturally here I'm only referring to films)

But the thing is I can separate the two, for example I think it's a success if that dedication to the process complements the film and its vision, here I think the end result didn't do this dedication justice.

I honestly think Linklater deserves best director at the Oscars this year, but not the film for best picture. As far as effort and dedication is concerned it's a monumental achievement, but everything about the film itself is as old as the movies. Basically, I think its extraordinary production and its conventional storytelling are two extremes that don't match.

I didn't think it was directed at me, I think it was directed at those criticizing the film and I feel I'm one of those people. My response too was general even if I quoted him, I was responding to those who share the same views

Is it? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that statement because I don't follow.

Just because it took him 12 years to make the film, it automatically has to meet some kind of bar? I never even heard of this film until it was released. I'm hearing crap about The Crow reboot every week. What bar should it pass? I'd love to know.

I hate the word "gimmick" being thrown around because it's more than that. Maybe use that term for Birdman, the seamlessly one take 'gimmick' has been done before. But even then I feel it's disrespectful to the craft.

I gave my reasoning, see my response to Yoda (second comment)

Your argument is that the film is too ordinary in its storytelling and the fact that he decided to shoot it over 12 years means it 'has' to amount to something more.

....alright. Whatever.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Great write up Yoda.

Birdman is the best film of the year, while Boyhood is OVERRATED.

The first thing that Boyhood enforces is how powerful time is. Linklater understood when making this project that when we were going to watch these actors grow up, he knew how powerful it would be. There are moments in the film when I wanted to have more of Coltrane at a certain age...but time has already passed. How many times have you wanted to go back to that certain age when you were carefree?

I had to remind myself at certain times that this isn't Hawke trying to play himself 5...6...12 year ago, IT IS Ethan Hawk 12 years ago. Linklater knew that he didn't have to over 'empower' scenes. Like I mentioned before; if a LESSER filmmaker had this film, he would have hit certain childhood events, benchmark events if you will. Scenes that are CLICHE and fit the Hollywood system. The first time these guys move, Mason is painting over the apartment getting it ready for the move. He paints over the height marks on the doorway. It's literally a single moment. Again, any other film with another director would have made that some kind of 'moment'.

The uniqueness of the emotional experience is unparalleled this year. This is absolutely nothing flashy about this film. This is invisible direction from a director, as opposed to visible direction, much like Birdman which has obvious visual direction. (I'm sure the Academy will eat that up). The film invites you to talk about big things like time, love, family...things that happen in our lives. It's all done with a light touch.

Characters that the main characters become attached to...simply disappear. That happens in life. Friends you have when your young can be gone and never seen again in a few years.

I guess the transportive feeling that this film gave me, some of you simply didn't have. I'm not going to try and force you to like it or change your mind, I'm just trying to get my views of the film across. I still DO NOT agree, whatsoever, with the comment from BlueLion about separating the film from the craft. They are one in the same my friend.

Boyhood summed up to me is the magic in the mundane.

I hope it wins Best Picture, but I fear it won't. Again, the Academy loves the flashy stuff, the Oscar baiting stuff. Boyhood is not this, at all. I can't imagine Linklater saying I'm going to film this story for 12 years and finally get my Oscar. No way. He wanted to do something new and he did.

Iñárritu gives us something we HAVE seen before. Russian Ark, Silent House...are they good films? Not really, but they do the single take schtick that Birdman has. So we've seen it before. We've never seen something like Boyhood.

Suspect out.

And your argument is that I can't criticize it just because it was shot over 12 years? So now this gives it immunity?

And this is something that becomes clear... when, 20 minutes in?

Are you implying that Linklater left the viewer with something to read between the lines? Something for us to contemplate? I must have watched a different film then, because Boyhood kept explaining itself along the way.

Does it really? How does it invite you to talk about these things, exactly? It's all done in a way that is generic and one-note, which to me made it seem way too superficial.

But most films give us something we have seen before. Maybe not in terms of story, visuals or script, but definitely in terms of atmosphere, style, technique. If you prefer Boyhood over Birdman simply because Boyhood has something you haven't seen before then I don't know what to say.

Personally I thought Birdman was a much more mature, philosophical and thought-provoking work that covers way more ground than Boyhood, and its one take 'schtick' served to complement its themes and ideas nicely. And here's more things I thought Birdman had better than Boyhood: direction, camerawork, visuals, acting, writing, characters, themes, ideas, list goes on.

I think Birdman is handled and executed way more artistically even if its gimmick may come off as somewhat pretentious at first. Furthermore I think it's successful both as a critique for today's society but also in showing the struggles of actors and giving us a unique behind the scenes view, not to mention that the characters (but especially that of Keaton) are way more fleshed out. I honestly have no idea how this makes it Oscar bait.

I thought Boyhood was more a redefinition of what is beautiful than it was an attempt to represent offscreen beauty. It's more Ozu and Rohmer by way of Linklater than it is Bresson or Kiarostami. That being said, I don't think it's particularly adept at either philosophy of filmmaking. My impression of the critical reaction to Boyhood was that people were either claiming it to be a radical film due to its inception and creation, and those who countered by saying that it was radical because of its narrative form. This seemed mostly to be marketing hype more than anything critically insightful. You can find examples of creations as well as structures similar to Boyhood's in many places throughout film history as well as in Linklater's own career (and much better in the case of the Before films where the films' romanticism doesn't play at odds with its documentation, which is greatly helped by their short form as opposed to Boyhood's relative long form).

Unlike Linklater's masterpieces, Slacker and It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books, Boyhood doesn't seek redefinition so much as refocusing. There's nothing wrong with this approach but I think it brings out his most troublesome qualities as a filmmaker. I'm also confused by people who seem to say that nothing happens in Boyhood, because it appears very tightly structured to me, and contains some cringe-worthy drama that has always been a weak suit of Linklater but really shown through here (the restaurant scene with the man whom Patricia Arquette gave condescending, socially unconscious advice to years earlier has my vote for the worst scene in movies this past year).

__________________
Mubi

I just finished reading the essay and I am left with a few thoughts:

Firstly, Art has always been part result and part methodology, but the result is a necessity. You can argue that methodology is a more objective and standardized method of evaluating a film (as is often done to Kubrick films), but the end product must be appreciated or enjoyed. Otherwise the methodology is either flawed in idea or execution as it did not create the desired result.

If you have the opinion that the film failed as either entertainment or art then that is the end of the debate. You can admire the attempt and even believe the film to be far more original in its creation than any other film made this year without believing the film deserves the title or even a nomination for "Best Picture".

Secondly, you posed a question in your introduction:

"Can a film's beauty occur off screen?"

Despite your conclusion, you have the answer only several paragraphs later when you made reference to Tim's Vermeer.

"But the film anticipates these reactions, and makes the argument that there is no meaningful difference between these things: it is beautiful and impressive either way. I find it easy to agree, with one caveat: the method does change the reason the painting is beautiful."

Your last sentence is completely correct, the only change I would make is in your emphasis being moved to the word "change" from "reason". The method of the creation of art does not create the reason we find something beautiful but, as you yourself have said, can change the reason you find the painting beautiful. If Johannes Vermeer did not create beautiful pieces, would you consider his method a success? If you do not have a favorable opinion of what you see on-screen, then why would the method of creating the un-favorable result matter other than to someone who hopes to improve it?

Thirdly, the quote from The Third Man was not about oppression or limitations but resistance against force and the chaotic conditions of disorganized society as were found in the period immediately after WW2. Black markets and bribery were well entrenched amidst the ruins of Europe.

The time of the Medici family and the Borgia family were not times of organized oppression and cultural or political limitations. The fighting and killing amidst the families of the Italian States created excesses and the ignoring of what was considered social normalcy all the way to the Pope. The limitations on society were worn away by the plotting and scheming for power by the Italian families that took place between the periodic invasions by other European Powers (it is not a coincidence that this period also gave us Machiavelli). The artists of this time accomplished great things within the chaos and blood shed of these turbulent times which was Harry Lime’s comparison to himself.

Limitations do help the appreciation of art, but it is the resistance against those limitations that give them such influence. Something can be over-reaching until someone finds a way to successfully encompass or create something in a new form. The key word being successful.

I enjoyed the read thoroughly, even if I do not agree with your thesis. I enjoy these types of reasoned expressions and debates. I would also like to say that I am really enjoying my time on these forums because of threads like these, even though I mostly read and not write.

I agree with this, I liked the movie but it wasn't anything special.

The trend I've noticed though is that anything with a "novelty" will usually get big publicity, even if it isn't all that polished. This also is why James Cameron's Avatar was such a blockbuster, and was quickly forgotten after the initial hubub - because it had the 'novelty' of being the first to use the new 3D cinema style. Without the 3D effects it was just a mediocre remake of Disney's Pocahontas with aliens instead of Indians - I feel the same way about Boyhood.

He never said that.

20 minutes in I got the impression that the Holocaust was a bad idea thanks to the Pianist. That doesn't deflate the rest of the film.

You must have, because not only did you not understand the film, you did not understand Suspect's point. Subverting expectations.

I found the film to be pretty profound.

I enjoyed Birdman, barely. Once I GOT the one take bit...20 minutes in...what else does the film offer? Keaton is okay, he just seems to react to what monologues other actors throw at him.

As for Boyhood...

I can't pinpoint when I was hooked, but it was pretty early on. The key question of this film is, why do it? Why follow this kid for 12 years, the parents and his sister, beyond it being just an experiment? Well, the answer crystallized for me in culmination of every moment Linklater captured up to the graduation.

Linklater lets us glimpse, as much as possible, at life itself. It doesn't matter what scene it is, but you connect with it, because you've gone through it yourself. For me, the moment that got me was 3/4 of the way through, a Thanksgiving party. She has her students over and the kid asks the other student how his mom is as a teacher. The kid goes on and on about how great she is, this is a dawning moment for him. His mother has another life, she is not just his mother anymore. Boyhood encompasses all these characters, it's not just about the kid, it's all the characters in his life. They are chronicled for 12 years as well.

"Dad is there really magic in the world?" A great scene. Linklater is telling us there is magic in the mundane. This is a key scene. He never tells us the dates, the ages, he just shows us. You're not suppose to be focused on the milestones, it's the moments and the cumulative effectives of those moments. I agree with Suspect about the painting over the growth chart scene. Visual representation of the whole film. Those milestone moments, in the grand scheme of things don't really matter. You can't take them with you, it's heartbreaking. But at the same time it's appropriate. The film captures how childhood is something that happens to us, not with us.

Much like Birdman's play with time (it all being one take but days go by storywise) Boyhood does the same. It's all about transitions, it's always in flux, we as people are in flux. Hawke even makes note of it in the album he gives the kid (something he did in real life to his own children).

I'm not sure if someone mentioned it before, but visually, you can see Linklater progress as a filmmaker as well.

The whole film in a nutshell is what do the next moments mean?

I'd love to talk more about the film, but it's getting late.

The biggest film of all time was quickly forgotten? The #1 for 8 weeks in a row was quickly forgotten?

Trust me when I say Boyhood will be remember YEARS from now, when all the other films this year, sadly, will not.

It's special in how unspecial it is. If that makes any sense.

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

Maybe - I'll be surprised if that's the case though

He didn't, at least not directly, and I never said he did myself (there's a reason I put a question mark in the end), but what I took from that post where he disparaged me for having "the film is too ordinary in its storytelling and the fact that it was shot over 12 years means it has to amount to something more" as my argument, is that probably he meant I can't criticize it just because it took 12 years to film and then the film turned out mediocre in the end. Basically, was he trying to say I shouldn't be asking for more because of the film being impressive enough as is? (again, I'm asking a question)

What a ridiculous comparison, the difference here is that Boyhood is nearly three hours long and what it is about and where it's heading and all that becomes pretty clear almost at the beginning of the film, which is what makes not only the twelve year wait a waste, but the journey itself pointless in the end.

Oh yes I didn't understand the film because it's so deep and complicated and full of symbolism and so hard to get.

I found the film to be pretty shallow.

Offers a lot about personalities, aspirations, struggles, delusions, daydreaming, desire, hope. But it's biggest success is the fact that it's not Boyhood.

No, he wasn't.

The comparison is actually a pretty good one. This film isn't truly about making a point. It's about exploring a main premise. If you believe a film is only interesting when the revelation of what the film is actually about is postponed until the end, I couldn't disagree more.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Boyhood wasn't trying to be this radical piece of filmmaking that's going to change cinema forever. It just simply captures the beauty of growing up better than pretty much any movie I've seen, by capturing a realism that very few movies have ever matched (Linklater's Before... trilogy comes to mind). I don't think the beauty of it lies in the fact that it was filmed over 12 years. It's in the fact that seeing this kid and his family grow up before our eyes gives it so much more emotional continuity and investment, and if it didn't have that "gimmick" it would be a vastly different movie and nowhere near as resonant. I really wasn't thinking about the "gimmick" at all when i watched it, and i still loved it.