Oscars 2015 Review- Boyhood
Alright, time for another big Oscar contender. Boyhood has been a front runner for Oscar predictions since it came out mid last year and I still haven't seen it. Until now! Now is the time to watch what's been called a masterpiece, Richard Linklater's magnum opus and child labour. Welcome to 12 years a boy.
Boyhood is the story of one boy named Mason who grows up. This is basically the entire story. He is a boy, then an awkward teenager then a slightly less awkward teenager. All this has made many critics weep out of joy for how incredible it is. But don't be fooled by all these critics. This is not the masterpiece you've been promised. This is not the best thing ever. This is a decent film but one that's been swamped with largely unworthy acclaim.
The actors in this are probably the best thing about the film. The main gimmick that this film relies on (and I do mean relies on) is that it's shot in real time. It takes place over 12 years and was also filmed over that same time, meaning that the actors age in real time as well. This means that we see our main "protagonist" age from a boy to a teenager. What it also means is that for the first half of the film we have to deal with a hell of a lot a child actors with the promise that they'll get better. While a neat concept, it leaves the first half of the film dragging hard. But this film is largely carried by the two main adult actors, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke. Ethan Hawke is Mason's dad and while he's kind of a dick for a while, he ends up having some really sweet and true conversations with his son. Ethan Hawke, you've won me over. But it's Patricia Arquette who really steals the show. She gives everything for her kids and it has really made me appreciate everything my mother's ever done for me. But other than these two, the child actors drag the film down, even if Mason grows up to be a decent actor in the end.
Did I mention that this film is a veritable orgy of noughties nostalgia? From the very start, it jumps right in with Yellow by Coldplay, Britney Spears, Harry Potter books and Game Boy Advances and it doesn't really let up from there. Sure, it's nostalgic and kind of quaint to see but you can't base a film around that. And another problem with all of this and the way the film was made was that it means we only see a bit of Mason's life every year. It means that scene changes can go from day to night or August to July and that's just incredibly and painfully jarring. Admittedly, I may have just been spoilt by Birdman and it's fluid camera but it's a clumsy move and one I'm surprised that not many other people have picked up on. Maybe it's because they were too busy vomiting the phrase "magnum opus" onto their keyboards.
My biggest problem with this film is that absolutely nothing happens. That can be forgiven in an hour and a half long film with a shed load of charm. Where it can't be forgiven is in a film that's just under three hours and gets by on a strange and un-explainable likability, not a ton of charm. This film is like being shown a photo book of someone else's kid's except you can't tell them to stop. All you can do is feign interest for a little while until it all gets too much and you start playing Smash Bros and sticking post-it notes onto your eye lids. Another thing this film had was an awful lot of monologues, many of which were just dull. Credit where credit's due, I did like the one where Mason got paranoid about technology and all that but my appreciation stops there. But one thing in this film that I really liked was the last ten minutes of it, and not just because it was finally ending. It was quite poignant seeing Mason finally leave home and the sheer terror and loneliness his mum was feeling at it. Maybe it's just because my life is fast approaching this point but it hit me quite hard. And then the film ends. It just does. We don't get a proper end, life just goes on. I guess this is because that's what life does. Life doesn't have these dramatic moments that pull the audience in. It just happens until it doesn't. But this doesn't excuse a bad film. You can't get away with this just because that's what happens, you know? You're making a film for an audience, now make them feel something other than pity for the actor playing Mason having to give up a lot of his time to child labour/filming.
Unquestionably, Boyhood is a film for middle class, white Americans and this means it will clear up at the Oscars. Does it deserve all this praise? Not entirely. It's a decent film that everyone has elevated because of how it was filmed. It's not a must see film, in fact, it's just a decent film. Patricia Arquette will do well for her performance but other than that, Boyhood shouldn't be winning as many awards as it is. That's why I give Boyhood a:
Boyhood is the story of one boy named Mason who grows up. This is basically the entire story. He is a boy, then an awkward teenager then a slightly less awkward teenager. All this has made many critics weep out of joy for how incredible it is. But don't be fooled by all these critics. This is not the masterpiece you've been promised. This is not the best thing ever. This is a decent film but one that's been swamped with largely unworthy acclaim.
The actors in this are probably the best thing about the film. The main gimmick that this film relies on (and I do mean relies on) is that it's shot in real time. It takes place over 12 years and was also filmed over that same time, meaning that the actors age in real time as well. This means that we see our main "protagonist" age from a boy to a teenager. What it also means is that for the first half of the film we have to deal with a hell of a lot a child actors with the promise that they'll get better. While a neat concept, it leaves the first half of the film dragging hard. But this film is largely carried by the two main adult actors, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke. Ethan Hawke is Mason's dad and while he's kind of a dick for a while, he ends up having some really sweet and true conversations with his son. Ethan Hawke, you've won me over. But it's Patricia Arquette who really steals the show. She gives everything for her kids and it has really made me appreciate everything my mother's ever done for me. But other than these two, the child actors drag the film down, even if Mason grows up to be a decent actor in the end.
Did I mention that this film is a veritable orgy of noughties nostalgia? From the very start, it jumps right in with Yellow by Coldplay, Britney Spears, Harry Potter books and Game Boy Advances and it doesn't really let up from there. Sure, it's nostalgic and kind of quaint to see but you can't base a film around that. And another problem with all of this and the way the film was made was that it means we only see a bit of Mason's life every year. It means that scene changes can go from day to night or August to July and that's just incredibly and painfully jarring. Admittedly, I may have just been spoilt by Birdman and it's fluid camera but it's a clumsy move and one I'm surprised that not many other people have picked up on. Maybe it's because they were too busy vomiting the phrase "magnum opus" onto their keyboards.
My biggest problem with this film is that absolutely nothing happens. That can be forgiven in an hour and a half long film with a shed load of charm. Where it can't be forgiven is in a film that's just under three hours and gets by on a strange and un-explainable likability, not a ton of charm. This film is like being shown a photo book of someone else's kid's except you can't tell them to stop. All you can do is feign interest for a little while until it all gets too much and you start playing Smash Bros and sticking post-it notes onto your eye lids. Another thing this film had was an awful lot of monologues, many of which were just dull. Credit where credit's due, I did like the one where Mason got paranoid about technology and all that but my appreciation stops there. But one thing in this film that I really liked was the last ten minutes of it, and not just because it was finally ending. It was quite poignant seeing Mason finally leave home and the sheer terror and loneliness his mum was feeling at it. Maybe it's just because my life is fast approaching this point but it hit me quite hard. And then the film ends. It just does. We don't get a proper end, life just goes on. I guess this is because that's what life does. Life doesn't have these dramatic moments that pull the audience in. It just happens until it doesn't. But this doesn't excuse a bad film. You can't get away with this just because that's what happens, you know? You're making a film for an audience, now make them feel something other than pity for the actor playing Mason having to give up a lot of his time to child labour/filming.
Unquestionably, Boyhood is a film for middle class, white Americans and this means it will clear up at the Oscars. Does it deserve all this praise? Not entirely. It's a decent film that everyone has elevated because of how it was filmed. It's not a must see film, in fact, it's just a decent film. Patricia Arquette will do well for her performance but other than that, Boyhood shouldn't be winning as many awards as it is. That's why I give Boyhood a:
Edit: So Screen Junkies just did an honest trailer for Boyhood and it's incredibly funny, as well as being totally honest about the whole thing (as per the title). It's a great video and I reccomend you check it out but one thing to note: they stole my throwaway line of the film being 12 years a boy. I'm not bitter or anything. Still, cool video, check it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZg1Wy7H0k
Comments
Post a Comment