Josh Dickey over at Mashable has posted a great infographic showing all that went into making one of 2015’s best films. It is one of the depressing things about an indifferent awards consensus that ignores the extraordinary ambition here, the leap of faith to say – I’m going to write this and film this in the time it takes for a young man to come of age. The awards consensus falls all too easily into the silly whisper campaign that says “it’s just a gimmick” or “take out the 12 years thing and it isn’t all that.” The thing is, you can’t take out the 12 years thing because it says so much about Richard Linklater’s lifelong devotion to thinking outside the box – not to razzle dazzle them but to excavate some kind of truth in the human experience. When the smoke clears on 2015 it will be a scandal to look back at what the awards race ignored, but especially if it ignores Boyhood, which is the kind of film that film awards were invented for: to reward the highest achievement in film, not just “what makes me feel kind of giddy right now?” Extraordinary means it goes beyond the realm of what’s possible. Are they really going to walk by this film?
Writer-director Richard Linklater’s latest and unique cinematic achievement is less about a 12-year production and more because of his almost seamless blend of the melodramatic and the quotidian. One doesn’t need a context to appreciate Boyhood, but the film does need a little defense against some younger twitterers whose reactions can be summarized as “What’s the big deal?” When Gravity came out a year ago, a thousand science-fiction-loving bloggers leapt to their keyboards to explain why the film was a “game changer”; Boyhood doesn’t have a constituency that’s quite so…naturally vocal, so this post is here for the next time someone shrugs at the marvels of Boyhood.
First, when have you ever seen a bildungsroman (a.k.a. coming-of-age story) where the plot hinged on nothing but the coming of age? No one does that! There’s always something else – Huck Finn helping Jim down the river, Pip unlocking the secret of his fortune, Narnia to be saved, the Stand By Me kids looking for the body, Pi trying to survive the raft with the tiger – authors never trust you to “only” experience a child’s maturing without some kind of larger artifice. If every other growing-up story is a symphony, Boyhood is like the same song “unplugged” with no more than an acoustic guitar. And suddenly, you’re hearing the beauty of the notes in a way you never before understood.
Ever since Georges Méliès put his fantastical dreams on screen more than a century ago – dramatized by Martin Scorsese in Hugo three years ago – people have been trying to strip film narratives of their artifice. A laudable impulse against grandiosity and “unrealism” has inspired everything from the first documentaries to John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath (1940) to the Italian neo-realists to the anti-“cinema de papa” films of the French New Wave to the “gutsy” movies of the Hollywood Renaissance to the 1980s indie films by people like Jim Jarmusch and Steven Soderbergh to the Dogme 95 manifesto. That said, the exact tension between the demands of narrative and the desire for “lifelike” conditions was never expressed better, or funnier, than in Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze’s Adaptation (2002), in an exchange between “Charlie Kaufman,” played by Nicolas Cage, and screenwriting guru Robert McKee (who is still religiously followed by Pixar and half of Hollywood today), played by Brian Cox:
KAUFMAN
Sir, what if a writer is attempting to create a story where nothing much happens, where people don’t change, they don’t have any epiphanies. They struggle and are frustrated and nothing is resolved. More a reflection of the real world —
MCKEE
The real world?
KAUFMAN
Yes, sir.
MCKEE
The real f—ing world? First of all, you write a screenplay without conflict or crisis, you’ll bore your audience to tears. Secondly: nothing happens in the world? Are you out of your f—ing mind? People are murdered every day! There’s genocide, war, corruption! Every f—ing day somewhere in the world somebody sacrifices his life to save someone else! Every f—ing day someone somewhere makes a conscious decision to destroy someone else! People find love! People lose it! A child watches her mother beaten to death on the steps of a church! Someone goes hungry! Somebody else betrays his best friend for a woman! If you can’t find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don’t know CRAP about life! And WHY THE F— are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie? I don’t have any use for it! I don’t have any bloody use for it!
KAUFMAN
Okay, thanks.
The truth is that McKee has a point: the ineffable feeling of the everyday has always taxed the patience of movie audiences. John Cassavetes and Andy Warhol well knew it while doing their 1960s experiments; today’s mumblecore artists know it as well. It’s very, very difficult to get audiences to invest in something with the veracity of a surveillance video for 90 minutes. When a filmmaker tries to produce that feeling of unrehearsed spontaneity, s/he almost always has to resort to certain tricks. Understated lighting and soft-speaking actors can help, as in films like The Bicycle Thieves (1948) and Celebration (1998). But all too often, narrative asserts its priorities, and the final thirds of such films tend to favor melodrama. Rarely, filmmakers can be boldly stylish even as they seek to highlight the everyday-ness of things, as Warhol was, and as Terrence Malick has lately been doing with films like The Tree of Life – not that everyone appreciates his efforts.
Malick’s fellow filmmaking Texan Richard Linklater, in his quarter-century of a career, has proved that he can be as bold and experimental as anyone – if you’re not sure about that, re-watch Waking Life (2001). Roger Ebert once wrote that it’s not what a film’s about but how it’s about what it’s about, and Linklater found a deceptively terrific tone for Boyhood that’s all the more right for how it makes some people go “meh.” The trick is that the melodramatic moments and the “normal” moments feel all of a piece; they complement each other perfectly.
The big moments include one stepfather throwing things at the dinner table, another stepfather stopping Mason as he comes home late, the actual father at the bowling alley learning what his daughter remembers, Mom’s final scene about the shortness of life, Mason’s breakup on the bleacher seats, and Mom grabbing her kids and moving them out of the bad stepfather’s house. The more quotidian moments include video-game-playing, chore-doing, camping, shooting, politics-talking, and walking and biking around small-town Texas. This is a film where time marches on even as it seems like anything could occur. Thanks to Linklater’s clever mise-en-scène, much like the better filmmaking realists, Boyhood’s big moments feel as though they just happened to happen, and the little moments feel like tiny shards from some larger symbolic mosaic. When we arrive at the final half-hour, and Mason’s graduation party, we’re in a sort of giddy state between realism and melodrama that very few films have achieved. As the friends congratulate Mason, as Mom and Dad confer for one of the only times in the film, as Dad confides in Mason that he never liked his beautiful girlfriend, we almost don’t know how to feel – should we expect a big melodramatic culmination? Should we expect this to be as prosaic as pissing on a campfire? It feels like a little bit of both, and that feels almost unprecedented for a film’s final act…almost a brand-new type of imitation of life.
In 2014, we expect breakthroughs in realism to come only from television, perhaps from a show like Orange is the New Black, which is also a virtuosic modern blend of the everyday and the narrative-driven. But the weakest aspect of OITNB was its first-season finale, which felt a little too overwrought – too removed from the tone of the rest of the show (they improved on this considerably for the second-season finale, as I’ve already written). As a movie, Boyhood has to ace the routine and stick the landing all at once, and it basically does. Just to mix my metaphors, yes, you could see a few cracks in the plaster, particularly during Mason and Mom’s final scene, where Linklater shoehorned in framed photos and memories (that we’d known nothing about), to remind us that this has been a 12-year journey – without resorting to flashbacks. (Imagine this film with flashbacks! Entirely destroying the sense of ineffable inevitability.) Mason’s spat with his photography teacher was a little too well-timed for the end of the film’s second act, just when things are meant to be bleakest (as Robert McKee teaches). But a few hard-to-see frayed threads don’t distract from this amazing suit.
Ever since someone said, “Every fiction film is partly a documentary, and every documentary is partly a fiction,” people have tried to split the difference, and if Richard Linklater didn’t quite hybridize the two classic bildungsroman franchises, 7Up and Harry Potter, into 160 elegant minutes, he came as close as anyone ever will. (As a side note, one wonders how well-received a similar movie would have been about an old man becoming 12 years older.) All this in a raw-edged, almost unsentimental film about the sensitive kids of working-class, divorced people, a film as proletarian as it is protean. Boyhood is already the film of a decade, but we’re not in bad shape if it becomes the film of this decade.
Weirdly, the most radical thing about Boyhood may be its title and the fact that it isn’t Childhood (About a Boy was taken). Deep in the red-meat heart of red-state America, even a boy named Mason is growing up painting his nails and piercing his ears, more metrosexual than his grandparents could have imagined. Brit Hume had a point when he stood up for Chris Christie: our culture is relatively feminized, but the Mason character provides compelling evidence that The Kids Are All Right with that. Because Boyhood begins in 2002 and ends in 2014, Mason naturally signifies a sort of sifter that decides what to keep and what to throw away from the previous century. And what a beautiful testament to our country and culture, that despite our politics, divorce rate, and digital overload (Mason loudly rejects the latter), we can still raise Masons and Samanthas. That final bend in the river still leads to America, and “always right now” isn’t as bad as it sometimes seems.
If anything distracts from the achievement of Boyhood – notice that in 1500 words I haven’t yet mentioned this aspect – it’s the chance to see the film’s lead actor growing from age 6 to 18, which critics are fawning over perhaps a bit too much. Not that I’m not one of them: there was something about the very actual aging that warmed a rarely touched zone of the heart, like the first time you see a 30-second time-lapse video of a day in the life of a flower, extending its petals to the sun and then withdrawing. Having said that, I’d like to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Linklater had cast four different actors as Mason and shot the whole thing in one summer – like most filmmakers would have – Boyhood would have been about 85% as good. Going back to my Gravity comparison, 3-D long-take shots were to Gravity what the 12-year production was to Boyhood, the decorative frosting that masked a surprisingly meaty filling. We might express surprise that the initial premise – kids navigating divorced dating mom and absentee dad – was so durable, but we really shouldn’t be surprised that the author of the Before trilogy, given 12 years on his labor of love, was able to conjure up so many effective scenes. As expressed in the final edit, the script was nothing short of magnificent. But oh, oh, the 15% of that production schedule…
Just when we think we’ve seen it all, Boyhood challenges what we think is possible in film, even what we think during films, without ever being formally flashy like Linklater’s Slacker (1991), Waking Life (2001), and A Scanner Darkly (2006). Boyhood is a challenge to every future attempt at feature-length realism, but perhaps its most salient feature is that it feels nothing like a challenge. Instead it feels like a culmination of themes that ran through the Before films, Tape (2001), Dazed and Confused (1993), and even School of Rock (2003). Linklater’s patience, decency, humility, and generosity of spirit come through in every frame. His directorial signature has been to give his characters room to grow, and with Boyhood he found (created) the ideal canvas. Like John Sayles and Mike Leigh, Linklater must hurry up his actors just to stay on-budget, but you never sense that. Instead you feel life as it happens, life as it is: that gossamer-grabbing feeling of how 12 years can feel like 2 hours, that sepia-fading sensation of how one day you turn around and your kid is going to college. Boyhood will someday sit next to other films in the Library of Congress’s National Film Registry, and there it will reside like a treasured photo album placed next to a group of great books.
http://maptothefuture.com/beautiful-beautiful-boyhood/
Fantastic post, Sasha!! I am a graphic geek and love this!! I hope it’s rewarded as it should be. Movies like this just don’t come around like this; and probably never will again! Cheers!!
Oops – italicized the wrong part :/
Curious that you trash Boyhood for having so few memorable lines but thinks a movie that has absolutely nothing special In terms of dialogues is a perfect one. But If you wished the characters from Boyhood spoke like Downton Abbey characters of the New York high society from the Woody Allen films, that’s not my business.
@JP Whiplash is expertly directed and fantastically acted and written. Whiplash’s strength is its fluidity – the fact that it is an exhilarating and moving ride from start to finish. Boyhood is a languid bore, a compilation of LInklater’s yearly creative afterthoughts. It’s a movie comprised of slack.
This is so great! Thanks Sasha. Boyhood is easily one the best films of the decade for me. That’s how much I love it. I hope it wins Best Picture, but a part of me knows that it doesn’t need it. The same way Gone Girl doesn’t need it. Most of the best movies don’t win Best Picture. They’ll live on either way.
Personally I find all of these stats–namely the length of production–to be completely irrelevant when judging the film on its overall quality as a finished product. I agree with what you said to me on Twitter about the film having its heart in the right place, but I simply don’t buy that as a standard of quality. I think the film is absolutely dreadful (I know I’m in the minority) because we have such an insufferably lazy, aloof, unmotivated character we’re forced to follow as a guide through an extremely weak, meandering plot that lacks focus itself. Arquette’s character is so interesting but she is literally cut off far too many times. I think immediately of her final scene in the film, where she scratches the surface of the first truly interesting thing she’s given to work with in depth, but we immediately cut to the next, far less interesting portion of Coltrane’s story with Arquette’s lingering behind us as a missed opportunity. The entire film just feels like a meandering plod down a really bland path that passes by Arquette’s character shouting from the sidelines.
This is how I shut the idiots up: the closest variation to the movie that could lose the 12 year timetable without re-casting would be an animated film. And the movie would STILL be beautiful and sublime even in that form, like one of the great Pixars. Not that I feel the need to separate out the structure of the film and how it was made from the “story” – they’re all part-and-parcel and it’s the cumulative experience that is so magical. But for those who must separate the technical filmmaking process from the “film,” this is the example I give.
Great post Sasha!
Linklater is a master of craft and ambition. Awarding him BD and BP would be an awesome way to recognize both the brilliance of Boyhood and the severely underrecognized Before Midnight series (not to mention the rest of his impressive credits: Bernie, Waking Life, Scanner Darkly, etc.). Linklater’s one of the least showy directors, but one of the few whose films resonate with me in a way that says, ya, that’s what real life is like.
And just to stir the pot: Boyhood > Whiplash > Birdman/Nightcrawler/Selma > the rest (including 2 personal favorites Wild and Into the Woods)
Reasons why the comparison of Boyhood to 7 Up (as an inferior ripoff) is just as inane as the Harry Potter comparison:
1. One is a documentary, so it just “happens.” One is fictional and thus had to be created out of thin air. That’s such a big difference, I should be able to stop there.
That’s why some people compare it to Truffaut’s films about Antoine Doinel. Surely, no one would say that series of films is inferior to BOYHOOD.
Thanks, Juan. You’re the first person to actually defend it.
Julief, It’s definitely possible that Whiplash will win best editing. In these types of technical awards, general voters tend to go for whichever film that is the most obvious in that craft. The cuttiest (editing), the most beautiful looking (cinematography), the loudest (sound), the most eye-candy clothing (costumes)…
Editing is Whiplash’s greatest strength.
I read the “it’s 12 short films” critique on another thread before watching the movie and totally disagree. I do not see it as a series of episodes with clear beginnings and endings. There’s much more of a cohesive whole than that. However, your critique makes me wonder if others feel the same and editing may go to something flashier like Sniper or Whiplash. Thoughts?
Juan, thank you for your response. I appreciate that in depth defense of the film itself and its story. And I don’t disagree with you about the episodic approach to the story, which is what leads me to believe the narrative feature film was not the best choice for Linklater to tell the story he wanted to tell. I truly believe Boyhood should have been a 12-part miniseries. I want more from each “episode” that 12 hours would have afforded him. It would allow the story to breathe and for each episode to stand alone while working within the narrative of a series arch. I don’t think the film is cohesive because it just feels like a series of short films thrown together by the thread of the process.
re: JP’s ” Take the one shot out of Birdman and you have one thousand films, plays about actors in crisis. Take the designs and the fantsy touch out of The Grand Budapest Hotel and see what you have. If we are in the mood for writing bullshit, let’s talk the whole bullshit.”
Well, no. Take the one-shot out of Birdman and I’m left with a story, which you have called “actors in crisis” — still a story (which I also happen to believe includes many more themes than that), which as my own comment suggests is not the case with Boyhood IN MY OPINION. I’m sorry you disagree with me on that, but you’re allowed to. Take the design and fantasy out of TGBH and I agree with you. I’m not a fan of Anderson’s work these days for this simple fact. The fact is that you’re refuting my comment by assuming I hold beliefs about other films in the race that I never even brought up. You’re replying in the exact way I’ve come to realize Boyhood fans do–defending the film by throwing others under the bus, which frankly isn’t how you criticize film because it’s not how you watch or respond to it. I don’t dislike Boyhood BECAUSE I like something better. I dislike Boyhood AND I like something better.
@CB
Curious that you trash Boyhood for having so few memorable lines but thinks a movie that has absolutely nothing special In terms of dialogues is a perfect one. But If you wished the characters from Boyhood spoke like Downton Abbey characters of the New York high society from the Woody Allen films, that’s not my business.
P.S.: Whiplash is one of the best films but a film that has a fake story that has already been proved a lie over and over (Charlie Parker and Jo Jones) as one of its pillars is definitely not a perfect one.
Special sign that this was a bad year: in my top tier (top seven movies), every single one has left me underwhelmed and disappointed in some way (including Boyhood), except for my #1, Whiplash. Whiplash is a bit of an inconsequential movie, but at least it’s perfect.
Jerry, if I remember last year, I completely agreed with you then. Whiplash is a perfect, PERFECT movie. Not inconsequential!
Interesting how little time was spent making each of the short films that comprises Boybood – 3-4 days a shoot. This really was a small pet project and was treated as such. The film is simply not great or brilliant – it’s fine. It’s a sweet exercise and is sometimes poignant in a ‘I know I’m poignant’ kind of way. If the head of the film studio is giving Linklater $200K a year, then it’s not really as ambitious as it sounds. I mean, look, he whipped up 20 pages of (mostly mediocre and highly expository) dialogue a year, storyboarded it over a weekend, and shot it in less than a week. All with a decent budget from a producer (the real hero and visionary if there really is one) helping him cover the cost of film and equipment. Friends, let’s be real: Boyhood is not anything beyond its gimmick. There are so few memorable lines, so few memorable shots. Other than Patricia Arquette’s ‘I thought it would be more’ moment (which is so brazenly cliche I can’t believe people are falling for it) there are zero lines anyone can quote back, or scenes that really stick in the mind. Boyhood is not a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic triumph. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic meh.
Alan,
You are so right, that probably needed some paragraphs (probably a long rant kept too long in my head):)
I would greatly prefer for Boyhood to win Linklater *something*, but since Arquette is a slam dunk this isn’t like when Beasts was skunked a few years ago. I do find it somewhat comical the whining about “gimmick” films. Would you prefer every Oscar contender/winner be cookie cutter paint by numbers Oscar bait? Save for the King’s Speech winning (mostly because Social Network *lost* in my opinion, the last 15 years or so of BP have actually had some fairly interesting choices (silent film, Bollywood imitator, slave epic, two thrillers). It’s not like they’re all Crash.
@ Passive, good writing. (Do you use paragraph breaks next tinme 🙂
I concur with lots of what you’re saying. You have a very thorough knowledge of movies. The “Being There” mention was particularly refreshing.
Longtime viewer of the posts, but I rarely speak on the issues (so excuse the lack of brevity).
Just wanted to speak on the race this year. Should Boyhood win (and I suppose there are some doubts), it would be the first time this life-long Oscar viewer would see his favorite film of the year win. Even though I was happy with past wins, such as No Country for Old Men or The Hurt Locker, for example. I always like when the BP race is unpredictable, but I thought I might of finally seen my favorite film of the year take it. On the “gimmick” issue, I would just like to add that despite the fact that I think this is idiotic, I can’t possibly see how films such as Birdman and Whiplash are less “gimmick” films. Birdman, though has a lot about it to love, and Whiplash, less so, both seem to be jazzy, beat films that are built on a series of contrivances. I thought that if Birdman, which I was excited to see because of my predilection to hate superhero fanboy films, had ended with Keaton’s character looking at those birds as the last scene of the film, I might of understood the film as a kind of nature vs. fantasy kind of meaning that spoke to the larger issues the film was trying to grab. That Being There ending made me question what, if anything, I was suppose to get out this film despite the excellent photography, editing, and acting moments. Whiplash I mostly saw as a stylish empty package as well. Selma was another favorite of mine and if the impossible did occur, it would soften the blow that Boyhood did not win. I really had to laugh that the whisper campaign about LBJ. LBJ would have been more considered in history if not for his unrelenting support of a war that quickly was understood by the vast majority of America to be a quagmire that brought shame to our country (ahem, American Sniper). And even still LBJ could be considered heroic in this film despite DuVernay making the fatal mistake of giving history dimensions! I usually hate epic, sweeping historical biographies, but this film with such a balance of style and substance I can’t believe it won’t be the eventual winner. Even the usual paint-by-number we made them just for the Oscar race films Imitation Game and Theory are not bad. And I love that one of Wes Anderson’s dioramas finally made it in there. But I digress from Boyhood. The virtue of this film (among many) and the “gimmick” that I most marveled at the film is what Ethan Hawke said, and I’m paraphrasing: that Boyhood was pieced together with scenes that in any other movie, would not have been included. That is the quiet revolution of this film, to me: a film that captures little moments of life instead of dramatic scenes. I thought the whisper campaign would have been that the film is called Boyhood and it is basically middle-class white Boyhood (which would have been more legitimate). Given how little they care about this (ahem, Selma), I guess I should have known better. Anyway, had to get this off my chest. Here’s still hoping Boyhood pulls it out. Also, Keaton, Moore, Arquette, and hell, I’ll say it, Hawke as well. Sorry for going on (if anyone actually read it), and feel free to disagree. I get over the Oscar winner seconds after it’s over and always remember that Altman, Kubrick, H. Ashby and countless others never won (so which side would you want to be on).
WW: +1 to all you said about Nightcrawler, especially the three performances, all of whom merited Oscar nominations (especially Gyllenhaal). (And Bennett Miller for Foxcatcher was a terrible choice–what an empty movie that was.) And yes “Nightcrawler” deserves to be put in connection with the great “Network”.
If there’s one independent underdog I was rooting to get into the Best Picture race, it would’ve been ”Nightcrawler” (not ”Whiplash”). Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed all gave phenomenal performances and were robbed of Oscar nominations. And while I’m happy that Dan Gilroy is up for Original Screenplay at the Oscars, he deserved to be nominated for his Direction, too (certainly over Bennett Miller). I also was rooting for ”Nightcrawler” to score for Robert Elswit’s stunning cinematography and John Gilroy’s topnotch editing. This dark movie is the best media satire I’ve seen since ”Network.”
@ BENUTTI
I’m not a filmmaker, but as I writer—english is not my mother language—, I can see why Linklater—once he decided to shoot a boy over 12 years, the unfairly called: «gimmick»—, chose to tell his story the way he did it.
A conventional story, in general, follows several stages: conflict, development of that conflict, climax, and conclusion. The way you tell the story, so far, is irrelevant. However, all the events that you include in your story must be consistent with your conflict a your conclusion. That’s what makes the arch of a narrative.
The thing, however, is that our lives don’t follow that rule. We can see them as a series of episodes with their own beginings and endings. Linklater could’ve followed this path, but then, as you mention, the movie would’ve felt like a compilation of chapters of «Growing Pains»—which would have seemed too formulaic, of course. Instead, he followed, imho, a more organic route, which is to compile a series of memories, some of them inconclusive, some of them are fuzzy. And that’s how real life works. I mean, some of the things that we remember are events that don’t necessarily are connected to each other in a logical secuence. That’s why some people feel that the movie doesn’t have a narrative arch.
Sure, there are some episodes in our lives that seem to expand for several years. For instance, the story of Henry Hill in Scorsese’s Godfellas. But, if you wanted to tell that story, if you really wanted to focus in the plot of his humble beginings to his rising as a gangster and his final fall, why then run the risk of shooting your movie over several years? Can you imagine—as someone said before—what could have happened if one of the actors that play one of the main characters quitted the project? Why cast a younger Ray Liotta just for the sake of it? Would’nt that be, then, just a gimmick?
Of course, Linklater knew all this. I mean, he is not a mediocre filmmaker that woke up one mourning, 14 years ago, and said: “¡Eureka, I’m gonna shoot a boy over 12 years to win an Oscar!”
The bigger problem, though, (beyond the lack of quality) is that these stand-out movies are not representative of much diversity beyond the diversity of what it’s like to be an American boy or man (which includes a lot of diversity in itself, but surely not enough). Under the Skin’s alien-woman in Scotland is an important exception.
“4. 7 Up is not a continuous effort in the way Boyhood was. ”
HUH? Do you double as Sarah Palin’s speech writer, because that comment makes about as much sense as her word salads.
Actually I’ll say Under the Skin is perfectly crafted too — it’s just a bit hard to fully embrace. Nightcrawler comes close but loosens its brilliant power a bit by the end. Boyhood beats Nightcrawler because it is something really triumphant, even though I felt it is not Linklater’s best, and left me surprisingly a little underwhelmed. Inherent Vice is awesome, I loved it, it’s a classic, but doesn’t go the full distance that it might have, losing a bit of its mystique in the last half-hour. Birdman is so impressive, but also makes me frustrated–it shirks away from its potential, settling for absurdist comedy. Interstellar is awesome, but also stupid in some crucial ways.
Special sign that this was a bad year: in my top tier (top seven movies), every single one has left me underwhelmed and disappointed in some way (including Boyhood), except for my #1, Whiplash. Whiplash is a bit of an inconsequential movie, but at least it’s perfect.
Top movies of the year so far:
(first tier)
1. Whiplash
2. Boyhood
3. Nightcrawler
4. Inherent Vice
5. Birdman
6. Interstellar
7. Under the Skin
(second tier)
8. Snowpiercer
9. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
10. Life Itself
11. The Grand Budapest Hotel
12. The Lego Movie
13. Guardians of the Galaxy
(third tier)
14. Gone Girl
15. The Theory of Everything
16. Love Is Strange
17. Selma
18. Foxcatcher
19. American Sniper
20. Edge of Tomorrow
Haven’t seen: The Imitation Game, A Most Violent Year, Ida, Force Majeure, Leviathan, The Babadook, Into the Woods, Wild
”I’m BORED.” Me, too, but by same old whining that ”Boyhood” is just a 12-year gimmick. The detractors sound like sore losers who can’t get over the fact the vast majority of movie prizes (so far) have gone to ”Boyhood.” Taste can’t be explained. Either a movie works for you. Or it doesn’t. I’m not crazy about ”Birdman,” but if it wins the DGA, BAFTA and Oscar, so be it. That won’t automatically make me think ”Birdman” is a better picture. Nor would I browbeat the opinions of those who love it. But it won’t invalidate my high opinion of ”Boyhood” either. To me, Linklater’s film is unique in its 12-year filmmaking, but it’s much more than that: It’s how he’s created this time capsule of a boy’s coming-of-age, full of the little moments of life that add up to the big picture. It’s about the lovely and lived-in performances of Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke & Co. that are so seamless that they don’t seem like acting. If ”Boyhood” goes home empty-handed at the next awards, there’s nothing I can do about it, but I’ll always have the prize of experiencing a great movie.
And just one last thing about Boyhood: the film IS the process. What’s hard to understand about this?
Yes… Take the one shot out of Birdman and you have one thousand films, plays about actors in crisis. Take the designs and the fantsy touch out of The Grand Budapest Hotel and see what you have. If we are in the mood for writing bullshit, let’s talk the whole bullshit.
Further to the above, the info-graphic supports this. It points out the process and not the product/story. The process is what is selling this film, NOT anything else.
And the argument that the 12 year process is imperative to the story that Linklater is telling is problematic because process is NOT part of a story. One leads to the second, but if you remove one you should still have the other. If you remove the 12 year process and make Boyhood in one year with different actors then you should be able to have the same story be told and that story should be just as intriguing, relatable, believable, lovable, etc. The fact of the matter is that there are some of us who don’t believe that the story can stand on its own and from our point of view the people who think it does still revert back to dependence on the process and NOT on the story itself.
Is no one else bored by the growing yet not-evolving narrative of “It’s a triumph that this film even got made in the first place!” This is the tale that Boyhood’s campaign is telling and it’s the one Gravity’s told last year. I’m BORED! The production of every film involves its own risk in its own way, but the fact that we’re rewarding it for some films and not others is ridiculous. If the director’s race continues to be a who’s who of “how you got it made” filmmakers then consider me forever uninterested. Give me a complex, multi-faceted film each and every time.
As I said in “the Birdman thread,” all of these comments about Boyhood are about two things: 1) the making of and 2) relatability. I’m BORED. Tell me something else about it!!!
Explain to me why Boyhood had to be a feature film instead of a documentary or a TV mini-series, and why it would have failed as the other two or if you would like it just as much. For me, for a film to be great I need to understand why I’m seeing it in the way that it’s being given to me and I need that to make sense. When I think of Boyhood I think of every way it could have been better and how the “12 year making of” thing could have been put to better use rather than as a narrative fiction feature.
Reasons why the comparison of Boyhood to 7 Up (as an inferior ripoff) is just as inane as the Harry Potter comparison:
1. One is a documentary, so it just “happens.” One is fictional and thus had to be created out of thin air. That’s such a big difference, I should be able to stop there.
2. One is a documentary, so it is made cheaply. A non-fictional feature film is 99.8% of the time always going to cost more to make. A lot more. Thus, it’s a leap of faith to make.
3. I should stop talking about “documentary” in the singular now, since people have once again managed to compare 8 different movies (as with the HP franchise) to a single film: Boyhood. No one has still been able to bring a SINGLE film to the table that’s anything like Boyhood. If all you’ve got for me is 8 fantasy movies and 8 documentary members, you lose.
4. 7 Up is not a continuous effort in the way Boyhood was. They’ve filmed 8 movies in 8 different years over a 56 year span. Boyhood was meant to capture a fictional boy’s childhood only and was 12 continuous years without the benefit of having a release to gauge critical success and keep funding going. 7 Up was able to be released right away. It’s success was acknowledged from the get-go, paving the way for 14 Up to be released. So…it’s not a miracle that this project has continued. Fascinating? Yes. Miraculous? No.
5. As with Harry Potter, no major risks in the 7 Up series. If someone dies, you simply show that. In Boyhood, if a principal actor dies or refuses to continue the production, you’re screwed.
6. Linklater didn’t have time to “baby” this project. This is hardly all he was doing. He made 7 other feature films during this period, including two entries into the “Before” series, which is actually a closer comparison to the “7 Up” series than “Boyhood” but still way off because you simply can’t compare a completely scripted, acted and directed (aka fictional) character study of a boy to a documentary series about the entire lives of 7 people who are actually alive.
@”In regards to Boyhood, can Michael Apted have his Up series back now and everybody STFU already?”
Boyhood and UP Series are two different things. It’s tempting to make that comparison, but I’m in favor of keeping those things seperate, Apted’s work is strictly of documentary nature and it’s purpose is to work as a certain time-capsule mechanism, on which we can all reflect and put ourselves in that context. “Boyhood” is a feature film, that tells a particular story in an unique scope. The method might be similar, but in both cases the purpose (and in the end the final effect) is different. “Boyhood” is neither an upgraded version of The Up Series nor it’s flawed spin-off.
Count me as one of the many who think Boyhood is just a gimmick film. The truth is if this movie is filmed with different actors over 12 years, it’s not winning any major awards. The gimmick is why this movie is being rewarded, not the story, not the acting, not the dialogue, not the emotional impact, etc. If it wins, I think it’s destined to fall in the category a la The Artist, of small gimmick films that won’t be remembered too much, one that no one really loved or watched but was able to critical darling its way to a victory for that year alone. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good indie flick, but not Best Picture material in my eyes.
In regards to Boyhood, can Michael Apted have his Up series back now and everybody STFU already?
Daniel: “At this point, I just think we shouldn’t care too much about the Oscar race or the awards consensus (though I know it’s your job).” This is why the former tagline for awards daily (or Oscarwatch) was something like “the trick is not minding.” As much as it pains me, if Boyhood loses BP I will try very hard not to mind.
“Whoever compared Boyhood and Harry Potter knows absolutely fucking nothing about what it takes to make a movie, particularly an independent movie, in this day and age. The fact that this worked is amazing. Just seriously STFU now.
Harry Potter had everything: money in endless supply, resources, star power, huge distribution deal, major financial backing, extremely popular source material to grab virtually everything from, and a movie coming out every year in which to reap profit from in order to fund the next film. And yet all 8 movies were still over and done with in 3/4 of the time that it took to film Boyhood. As for the authenticity of the process? One Dumbledore quite noticeably died and had to be replaced with another actor. Something like that would have completely ruined Boyhood. When you’re tackling real life and not a fantasy world, the stakes are much higher and the profit is much lower. That’s why anything this film wins (and it already has enough awards to fill mantles) is well deserved.”
Perfect. And what bothers most of the Boyhood haters, other than pretending to be cool by trashing the film that aced Metascore and that only became a frontrunner because of the critics, is that it is about ordinary people. Not about heroes. Not about who changed the world. It’s a brilliantly developed look of 12 years In the life of an ordinary family. Not 200 happenings In 2 hours. Not licking the ass of the characters portrayed. Not being pretentiously smart. Just a once In a lifetime experience. Films like that usually don’t win Oscars. Films about ordinary people, psychos and non-ass-licking biopics like The Socisl Network usually don’t.
I don’t expect everyone else to share my taste in movies, but why are the ”Boyhood” haters so boring in whining repeatedly about the same things? ”It wouldn’t be so special if it weren’t shot over 12 years.” ”It’s just a gimmick.” ”The Harry Potter movies did the same thing.” Others far more eloquent, like Sasha, Steven Kane, Rob Y, etc., have refuted those inane remarks, so I won’t waste my time. Meanwhile, I noticed that a couple of pundits are suddenly rewriting history since the PGA. One says, ”I’ve always sensed some softness in the ‘Boyhood’ steamroller.” This, from someone who has been insisting that ”The Imitation Game” will win the Oscar. Another pundit: ” ‘Boyhood’ has been soft all along.” Really? Is that why it’s cleaned up for Best Picture at practically all the major critics’ awards? N.Y. Film Critics, L.A. Film Critics, Golden Globes, Broadcast Film Critics, etc. Suddenly, those victories don’t mean anything? I guess it’s inevitable; if you’re the frontrunner, there’s bound to be a backlash. Such are the ”growing pains” of being ”Boyhood.”
Films made with extraordinary ambition, sadly, get ignored all the time by the Oscars. Just this year, I would point to Interstellar, Selma, and Gone Girl–the ambition behind them is extraordinary. The first, to tell a wholly original, grandiose, vast story to encompass everything. The second, to tell the story of an American hero for all audiences and do so “while being black”–essentially putting oneself against all odds already. The last, of telling a difficult to film, sometimes disjointed book.
Sadly, for different reasons, some of taste, some irrational, some of prejudice, all three of these got ignored.
I’m not really surprised that the same fate is befalling Boyhood
So in other words, it was a gimmick.
Boyhood’s last chance is DGA. Birdman is such an overrated film, it is the comedic version of Blackswan.
Steve50, that is a great point. I hadn’t thought about that, that they would put his haircuts into the budget. That kind of blows my mind. Boom! 🙂
“I just think that’s amazing that someone even knows this stat.” (# of haircuts)
If the kid was committed to the film, Al, the haircuts were probably considered in the budget and would be noted in the expenses. Easy stat to access.
“Which of the following 15 Oscar nominated films have you seen?” (the 8 BP nominees and 7 movies that fill up the acting fields), None of These got 65% of the vote.”
This is the big problem with moving the Oscars ahead. It now takes a huge effort for most of us to see the majority of films before the ceremony. When the Oscars were held in March/April, everybody had seen ( and re-seen) everything they wanted. I don’t think they’re doing anyone any favors by this. Besides, awards are a snapshot in time. If all the awards are given out within 6 weeks of each other, the timespan being snapped is pretty small.
Good lord! Gimmicks in movies are nothing new. Neither are gimmicks in art. It is what is done with the gimmick that makes it a success or a failure. Boyhood is a monster success of artistic vision. I have never felt an epic feel so intimate.
I want more gimmicks which challenge the visionary, the director, the artist. Without those challenges, we get stagnation—The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything, both are fine films, but very paint by numbers.
“take out the 12 years thing and it isn’t all that” is one of the worst things anyone can say about an artistic piece. Take the gimmick of storytelling from the black perspective out of 12 Years, and it’s just another historical piece. Take the zero gravity gimmick out of Gravity, and it’s another triumph of the human spirit film. Take the black and white silence gimmick out of The Artist and it’s another man in midlife crisis film. Take the gay gimmick out of Brokeback Mountain and it’s just a cheap western. Take the gimmick design and direction out of Grand Budapest Hotel and it’s just another screwball comedy. Take the heroism gimmick out of American Sniper, and it’s a two hour war movie with a fake baby. I hope I never hear “take this key stylistic, creative, dynamic direction gimmick out of this, and it ain’t all that” applied to a film whenever that gimmick is so effectively executed,
Whoever compared Boyhood and Harry Potter knows absolutely fucking nothing about what it takes to make a movie, particularly an independent movie, in this day and age. The fact that this worked is amazing. Just seriously STFU now.
Harry Potter had everything: money in endless supply, resources, star power, huge distribution deal, major financial backing, extremely popular source material to grab virtually everything from, and a movie coming out every year in which to reap profit from in order to fund the next film. And yet all 8 movies were still over and done with in 3/4 of the time that it took to film Boyhood. As for the authenticity of the process? One Dumbledore quite noticeably died and had to be replaced with another actor. Something like that would have completely ruined Boyhood. When you’re tackling real life and not a fantasy world, the stakes are much higher and the profit is much lower. That’s why anything this film wins (and it already has enough awards to fill mantles) is well deserved.
@Jake
The HP series is a tremendous achievement in modern film history that I feel is sort of unappreciated by the critics and the industry. The final film, as a way of recognition of the series, was easily more deserving than virtually all the Best Picture lineup of the weak year of 2011. Not only that. The Academy couldn’t give a single Oscar to the fantastic craft work done there over the 8 films. The last film received only 3 nominations. Transformers 3 tied it in 2011.
What makes Boyhood something unique, in my opinion, are two things: 1) the 12 years filming with the same cast; 2) the fact that it is about ordinary people. About people that are not heroic in the classic sense of the word. About people who didn’t change the world. About people who will never be famous.
That’s a sweet graphic!
Keep posting the Boyhood stuff, Sasha. Even if it becomes clear at some point that Boyhood won’t win, keep posting the Boyhood (and Selma) stuff. Your job now is to fight for these movies to be seen and appreciated.
“I know HP was a series based off wildly popular novels and obviously the budgets were enormous, but at the end of the day they both had similar obstacles, regardless of the fact that Boyhood is one film and HP is eight.”
Really? Tell that to a producer.
No. They didn’t have the same obstacles. The very fact that one is a series of 8 films and the other is just one film makes a huge difference in logistics and financial terms.
“More bad, bad news for the Academy today; according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll conduced between 1/16 and 1/23, 58% of those interviewed online say they will not watch the 2015 Academy Awards. When asked “Which nominee should win Best Picture?”, None of These got more votes that 6 of the 8 movies. For the question, “Which of the following 15 Oscar nominated films have you seen?” (the 8 BP nominees and 7 movies that fill up the acting fields), None of These got 65% of the vote.”
Well with American Sniper making big bucks, I’m pretty sure there will be a good amount of people tuning in (even though most everybody knows its between Boyhood and Birdman). I’m guessing anywhere between 39 million and 42 million viewers.
Besides, Oscars never really give a fuck about popularity. And ABC is not letting go of their precious Oscars anytime soon.
@JP My point is this–Sasha’s arguing that we celebrate a “once in a lifetime achievement,” a film that spans 12 years, etc. I know HP was a series based off wildly popular novels and obviously the budgets were enormous, but at the end of the day they both had similar obstacles, regardless of the fact that Boyhood is one film and HP is eight. If you want another example look at the seven up series that spanned people over a 49 year time frame.
“Harry Potter series boasts a far more impressive set of achievements over a similar span of time.”
With which budget? In how many films? About which kind of people? Ordinary ones or not?
P.S.: I’m a fan of the HP series but this is total nonsense.
“And if this gimmick movie was only filmed over one year, would it have received as many critics awards and Oscar nominations as it got? AW HELL NO.”
Yes… Let’s take Woody Allen’s dialogues out of his films and put some Transformers-kind-of-stuff and see if they stand as some of the greatest pieces of filmaking. Let’s take the mystery out of Vertigo and Psycho to see what they become. Let’s take the personal loss out of Bruce Wayne’s and Peter Parker’s lives and see if they become Batman and Spider-Man. You know why we can’t do that? For a simple reason… you can’t take out a film/character its essence. You can’t make Boyhood a film made in one year. It is what it is because it took 12 years to make with the same actors.
“More bad, bad news for the Academy today; according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll conduced between 1/16 and 1/23, 58% of those interviewed online say they will not watch the 2015 Academy Awards. When asked “Which nominee should win Best Picture?”, None of These got more votes that 6 of the 8 movies. For the question, “Which of the following 15 Oscar nominated films have you seen?” (the 8 BP nominees and 7 movies that fill up the acting fields), None of These got 65% of the vote.”
Well… if having seen the BP nominees is an issue here, at least one out of the 3 highest-grossing films of the year is a Best Picture nominee. And it could even become number one.
The infographic is neat, but most of the data has almost nothing to do with the film itself. If it’s going to include the number of text messages sent, where is the number of McDonald’s Happy Meals sold? That’s what I’m just itching to know. Also (and I’m stealing this line of thought from a co-worker), the Harry Potter series boasts a far more impressive set of achievements over a similar span of time.
Birdman shot in 29 days is better than Boyhood shot in 12 years.
Great question. Which masterpiece to which other masterpiece?
Is it a travesty if one masterpiece loses to another? 😉
Darn my slow fingers, my comment above was directed to Paul’s first line.
^ “Ah, but you are Blanche, you are in that chair!!!!”
“He possesses the lightness and eloquence of an Eric Rohmer, the discipline and subtlety of an Ozu, while remains quintessentially, authentically American.” That’s ridiculous, like all the overpraise Boyhood keeps getting. A good film, period. Most of his films are far from subtle and eloquent. Some are even pretty bad. A minority opinion, I know, but there it is.
And if this gimmick movie was only filmed over one year, would it have received as many critics awards and Oscar nominations as it got? AW HELL NO.
More bad, bad news for the Academy today; according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll conduced between 1/16 and 1/23, 58% of those interviewed online say they will not watch the 2015 Academy Awards. When asked “Which nominee should win Best Picture?”, None of These got more votes that 6 of the 8 movies. For the question, “Which of the following 15 Oscar nominated films have you seen?” (the 8 BP nominees and 7 movies that fill up the acting fields), None of These got 65% of the vote.
Source: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14185
“Are they really going to walk by this film?”
My answer is NO! I think a lot of filmmakers and performers appreciate the discipline and the vision involved in a project like this. It may be about ordinary lives, but filmmaking in general and specifically movie magic like this is far from ordinary; as you say, Sasha, it is extraordinary.
I believe 72 haircuts is possible. When my fiancee leaves the hairdresser, her hair look exacly the same when she was going in, I swear to you. However, I’m pretty sure she actually had her hair cut, I don’t know how many times, maybe even 72, but the hair did not change one bit.
What a great graphic. It gives you a hint of Richard Linklater’s ambition, scope and the logistics involved. So many things could’ve gone wrong through its 12 years; that it’s as magical as it is, is a testament to its cast and crew. It’s a one-of-a-kind snapshot of a boy’s coming-of-age. Yet for all the prizes it’s received so far, I feel it’s been underrated in some areas: It’s really not fair that only 4 actors from ”Boyhood” got recognized as SAG Ensemble, when there were a number of other wonderful actors, like Marco Perella (as the professor), who contributed to Mason’s story. I also think Lee Daniel and Shane F. Kelly deserved kudos for shooting the film over 12 years; they not only maintained a consistent look and tone, but captured a number of beautiful shots along the way.
I’m loving all the stats, but 1 makes me wonder if it could possible be true. Ellar Coltrane got 72 haircuts in 12 years. That’s 6 times a year, or 1 haircut every other month. But in the scene when he turns 15 his hair is longer than his face.
But, then again, it could be that his 72 haircuts just mean a little trim, and not neccessarily making drastic changes. IDK. I just think that’s amazing that someone even knows this stat.
Excellent way to promote and celebrate the achievement. Should have been the campaign approach,
I didn’t say it was hard to believe. I watched the movie. It didn’t seem like it was every year. I thought there might have been jumps in time.
@Antoinette
They shot 3-4 days once a year. Why’s that hard to believe? These are shooting days, they don’t include pre-production and actors workshopping. I’ve heard Linklater said that it takes about a week to prep the shoot each time.
How many years did they film? It didn’t seem like it was every year. If it was that’d be less than 4 days a year. That doesn’t seem right. Maybe 10-ish days every 4 years? That doesn’t seem right either.
Good, but overrated film. Worthy of all the attention? Yes. Worthy of winning the Academy Award for BEST PICTURE? No. It simply was not the best film of 2014.
You do realize the irony that everything you say here to defend Boyhood could have been used the same way for “Gravity” last year which you wanted badly to lose againt “12 Years a Slave”?
Stephen Holt, I hope you’re right. DGA really is Linklater’s last stand.
Thanks for posting this, Sasha. Hopefully (ha!) it will quite the “gimmick” detractors.
“He possesses the lightness and eloquence of an Eric Rohmer, the discipline and subtlety of an Ozu, while remains quintessentially, authentically American.”
Alan of NY hits the bullseye! Well said.
And one thing that hasn’t been mentioned about Linklater. He’s one of the nicest guys in the business. Everybody LOVES him. This will account for a lot at the DGA.
On a side note – if Inarritu wins director this year, next year my money is on Guillermo Del Toro for “Crimson Peak”.
Before Boyhood, Richard Linklater, in my mind, was already the finest American filmmaker of his generation. He possesses the lightness and eloquence of an Eric Rohmer, the discipline and subtlety of an Ozu, while remains quintessentially, authentically American. He is truly one of a kind and if they know what’s good for them, they should anoint him an American treasure. A filmmaker of pure independence. Before Sunset and Before Trilogy were easily the one of if not the best movies of their year.
The 12 years thing is of course endlessly fascinating to watch, but the above-mentioned quality of his work was still very much present in Boyhood (and will always be in his future films). And these qualities are what made it remarkable for me. I never thought I’d live to see the day when a quiet Linklater film would get this kind of Oscar attention. He’s been too good for the Oscars. But if it takes the 12 years achievement to get him and the film noticed, then be it.
If it takes Birdman to win the PGA for you to write these blogs about Boyhood, then go for it, Sasha. And thank you.
I was touched pretty deeply by this film for its authenticity. There are so many moments that could have swayed in the tear-jerker melodramatic way, but they stayed true even in the end, when you expect some substantial feeling of accomplishment and Patricia Arquette’s character says it best in her final scene. That scene and the whole film simply rings true throughout. I was touched once again when I saw this years Roundtable Discussion with the Actresses of 2014 when Patricia was describing her time with the young actors. How they asked her after an emotional scene “How do you make yourself cry like that?”…it was like an acting school for them.
Being devoted to an idea, persistent and determined to bring it home is one thing. But more importantly, Linklater has the wit to keep it low key, toned down and not actually boast about “the gimmick”, like many others probably would. When you watch the movie you don’t feel the presense of “the gimmick” (mostly due to Adair’s impeccable and seamless pacing), it’s like it has already been taken out. So I find it hard to take seriously people who use this argument.
If it ends up, winning only Arquette, no surprise.
In the end, “snapshots of a life” our “200 hundred facts in 2 hours” ass-licking fantasy biopics about heroes or anything that actors can watch themselves tend to have a better luck than a film like Boyhood, or a film like The Social Network, or Gone Girl, or Nightcrawler.
If Boyhood loses this year, we can start calling awards season The Empire of the Fantasy Biopics or The Expected Virtue of the Actors.
Thanks Sasha. It’s the best film of the year!
As much as I root for Birdman, I agree that Boyhood just CAN’T be ignored. I love Linklater so much that not awarding him with at least the Best Director gold that it would almost be criminal. I have watched Boyhood twice and I’m still underwhelmed by its third act, that’s why I prefer Before Sunrise, Before Midnight and Waking Life to Boyhood. But that only shows how great a director Linklater is, a director who’s produced a milestone relying only on a bunch of actors and his most trusted collaborators. The Academy had better take a hard look at themselves and realize that a project like Boyhood is simply UNIQUE.
I remember the day I saw Boyhood in July. I was touched as I never had before. thank you Sacha to defend this film so often attacked unfairly. I can understand people who didn’t like it but don’t say it’s just a gimmick. That’s unfair. It’s so authentic. even if he does not win BP, this Movie Will stay in my heart, for sure
Good post Sasha.
I ‘m totally with you on this.
At this point, I just think we shouldn’t care too much about the Oscar race or the awards consensus (though I know it’s your job).
BOYHOOD, and its making, ARE extraordinary. BOYHOOD will have special place in the history of film.
Here is the best reason why the “take out the 12 years” thing would never work. If Boyhood took place over 1 year we would not have seen Mason grow up. If the story takes place over 12 years but is filmed in the same year there would have to be at least 3 different actors playing Mason. Ellar Coltrane as a 6 year old is behaving exactly like he was already behaving as a 6 year old. Each year he comes back he’s acting as his real self at that real age. So when somebody says, “Take out the 12 years gimmick and what are you left with?” Well, nothing. Filming over 12 years is not a gimmick here, it’s the entire point of the movie. It’s not a gimmick because the actors grew with each year and so did Linklater. I don’t believe the screenplay was set in stone from 2002, it must have been tweaked each year. Linklater probably observed how everyone else has aged each year and would write accordingly. Anybody crying “gimmick” is not diving deep into the movie and must feel insulted they don’t see how great it is. They want to slap on a label to show they’re as clever as one of the cleverest directors out there as if they solved a Rubik’s cube in under a minute and go “yawn.”
Love this.
Great info. I especially loved the graphic with the inches. It will be a shame if it is overlooked in picture and especially in director. It’s really disheartening to think that it might happen.