Ensign Lestat's Oscars Countdown, 01/02/2015
Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Ethan Hawke), Best Supporting Actress (Patricia Arquette), Best Film Editing
'Boyhood', a unique film shot chronologically over the course of 12 years. It charts the life of Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from the age of five to seventeen. The world around him includes older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), loving but down and out Mom (Patricia Arquette) and occasional Dad (Ethan Hawke).
This conventionally dysfunctional family grow together and apart during the course of around twelve years. Many other people come into their lives along the way, some good, mostly bad. Mom makes a couple of bad decisions regarding her boyfriends, but she's quick to turn things around. She also doesn't begrudge the kids' relationship with their biological dad.
We watch Mason grow from a petulant child, to a closed-off pre-teen, a quietly rebellious adolescent and a loyal and artistic graduate. From the outset we know that school bores him, he's far too intelligent for all that, and he uses it for his eventual love for photography.
Mason's a little bit of all of us - he doesn't have a goal in life, he's just muddling along till he falls in love with something and hopes to make the most out of that something. The story of 'Boyhood' is so generic, it begs the question of its existence. The troubled mom, her bad boyfriends/husbands, the head-in-the-clouds dad, the annoying sister, they're such generic and cliched characters, it doesn't allow the story to stand out. Essentially it feels like we're watching a '90s sitcom. If you're familiar with long-running sitcoms, or even Harry Potter, you would be familiar with the concept of watching a kid grow up in front of your eyes on screen.
Conceptually the film lives up to the hype. A great deal of planning and forethought by the director makes this film a cohesive and coherent whole. Trouble is, when watching it one is likely to keep wondering when which scene was shot. If Arquette's hair's different, does that mean the scene was shot a year later? But the boy looks the same! Ridiculous questions like that are answered by a cursory look through IMDb.
This isn't a good film. Mason doesn't grow up addicted to drugs, part of a gang, or even gay (not that he needs to, but those are examples). Despite a lot of foreshadowing in the beginning, he's as straight as a pole. His Mom keeps getting by after studying and her domestic relationships. His Dad doesn't become a rock-star despite his musical talent and aspirations. And his sister becomes a non-entity after a while, apparently due to the actor's disinterest in the project over the years. The film showcase no arc, barring the arc of life. This isn't a coming of age film, it's a... growing up film. Fun fact: People grow up. They also face upheavals, which affect their lives. When they're kids, those upheavals affect them in different ways. No one reacts to much in this film. Mom faces abuse, she ups and offs, cries a little bit, gets zero sympathy from her kids, and that's that. My trouble with it wasn't that the kids were indifferent to her pain, it's that the majority of kids in films only ever react in that fashion towards their hard-up parents. This film would have been different if they reacted and acted differently.
What really frustrated me during the film was the atrocious acting. Shoot me for saying it, but the acting emulated the overall feel of the film - that of a '90s sitcom. Worse for the most part. The kids are especially bad, Coltrane gets worse over the course of the film - narrating his lines in a monotonous whine. Linklater (the Lorelei version) was the same, except instead of whining she was screaming or indifferent. There's one thing behaving that way with your parents (indifferent), but you're not always talking like that.
The two nominees aren't much better. That drone pervades all performances. Hawke is the only one that flourishes - he's indignant when needed, preachy when needed, calm and caring overall. But it's not a powerhouse performance worthy of a nomination. The guy's been nominated before - this is not like his previous nominations. And let's not start with Arquette. I wanted to shoot the screen every time she spoke, it was a melodious lilt throughout, and she did not emote much unless she was crying, and she did not do that often.
Irrespective of how well the actors segue into the characters for twelve years running, it would help if the acting was good and great to begin with. I just feel that while Richard Linklater had a great idea and was able execute it well, the story itself let him down. You can't just make a story that goes with the flow of life and employs every silly cliche from year dot. It's been nominated because of the concept, which is kind of a travesty considering we had some other great original material come out last year which didn't get a look in. A lot of people love it, but it doesn't stand out and it doesn't make its mark.
Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Ethan Hawke), Best Supporting Actress (Patricia Arquette), Best Film Editing
'Boyhood', a unique film shot chronologically over the course of 12 years. It charts the life of Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from the age of five to seventeen. The world around him includes older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), loving but down and out Mom (Patricia Arquette) and occasional Dad (Ethan Hawke).This conventionally dysfunctional family grow together and apart during the course of around twelve years. Many other people come into their lives along the way, some good, mostly bad. Mom makes a couple of bad decisions regarding her boyfriends, but she's quick to turn things around. She also doesn't begrudge the kids' relationship with their biological dad.
We watch Mason grow from a petulant child, to a closed-off pre-teen, a quietly rebellious adolescent and a loyal and artistic graduate. From the outset we know that school bores him, he's far too intelligent for all that, and he uses it for his eventual love for photography.
Mason's a little bit of all of us - he doesn't have a goal in life, he's just muddling along till he falls in love with something and hopes to make the most out of that something. The story of 'Boyhood' is so generic, it begs the question of its existence. The troubled mom, her bad boyfriends/husbands, the head-in-the-clouds dad, the annoying sister, they're such generic and cliched characters, it doesn't allow the story to stand out. Essentially it feels like we're watching a '90s sitcom. If you're familiar with long-running sitcoms, or even Harry Potter, you would be familiar with the concept of watching a kid grow up in front of your eyes on screen.
Conceptually the film lives up to the hype. A great deal of planning and forethought by the director makes this film a cohesive and coherent whole. Trouble is, when watching it one is likely to keep wondering when which scene was shot. If Arquette's hair's different, does that mean the scene was shot a year later? But the boy looks the same! Ridiculous questions like that are answered by a cursory look through IMDb.
This isn't a good film. Mason doesn't grow up addicted to drugs, part of a gang, or even gay (not that he needs to, but those are examples). Despite a lot of foreshadowing in the beginning, he's as straight as a pole. His Mom keeps getting by after studying and her domestic relationships. His Dad doesn't become a rock-star despite his musical talent and aspirations. And his sister becomes a non-entity after a while, apparently due to the actor's disinterest in the project over the years. The film showcase no arc, barring the arc of life. This isn't a coming of age film, it's a... growing up film. Fun fact: People grow up. They also face upheavals, which affect their lives. When they're kids, those upheavals affect them in different ways. No one reacts to much in this film. Mom faces abuse, she ups and offs, cries a little bit, gets zero sympathy from her kids, and that's that. My trouble with it wasn't that the kids were indifferent to her pain, it's that the majority of kids in films only ever react in that fashion towards their hard-up parents. This film would have been different if they reacted and acted differently.
What really frustrated me during the film was the atrocious acting. Shoot me for saying it, but the acting emulated the overall feel of the film - that of a '90s sitcom. Worse for the most part. The kids are especially bad, Coltrane gets worse over the course of the film - narrating his lines in a monotonous whine. Linklater (the Lorelei version) was the same, except instead of whining she was screaming or indifferent. There's one thing behaving that way with your parents (indifferent), but you're not always talking like that.
The two nominees aren't much better. That drone pervades all performances. Hawke is the only one that flourishes - he's indignant when needed, preachy when needed, calm and caring overall. But it's not a powerhouse performance worthy of a nomination. The guy's been nominated before - this is not like his previous nominations. And let's not start with Arquette. I wanted to shoot the screen every time she spoke, it was a melodious lilt throughout, and she did not emote much unless she was crying, and she did not do that often.
Irrespective of how well the actors segue into the characters for twelve years running, it would help if the acting was good and great to begin with. I just feel that while Richard Linklater had a great idea and was able execute it well, the story itself let him down. You can't just make a story that goes with the flow of life and employs every silly cliche from year dot. It's been nominated because of the concept, which is kind of a travesty considering we had some other great original material come out last year which didn't get a look in. A lot of people love it, but it doesn't stand out and it doesn't make its mark.
Comments