Boyhood.

Review #1568: Boyhood.

Cast:

Ellar Coltrane (Mason Evans Jr), Patricia Arquette (Olivia), Ethan Hawke (Mason Evans Sr), Lorelei Linklater (Samantha Evans), Libby Villari (Catherine), Marco Perella (Bill Welbrock), Brad Hawkins (Jim), Jamie Howard (Mindy Welbrock), Andrew Villarreal (Randy Welbrock), Jenni Tooley (Annie), Richard Andrew Jones (Annie's father), Karen Jones (Annie's mother), Bill Wise (Steve Evans), Zoe Graham (Sheena), and Charlie Sexton (Jimmy) Written and Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock, #1138 - Dazed and Confused, and #1206 - Bernie)

Review:

"It had been growing in me in ’99 and 2000. I’d been a dad for a while and seeing a kid growing up is a very intense thing. It made me think, ‘What about my childhood? What is childhood? Maybe I’ll make a film about childhood.’ But I was frustrated because I couldn’t pick a moment. It became a storytelling challenge and I’d almost given up, and then in 2001 the idea hit me in one big moment: We’ll film a little bit every year.”

It makes sense for a Texan to have made a variety of his films involving his home state in some form or another, so it should prove no surprise to see Richard Linklater with a distinct film to display his canvas of cinema again. The Houston native was involved in sports from a young age that led to a scholarship at Sam Houston State for baseball before moving back to work on an offshore oil rig. During those years on the rig, he found himself interested in film through watching them at the theaters. He would start venturing into his own moviemaking by buying his own Super-8 film camera and did his own short films. He made his first feature with the camera with It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books (1988), a minimalist movie that he handled all the production duties that never had a wide release. His next feature proved to be an indie standout in Slacker (1990), which he wrote/produced/starred in that achieved attention and profit made despite a small release that dealt with misfits in Austin, Texas. Over the course of three decades, Linklater has made a variety of films with distinguishing features, whether that involves a relationship over the years in the Before trilogy (1995, 2004, 2013) or films involving animation like Waking Life (2001).

Someday, there might be a time when a Linklater film really resonates with me and seems ambitious enough to actually accomplish what it sets out to do for a true classic. It is good film, no question about that, one that is unique for its filming over the course of twelve years that follows a growth from child to teenager in all the bumps and rolls. Oh sure, the adults at every turn find ways to interact with our main star in their lectures with him about what he is supposed to be (whether as a kid doing homework or a cleaner doing his job), and it is this sense that he perhaps becomes someone reminiscent of the pathway presented in Dazed and Confused (1993) in being oneself in their own life. Of course that presents a strange little problem: that film was unbelievably average, and this film is just above average in what really matters in the end in what was described by Hawke as “human time-lapse photography". The film wants to play its game of highlighting the little moments between things that make a person's life rather than just being aligned on the big milestones (good or bad) to try and be documentary realism with the drama of ordinary life in a movie. If this reminded me of anything, it reminds me of a documentary series I look up every so often in curiosity despite never seeing it: The Up series, which has followed the lives of a group of children from when they were 7 that started in 1964 that checks up on them every seven years. Not every child brought in for that project has continued on to that project, but this is a different story in filming people over and over again without being obligated to do it under contract (since one can't contract someone for that long of work), and a script wasn't even finished before filming began, aside from a few contracted points of plot for each character that would segue into writing the script for each year of filming after seeing/doing the previous year's footage. Sure, you could make a story based on the idea of talking about the little victories/losses between the main procession of life without the supposed clichés that come from it, but I don't really buy that as really all that refreshing. If I filmed fifteen minutes of a one day and then returned to do the process again the next year for fifteen years and brushed aside key moments (like moments with finance or moments with friends outside, whichever sounds more believable), could one just wave their hands at that and say "look upon this and how it depicts LIFE!" - by that point, we are getting ourselves into subjective desires for what makes a good story worth following. I liked most what I saw, achieving most of its lofty goals through a long pace of 165 minutes that could prove an interesting starting point on one's patience - so here we are.

Coltrane was six years old when he was cast for a project like no other for an actor. It is the journey that counts in seeing his evolution play out on screen from innocence boyhood to making his step into the real world. Do I relate to all of his journey? In parts, I do, but at least Coltrane can be given credit for making this journey at least seem more than a series of vignettes (although one almost wonders if it was almost more suited for the progression of television). With actors like Hawke and Arquette playing parents in the film, it is nice to look upon the contrast and presence each bring to the feature and highlight their qualities (which to me works out better in observation for the former than the latter, although it is more about preference rather than saying one has more "fun" scenes), even if listing them as "support" when it came to awards season is a bit dubious (because if there are no parents here, we would have an entirely different film, estranged from the "ordinary" Boyhood). There is just something appealing about the feckless charm shown by Hawke here, one whose differences in being a figure to his children that pops in from time to time proves his worth in moving forward with strong will and humor that shines with Coltrane in those moments together, particularly for the last one at the gig venue that might as well have been the last sequence. Arquette does fine with gravitating the expectations and hopes that come from primary care of maintaining all the pressures of family and beyond, the unwavering presence in the storm of ambitions and life passing by, which I suppose makes it all worth that last scene with Coltrane. L. Linklater (daughter of R. Linklater) is fine, in the same way that she has her own bit of growth over the years that come across in the film with a set point to rest on. Others are there to serve as markers for where one is in the story, whether that involves a brash Perella or Hawkins, for better or worse when it comes to relevance. Maybe it all plays into the idea that narratives in life don't have to end in a neat little bow, and that might prove worthy for those who get into what the film is selling as a portrait of life in the margins. I don't know, I just think that's a bit convenient, since it ends on a line about the moment seizing oneself rather than the other way around - a slacker moment to roll the eyes with for a film that will either prove profound or otherwise for viewers. If you find yourself dazzled by what the film brings to the table in a 12-year tale involving a particular vision of what it means to grow up from a director who has liked to make distinct movies of story, all power to you. For me, it is good, but not quite a great feature that shows some flickering interest in where it could go in its vision and the occasional response it can generate involving childhood experiences with a decent cast to back it up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.