Monday 17 November 2014

Boyhood (2014)

(This review was originally written in July 2014)



I've probably been interested in this film longer than most people have known about it. I remember crawling through Wikipedia's upcoming film section 4 or so years ago, and finding some intriguing film with no poster, no release date, no synopsis and very few details about it titled Boyhood, promising to explore twelve years through one boy's (Mason) adolescence; but, rather than casting actors for different stages in his life, we actually progress over 12 years of shooting with the same actors. The Independent's review likened it to 7 Up, and in a sense it's kind of true; we step off at different, important intervals (e.g. birthdays, first loves) in a child's life; the difference being that the intervals are annual, or at least months, and we never see Mason reach the drinking age.

Richard Linklater is a name you guys might recognise: he's the guy who directed The School of Rock, which just so happens to be the first Jack Black film I saw, way back in '03; and some of you older folk might know him from stuff like Dazed and Confused.

Boyhood sets a different tone, though. It's not a comedy and it certainly doesn't have family audiences in mind, although some scenes are comedic in tone (imagine telling your 13 year old biological kid about sex in the middle of a fast food place.) But it does make a break from 'dark' films, because overall it's quite uplifting. The audience was mainly grandparents, which is understandable; see what happened to our kids again. See our grandkids. But it's relatable to me, too. The boy who we see the film's eyes through is basically my peer, give a year. We start with him as a kid in 2002, and we end with him starting college in Autumn last year. (The film's promotional materials show him as a 6 year old, but by the time he turns 14, he starts to become really attractive. Just a heads up.) I can relate to his love of photography, his awkwardness with relationships and deep thought, and the fact his period of maturation was the noughties. He likes Spider-Man, and boy did I love Spider-Man then too.

The film's designated year might be (2014 film), but it really isn't. It's (2002-13 film), through and through. Because it always remains contemporary. Just as the boy grows older, so does the fandoms and technology, the political scene, and the style of filmmaking and quality of camera. It doesn't just look like the 2000s, it is the 2000s, and that's what sets this apart from other films with a similar theme. We start with film grain and we end with macro close-ups and slick panoramas. It's a real nostalgia trip to go from Spider-Man and Chamber of Secrets, Britney Spears and Gameboy Colors in 2002, to The Half-Blood Prince in 2006, to The Dark Knight and Tropic Thunder in 2008, and into my present of iPhones and Facebook and everything. It isn't 2002 looking ahead to 2013, because the script changes to suit the time, and neither does it retrospect and try and build a picture of years earlier. Like, their politically charged biological father is anti-Bush and ends up, 4 years later, pro-Obama. The existence of Facebook becomes a narrative point a year ago. But despite this, it's still quite a timeless narrative. There's no captions at all; no flashback framing device or narration. With each passing year, we have to work out when it is for ourselves as viewers, rather than have the screen anchor it for us. It's an experience rather than a movie, really. We don't have exposition, and it flashes between conflict and resolution and normality before finishing in an optimistic denouement. We see actual characters develop because they actually age; there is no suspension of disbelief in forcing a 30-something year old to also exist as a 50 year old. It's an entirely believable experience. I'm a proponent of making films as realistic as possible, by limiting CGI, doing your own stunts and just overall not faking stuff. This does that.

It's a really really great movie. 

No comments:

Post a Comment