‘Boyhood’ reveals the pleasant, modest marvels of life

“Boyhood” isn’t a movie; it’s a time capsule. Filmed over 12 years, Director Richard Linklater has done the remarkable and captured a life in progress. It’s the themes of every adolescent, coming of age story rolled into one journey. This is a movie that you feel you can live inside, and one that feels like it could continue forever.

Linklater’s idea seems simple and high concept on paper. Let’s make a movie watching a 5-year-old age to 18. Let’s have him deal with family, childhood, puberty, life choices, romance, sex, and let’s watch it unfold in real-time. Let’s take the adolescent life lessons that come packed into a few months, weeks or a single day in movies like Linklater’s own “Dazed and Confused” or “School of Rock” and apply them over the course of a lifetime.

The remarkable challenge though is that it’s never been done. To make a single film over such a lengthy period of time, to wrangle actors year in and year out and to take the time to watch a person grow presents enormous challenges.

“Boyhood” has an uncanny sense of self and time, one in which the machinations of the movie are as unpredictable and volatile as life itself. It remarkably captures the culture and the feeling throughout the 2000s, understanding ramifications about the movie’s present, despite the impossibility of predicting their relevance in the future. Linklater remains true to his characters and is perceptive to their growth years after their lives and the culture around them have been rewritten.

There has been remarkable hype surrounding “Boyhood”, but it’s a fact that never in the history of cinema has a movie been so in tuned to how we grow, how we change and how life happens around us, simply because never before has a director devoted as much time and patience to his subjects as Linklater does here.

We meet Mason (Ellar Coltrane) at age 5. He lives with his older sister Samantha (Lorelai Linklater, the director’s real life daughter) and his mother Olivia (Patricia Arquette). His father Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) divorced his mom, moved to Alaska to find himself and has returned as dedicated a father as can be.

As for Mason, he’s a boy. Maybe he’s a little quiet, but he has a long head of greasy hair, loves arrowheads and fights with his sister same as any boy. His favorite color is blue. While playing with a friend he tags the underside of a drainpipe with spray paint. When he’s not playing outside, his mom likes to read him Harry Potter, and he’s big on video games.

Another film or another director would see this as little to go on, and practically no story to be heard of. Linklater sees a world of possibility. Mason gets older, he vividly remembers the embarrassing feeling of getting all his hair shaved off, of rolling gutters at the bowling alley with his dad or of seeing a last glimpse of his childhood best friend as the family car pulls away forever.

Meanwhile, the world continues around him. Suddenly his mother is in school and has gotten remarried. Now he has two extra siblings, a new school and a new home. Soon he’ll notice that his new father is scary and downright dangerous, but does he notice the build-up to his alcoholism that’s gone on behind the scenes? Does he know how his mother will remove them from this life in an instant?

One of “Boyhood’s” most daring features is the ease and quickness with which people appear and disappear from Mason’s life. Linklater has viewed life in 2000s Texas from the perspective of one boy, but his characters are honest and fully drawn enough to have given us “Girlhood” from the perspective of Mason’s sister, or “Momhood” from the turbulent perspective of Olivia. It’s a film that feels so relatable because just about any character can become part of this community.

But “Boyhood” feels inviting because Linklater doesn’t portray Mason’s life as a series of melodramatic set pieces. For its sprawling length of two hours and 45 minutes, “Boyhood” is a movie of modest proportions, seamlessly continuing the narrative across time periods and portraying life experiences as miniature conflicts and observations complete with humor and discovery.

While the tone is light and the cinematography is warm and pleasing, Linklater too has matured as a filmmaker since he began making the film. Increasingly the film’s style and aesthetic gets more refined modeling some of the polish and careful tracking shots he would employ throughout last year’s masterpiece “Before Midnight.” And just as many times as they move from place to place, Mason and Samantha continue to mold to the film’s surroundings.

Linklater even earns some scenes that might fall flat in a separate context. At one moment when Mason has grown into a teenager, his dad talks to his sister about practicing safe sex with her boyfriend. Both the kids and the audience snicker like he’s talking about cooties, and nothing about the dialogue feels overwritten or original beyond what John Hughes classics have been saying for years, but to have this conversation with these kids now, after having watched them mature for so long, Linklater attains an unprecedented sensation of joy and humor.

How the film remains so aware of both its past and future is a wonderful mystery. In 2002 Mason’s mom reads to them from “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets,” and years later he’s waiting in a midnight line to purchase the sixth book in the franchise. Had J.K. Rowling never finished the franchise or had the books have faded in popularity long after the second one, an early book reading scene like that might’ve ended on the editing room floor, and any midnight attendance would’ve seemed quaint and dated; now it seems like a right of passage and a careful analogy to another boy who America got to watch grow up before our eyes.

Linklater doesn’t divide the film into years or provide intertitles about time passed. But “Boyhood” is loaded with cultural relics and clues that let us know where we are, each of which seem just as perceptive. Songs from Coldplay, The Flaming Lips, Gotye, The Black Keys and more seem perfectly in place with their time periods. Flashes of the boys playing “Halo” followed years later by the Nintendo Wii say as much about how we’ve grown as a culture as it does about Mason. And it hardly escapes Linklater to have fun with the length of his character’s hair. “Boyhood” speaks to our own embarrassing family relics while reminding us that none of it really seems so foreign.

On his 18th birthday, Mason asks his dad the eternal question: “What’s the point of it all?” Mason Sr.’s answer is as true of life at is of the movie. “The good news is that you’re feeling stuff.”

“Boyhood” is a movie about our journey as humans and the emotional ride life takes us on along the way. The point is that there are stories yet to be told, conflicts and heartbreak to experience and lives to live. Mason’s story is a small slice of the world. It’s his own life to live, but ours’ to treasure.

4 stars

Wait Until Dark

Rapid Response: Wait Until Dark

Movies are filled with heroics. Lucky losers manage to stop the bad guys, damsels in distress turn out to be badasses and the heroes of the world seem to have no limits.

“Wait Until Dark” is a movie that challenges our dependence on others for survival. It crafts suspense based on the protagonist’s limits and what she’s really capable of.

Adapted from a single room stage play by Frederick Knott, “Wait Until Dark” stars Audrey Hepburn as Suzy Hendrix, a blind woman highly dependent on her husband and her young neighbor for going about day to day activities, who is caught up in a ruse by gangsters wishing to take advantage of her disability. They suspect a doll filled with heroin has gone missing inside Suzy’s home, and they invent a story and sneak around her blindness to cajole her into turning it over. Continue reading

2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey – An Unusual Epic

Watching that opening, rarely is something so grandiose, so unironically epic, and something that has been lampooned and parodied to death still capable of conjuring up feelings of magnificence. “2001: A Space Odyssey” is one of the few movies remaining with this unspeakable power in cinema.  People may argue about their favorite Stanley Kubrick films, but there are few that so fully demonstrate his mastery in just a few moments.

“2001” left so many audiences in 1968 floored. It was a movie unlike anything anyone had ever seen and perhaps still is. Upon watching the film for the third time, “2001” in many ways is decidedly not what one would associate with a modern epic, or even an Old Hollywood epic. Its images have scope and size, but how much of the film earns its resonance in the way even Kubrick copycats have conditioned us to expect today?

The opening goes against the grain completely. Kubrick shows us empty, still images that let us know this is Earth, but not an Earth we know. Apes appear and interact at the Dawn of Man, and the traces of humanity we see are the first hints of fear, boredom, curiosity and most terrifyingly of all, aggression.

When the music cues again, it doesn’t invoke melodrama but that of discovery, violence, genius and evolution. If Kubrick knew anything it was that these themes needed to be portrayed on as large of a canvas as possible if they were to mean anything. Continue reading

To Kill a Mockingbird

Rapid Response: To Kill a Mockingbird

Some film classics are time tested for their greatness, if not more beloved and significant now than upon their release; others are great by association.

The film adaptation of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” may just fall into the latter category, the book that everyone read in high school, followed immediately by the movie everyone saw in high school. Maybe it gets some holiday TV time, and the book is so indisputably a classic that it’s hard to see the movie as anything else.

It’s possible then that Robert Mulligan’s film gets a few passes it perhaps doesn’t deserve. The average, casual movie watcher can lump “To Kill a Mockingbird” in on their lists of black and white movies they’ve actually seen along with “It’s a Wonderful Life” and the first part of “The Wizard of Oz”. It was nominated for Best Picture in 1962, losing to a real classic, “Lawrence of Arabia”. And Gregory Peck won the Oscar for Best Actor, years later also taking the American Film Institute’s title for the greatest American movie hero.

But does it actually do anything especially great? An easy analysis might say no. This is Old Hollywood through and through, full of toothless, folksy charm and Hays Code-friendly gestures of racism and violence. “To Kill a Mockingbird” only achieves the social and racial poignancy by riding the coattails of its richer source material, and even then it’s very much rooted to its times.

To play along the racial language, the touches of greatness in “To Kill a Mockingbird” are more than skin deep. Continue reading


‘Snowpiercer’ is bleak, violent, surreal caricature of human condition

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, the end of humanity won’t come because of an asteroid or the apocalypse but because of the moment when a brilliant scientist declares, “It works!”

In the dystopian, sci-fi action movie “Snowpiercer,” humanity has agreed to release an experimental gas into the air to scale back the effects of global warming. The process works too well, and the world is plunged into an ice age unfit for life on Earth. 17 years later, the only remaining humans on Earth live on a perpetually moving train, one that circles the Earth each year.

Given these conditions, how quickly would you imagine humanity would slip back to its basest nature? How soon would the world start devouring itself? When would martial law be declared? When would society deteriorate?

“Snowpiercer” is a bleak, violent and surreal look at the broad, caricature of the human condition. Director Joon-ho Bong’s film makes a bold and blunt allegory about the way the world works, and amid the beautifully photographed action sequences and garish, even humorous depictions of the human class system, he finds little worth liking. Continue reading

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

‘Dawn’ falls short of ‘Rise’, apes the style of others

Apes; they’re so much like us. They start off as promising, cute, smart and full of life, and it isn’t long before they’re dropped into the grim reality of the real world.

And so it goes with ape franchises. “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was an unexpected gem, a film that served as a prequel on a technicality but was entirely its own story. The use of unrivaled motion capture visual effects was enhanced tenfold by the film’s careful knack for suspense, its crafty long takes and tracking shots, its creative action scenes, the wordless expressions of pathos and so much more.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” could no longer be the somewhat whimsical and fantastical story and still be the dark and serious, world-impacting epic the blockbuster crowd expects. The apes have learned much from man, modeling even their most conventional stories in every way. Continue reading

Chasing Ice

Rapid Response: Chasing Ice

The debate over climate change is an issue of perception, not of facts and figures. This is the argument made by James Balog, a climate scientist and longtime nature photographer. There’s a flawed sense that climate change simply doesn’t exist because you can’t see it, he explains.

“Chasing Ice” is a documentary about perception and about images. It’s a gorgeous looking overview of nature at the top of the world and a new, practical way of viewing science and global warming threats that skeptics for years have dared to ignore.

Two years since this film has been released, Balog may view the climate change debate as less of one of perception and more of sheer insolence and extreme partisan politics, but this film holds up as very hard to argue with.  Continue reading

How to Train Your Dragon 2

‘How to Train Your Dragon 2′ soars again

How does the saying go? You can’t teach an old dragon new tricks? That’s the actuality behind “How to Train Your Dragon 2”, which models off the original “How to Train Your Dragon” in many ways and yet does so without losing any of the original’s surprising quality.

Dreamworks’s film was the first since “Shrek” that had both real humor and heart. It was a gorgeous example of what 3-D could do, it captured some of the breathtaking spectacle behind “Avatar” and put it into a kids’ film and it even included an adorable wordless montage that could plausibly be talked about in the same breath as the one from “Up.” Those more tranquil moments made the epic dragon battle in its finale more significant and tolerable.

“HTTYD 2” is a bit more action heavy and a bit lighter on the charm that made the first film a hit. All the training has been done, and now a bigger fight is about to begin. And yet Dean DeBlois’s film (he co-directed the original) uses the same structure that slowly brought out the original’s best qualities. Continue reading

Entertainment Weekly Logo

Criticism as a Cost Center: More on the Economics of Movie Reviews

More than anything else, the best and most frequent word of advice for young writers looking to become film critics is don’t.

The point here is not, “give up,” but the sad realization that being a film critic is not actually a career and just about no one in the 21st Century makes a living just watching and reviewing movies. David Bordwell actually put this advice best:

Forget about becoming a film critic. Become an intellectual, a person to whom ideas matter. Read in history, science, politics, and the arts generally. Develop your own ideas, and see what sparks they strike in relation to films.

Some critics go the route of grad school and being a professor or author for a living. Some find passions in programming for festivals or art house theaters. And others take up journalism and learn how to edit or report as well as write. Although the other sad realization is that becoming a journalist is not that much more lucrative a backup plan.

That’s why it hurts to see great, versatile writers and critics lose their jobs seemingly every week. Just this past April it was one of the legends, Owen Gleiberman over at Entertainment Weekly. You wonder how anyone can get into the game if even the people you admire can’t make it work.

The conclusion for why its so bad out there for the movie critic is predictable: the Internet pits criticism in a losing battle against cat videos, Justin Bieber and listicles, and it’s a damn shame that the world just doesn’t respect or value film criticism as much as the rest of us. Continue reading


Rapid Response: Zelig

What really works about Woody Allen’s “Zelig” and makes it brilliant is that no matter how outlandish, ludicrous and fantastical Leonard Zelig’s scandal or condition gets, you still kind of buy it. Allen’s got Susan Sontag and Saul Bellow giving plausible sounding and descriptive diagnoses of Zelig’s mental state, all of it following a sense of empathy and dramatic arc, and it’s all total nonsense.

“Zelig” is Woody Allen’s mockumentary, although to call it that conjures up ideas of “This is Spinal Tap” and “Best In Show” in which the subject being mocked is someone other than the director himself. “Zelig” is more accurately a real documentary on a fake person, and not just that, but a proto-Woody Allen, a version of himself we see in many of his films. It uses Leonard Zelig’s condition as a human chameleon to get inside the mind of a person always begging to fit in and be liked, even going as far as to say there’s really not much wrong with that. Changing our personality and even our appearance is something just about anyone does, and the movie acknowledges that this could be anything from lying about having read “Moby Dick” to pretending you’re an experienced psychologist so you can go to bed with your doctor. Continue reading