Boyhood and the art of gimmick.

There is a scene in ‘Boyhood’ that comes five minutes before the end credits. Olivia (played with amazing restraint by Patricia Arquette), breaks finally and yells at her son who is leaving home for college: “..then I sent Sam to college and now you. You know whats next? my fucking funeral. I thought…I thought there will be more…” and in probably the best cut in the entire film, there is a beautiful aerial shot of a lush highway. Brief Silence. That for me was the essence of the entire film, in one fleeting moment. The answer to the question my friend Nishant famously asks any film – ‘why should this story be told?’. But I had to wait more than two hours for Linklater’s answer.

BOYHOOD-master675-v3

‘Boyhood’ is a unique cinematic experience where your affinity and affection for characters grows organically, progressively. They all falter but most rise and win your love over time. It is something to experience. And time itself is the protagonist – in the sense that it prevails over every character and remains unconquered by the end of it all – much like John Wayne or Rajinikant, if you may. And much like either of the afore-mentioned gentlemen, it is ‘time’ that seems to be the poster boy, selling the film at box offices and award circuits – ‘Its that film that got made over 12 years! So awesome, no?’.

But as much as you journey with these characters intimately across Real passage of time, you really don’t get to know anyone personally. The writer doesn’t let you. It is almost like you traveled with them for years on a Mumbai local train. You know their faces. They grow older in front of you. They might even smile at you. But you really don’t know anything about their lives – their Loves, embarrassments, hatreds, ambitions, pains or fetishes. And there in lies the tragedy of Boyhood – a film that had twelve years to get to know itself, but was just too lazy to. The result is a mind numbing menu of set pieces – Olivia is a professor and so she always had to be surrounded by books on a table; Mason is an adolescent and like all cool adolescent stereotypes in film history, he should talk less and be a non-conforming rebel; There is even a beer drinking, ex-army husband of Olivia who walks around home with his work jacket (with the word ‘Corrections’ written behind it) – the kind of role you would cast Ronit Roy in, without battling an eyelid; There is also a scene completely disconnected from the rest of the film – a customary boy’s washroom scene with high school bullies – why? because what kind of coming-of-age-Hollywood-film doesn’t have a boys washroom high school bully scene? Duh!

But there are refreshing breaks. Over the years, the kids’ father – played by the ever earnest Ethan Hawke, comes over to take them on little, fun trips. And they are breaks for the audience as well. The conversations Mason has with his father are the best written parts of this film and then there is the legendary scene in which Father, son and daughter learn to have more interesting, less awkward ‘car conversations’. But for the rest of it, this viewer felt extremely let down and even border line bored. Which made me wonder, is this really an underwhelming independent film, making news ‘only’ for the length of its shoot? Isn’t that a bit gimmicky?

The film ends with this scene, set in the beautiful Big Bend (spoiler alert). Nine out of ten film makers I know, would have re-shot this or used a different take. Why? the last line is flat and Ellar Coltrane is sleep walking through this take (unless of course that was his brief for the entire film). But it might just become known in history as the famous last scene of an Oscar winning film. Coz ‘Its that film that got made over 12 years!!!’.

Advertisements