Have you heard The Epic? It's 3 hours long!
Wooooow it took 3 hours of music for Kamasi to get BNM LOL
Anyone who doesn't think it's extremely interesting and important that Boyhood took 12 years to make doesn't actually care about cinema.
Kamasi Washington is just a circle jerk though.
>>61251281
>Anyone who doesn't think it's extremely interesting and important that Boyhood took 12 years to make doesn't actually care about cinema.
the point is that regardless of the interest it's still a mediocre movie
John Cage made the first piece with torn pieces of paper but it's pretty garbage
>>61251321
I guess if you're not interested in form and creation than yes you're correct but then I'd argue you aren't that interested in the art form.
What makes it mediocre?
>>61251364
the final product matters. if it can't speak for itself then all the gimmicks and trivia can't help it.
>>61251543
The question remains
What makes it mediocre?
I know this isn't a film board but /tv/ is trash anyways
>>61251281
>>>/imdb/
>>61251555
generic plot full of cliches. the only thing neat is that they took 12 years to film it. but does that really add anything? who cares that it's the same kid. if it wasn't for that bit this'd be on the same level as the perks of being a wallflower.
>>61251555
There was nothing especially novel about the story, the coming of age drama has been done a thousand times. The characters weren't very likeable or convincing and the story wasn't engaging, "middle class American family undergoes completely average experiences" didn't grab me.
>12 Years a Boy
Please go back to reddit
>>61251281
>important
WHY
>>61251643
>>61251671
>>61251756
Genuinely nervous about getting in trouble for too much off topic discussion here but at least it's still about art.
Cinema (and photography to a degree) is the only art form that captures time in a capsule. Linklater knows this and examined this in the Before series as well as Boyhood. It's a film about film as a medium and it's ability to represent time and the passage of time and one of the purest instances that's ever been recorded.
If you don't find the characters "likeable" or that the story relies on "cliches" I'm sorry, I guess there's no convincing you, but what's important here isn't the plot it's the overall exploration and product. If you rely on art only for face value then yes you probably wont take much away from it I suppose.
TELL ME
>>61251904
sounds pretty flimsy.
>>61251935
In what way?
>>61251938
because he just tacked some basic empty statement onto a generic coming of age flick
>>61251999
e.g. he's a hack
>>61251904
>Cinema (and photography to a degree) is the only art form that captures time in a capsule
literally what the fuck are you talking about family
are you saying the movie is so incredibly important because it's about time? in what ways will it change the cinematography? everyone will spend 12 years making their movies?
>>61251904
This. The whole point of the film was this, it's a life story in it's rawest form. Who cares if nothing outlandish happened?
>>61251555
Richard Linklater's main strength is being able to turn scenes of fairly banal, ordinary moments into interesting little vignettes through subtly engaging characters and the nuances of their interactions. Boyhood had a bit of that at points, but Linklater seemed to have frequently forgotten that doing fuck all isn't the same as being subtle. So much of the movie just felt like it didn't matter, and not from a lack of trying to make stuff matter.
Honestly, it's not even an awful movie, and the fact that Boyhood wasn't a total fucking train wreck says a lot about Linklater's competency, if not quite greatness, as a director. In the end though, it's about as emotionally resonant as a MyVirtualChild simulation.
>>61252058
raw clichés
>>61251904
if i wanted some meta film about film bullshit i'd watch an andy warhol flick
or maybe birdman if i actually wanted to have fun
>>61252046
when did I ever say it would change cinematography?
>>61252109
I respect that view. I wish it had've focused more on those around Mason since he isn't really in control of his life at any of the points in the film and I think this would've captured those subtle banal moments of reality you're describing very well.
Tbh, while I love Boyhood I think the Before series is far better and probably Slacker.
What's more annoying is reading people like >>61251999 who don't really even try to discuss the film beyond the words of "generic" acting as if they're arguments are anything more than "generic" themselves.
>>61252058
>horrible writing
>horrible acting
>unlikable/uninteresting characters
>no stakes
>zero emotional connection/impact
>cliches
>B-BUT IT SHOWS REAL LIFE, GUYS!
>>61252218
What makes the writing and acting horrible?
Why do you need likeable characters to make engaging art?
Do you think no one can feel emotion connection or stakes in the film?
Are cliches inherently bad?
Not even trying to troll or bait you but these are questions I ask when analyzing art and it made me start to respect others views more.
>>61252256
unconvincing performances
>>61252256
>Why does an objectively bad thing have to be bad?
This is what you sound like.
>>61252309
sigh I guess I'll ask the question again
What makes this (art) OBJECTIVELY bad?
>>61252210
I agree at some point, but is form experimentation enough to consider it a great film anymore? This is not the first half of the XX century anymore. I believe contemporary film needs meaning, and mediocre bildungsroman clichés is not really what I'm looking for. Look at dogma 95, pure experimentation and 90% of the films are mediocre to terrible. Then look at Festen, that is precisely the balance I think we need between form and content.
>>61252337
>art
how are you so sure?
>>61252210
>don't really even try to discuss the film
like when you said he "examined this?" or when you gave no reason whatsoever that this movie was anything other than pandering to an audience just above adam sandler's, one who can't see any depth beyond the gimmick of "12 years?"
your post in >>61251904 doesn't have an argument; you're listing shit off about how great he is with nothing other than vague statements
>what's important here isn't the plot it's the overall exploration and product
exploration of WHAT
in what way
how was this non-revolutionary gimmick so important that it excuses the terrible movie it accompanies?
>>61252363
I personally think it is possible to enjoy Boyhood based purely on empathy and a genuine understanding of the universality of time without getting to caught up in its form.
Still, you raise a good point. While Dogville (sticking with Trier) is interesting formal experimentation I don't think that makes it a good film automatically.
Not that Boyhood is very experimental. I just find the way it does show an actor growing to be very interesting and something than resonates deeply with me. So to (>>61251643) who said "who cares that it's the same kid?" I would say I do. It evokes strong emotions within me to watch the natural progression of life.
>>61251904
Good art should be able to stand on its own though. Nobody would care that Kubrick tormented the Shining actors until they had IRL mental breakdowns if the movie sucked.
People who enjoyed Reddithood are the same types who talk about the "feels" in Car Seat Headrest
>>61252405
Literally unsure how to response.
I say you're being to vague, you say I'm being to vague. I guess this is the problems with discussing art.
Here is what I think whether you agree or not - Linklater is an artist interested in time and did an interesting and emotional experiment about the passage of time focused on one subject that could only be done through cinema.
If you do not like the film that's fine, I just don't think it's form grants it to be called "generic"
>>61252210
>I wish it had've focused more on those around Mason since he isn't really in control of his life at any of the points in the film and I think this would've captured those subtle banal moments of reality you're describing very well.
This really hits the nail on the head. It really wasn't necessary to gouge development out of Mason's character since that was just going to develop naturally, especially if there was more effort put into those around him, which there actually was a bit of in the case of the parents. Can't help but feel a truly great director would have thought of this, as condescending as that sounds.
>>61252476
what about those dads on facebook who took a picture of their daughter every so often for their entire life? is that more important than boyhood? it came first. explored the same thing. has no pretense of being art. why is that just a cute thing and linklater is a genius?
>>61252566
desu i wouldn't put it past modern art philosophers to argue that this is a genius portrayal of time so i'm not sure what you're arguing here. if this wound up in the moma many would praise it for the exact things you're trying to sound like a snarky smartass about.
what do you want here? sorry i like boyhood and resonate with its focused nature more than random photos that weren't packaged and put on wide display?
>>61252476
>>61252046 was me, not >>61251999
i'll agree that it is an interesting idea, but i do not agree that that excuses writing a bland, uninteresting, and unengaging movie and then directing it so badly for 12 years
and i certainly do not agree that it could only have been done through cinema; i think it would be extremely difficult to find an art medium in which you couldn't tell a similar story about time
>>61252624
if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas
and those things are far more interesting and impactful than boyhood
>>61252685
Sure
>>61252648
Yeah I suppose if you found it unengaging and the main purpose of popular entertainment is to yknow ENGAGE then it's fine you don't really enjoy it. I suppose I really relate and resonated to a lot of Mason's personal life so I may be biased. Sorry for calling you out on something you didn't say.
>>61251281
>doesn't actually care about good cinema
I can appreciate the work that went into it but based on what is shown on screen, it falls flat.
