BOYHOOD

[3.6]

Linklater’s ambitious experiment pays off with an impressively executed film about aging, though it lacks the chemistry and spark that makes his best work (his other meditation on aging, the BEFORE SUNRISE trilogy) so captivating.  Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette do a fine job as a divorced couple trying to navigate raising their children, though it is Arquette who does the heavy lifting throughout the years, and to her credit, her character changes happen between scenes, and we always sense there is a lot going on in her mind, even when we don’t have access (as would be appropriate, as seen through the eyes of a child).  But Ellar Coltrane, as our main protagonist, Mason, is not quite as consistently interesting. While purporting to be a film about childhood, the film makes the claim that the events that happen around Mason as he grows up are what define him. The film isn’t quite from his perspective, as we learn a lot that he couldn’t possibly know. We see a bit of Mason navigating the quirks of childhood, but we hardly get a sense of who Mason is as a person, mostly because he doesn’t know himself (or, put better, his ideas of himself are constantly shifting).  Perhaps why coming-of-age films work is that they often feature slice-of-life sections, where a person’s shift in personality seems dramatic and definitive. Looking at ten years of a person’s life, we see dozens of shifts, all shedding the shell of a former self and adopting new styles and characteristics. And, as a Linklater trait, we focus on a boy who is pretty unremarkable. He is a bit of an outsider, but hardly has to deal with any exceptional challenges. He is creative, but in a pretty bland, quiet way. He isn’t much of a pontificator, so we don’t often see the workings of his inner mind. He’s just a kid, trying to grow into a man he can be proud of.  Betting on a child actor so early in life, I have to wonder what Linklater truly thinks of the final product, as there are moments when Coltrane appears exposed before us, to see his true being, but too often it feels like an uncomfortable pre-teen trying desperately to guard his inner self.  There’s an interesting “verité” element to it (the real actor so visibly trying to hide himself), but it lacks the brutal authenticity of the UP series, or the romantic reflections on aging that Truffaut famously explored in his series of films on the growth of Antoine Doinel.  

While the trouble with the inconsistent acting styles is the most pronounced affliction of the film, the writing doesn’t feel as revelatory or personal as Linklater’s other works.  Linklater tries too hard to remind us of the passing of time and the plethora of references to the current time period are distracting and gimmicky. True, the film shouldn’t feel as if it exists in a vacuum oblivious to historical events, but the continued reliance on music (pop hits of the day) and politics seems unnecessary and forced.  The family drama borders on melodrama, but pulls away at the last minute, and while this speaks to the audience’s natural anticipation of dramatic action (and makes us take note when the actions we expect don’t pan out), it also belies our desire to see key moments in this boy’s life.  While it feels like we’ve seen externally important moments, they don’t feel like the scenes that would replay in Mason’s mind over and over as he grows up. Some feel like special, intimate moments, but others play out just for the sake of “plot.” To his credit, Linklater does an excellent job of showing the seamless transition of years, with years passing in the blink of an eye, and yet everything still feels natural. We aren’t confused by the time jumps, and they seek to reenforce that time is a flow, and doesn’t stop and start for our convenience. Ultimately though, I was left without any great understanding of Mason or his family, and no desire to know his future. Perhaps his relative normalcy is what Linklater wanted to capture, but in the spirit of cinema, I wanted someone more.