Boyhood (Dir. Richard Linklater/2014)
When production began on Boyhood, in 2002, Richard Linklater was known as an indie-director
of cult-favourites Dazed and Confused and
Before Sunrise. Today, one remains a
staple of Sundance success stories and the other is the first part of a trilogy.
Suffice to say, Boyhood is his most
ambitious project to date. Documenting a boy, Mason (Ellar Coltrane), turning
into a man could’ve been cliché and obvious. Instead, Linklater manages to
capture the honest glances and gazes of characters. Sibling rivalry is flippant
and fun. Friendships and romances are passing and innocent. This isn’t “12
Years a troubled-teen” – this is the conversations, and memory-keeper moments,
that matter. Gazing out of the car window as your father (Ethan Hawke)
amusingly explains how you should converse. The step-father who drank too much.
The mother (Patricia Arquette) who never gave up. Like life, nothing stays the
same. Mason can be sulky and this can irritate, but look past his story and
consider his perspective. Young and impressionable. Artistic and expressive in
his fashion and photography. Like Mason, who constantly soaks up the world, Boyhood wants you to take away more
than entertainment. Richard Linklater knew he had gold as, little over three
hours long, one could argue the length is a problem. But, in this
binge-watching age, a 12-part series in three-hours is surely no chore. And it
isn’t. It’s playful and joyful. Boyhood celebrates
youth and comments on politics and parenthood, passing little judgment. Without
saying much, Boyhood, moodily, says it all.
Rating: 9/10
to his obsession of 
, he sure is a strange creature. One thing which he loves, are films that are deemed so important they reach a special place in your heart. They get you so involved its almost spiritual - akin to an incredible song. For a long time, Bangor Rep - aka, Graham - recommended to me 
and, I won't lie - its a weird one. But I can see his attraction to the film. The focus is lucid dreams - those dreams that when you dream them, you can control them. You walk around in them and you are thinking, in the dream, "wow, I'm in a dream ... I can do whatever I want...". These dreams can often become wet dreams. But thats a different story altogether.
many years ago, this film seemed to have a similar - can I say narrative? - thread to that. Multiple conversations between characters. I am sure this dates back to Greek philosophy whereby metaphorical characters play out roles and situations to make a point or to explore and issue. Off the top of my head, 
is a fictional world that uses characters to represent a way of thinking - rather than simply explaining "everything is fake", he uses a situation to make his point. In a similar way, I assume Linklater and Jarmusch do the same things. Only recently, Jim Jarmusch released 
and, again - though in a different context (assassin on the hunt...) - this involved many conversations between characters. Though I haven't seen the film, many critics seemed to make the pint that Jarmusch was losing his touch by using this technique. One thing that is interesting is how Linklater chose to use Julie Deply and Ethan Hawke from his the 
/
diptych. I would assume a practical choice - and something that would assist the marketing of the film - but this self-referential style again mimics a very artistic style. The film is not only a work or art - it is a work of art Linklater feels is very important. To stress the issue moreso - Linklater appears himself alongside Soderbergh and others...
would be the first port of call - a film that could effectively be a dream within a dream. Dare I say it - a lucid dream. Then, on another level we have Salvador Dali - the popular surrealist artist. Perhaps, linking Hitchcock to Dali, 
is the real inspiration. Suffice to say, I have not seen 'Spellbound' so hesitate to make a parrallel.
, whereby Linklater shows varying uses and different styles of animation-on-top-of-live-action - apparently called