Everyday life is boring
-
shelemm — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 03:14 AM)
"it's possible that some just follow their peers."
A lot of things are possible, I suppose, including the idea that your opoinion is not really your opinion, you are just being a jerk for the sake of it. Now doesn't that make you feel better? -
shelemm — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 11:51 AM)
Revisiting a movie is hardly news. Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Is there a human being alive who has not changed their mind about something? If anything, the initial reaction would be considered more 'honest.'
Some opinions are not 'subjective.' "Sister Act Two" or "Joe Dirt" are never going to be hailed as classics of cinema. That's a fact. -
shelemm — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 09:32 PM)
Yes I read the links. People changing their mind about a movie is as old as the hills, and offers no proof that their orignal review was insincere.
What is laughable is the article you linked. He claims opinions are subjective. That's the very definition of subjective, not a fact but an opinion. Awful writing. Maybe Englsih is not his first language.
And I guess you didn't get my joke about Joe Dirt. so bad that it's a fact, not an opinion. -
guy1234 — 10 years ago(February 03, 2016 06:03 AM)
Sometimes critics give films bad rating because they missed things. That is totally understandable. If a critic turned a good review into a bad review then I would raise an eyebrow.
Also sometimes when most critics make the same comparison or say the same things it's because it is readily apparent. Also they all went to film school probably so they all read the same stuff and got indoctrinated the same way give or take. -
infracaninophile — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 05:23 PM)
I have often said that a good movie must contain an unlikely act, because otherwise it would depict ordinary everyday life, which is boring.
I disagree, rather strongly. First with your contention that a film must contain an "unlikely act" and secondly that "everyday life is boring."
You appear to imply that only something "unlikely" can startle us out of boredom. This isn't my experience of life, and I'm sorry if it is yours, but your perception that life is a bore is, thankfully, not shared by everybody. I have no data on how many people find "everyday life" to be boring, but certainly I don't know many such people.
Not to be rude, but I think being "bored" is a choice. It doesn't just happen to you. You choose to be bored, when you could instead choose to do something about it. If you can't change an external reality (for example, I hate waiting in line, but sometimes it can't be avoided but I
can
avoid being BORED while waiting in line). You have inner resources, and so does everyone else. Whether they get used is a different matter.
What boring lives must these critics lead that they find such a boring movie worth watching?
I liked the movie very much and did not find it "boring," and my life isn't boring either. Every day is full of interesting things to do, learn or experience, the only thing I am short of is time. I suspect the critics who liked the film vary in their tolerance of "boredom," but there's no reason to think they lead particularly boring lives. After all, if you like films, being a film reviewer who gets to go to lots of movies and write about them is a pretty good gig. -
hgmichna — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 11:41 PM)
I agree to some extent. My expression was inaccurate. What I meant to say is that the depiction of ordinary everyday life in a movie is boring.
It seems though that you would not agree with this either.
And here we are at a crossroads where movie judgments and movie tastes differ. I cannot mete out universal, absolute judgment. I can only say how I perceive the movie. Obviously, many people, including particularly the critics, do not share my movie taste, but I cannot understand why. Have they all grown up under circumstances as miserable as those in the movie? Do they see themselves in the boy?
There is another point that deters me. For this movie they picked a boy who had a life that was both uninteresting (in my view) and unusually unpleasant in parts. Why would I want to see, for example, how a violent alcoholic terrorizes his family? I have never even remotely experienced anything like this. I know that such people exist, but do I want to watch them?
All this also does not really advance the life of the boy in any positive sense. The only thing we can be glad about when watching "Boyhood" is that he did not take more mental damage. I think, to some extent I would have to be a masochist to enjoy this movie.
Yet another point is what the boy actually does. I don't see him doing anything interesting. He seems to react to his environment in a submissive way. The only thing where he sticks out is his photography, but the movie almost tries to suppress this. We get to see it only in very few scenes, he scarcely talks about it, there are no explanations, we hardly get to see any of his photos.
Even meeting the girl in the ending is not his achievement. She descends on him purely by accident. He did not choose her, and she did not choose him. What in the world did the story author think? That finding a partner happens on its own? Here the movie is not even boring, it also becomes unrealistic. -
shelemm — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 03:17 AM)
"many people, including particularly the critics, do not share my movie taste, but I cannot understand why."
I explain why in my post, which I thoughfully link yet again for your convenience:
http://www.imdb.com/board/11065073/board/thread/240989390 -
hgmichna — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 03:58 AM)
Thanks, I had read it already, but what you explain is mostly some retelling of the movie and pointing out what you like.
Perhaps I do not even understand what is happening, because apparently I live in a different world. For example, the scene you like so much, that you linked to on YouTube. You write, "He is high this whole time, but doesnt want to announce it." What do you mean by "high"? Do you mean that he took some narcotic drug? -
shelemm — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 05:45 AM)
He was high on marijuana. He had just smoked marijuana in the car. So when he comes into the house and sees that his mom is having a party with friends, he enters a very awkward situation. A teenager smoking marijuana don't want to start interacting with their mom's friends. They might smell it on his breath or detect it by his behavior.
I wasn't simply 'pointing out what I like.' I was explaining an important theme in the movie: The distance between what you think and how you express yourself is monumental in your development, and how you handle that difference makes up your boyhood.
Repeatedly through the movie, the camera focuses on Mason's reaction to confusing things he sees in the adult world. This is not by chance. It is a crucial part of the movie.
In the Boyhood featurette (10 minutes long, about the making of Boyhood) there must be a dozen examples of this:
I think it's a fascinating liitle film. You shoulk watch it. -
Madhaxman — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 03:41 AM)
And here we are at a crossroads where movie judgments and movie tastes differ. I cannot mete out universal, absolute judgment. I can only say how I perceive the movie. Obviously, many people, including particularly the critics, do not share my movie taste,
but I cannot understand why. Have they all grown up under circumstances as miserable as those in the movie? Do they see themselves in the boy?
This is kind of the problem I'm having with your posts. Your attempting to understand critics is kind of presumptuous at best. The critics have written down their opinions. Maybe that would be a great start.
Even meeting the girl in the ending is not his achievement. She descends on him purely by accident. He did not choose her, and she did not choose him. What in the world did the story author think? That finding a partner happens on its own? Here the movie is not even boring, it also becomes unrealistic.
Not everyone meets their partner in the same way. Sometimes finding a partner happens "on its own." Heck, that even assumes the film intended for the Nicole at the end of the film to be his "partner", not just someone he meets on the way (which is an idea that Linklater is absolutely fascinated with. Half his works are about how people encounter one and another. How strangers open up to each other before moving on).
And you know what? There is an unlikely act in Boyhood. Its not the act of the character but the viewer. The viewer sees 12 years in 3 hours. 12 years of the characters aging in a natural way (due to the script), 12 years of the actors aging, 12 years of society changing. -
guy1234 — 10 years ago(February 03, 2016 06:37 AM)
I think that's the beauty of the film, even though he suffered through some bad times and it was pretty mundane overall Mason still seemed to he happy and enjoyed himself. The basic elements of life and qualities of society are in and of itself a blessing.
-
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(March 12, 2016 12:29 PM)
You're exactly right. Too many films can get away with just being "documentarian," watching characters without any overarching importance, plot or narrative.
Other offenders include 45 Years, The Hurt Locker & The Wolf of Wall Street. None really have any real conflicts. They just follow the characters in their every day lives without any obvious point to it all. -
hgmichna — 9 years ago(April 28, 2016 09:56 AM)
Other offenders include 45 Years, The Hurt Locker & The Wolf of Wall Street. None really have any real conflicts. They just follow the characters in their every day lives without any obvious point to it all.
At least the two I know of these three movies show you an exotic setting, either Iraq or the situation of a Wall Street trader, so not really average everyday life and instead something most of us have never experienced.
Boyhood shows absolutely nothing out of the ordinary and shows characters that have nothing to offer for me, no interesting ideas, actions, capabilities.
I believe every movie has to have at least one turn in its story that is unusual or unlikely and digresses from the normal, because otherwise it will be boring. Luckily for me almost all movies are like that. The exceptions stick out, negatively.
Still I recognize once again that movie tastes differ widely, and obviously some viewers enjoyed and liked Boyhood for reasons that will remain elusive for me. -
Teriek-Williams — 9 years ago(April 28, 2016 10:48 AM)
Exotic settings and unfamiliar experiences don't make a movie tolerable. Short Term 12 is very familiar to me and lacks an unusual turn, but its the writing, pacing and acting that elevate it. For me, its a question of what you're expressing and how coherent/consistent the storytelling method is.
The Wolf of Wall Street expresses nothing as a story. Its a 3 hour romp of debauchery without a narrative, unconcerned with rectitude and packed with unlikable, apathetic characters. As a result, I dislike the film and am apathetic to everything about it. The Hurt Locker had interesting aspects but never develops them. Instead, they're dropped as quickly as they occur. In addition, several elements of the Hurt Locker make absolutely no sense, especially of trained EOD soldiers.
Despite disliking Boyhood, it has interesting aspects including things I did and did not experience. The issue is the film stretches into 3 hours, adding in numerous boring/unnecessary scenes, subplots and elements that weaken the story/narrative, which plods. I believe Boyhood was liked by artsy-fartsy critics who like anything non-mainstream, yet it expresses little in comparison to Birdman, Gone Girl, The Imitation Game, Nightcrawler, Whiplash or Selma, which say so much more as films. They also say far more about humanity, society and where America is at as a nation (even the period films from the 40s-60s). You'll also find that Boyhood is less liked outside of the indie, hipster and critic crowds.