What happened with Jim?
-
jgroub — 9 years ago(December 16, 2016 10:21 PM)
Took you four days to think up that one? Man, you really got me there. Wow. Your superior intellect is just destroying me. Your mother must be so proud.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
jgroub — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 10:22 AM)
And once again, you can't resist the urge to throw in another dig. Perhaps you should seek medical attention for that. I'm sure there are a number of experienced psychological professionals working in your area.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 08:57 PM)
If you are asking what became of Jim after he was no longer on the scene, then that is a completely different story. Lots of films don't say what happened to people after the film is over!
The fact is that Jim was an important character for only a brief part of the film, and I realized how he was becoming isolated from the rest of the family. For me, it was completely expected that they split up.
Anyway, everyone already acknowledges that the film is unconventional, so your need for every film ever made to adhere to narrow standards of storytelling shows how little you've been exposed to true creativity and does not reflect poorly on the film. -
jgroub — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 09:20 PM)
I've been exposed to plenty of so-called creativity in my life, thank you very much. And unconventional isn't enough. A gimmick is still a gimmick. The film still has to be good. This one wasn't.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
jgroub — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 05:51 PM)
Apparently, you missed the rest of the thread where I provided half a dozen examples where the director decided not to complete plot points that he decided to start.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 07:49 PM)
Yes, that's the point. I realize that there are many characters who are very briefly important in their lives, but the story moves on from them because the film is clearly not about them. I knew that going into all those scenes, and it made perfect sense to me that we no longer heard form them because I picked up on the very obvious clues.
If you want to know what I think is so great about the film, then here it is:
http://www.imdb.com/board/11065073/board/thread/240989390 -
jgroub — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 10:53 PM)
Well, okay, I've read it. You describe it as "relating to the film." I think that is unfair. I don't have to relate to 2001 or to Gravity to like the films. I'm not an astronaut. I don't have to relate to Saving Private Ryan or The Magnificent Seven to like them. I've never handled a gun, been a soldier, or been a cowboy.
One way a movie can succeed in its goal is to tell a coherent story from start to finish. In its absolute simplest terms, this one doesn't. The story is incredibly incoherent, as I've said earlier in this thread.
One other way a movie can achieve its goal is to provide us with a character study. I don't see that this movie did this for the central character. As someone in that other post mentioned, it seems more like he reacted to stuff going on around them rather than acting to cause them in the first place - he was not the central mover of his own life.
The comparison was also made to Truffaut's The 400 Blows. At least there, we see some evolution of the character in terms of his taking action to do something in his life. I don't see that happening here.
And finally you make a point about how all the critics are on board loving this film, somehow having "gotten it." Let me point out a counterexample: Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. My entire life, I've been interested in astronomy. I've read dozens of books on the subject, I've taken college courses, I've watched shows, documentaries, both Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson's versions of Cosmos, I've owned telescopes, I've read countless websites on the subject. You could say that I am well-versed in the subject.
A Brief History of Time was a terrible book. Poorly written. Poorly structured. I am telling you, from someone who is steeped in the lingo, Completely incomprehensible.
Then why, oh why, did it ever get such accolades from innumerable critics? Because one critic saw the handicapped dude on the cover, checked into his life, and was astonished that someone like that could write a book, let alone write a book about the origins of the universe. And that guy gave the book a stellar review, describing how amazing the explanation of the start of everything is.
Well, no critic is going to admit that they're the only one who "doesn't get it." They all jump on the bandwagon. They all praise something they know absolutely nothing about, so as not to be pointed to as being "the stupid critic". Sound familiar?
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 10:52 PM)
I think you should look up the word coherent before you use it.
Boyhood is about one boy's life between grades 1 through 12. It is a whole. And it is consistent. It consistently leaves characters as they are no longer part of his life. And it is logical as it moves forward in time showing each of those grades.
I already explained the development of the character, and I referred to the critcs, the industry, and the public because all three of those groups found everything you (and a small handful of internet dwellers) didn't. I notice you didn't really speak of the specific points I mentioned in paragraphs 2-5.
Clearly you didn't relate to the movie or you would have found those things too.
You also have a very limited sense of what movies (and perhaps other forms of art) can include. I do not think a main character has to be the central mover of events. I feel fortunate to live in a world where artists do not feel all the constraints you would impose on them.
As far as your ideas on about astronomy books, I could care less. They may or not may not be decent examples of your point.
As far as critics always being in agreement, that is patently untrue. Movies almost never receive the unanimous praise that Boyhood got. -
Madhaxman — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 05:00 PM)
Its kind of strange that you complain about Boyhood leaving things hanging, and then you bring up 2001 in a later post as a positive example. It builds up Dr Floyd as the lead character, then completely leaves him behind about half and hour into his segment while he is trying to block the noise from his ears. And then there is the climax which the film doesn't even try to explain, and the finale, which just leaves us hanging with ascended Bowman looking down on the earth with no hint of his intention and the outcome of his return.
I'm not saying that 2001 is a bad movie, or that the lack of explanations is a bad thing. Sometimes the lack of an explanation or a follow up is much more powerful than dealing with some form of resolution. It can be used to emphasis tension, like in the case of Masons two step siblings, where we are left with a greater ease with no explanation or follow up as to what happened. It can be used to emphasis mystique and allure, like the brief case in Pulp Fiction. It can be used ton convey a sense of horror and feelings of insignificance like the final act of 2001: Space Odyssey. Or it can emphasis a character or a plots insignificance.
One way a movie can succeed in its goal is to tell a coherent story from start to finish. In its absolute simplest terms, this one doesn't. The story is incredibly incoherent, as I've said earlier in this thread.
One other way a movie can achieve its goal is to provide us with a character study. I don't see that this movie did this for the central character. As someone in that other post mentioned, it seems more like he reacted to stuff going on around them rather than acting to cause them in the first place - he was not the central mover of his own life.
Film can also do much more than those. You've listed the two most basic and simple goals used in cinema (which are the goals pretty much every decent budget film tries to). But film be much, much more, and limiting your definition of how a film is successful leaves out some of the most powerful example of cinema. Film can be used to explore complex and hard to understand idea (2001), can be used as a breath taking example of protest (This is not a film), can be used to share a passion (Fantasia and music), bring up important topics to the public eye (Shoah, Once were warriors), or just used to explore and install into its audience powerful feelings. Boyhood is less about plot or character study and more just about time. Its a power reflection of time, how it effects us and our relationships and our view of the world. In much the same that Slacker was about how we percieve and move through a day, Boyhood was about how we perviece and move through time. That's what makes the comment below really, really, really, really stupid
Linklater had plenty of time to explore whatever issues he chose to explore, and then to resolve them. He chose not to. He decided to screw over the audience. That is sh!tty storytelling.
I will make this as simple as possible. By leaving these threads unresolved, the film was exploring its core theme. We don't need to see Dr Floyd recovering from the Monoliths signal, because 2001 isn't about Dr Floyd. Much like we don't need to see exactly what happened to these minor characters because THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FILM WAS ABOUT