What happened with Jim?
-
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 -
jgroub — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 05:50 PM)
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.
But it was not about the boy. It was not about Boyhood. There is no theme in his life. As I mentioned - which you quoted - he is not the prime mover in his own life. Now, I wouldn't really expect him or anyone to be at age 6 or 8 or maybe even 10. But it continues to be true as he gets older. And he is not even an interesting character. It is not worth moving through someone's life whose life is not worthy of moving through.
To me, this is similar to a TV show, The Good Wife. The central character is not an actor, but a reactor. She does not move things forward; she reacts to things happening around her. I watched the show for 7 seasons because I enjoyed the other characters on the show, but I despised the central character. She was a nothing.
Here, as you say, the other characters don't matter, because the movie is not about them, so there is not even that solace. We are left only with the boy. My point is that the boy just isn't interesting enough to carry the movie.
I put it to you: what is the theme of this movie? What is the message of this movie?
You go through great pains to call out my fleeting comparison of this movie to 2001, and call it strange that I would compare this one to that. That one had a message. That one had a theme. It was about the evolution of man; it was about the evolution of life. It was about artificial intelligence becoming human - or at least alive. What is the theme here? What did you take away from this movie?
Ultimately, this film is a gimmick, and that gimmick fails. Perhaps it could have succeeded with a better-written movie, with a more interesting central character, but this one fell flat on its face.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
jgroub — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 06:04 PM)
Even in 2001, if you don't care for the message of the movie, if you don't even get or understand the theme, it is visually stunning. The special effects are beyond belief, and have led to "Kubrick was behind the moon-landing" conspiracies for almost 50 years now. The movie is eminently watchable and rewatchable for that reason alone. This one? Not so much.
A more apt comparison may be to compare this movie to The 400 Blows, where it is a character study of a boy. You may like or dislike Doinel, but he is a character - a mover and shaper in his own life. He makes things happen, and you are left with, how did this boy become the boy he is - thieving, disrespectful, alienated. Although I'll admit there is a plot there, there needn't be. We are looking at a boy making his way in the world - or not.
All we are watching in Boyhood is some uninteresting actor growing up. We are never given any interior look into what drives him, why he does what he does, because not only does he not do very much, but even what he does do is left unresolved. Again, since there is no character study, since there is no plot, no story, no interest in secondary characters whatsoever, all we are left with at the end of the day is the gimmick.
And that is not enough.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 06:11 AM)
"We are never given any interior look into what drives him,"
Every moment of this film does that. His staying up late to overhear an argument between his mom and her boyfirend, the sudden return of his father, it all adds up. Not in order to develop a single line of though or instance of drama, but every scene is rich in detail often leading Mason to avoid unnecessary drama in his life.
The second his father mentions that having children so young was a mistake (in the bowling alley restaurant), he gets up from the table, saying he has to go to the bathroom. His father responds, knowingly, "you don't have to go to the bathroom." And Mason dutifully sits back down. And after Tammy leaves, Mason gives his father a look "Don't look at me like that," Mason gets this flush, embarrassed look on his face. Here is the scene:
What you seem to prefer is the obvious: Action A leads to Action B which leads to Action C. You so badly want this film to be like other films. All nice and tidy. I realize that avoidance behavior makes for far less obvious drama, but you seem to be taking your opposition to an extreme, completely denying what 100% of the critcs, the industry, and a huge, appreciative public finds so endearing about this film. -
jgroub — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 09:25 AM)
"Huge appreciate public"? WTF are you talking about?
This movie grossed $24 million in its initial release. It's right there on the front IMDb page of the movie. And even after Arquette won her Oscar, and they rereleased it back into theaters again, that number zoomed all the way on up to
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
$25 million. Amazing.
It was released to - oh. my. god. - a grand total of 771 screens. WOW! What a smash hit! So much bigger than all the other summer releases. And it was such a huge hit, seen by soooo many people that it must have been in the top 5 movies seen all year, right? No? Gotta be the top 10, then, right? Whoops! Okay, okay, the top 40 for 2014. Drat, wrong again!
This winner, this tremendous, enormous movie seen by a huge, appreciative public was the number 100 top grossing movie of the year. It was beaten out for the coveted 99 spot by that titanic hit, That Awkward Moment. Who can ever forget that one!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2014
As for your comment itself, my point is, I am utterly uninterested in any interior looks into this character, even if they were provided. He is boring. I don't care about him.
More to the point, I am not made to care about him. Why should I? Why is this kid compelling? Why is this kid worthy of having his life explored? Is he somehow different than other kids? Perhaps he's somehow better than other kids. No?
Look at Doinel in The 400 Blows. At least there is an author of his own life. At least there is a character worthy of study, someone who actually is different, someone who does have a story to tell about himself.
Even in that 4 minute scene you posted, he is the subject of the camera for a grand total of about 10 seconds. What is compelling about Mason here? What makes him worthy of exploration here? We don't even see him! What, because he gets up when his dad is about to give him the sex talk? Wow, that's really pushing new boundaries in film right there.
Even Tammy gets three times more screen time than that in that scene. That scene isn't even about him. And that's my point. If you're going to have a scene in the movie that isn't about the main subject, if you're going to introduce a character into a movie and give that character more screen time than the supposed main subject of the movie, then you have to follow that newly introduced character. Whatever did happen to Tammy? We'll never know. And you could care less.
All this movie is is people floating in and out of this uncompelling kid's life with no resolution, with no discussion of these people. Big whoop. That's not compelling. That's not worthy. And we come right back to the gimmick.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 08:36 PM)
I never said it was a smash hit. Obviously a serious Slice of Life movie is never going to garner a lot of box office. But it does get an 81% audience approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which tells me that you are, again, left out in the cold.
-
jgroub — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 09:21 PM)
Dude, I don't know what your fascination is with me. We already discussed the movie months ago, and now you want to discuss it some more? We've already established our respective positions on the movie. No need to continue to do so.
But you just go right on forming your opinions based on the opinions of others. I'll keep forming my opinions myself, thanks.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 9 years ago(June 14, 2016 07:43 PM)
No fascinaton with you, my opinion is based on the power of this rather unlikely movie which is decidedly different and breaks down the pre-conceived expectations of the audience. For those who are okay with a movie that breaks the mold, it is a rewarding experience.
You keep on wanting it to be like other movies, which it is not. -
the_only_gendo — 9 years ago(August 29, 2016 07:16 AM)
So was it meant to be clear that Jim and the mom got divorced? I was a bit confused by that; aside from the one lecture he gave Mason when he got home late, I hadn't noticed anything bad about him that would put him in the "parade of drunken beep that Mason mentions near the end.
As for what happened to the step-siblings, on one had yeah, it's irritating to not know. On the other hand, I think it makes perfect sense that we don't know, because Mason doesn't know. The film is meant to make us experience what Mason experiences throughout. And often times in life, there are people you are close to as a kid that you lose contact with, and even though they were an important part of your life, you don't keep track of them as you grow older. -
palisade-1 — 9 years ago(August 29, 2016 08:03 AM)
So was it meant to be clear that Jim and the mom got divorced? I was a bit confused by that; aside from the one lecture he gave Mason when he got home late, I hadn't noticed anything bad about him that would put him in the "parade of drunken beep that Mason mentions near the end.
You could easily miss the details in the script the first time through, but the movie makes it clear that Jim and the mom were not married, they were common law partners and bought the house together. Olivia tells Mason in a scene shortly after Jim's disappearance that she is financially straightened due to having had to pay Jim his share of the house. Near the end, she talks about her life milestones, and lists her two marriages and two divorces. She was married to Mason Sr. and Bill the professor, so she did not actually marry Jim.
I found Jim a somewhat sympathetic character, since his psychological struggles were due to his war experiences, but that these led to a failed relationship was quite realistic. Olivia seemed to have a pattern of (probably subconsciously) selecting men who "needed" her to "save" them but this is a sure-fire path to failure.