What happened with Jim?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Boyhood
jgroub — 10 years ago(March 03, 2016 03:16 PM)
So the kid gets back from partying very late one night, he gives the kid a completely appropriate and restrained talking to with a beer in his hand, and next thing we know, he's gone?
No explanation. No resolution. That's just poor story telling.
This movie is one long gimmick. And Patricia Arquette didn't deserve to win anything.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 10 years ago(March 05, 2016 03:51 PM)
The movie was leading up to the idea that things were not going well between Jim and the rest of the family. I guess you didn't pick up on those clues, but I saw it pretty clearly. The movie didn't have to come out and say it.
-
jgroub — 10 years ago(March 05, 2016 04:02 PM)
No, that's my exact point. It did. Otherwise the story-telling is incomplete.
The entire point is that the whole film leaves us hanging. And it keeps on leaving us hanging, every 15 minutes. This film is almost 3 hours long. 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.
What happened with the step siblings?
We'll never know. Let's just move on.
What happened with that girl on the bike and that party she invited him to?
We'll never know. Let's just move on.
What happened with his mom and Jim?
We'll never know. Let's just move on.
What happened with the dad's redheaded girlfriend?
We'll never know. Let's just move on.
What happened with the dad marrying the woman from the obviously religious and right-wing family, when he is a confirmed leftist?
We'll never know. Let's just move on.
What happened with Sheena?
We'll never know. Let's just move on.
Frankly, if I ever meet Linklater, I'll tell him to go f@ck himself. And then I'll move on.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
Ian_Rhethy — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 01:19 PM)
What happened? Life.
Sometimes I wonder about what happened to my childhood friend after my family and I moved out of the city I grew up in. Tried looking her up on Facebook, LinkedIn, everything but nothing came up. What happened to her? I'll never know.
That's just life. -
jgroub — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 01:53 PM)
And that's real life, not movies. Generally speaking, good movies tell a story that is complete and is resolved. When they don't, then they're not good movies.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
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.