Would the rating be this high if it weren't for the gimmick?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Boyhood
BeOneOfUs — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 07:14 AM)
Let's say the film took a normal amount of time to make (A year or so)
and it had a different actor playing the older versions of their characters.
(For the kids at least)
Would this film be so highly praised?
Of course not lol. -
shelemm — 9 years ago(July 24, 2016 05:06 AM)
Using different actors to portray the kids growing up at various stages would almost surely change how the audience perceives the movie. It could have been a great movie anyway, but it would be a different movie.
Is there another movie which films the same child growing up, year after year, for many years that used different actors? That would be a test for how effective that choice would be. -
henrimaine — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 07:59 PM)
I enjoyed the movie. And I admit that my perception of the movie was definitely influenced by the "gimmick" (the movie being shot over such along time). It added a whole new perspective to the movie. Being shot in "real time", so to speak, it was truly possible to the experience the characters' life passing. A typical film-making (with different actors playing the same character) would not have been able to produce such an effect.
And to answer your question: would the movie be so highly praised without the unusual shooting schedule? No it wouldn't. But so what? The shooting schedule is an integral part of this movie. You cannot take it away. -
ChristianWoolf — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 05:57 AM)
You can't get rid of the gimmick cause the gimmick is the movie. It wouldn't be a movie without the gimmick. That was the point, making a movie over 12 years to see the way the characters grow/change/evolve. That's the point of it all. It's a successful experiment. It's a masterpiece actually.
Feel your heart beat.