Since we're in the middle of fixing up an old house and moving, we went light on our 5-year anniversary celebrations. We saw an indie film at this swank downtown theater with leather seats and beer selections, then had gelato afterwards. Since we go to the theater about twice a year, this activity certainly fell into the treat category.
 |
| http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/ |
The film we saw was Boyhood. The critics all love it and it has a 99% rating on rotten tomatoes, which, according to our friend Blake, is rare. The film is causing waves because it was filmed over the course of 12 years using the same actor. Thus we see a physical transformation as well as a supposed character transformation as he move through boyhood to adulthood. According to the synopsis "Snapshots of adolescence from road trips and family dinners to birthdays and graduations and all the moments in between become transcendent."
My critique of the movie is forthcoming. But the movie made me realize I didn't understand boys half as much as I thought I did. The idea of raising a boy was suddenly intimidating. Naturally, Matt connected with the boy in the movie more than I did, so I'm gratefully aware of the blessing it is to have him here raising our child with me. I smiled this morning when he spoke of the puppy he's decided to get. According to him, "Boys need puppies!" I'm not sure if he's talking about the boy inside of himself or the boy inside of me :p
The movie is long, almost three hours in length, and really is just one snapshot after another. The problem is these snapshots don't actually become transcendent. In the novelty of quantity, the film sacrifices quality. It isn't just a gender gap prompting my response. The most interesting character in the whole movie turns out to be the father, not the boy. He is far more relate able as he struggles to be an adult without losing his sense of self. His struggle with trying to be a good father, trying to keep connected to his children, trying to save them from the same mistakes he made, trying to instill in them his values, all the while trying to be true to himself is honest, funny, and refreshing. In many ways, he is the character you see actually growing up. The boy, on the other hand, goes through tough things but you don't see the struggle. He, briefly and somewhat shallowly, struggles with what to do with himself, but doesn't really struggle to understand who his own self actually is. You don't really know the emotions he has about the crisis points in his life, you don't really see much of his internal growing. You see his body change, popcorn some platitudes about the meaning of life and move on to the next snapshot.
If we could get inside the boy's heart and head then perhaps we could connect. As it is, we're asked to connect to him by virtue of connecting to the situations he lived through, instead of having access to his person-hood. But that's a lot to ask from an audience after three hours of snapshots. The film ends up being somewhat interesting but inherently dissatisfying.
The movie is long, almost three hours in length, and really is just one snapshot after another. The problem is these snapshots don't actually become transcendent. In the novelty of quantity, the film sacrifices quality. It isn't just a gender gap prompting my response. The most interesting character in the whole movie turns out to be the father, not the boy. He is far more relate able as he struggles to be an adult without losing his sense of self. His struggle with trying to be a good father, trying to keep connected to his children, trying to save them from the same mistakes he made, trying to instill in them his values, all the while trying to be true to himself is honest, funny, and refreshing. In many ways, he is the character you see actually growing up. The boy, on the other hand, goes through tough things but you don't see the struggle. He, briefly and somewhat shallowly, struggles with what to do with himself, but doesn't really struggle to understand who his own self actually is. You don't really know the emotions he has about the crisis points in his life, you don't really see much of his internal growing. You see his body change, popcorn some platitudes about the meaning of life and move on to the next snapshot.
In some sense even the mother has more character development than the boy as she moves from striving and accomplishment to pathetic depression. Her character actually devolves. Without Christ, the most meaning you can derive from life is in relationships and accomplishment. She has both, but at the end, when her son is walking out to college, she weeps about how she though there would be more. Really? How can you look at the child you raised into adulthood and cry to him that the relationship wasn't meaningful enough? Harsh. And utterly selfish. The sister is almost like a wall-hanging. I'm not sure why she was even in this movie. She doesn't seem to affect the boy or who he is or what he becomes in anyway [not that he even really 'becomes']. Her character is basically passionless, caring about nothing at all. If anything, she serves as a contrast to make us realize the boy could be even more uninteresting than he already is.
If we could get inside the boy's heart and head then perhaps we could connect. As it is, we're asked to connect to him by virtue of connecting to the situations he lived through, instead of having access to his person-hood. But that's a lot to ask from an audience after three hours of snapshots. The film ends up being somewhat interesting but inherently dissatisfying.
No comments:
Post a Comment