In 2002 director Richard Linklater cast then 7-year-old Ellar Coltrane as the lead in Boyhood, originally titled The Twelve Year Project. True to its name over the next twelve years Linklater would periodically assemble the same cast members to cover his main character’s transition from boy to adolescent to the cusp of adulthood, with Coltrane visibly aging in tandem with his character Mason. It was one of the most ambitious casting decisions ever made, requiring Linklater and his four principle cast members to commit to the film for over a decade. And it was all in service of creating the most realistic visual representation of boyhood onscreen.
In this regard the film is undoubtedly a success, accurately
portraying the dramatic ebbs and flows of Mason’s mostly average life. There is
no singular event during the course of Boyhood that is more or less important
than the next, no major formative or transformative moment. As most people will
know life often does not have the big, emotional climaxes that we see onscreen
and so in dedication to its cause neither does the film. Instead Boyhood is a
lengthy series of life events sometimes with little or no connection to each
other. Friendships, school, cultural milestones, first job and first love all
pass in a disconnected blur. And while this adds a true-to-life quality to the
film it also robs us of our ability to invest emotion into events that pass
like the tide.
This is especially true of the times when the film tries to
suggest the passage of time through the cultural and social changes occurring
around Mason. Throwing in our faces facets of early to late 2000s pop culture
like Britney Spears songs or Obama campaign posters in a way that feels
inorganic and frankly obnoxious. It’s a good way of identifying the individual
years but a good film blends visual exposition with story. For Mason these
events have no long term impact, they don’t provide him an opportunity to
reflect and thus display character and they certainly don’t help to shape his
character.
It’s notable that the one element which does impact on Mason
is also the one consistent element, his family. At the beginning of the film
Mason’s parents, played by Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette, are already separated,
with his father a deadbeat musician and his mother a twenty-something college
student. In many ways they date the film
far better than any cultural artefact as they represent the degree of arrested
development that Mason’s previous generation lived through. Both are sympathetic
and understandable but also are easily the architects of their own problems.
Mason’s mother Olivia remarries twice with varying results while his father
prolongs his adolescence until adopting a Christian life with a new wife and
child.
Before I move on I wanted to make a quick note on Olivia’s
second husband played by Marco Peralla. As with the cultural dating of the film
this character is such an over exaggerated element that’s it’s difficult to
remain immersed. This man screams arsehole in every scene he’s in, so much so
that it’s difficult to imagine anyone marrying him. It’s true that people do
marry and even stand by difficult people but you need to show why they would
stand by that person the shades of grey that attract us. This particularly
stands out as it’s one of the only times we see something powerfully dramatic
happen in Mason’s life. It feels like the film is trying to write away such a
potentially traumatic incident by suggesting that Mason’s stepfather is simply
a bad person through and through, whereas in life such incidents are far more
complicated.
Finally there is Mason’s sister Samantha who is initially
the closest thing the film has to an antagonist. Sam is initially presented as
an overachiever, good at sports and school and as a result is far better able
to compete for her father’s attention.
As she grows older she eventually starts to see the faults in both her
parents and is able to voice the frustrations that it seems Mason can’t.
However her role in the story, as well as other aspects of
her character begins to diminish which was actually a logistical problem.
Linklater cast his daughter in the role back in 2002 but over the years she
lost interest in the character. Eventually she regained her enthusiasm but it’s
likely this is the reason why she loses so much prominence in the second act. It’s a shame though
because it feels like there’s a far more compelling story in Samantha who
unlike Mason undergoes distinct character development throughout the film.
This is not to say that Mason never changes throughout the
course of Boyhood, it’s just that the changes are purely aesthetic. He begins
the film as a thoughtful, creative child marred by his own laziness and pretty
much ends the film the same way. What changes he does go through are the basic steps
of finding your own voice through trial and error; different looks, different,
friends, different girlfriends all until he finds what best suits who he is.
Mason is a very passive character, letting the waters of life flow over him and
shape him rather than deciding on his own course. It’s something that is true
of most of us but, well, just isn’t that compelling to watch.
Without any major change a film loses much of its structure
and that’s certainly the case with Boyhood. Very little of the film proceeds
with the kind of build-up of a conventional narrative but that’s not to say the
characters aren’t moving towards something. The film concludes with Mason’s
leaving home for college at which point his mother faces the culmination of her
life’s work complete. She’s moved home, become a teacher and built a better
life for herself and her children and all to be left alone. It’s a tragedy most
mothers face and is easily the most heartfelt and powerful moment in the film.
It only makes is sadder that I can’t give this film more
credit for having its one truly affecting moment after over two hours of set
up. Looking back on Linklater’s previous work, particularly the Before trilogy,
it does seem that he creates characters rarely intended to be distinct
individuals. Rather he uses experiences from real life to create a broad
archetype that represents a collective. So it makes sense that this doesn’t
resonate with me personally since Starfleet separated me from the collective
several years ago.
Boyhood has been gaining critical acclaim across the boards
but for me it was never something I could immerse myself in on an emotional
level. A long series of individual scenes which rarely provided anything major
to empathise over which may be true to life but did not make for a compelling
film.
