![\"\"](\"http:\/\/themacguffinmen.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/boyhood1.jpg\" "\\"boyhood1\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nAlex writes about Boyhood, why he hates people applauding at movies, modern film criticism, and the Roger Ebert doc Life Itself.<\/em><\/p>\n At the conclusion of my screening of Boyhood, the audience erupted into applause. Regardless of my feelings for Richard Linklater\u2019s twelve-year odyssey, I did not follow suit, because clapping at the movies is idiotic. It accomplishes nothing I desire accomplishing. In all situations, I would rather talk to one person about the movie than applaud with forty*. If the filmmakers are not present in the screening as the credits roll, you are applauding for nobody but yourself and those around you. You are merely informing the crowd that yes, you approve of this film. Richard Linklater was not present for this screening, nor Ellar Coltrane or Ethan Hawke, so my fellow moviegoers were clapping for each other. You were in the room with another approving voice, and you are congratulating each other on this mild accomplishment. \u201cNobody died mid-film, you guys, we did it,\u201d these hands are rapturously saying. This crowd wanted people to know they approved of Boyhood, because that is the way we must react to this film.<\/p>\n *In fairness, I have applauded a movie before, but that was mostly because I was profoundly high and the Backstreet Boys made a surprise appearance in the epilogue, precisely the combination of baffling elements that cause one to throw all logic out of the metaphorical window.<\/em><\/p>\n Every once in a while (and it happens more frequently each year, for reasons that have little to do with a rise in quality films), a film is reviewed in such a powerfully positive fashion that we have to love it unconditionally. Her was a good example of this last year, and for a smaller segment of society, The Immigrant had this cache a couple of months ago. There have always been classical examples of this, as anybody that has badmouthed Psycho in a public setting has learned, but the modern numbers seem to be growing expediently. Boyhood has garnered overwhelmingly positive reviews; it still stands at 99% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, and I suspect the vast majority of my audience was aware of this fact going in. We were at the first non-premium Toronto screening of the movie; we were the people most excited to see this movie, albeit the ones too poor or too late for the VIP version that started thirty minutes earlier. My audience for Boyhood didn\u2019t want to be left behind. They were clapping so that others knew that they liked the movie. They needed to slap their palms together, because this is what we must do now.<\/p>\n A few days later, I saw Life Itself, Steve James\u2019 new documentary about the life and final days of Roger Ebert. Applause was not a problem here. I was in the theatre with one other person, and if he applauded, it was after I sprinted out of the theatre to get to a meeting Ebert and James had collectively and unintentionally made me late for. The film was good, however; the looks at Ebert\u2019s final days were interesting, and there were thoroughly engrossing anecdotes about his earlier days as a film critic. The section about his relationship with Gene Siskel was particularly interesting, because it helped get to the bottom of the one thing that has defined Roger Ebert: a thumb raised in approval.<\/p>\n Roger Ebert was a very great film critic, and an exceptionally talented writer. I view these statements as inarguable, even when I have in the past tried to argue against them myself. As Life Itself documents, Ebert was a celebrity film critic in a way nobody else has been, and likely never will be again*. In concert with Siskel on their television show, Ebert made the most significant contribution to film criticism since the auteur theory; Siskel and Ebert used their thumbs to approve or disprove of a movie, and that idea became the most significant way to signal a movie\u2019s worth. They were America\u2019s most famous critics, because they were the critics on television, and they turned the common perception of criticism into something more like consumer advice. Ebert (and presumably Siskel as well) knew this was not the ideal method to get their thoughts on film across, that a more free-flowing, long-form discussion of a film would be more intelligent, but that the limitations of a half hour television show made this impossible**. Like all smart people who become more famous than they could have anticipated, Ebert\u2019s life\u2019s work was boiled down into the simplest distillation of his ideas possible. Life Itself goes to great lengths to show how Ebert helped the growth of film, from encouraging young directors to simply talking about certain small films enough that eventually people see them. But the one thing we will still all remember years from now is those damn thumbs.<\/p>\n *Quentin Tarantino is probably the closest thing we have now, and that guy can\u2019t even spell.<\/em> I hate Rotten Tomatoes, and I used to hate Siskel and Ebert for accidentally creating a world where its existence is the approved method of film criticism. With the thumbs up or thumbs down, we began looking at film criticism as a yay or nay proposition, the type of consumer advice that Life Itself proclaims Siskel & Ebert At the Movies was. A simple three-word phrase was desired for all film posters, and the conversation surrounding that didn\u2019t matter. For a time, if the digits pointed upward, your grosses often followed suit. But Life Itself reminded me why I actually watched At the Movies as a child, not for the approval or disproval so much as the actual arguing over it. This is a common process for one remembering the television show: the first thing one recalls is the rating system, but the more one thinks about the show, they invariably remember it as a show about passionate, cogent arguments. I suspect the only reason I ever screamed at my friend Gillan about the cinematic importance of Bad Boys II was because Siskel and Ebert told me that was an okay way to react to a film*. I\u2019m annoyed by applause because the pair made a version of applause popular, but they also taught a number of these applauders to talk about why afterward, so maybe it\u2019s a wash.<\/p>\n *Siskel had passed away by the time of its release, but Ebert hated Bad Boys II. The last sentence of his one-star review: \u201cEverybody involved in this project needs to do some community service.\u201d This review mostly makes me want to remake The Mighty Ducks with Michael Bay playing coach Gordon Bombay.<\/em><\/p>\n Alright. Back to Boyhood, the movie this thing used to allegedly be a review of. Contrary to my profound bitching about the approval process, I really liked this movie, because I really like the way Richard Linklater makes movies. The mere idea of the film is fascinating, and when you explain the film to others, the fact that it was filmed over twelve years never makes them less interested in seeing it. Almost every review of the film, including the few dissenting negative ones, mention this. Even if people don\u2019t like the result, the idea impresses them. But when you actually remove the concept from your head, the film works in the way most of Linklater\u2019s films work: it features people talking about real shit in interesting ways, and it gets one thinking about the core of human existence. And since it covers so many different aspects of one\u2019s life, both those of the youths and the adults, almost anybody can find a piece of themselves in the film. Be it from a fifteen year old casually discussing a suicide attempt, or a wispily mustachioed thirty five year old trying to make sure No No Song lives on, there\u2019s something for everybody emotionally. The film may be spotty at times and episodic throughout*, but there\u2019s always that concept to get you through the parts you don\u2019t love. Should the viewer become bored, they can always think about the part of their life most people love getting nostalgic about. Or if this viewer is a more logical, emotionless film lover, they can think about the impressive technical feat within the design of the filmmaking process. I have no qualms referring friends to this film like I sometimes do with Waking Life or the Before Sunrise series; everybody can put themselves in (at least) Mason Jr.\u2019s shoes, and fill in the gaps around that because (almost) everybody likes thinking about their own experiences as a youth in some way. This has allowed for a sudden critical re-appreciation of most of Linklater\u2019s work; the low-talking Texan was always well liked, but he has never been talked about more. Linklater\u2019s not just the auteur we sometimes forget to mention anymore, he\u2019s now the definitive auteur of time. Slacker is suddenly something we\u2019re talking about again, and it\u2019s all because of Ellar Coltrane.<\/p>\n *Albeit by design \u2013 in interviews, Linklater has taken to referring to each year as an episode.<\/em><\/p>\n When looking at Linklater\u2019s filmography, it\u2019s not hard to be impressed. Even aside from the aforementioned Slacker, a historically interesting movie (if not necessarily one that\u2019s enjoyable to watch in 2014), the undisputed almost-classic Dazed & Confused, Waking Life, School of Rock, and Bernie are all very good movies. Before Sunrise and Before Midnight are at least equally good, and Before Sunset is a stone cold masterpiece. Boyhood falls somewhere in between the first pile of movies and Before Sunset; it\u2019s really good, but it lacks something that makes me believe I will think about it every day over the next decade*. Linklater talks about the construction of Boyhood not necessarily as the ultimate coming of age film, but more as a construction of various moments that come together to create a whole. He wanted it to feel like a series of memories more than a constructed whole, and that\u2019s mostly true. When Mason Jr. is being driven away from his first home, seeing a friend bike after the family\u2019s car, it\u2019s not a clear shot of his friend; he\u2019s seeing him through tall blades of grass, watching him disappear as the station wagon rolls onto its next destination. This shot wasn\u2019t constructed so much as it was grabbed right before it disappeared.<\/p>\n *This is an admittedly hyperbolic review of Before Sunset, but only barely. That movie is tremendous.<\/em><\/p>\n If there\u2019s a problem I have with this film, it\u2019s that the ending lacks the power one might desire out of something that you have sunk so much (moviemaking and movie watching) time into. The idea of a movie ending with Mason Jr. talking about the moment seizing you, and how it\u2019s always right now, is much too corny for my taste. That he and his compadre Natalie are still at least partially stoned during this conversation is helpful to not be upset that the dialogue exists, but that it\u2019s the film\u2019s final point hurts Boyhood\u2019s overall feel. I\u2019m aware that we\u2019re supposed to imagine Mason sitting there on his first day of college, reflecting on everything that came before him, like all but this last scene is a memory, but I just can\u2019t handle it. The film had the graciousness to cut to black instead of fade (always preferred), and there was no freeze frame ending (which would have been unforgivable). We got no breaks in the chronology, and no flashes through Mason\u2019s early days to remind us where we once were. All of these were correct choices. But there was something missing.<\/p>\n I assume Roger Ebert would have loved Boyhood. The thumbs would have risen, and not only because he became a kinder reviewer as he aged. He always seemed to be into movies about growing up, and one of the more memorable reviews late in his career is about The Tree of Life, a similarly experimental look at the coming of age film. Roger Ebert enjoyed movies about growing up. There are some things that just stick with us, some things that will always appeal to us.<\/p>\n If my review mattered to Rotten Tomatoes, it would garner a positive rating. Ebert\u2019s presumed thumbs would too. So would any otherwise erroneous applause. But that would do Boyhood an unfortunate injustice, just like it would do for any great film. You don\u2019t merely say, \u201cI really loved this film.\u201d There must be a because<\/em> or you can\u2019t have truly loved it. I don\u2019t believe there is something as ethereal as just having liked or disliked something, wanted or not wanted to do something. That\u2019s for lazy people. You can trust your gut, but any non-idiot knows their gut is still a made up concept. Your stomach makes no decisions for you, unless you eat too many McNuggets.<\/p>\n Similarly to Ebert, I adore movies about people growing up, and I love few things more than generic teen movies. I will watch any movie about eighteen year olds, preferably those with a propensity to crack wise. I am more than willing to talk about films like the unseen The Myth of the American Sleepover for hours at a party, not unlike I will viciously insult your mother if you say anything negative about Can\u2019t Hardly Wait. Applying the idea of the Linklater style of conversation and time-based examinations found in Before Sunset to a (mostly) teen film was something that was always going to be profoundly appealing to me*, and Linklater made Boyhood live up to its promise. Boyhood feels like one of the better entries into a genre I am obsessed with. Like all good teen movies, it\u2019s enjoyable, sporadically funny, and makes one think about (at least) one element of their own life.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n**I have no doubt that, had he not lost his ability to speak before the popularization of the medium, Roger Ebert would have been the host of an unbeatably great film podcast.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n