Once upon a time, I discovered this director, watching his film Before Dawn, which, despite its external simplicity and unpretentiousness, or perhaps precisely because of this, made an extremely favorable impression on me, and I was happy to watch the sequels - Before Dawn and Before Midnight. Already shooting these films, Linklater applied his technique - he shot them at the same time intervals that pass between the meetings of the main characters in the films and the director did not have to resort to age makeup - the actors grew up with the characters and changed themselves, which the author played with pleasure. In the movie "Boyhood" the same technique worked even more interestingly - he shot the film for 12 years with the same actors and here it is manifested even more clearly. At first, the main characters are children and young people, at the end they are quite adult young people and their mature parents. The reception is interesting, requiring from the director and actors a certain patience, determination and unanimity. They showed it, and we can see this process of growing up from the outside, noting the successes and mistakes of both parents and children. Everything, as always with Linklater, is shown very simply, without savoring the details beloved by the current authors (such as manifestation of sexuality, intoxication with bad inclinations, etc.), and this is what he really likes. We already know about it and we don’t need to chew on it, let’s guess, because it’s about the life we all live, making the same or similar mistakes, achieving the same or similar successes, experiencing the same or some of our disappointments. The director respects the viewer and does not hold him for an idiot. It should be noted that, as far as I can tell, the film is very American, but not as an agitation, but simply as a reflection of their lives, and I watch it with interest. It’s a simple and clever filmmaker that I recommend watching.
You know, maybe it's age, maybe it's some life experience and a broader perspective on life itself, but lately, movies like this have made me think the most. As most negative reviews rightly point out, nothing happens in the film, or, more accurately, nothing extraordinary happens, all of the things that cinema has taught us to do. But as well as some extraordinary story, cinema can be an experience that just needs to be experienced. And in the movie “Boyhood” Richard Linklater offers us to experience the usual story of growing up of an ordinary American boy from an absolutely average family. And from this point of view, the main feature of the film, namely the shooting of real maturing and aging actors, give some additional level of the viewer’s presence in the history of the life of the heroes of the film. Especially personally, it gave me a clear understanding of the state of the mother of the hero and his sister.
At the beginning of the film, it's a really young woman who's grown old by the end of the film and sent the kids on free-floating, as if saying goodbye to some of the meaning of her life. Honestly, I don’t think that my review has any effect on anyone’s perception of this particular film, because most people think that they understand other people without looking at themselves, and personally this film caused me to remember my life again, to remember the events and decisions that shaped me, to think about what I could have done differently, and that it was not in my power to change how my decisions and words affected other people.
From a technical point of view, the film was made perfectly. Perhaps without any frills, but here they seem to be unnecessary. All the actors played perfectly, I can not even single out anyone separately.
To sum up, I’m not going to say that this film is a masterpiece, I think this is a case where its “masterpiece” is very subjective, but I can say that the choice of the director to show the real maturity of people was the right decision. I’m not sure the movie had the same effect.
If I had seen this movie when I was 18, I probably wouldn’t have liked it. I probably wouldn’t even watch it until the end. You need to watch this movie when you’re over 40 or so. And it is better to watch alone, with free time. If you want to watch something funny or just entertaining, look for something else. A film about the life and growing up of an American teenager - so it is written in the description of the film. But, in fact, it is a film in which, if you want, you can see your own life as in a mirror. I don’t pretend to be objective, but for me personally, this film is philosophical and very personal.
Richard Linklater is an independent director, a favorite of the Berlin Film Festival audience, in 2014 releases an experimental drama, on which he took about 11 years to work. What could have been done in such a long time? Let's try to isolate the idea of the author.
Throughout the film, we watch Mason’s boy grow and change with his family. The older annoying sister, mother and father are divorced, eternal moving - in general, a typical American family, nothing remarkable.
"Adolescence" at first glance, the complete opposite of the trilogy "Before Dawn", "Before Sunset", "Before Midnight", , but still, in our opinion, a certain part of the concept was preserved when the same actors play in the three films of the main characters, Linklater puts the basis of "Youth".
Shooting took place several days once a year and thanks to the editing gluing, we can watch the changes of the characters, for growing up: teenage rebelliousness, hormonal bursts in puberty. But all this is not as exciting to the director as the very process of life: where some dream about ' adult freedom', others regret missed moments. This is what makes Mason talk to his mom while transporting his things to the car to go to his debut school year in college. On the one hand, teenagers with their vision of freedom, on the other, adults with the reality that affected them: marriage, the birth of children, divorce. 'I hoped for more'- quietly indignates Olivia. As a result, we come to the conclusion: we do not catch the moment, but the moment we are a kind of constant of our life.
Inspiration film Time moves inexorably forward, enjoy every moment that comes down on you.
'If you want someone to like you, stand out, bring something new to the world' Once again, the director confirms the words from his film. For him, time is the moments where he takes the maximum from each. So do not miss the chance to live a bright life.
“My life just goes away. Stage pro stage. Do you know what and then what? My "fucking funeral."
The story spans 12 years and covers all stages of Mason’s growing up. The rise and fall of his family, constant moves, relationships with relatives and peers - a life puzzle, composed of dozens of small episodes.
Every viewer knows the uncomfortable feeling when barely similar people play on the screen of the same character at different periods of time. If we are talking about Doctor Who, then there are no questions, in other cases the mode of forced self-deception is included. With "Boyhood" such dissonance can not arise. Director Richard Linklater conducted an amazing film experiment, taking up the project in 2002 and completing it only in 2013. And the shooting itself for all this time took only 45 days. For more than two and a half hours, the main character Mason right before his eyes turns from a junior to a student.
The metamorphoses of the characters are fascinating – attention is focused on each new scene, reminding of the inexorable passage of time. However, behind the screen of a chic idea, the plot component is suddenly lost, since without time-scale tinsel, the film is the most averaged melodrama without any highlight. The plot simply has nothing to offer because of its literally documentary meticulousness about a completely ordinary family. The story does not catch everyday tragedy, and the problems of the characters are sometimes simplified to naive: someone grows up, someone ages. Outbreaks of acute family drama in the huge timekeeping are barely perceptible. If we admit the intentional absence of obvious conflicts and the inertia of the main character in favor of contemplation, then it came out with varying success, since mediativity in the manner of the same “Tree of Life”. Malika didn't make it.
What Linklater didn't miss was with the cast. In addition to the children, who looked quite organic, the main burden fell on the shoulders of wonderful Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke. To embody such complex images of divorced parents is a professionalism that many people should learn. Characters create a sense of maximum realism, and their changes due to the passage of time add a special atmosphere.
“Adolescence” with all its minuses is charming even in its simplicity and deserves attention for the colossal tenacity of those involved in its creation. There is no “magic of cinema” as such because of the excessive naturalness of images, but there is fertile ground for independent reflection on life’s landmarks. Family, love and the ability to value time will definitely be a priority.
7 out of 10
I’ve been missing a movie for years that’s so good it’s fun to watch.
"Adolescence" is a great long-term, with a plot covering the 12-year period of the life of one teenage boy.
It has no idea, no problem, no idea. It's just life. The life we know and live.
The young life of the boy carries the hidden essence of philosophy in several of its forms: research, knowledge of true existence, happiness and other things, for which one must value life.
12 years of filming add a special realism to the film, which Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman does not have, but this does not make Scorsese’s film bad, but vice versa also good.
“Adolescence” is a small episode in the life of each of us, which is pleasant to remember.
8 out of 10
“Adolescence” is the legendary long-term construction of Linklater, stretching for twelve years, a picture that, being devoid of acute conflict, could come out boring and politically correct, however, as a result, we are dealing with a tape of outstanding artistic merits. So what is so exciting about "Adolescence"? First of all, the captured duration, a long period of time during which some characters grow up and mature, and others grow old, while this duration is presented naturally, without typical movie credits (“five years have passed”, “ten years”), the episodes are soldered tightly, without lacunae and pauses, while we see firsthand how the characters change.
One of the reviewers said that “Adolescence” is an observation, not a story, apparently referring to the absence of obvious twists, climaxes, denouements, generally dramatic nerve. And he's right. But instead of the concentrated drama of life’s conflicts, which art loves to show, we see the natural flow of life and time, that hidden vitality of the world, its deep, hidden essence, which always shuns some acute events. What we call routine or the magma of everyday life, however, is served without the stupefying everyday grayness.
Without violence and sex scenes, even almost without profanity (his characters scratch their tongues dirty only once – at a teenage party), Linklater wanted to show the typical life of the American outback, without ideological criticism, scolding and denunciation. He did not want to scold anyone, but to tell you that life, despite the leapfrog of presidents and governments, hybrid wars and social crimes of power, remains essentially unchanged. You can, of course, scold “Boyhood” for the fact that this is a problem-free and conflict-free film, however, there is still no complete silence and smoothness in it: divorced parents of heroes are swearing, they are annoying the drinking stepfathers-losers, they are bullied at school for shyness and good study.
But all this does not violate the deep constant of life, its wise calm, which Linklater’s film should capture. In "Adolescence" there is a kind of planetary coverage of life processes, almost like Ozu: children grow up and leave their parents, for the first - it's joy, for the second - bitterness. Deeply revealed, peeped from life, characters and situations in which there is not an ounce of artificiality or lies, harmonious, without breaking and tearing personality, quietly growing in the midst of only an externally changing life, no special tragedies and dramas, just people of millions – probably, God sees our life in His immutability.
We used to think that ordinary, ordinary people are a herd, Nietzschean ethics so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of man of the twentieth century, but often it is on them, and not on the titans of culture, who more often shake the world than create it, it is on them that the universe rests. “The meek will inherit the earth” – these gospel words about the fact that it is imperceptible, simple, harmless hearts that inhabit the earth, it is to them that it is promised for indifference and patience.
The film is really simple and incredibly warm, unlike the popular opinion that it captures the American mentality in all its social indifference and superficiality, this film is still not about the United States, it is almost not nationally colored. It is only about the people who inhabit the earth, about their standard life, which is the Norm in its very essence. Linklater miraculously refrained from turning his film into another tolerant parable about socially stigmatized minorities, for his characters are egregiously normal (as our era of legitimizing perversions generally appreciated, surprisingly, the film was nominated for an Oscar).
In this sense, Linklater’s film goes against modern trends, as well as all his work, sometimes so average, not outstanding, normal, capturing life in its routine. However, Linklater’s cinematography, surprisingly, never criticizes everyday life, but examines it in a microscope. And even if it is not always successful (after all, the aesthetic victories of this director have only two – this is “The Awakening of Life” and “Adolescence”), still Linklater, no matter how diverse his films are, asserts the humanity of life, its “beautifulness” (as the writer Evgeny Popov, who wrote the book with the same name), and to think of life by means of art not only as suffering, tragedy and pain, few are capable, the more valuable are such exceptions to the outdated rules as Richard Linklater.
I will make a reservation: I did not know that this “cinema” was made for 12 years when I watched it, so the impression was without a WEA effect, hence the assessment.
At the heart of any story should, as in a real burger of a cutlet, lie drama. Now, you can't just say, "Growing up is drama." It won't work. That's the kind of patient we're dissecting. In the 40th minute, I really asked myself, ‘What should I watch?’ And it is not, in the literal sense of the word - there is no drama in adulthood, there is no drama in moments, and, sometimes, nevertheless, I empathized, but not with the main characters - children, but with the mother, whose decisions and consequences we only saw. The movie is over, and I don’t even remember the name of the boy, the main character, is he so gray, or is this his character? Controversially... Plus, there are just a bunch of moments when the drama has already begun to be born, and the director forgets about the situation? Such moments are full in this tape, which makes it more like random flashbacks than conscious narrative.
I would spoiler, but there's nothing to spoil! We are just shown how they walk and give replicas, where they are taken, then they go again, do something and so for almost three hours, but in all their actions there is no sense, because they are not interesting to follow, although there is nothing to follow, in general.
Perhaps for the American audience it will be a movie for nostalgia, but, alas, in our country people grow up differently, so for our viewer: it’s just past the goal, maybe that’s why I didn’t get into it. But again, everyone has a childhood, if you try to remember it, filled with stories, stories, Karl! Stories begin with something and end with something. But the director seems to have a different opinion. As a result, I can’t even make a discount on the fact that I didn’t live in America, to feel the experiences of the heroes, because they are not the only ones. Nope.
And I want, all the same, to lower the guillotine - 12 years, it took so much to make an uninteresting movie, so uninteresting that these 12 years do not do him honor, but rather on the contrary - tighten the noose around his neck.
It’s hard to criticize something you’re just bewildered by: ‘No, it’s a serious movie without drama?’ ?
I know I'm 4 years late, and that every first one will miss my review, but I'm just overwhelmed by what I'm seeing.
Let’s start with the fact that the picture was shot for twenty years. The very idea of showing the growing up of a little boy into an independent guy and the aging of parents just blows the brain. In the face of the same actors. Isn't that brilliant?
The next thing I want to say is dialogue. As one good source puts it, “the script was being rewritten year after year,” and it was all there. For example, a father sooner or later will tell children about sex and how to avoid the appearance of children, or how one day a young man will break up with a girl and will feel some resentment for it. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The work of the director is simply beyond measure. I mean such "long-term" comes to mind only "Adolescence" and "Viking" (but as you know, our movie to put it mildly bad and after watching there is a feeling that we are somewhere cheated, saying about seven years of filming). Surely, when working directly on the film, Linklator recalled stories from the upbringing of his children.
And the most, the most, to me - the acting. What a performance was given by the unique Patricia Arquette and the brilliant Ethan Hawke. Looking at her, you believe her character that she is a single mother trying to find her female happiness and raise children. Watching the character of Ethan, you notice his transition from a dissolute man to a caring father. And the boy did not fail, although he just lived his life again.
“Boyhood” is one of the best films in the history of cinema. I think all the good guys should see it. The movie is simple, vital and damn warm. A mandatory recommendation to watch this movie.
And if you have read this article to the end, call Mom, is it difficult?
10 out of 10
“Adolescence” structurally reflects its name – we seem to really break into the period of the life of one particular person, and just as suddenly and abruptly say goodbye to him.
We are told little about the hero’s deep feelings, the film is perceived as an easy philosophy of life, if there is such a term. After a little analysis, I came to the conclusion that the word “life” in relation to this picture is better not to use, it would be more correct to say that these are the memories of a teenager’s boyfriend about the key moments of his adolescence, about his parents, sister and all the people close to him. For a "life" film, there is not enough drama, but this does not mean that it is necessary there in principle. That was not the idea.
Unhurried narration does not seem monotonous at all, it just allows you to think, remember something hidden, feel the atmosphere. (Yes, the epithet “atmospheric” fits this film more than ever.) The impression of the film is similar to the impression of watching a home video archive - nostalgia, a pleasant awareness of the past.
The final phrase as the apogee of the entire 3-hour chronicle is “the moment is always now”. Memories consist of moments and fragments, they are often vague and a little abstract, but this is exactly what remains of the whole range of experienced and lived feelings.
10 out of 10
There’s one key reason to spend more than two and a half hours on this movie: TIME. It was not spent on viewing, but on creating this picture. The work on “Boyhood” was a long 12 years (!!) from 2002 to 2014, while the main characters of the film (two children, their mother Olivia, her ex-husband, etc.) play the same actors, which makes this picture unique. This is the story of the life of Mason (played by Allar Coltrane) - his childhood and youth. Mason’s growing up takes place in a series of constantly changing drunken husbands Olivia – Mason’s mother, who was brilliantly played by Patricia Arquette (Oscar for Best Supporting Actress) – frequent and forced moves, new acquaintances and loves. First drugs, first alcohol and more. The film could be called a reminder film. A reminder that the time of youth is a time when you have many opportunities and paths, when you experience a full bouquet of emotions and moments, successes, failures and much more. But, as Mason’s father (the inimitable Ethan Hawke) said, it’s important not to stop feeling life until your “skin” is coarse and absorbs everything from it. It seems that it is the events that he experienced, in the environment of which ' brewed ' Mason, and formed in him this core, which he stood out, a different view (mature beyond his years) on life, and subsequently a talent for photography. Very interesting is the presentation of the film in the form of an animated photo album from the life of Mason, the director here tries to draw a parallel with the passion of the hero for photography. When watching the film, you involuntarily recall events from your childhood, as if you plunged into the “While of Memory” or revisiting your old photo album and one of the factors of this perception is the absence of any signatures on the likeness & #39;2 years later & #39; etc., a subtle but spectacular technique that fit perfectly into this film. This film is a reminder that this very moment is always now, but this message does not lie on the surface and it is not obvious to everyone. Yes, the film is long, yes, not perfect, the performance of some actors at the middle level, but it is definitely worth watching. Surely everyone will find something useful and interesting for themselves. Enjoy your visit.
Watching the movie for the first time didn’t really impress me, but after a while, I had a wild desire to watch it. It grew every day, I felt some nostalgia for the tape.
This is perhaps one of the director’s most personal films. Those thoughts that Mason Sr. puts in his children, Linklater himself wanted to put in his daughter.
Richard Linklater also refused to change the years with the usual inserts: “a year has passed.” You can understand that Mason has become older by his surroundings, clothes, toys, new gadgets, other hairstyle. As Mason grows older, his parents grow older. Every year they were filmed in the present time, so the reaction of children to the new consoles and phones is sincere. During this time, the world has changed quite a lot. Filming it for 12 years was the best decision.
There is no extreme development in the picture. Linklater showed that the life of an ordinary guy can be interesting. He took a kind of ode to growing up.
Still, they rarely release simple films about life, without far-fetched complex plots, which seem to admire their ornateness and twisting, but believe in the reality of the characters of these films with difficulty. In this film, all situations are perceived as if they happen to real people and you are watching someone’s life from the outside.
Every person, regardless of age, will find a character close to him, because together with Mason grow up and live and everyone around him. And you will live with them all the ups and downs, hopes, unfulfilled expectations, joys of these people. And this “Boyhood” reminded me very much of the film “Moscow does not believe in tears”, after watching it, you also look at your life, at the lives of those who live next to you, you see that every act in life has its consequences.
I really liked the transmission of emotions and thoughts of the actors - gestures, looks, which are invested more than in any words, which is extremely rare in films, it is always much easier to convey the idea simply by monologue of the actor.
People here are not just static characters, their characters are revealed with each new scene and change beyond recognition as the film progresses. Just yesterday, Olivia's second husband is a self-confident professor, even though he's raising his children in strictness, but we're all not perfect. And now he gradually, step by step, turns into a tyrant, an alcoholic and a woeful golfer. Or Olivia’s third “husband” is a handsome, athletic build, defender of his country and a patriot, and now he already tells how much he did in their joint house with Olivia and what they bought a scumbag, receiving compliments for their labors, and Olivia at this time negotiates with the workers how to make repairs, and then gets a meaningful fleeting look Olivia during the discussion of the family budget.
A separate story is the story of the creation of this film, as you can see - the characters of the film in different age periods play the same actors. The story itself you can read on any website dedicated to cinema, including our favorite "Kinopoisk".
This movie will undoubtedly be on my favorite list, and I will keep the emotions of watching it for many years to come.
When in 1995, Linklater, without excessive affectation and romantic frenzy, literally wove love out of thin air from simple dialogues, phrases, glances and hints in the film Before Dawn, someone thought it was a cinematic trick, others – the magic of cinema.
When in 2014, the screens came out his own “Boyhood”, no one who is a little bit versed in cinema, there was no doubt that the director has the secrets of film magic, when even more convincingly and close to masterpiece – just from, at first glance, routine minutes, hours and days, the grayness of everyday life, sunrises, sunsets, meetings, partings, conversations, smiles, tears, simple joys of life, mistakes, victories, without special effects, Jedi and avatars – made the movie.
Cinema, natural as life, light as breath, free as wind, real, strong, bold and simple.
The movie is the way it should be. It's been a long time. I don't think it will be.
In the center of events is a six-year-old boy Mason, whose parents are divorcing. Every few weeks, small episodes from his life are filmed, showing growing up and relations with the parents of a child, adolescent, young man.
I don’t want to go into the strong details of the plot, it is better to watch the film yourself and draw your own conclusions.
The acting is quite good and realistic.
- The situation is pretty lifelike.
- There is humor and sadness.
- There is no unnecessary cruelty or vulgarity - only moments that can be present in real conditions.
For me personally, the film was very interesting, in some moments I saw myself. The film gives plenty of ground for thought. But at the same time, you do not need to expect too much drama from him, he is not as heavy as it may seem at first glance.
I recommend everyone to watch, and if you doubt that the film is too long, then in any case you will not be disappointed. p.s. the film was shot for 11 years.
9 out of 10
An amazing film that leaves a deep warm trace in the soul.
Many people recognize this film as an experiment, perhaps the only film to tell the same story with the same protagonists for 12 years. Only, it seems to me, not everyone understands that the experiment here is not an end in itself, but only a method of conducting a story.
In my opinion, the main advantage of this film is its unconditional honesty and truthfulness. We see real people changing, growing up, aging over the 11 years in which history develops, we see how the world around this family changes, how new books about Harry Potter come out (which was really the most striking attribute of growing up in children of that generation), how technology changes and presidents change. It’s great that this story is not presented in a vacuum, but is put into context. At the end of the day, we see how the family itself changes, and this is what makes the viewer most emotional.
Just as honestly, avoiding all sorts of clichés, the director shows the life of an ordinary boy (for this reason one should not look for any exceptional characteristics in him), an ordinary family passing through all the stages of growing up described in detail in sociology. Although, of course, all of them are somewhat unusual (just like most people do): not every boy thinks wasps come from water, not every mother has such patience and wisdom, not every father so sincerely communicates with his children.
Philosophical conversations (and I think the author’s philosophy is perhaps the most important thing in this film), especially the scene in the cafe, are very similar to Richard Linklater’s previous film, The Awakening of Life. Obviously, the director has his own author’s handwriting (and this is a very high figure), which does not fit the sharp and dramatic twists of the plot. The film is as poignant as the life of an ordinary person, at least in the stage of growing up. The smooth and sedate course of the story is diluted by the sharp changes taking place in the lives of the characters.
The effect of truthfulness, of course, is supported by the acting, it is completely invisible, the actors make simple real people, and this is very adorning the film. Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke play particularly well.
I think it’s a wonderful film, because of its realism, unlike anything made earlier.
It was a story, not a movie. And the story is not about some interesting person, but about the most ordinary teenager and his sister. Honestly, I don’t know why it took 10 years. You can only imagine 10 years shooting a picture in which nothing really showed. Someone will say that in this film we were told about the growing up of children, about their teenage problems, experiences and so on. . But that's not in the movie either. No character has been revealed even halfway. For almost 3 hours, we were shown the most ordinary story, probably the most ordinary American family. The only thing that pleased me was the appearance of Ethan Hawke in the film. His acting role, the only one in the movie that I'm sorry, didn't make me sick. I'll keep quiet about the children's acting at the very end of the film.
Outcome: I may not have grasped the meaning of this picture, but it seems that it is not there. Do I recommend watching? Probably, if there is nothing to do or if you want to watch 3 hours of the history of a normal family. There is no plot, intrigue, philosophical subtext, absolutely nothing here. Just an ordinary, not interesting guy who was filmed for 10 years.
4 out of 10
Richard Linklater is one of my favorite directors. As I watch some of his work, I rewind the dialogue and listen to it over and over again. A lot of philosophy and truly literary meaning puts Linklater in his script. By the way, he wanted to become a writer and even studied literature at the University of Houston, to which, incidentally, the film refers us.
Step closer to Boyhood. I’m not the first to say this is Linklater’s biggest work. This is a parable, a collection of life rules and mistakes of becoming a person. We observe who the little dreamer turns into, observe the life of a complex, interesting and multifaceted person and those around him. Before I saw it, I knew it had been 12 years. It was interesting to see how the characters changed. It seems to me that the director initially universally reacted to Adolescence. He wanted to be as realistic as possible and he certainly did. Arousing interest not only in the meaning, but also in the changes of the characters. “Here they are,” as we see them growing up. Amazing.
After reading the reviews, I came to the conclusion that part of the audience reacted negatively to the “boring” plot. Well, what were you looking for? This Linklater is a life teacher, this is a spiritual mentor. You don’t have to follow the twists of the story. The cinema is already full of action-packed works and it is a sin to complain about a really strong work. This film fills, this film inspires, but only those who consider life to be more than just existence.
Adolescence is perhaps the most important stage in any person’s life. It is at this time that a person truly begins to know the world, discovers new facets. This is a period of bright ups and crushing downs, a time when a person must decide what path he will have to choose in life. This idea was well reflected in the family parable film “Boyhood”.
Synopsis. We’re watching 12 years of Mason’s life, from the age of seven, when he was forced to move with his mother and older sister to another city, to the age of 18, when he goes to college and finally finds his way in life.
From the moment of acquaintance with the work of Linklater, I noticed that his paintings are distinguished by talented and vital actors. In Boyhood, I was most impressed with Ethan Hawke and the Arquette Party playing Mason’s parents. Ethan Hawke played the role of a cheerful and fervent father, who did not go out in this life, and therefore was not ready for family life, which, however, did not hurt him to be a caring and faithful father. Patricia Arquette embodied the dramatic image of a single mother who gave almost all herself to her children, periodically making unsuccessful attempts to find ordinary female happiness.
The director Richard Linklater deservedly can be attributed to the number of cult, since each of his paintings has his own directorial handwriting. In fact, Linklater’s work is a reflection of the inner world of the director himself. Although set over 12 years in the early 2000s, perhaps through the prism of Mason’s fate, the director decided to convey a description of the path at the important stage of life of any person. He thus shows us the roots of Mason’s constant despondency, which still managed to find himself.
The script of the film is both its advantage and disadvantage. The disadvantage is the complete absence of any intrigue. We're just watching the protagonist go through 12 years of his life. However, it reveals the merit of the film, as we see those events in Mason’s life that significantly affected him, including the divorce of his parents, the unsuccessful second marriage of his mother, a violent alcoholic stepfather, a new friend of his mother, first love, etc. We’re going to bring out the things that only contributed to Mason’s growing up to finally find his way of life.
The result "Adolescence" is indeed an unusual and memorable picture. The film may not have any plot intrigue, but its great virtue is vitality. We see the difficulties Mason has to go through, who through his mistakes and the mistakes of loved ones learns life, learns rules and universal values. Therefore, I recommend the film to watch.
First of all, this picture attracts with its grandeur. Filming lasted so long that it is breathtaking, and the wave of pleasure from the fact that the actors in their youth and adult life have one face (and not chosen only how), sweeps throughout the body and you can enjoy the quality of the visible picture. Oh, my God, I thought I was getting happiness hormones out of it! But this is the outer shell that everyone can savor, even if they watch the film from the corner of their eyes.
And the inner shell of the film is the life of a teenager with all its ensuing - relationships with relatives, friends, smoking, alcohol, first love, the complexity of choice, finding yourself, teenage philosophy. Moreover, the picture shows a very difficult life of the main characters. Children suffer because of constant moving, parents divorced when they were children, then had to overcome the dictatorship of the stepfather. Problem environment also forms the personality of a teenager, how it affected the main characters, we can see in this picture.
An interesting character was a mother who constantly, in her opinion, made the wrong choice, made mistakes. Her line provides some food for thought, so we can ask ourselves the question, “How would we do it ourselves?” Everyone has an opinion on this.
In general, we can say that the picture is worth seeing. This is a measured, not dynamic film that is pleasant to watch, and after watching - to speculate. This leaves a warm aftertaste.
Director Richard Linklater has set about a grandiose project - to show for three hours of game time the entire period of not only adolescence, but also a person's growing up - from 6 years to 18, that is, almost all school years.
In order to avoid a gap in the perception of the growth of the characters, they are played by the same actors who grew up (children) and grew old (adults) during the filming of the film, work on which was conducted for twelve years.
The main character of the film was the boy Mason Evans (Ellar Coltrane). It is his fate, or rather, the key moments of the formation of his personality, maturity, development, difficulties of puberty that the viewer follows. An ordinary kid, definitely not stupid, sociable, calm, prone to thinking, quite accommodating, but also not a good boy, he grows up in the shadow of an older sister, whose role is played by the director's daughter. Mother, father, stepfathers, teachers, friends, relatives - all of them somehow influence the boy.
For twelve years, Linklater assembled for a few days a year, the film crew shot new episodes of the film - how Mason and his entourage have changed over the past period. The film focuses on the most typical and significant events of a teenager’s life: meetings on weekends with his father, communication in the family, parties with friends, a mother’s divorce, the creation of a new family, first love, the first reflections on the meaning of life, social life, church, hiking, the strongest boy hobbies. And the script also changed over the course of life. New political and cultural realities, impossible in the first episodes of the film, appear in the film quite naturally and harmoniously.
There is no hint of a whole plot, but the film looks with bated breath, making you worry about the heroes, and worry with love and joy - a certain Salinger spirit lives in the picture. And although she is kind through - but there is no pink nonsense, no sentimentality in her. Truthfulness, psychological reliability is one of its main advantages. Life in its natural, even patriarchal, course. The connection of generations is clearly palpable, one link in the chain of which Mason becomes.
9 out of 10
Richard Linklater, without a doubt, is an outstanding personality and his trilogy about Celine and Jesse I fell in love with the first viewing. As in the case of the couple's story, which we return to every nine years, the director conducted another grand film experiment that caught everyone's attention. The production process took twelve years, retaining one style, cast and storylines. And although “Boyhood” was recognized as one of the best films of a generation, I was disappointed with it and below I will explain why.
I will return to the parallels with the trilogy Before Dawn/Sunset/Midnight. The viewer literally fell in love with the characters from the very first frames, empathized with their relationships, felt a rush of nostalgia with each new chapter of the story. Here, despite the titanic coverage of the years, the main characters cause only weak empathy, especially the main character, whose growing up we actually watch. Mason lacks both remarkable appearance and character, within which you want to put your own nostalgia for youth. And although the hero was clearly prescribed this way, the final lack of emotion, sorry, blandness, and grayness destroys all desire to identify two and a half hours of his time with the titular character. Irony creeps in my head that over the years it turned out that the performer has dubious acting qualities.
The vast majority of people will surely classify the film as boring and drawn-out, and will not be far from the truth. The fact is that “Adolescence” requires full involvement in what is happening and projection of your own memories of youth on the story told. From a young boy who has seen his father several times in his life to a rebel student deleting his Facebook account. Linklater progressively promotes the story from classic family drama to modern realities. From the Honored Guard, I want to note Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. In general, viewing is difficult, not because of serious topics and emotions, but because of the inexpressiveness of the story.
'Boyhood' - one of the main films of 2014, triumphantly passed in the award season and collected not only a weighty collection of all kinds of prizes and praise from critics, but also a huge sympathy of the audience, especially at home, in the home audience. Which, however, does not make this picture incomprehensible to the rest of the population, which is one of the main advantages of the work of Richard Linklater.
Uniqueness ' Adolescence' is both an experimental and in some ways even revealing approach to the process of creating a film, and in its story-drama concept. If desired, the creation of Linklater can be attributed to the genre of an educational novel that raises acute social problems of both the era of postmodernism and eternal relevance, causing the formation of the personality by their undoubted influence on it.
Unconventional narrative in 'Adolescence', which does not have as such a basic basis and the usual structured order of the narrative, makes the viewer not only a witness of what is happening on the screen, but also to some extent its participant - 12 years, spent on the creation of the film, and a considerable 3 hours of timekeeping provide a complete immersion in the lives of the main characters, which is characteristic, do not have pronounced external conflicts and elements of antagonism.
Narrative non-traditionality ultimately leads to ambiguity of perception. Unsustainability in assessing the behavior of the characters, the ambiguity of the message that Linklater carries to the viewer, and, in the end, to the ambiguity of the final holistic impression. A huge space is created for interpreting the events of the picture and the actions of the heroes, completely devoid of a dualistic beginning. In this case, the disclosure of characters is not conditional.
This is also facilitated by the presence in the picture of many internal conflicts, some of which have evolved into revealing open ones. In addition to the story of growing up, which is the leitmotif of the story, Linklater also explores the institution of marriage, the fragility of family relationships and relationships in general. At the same time, affecting acute social problems such as alcoholism or domestic violence.
Meanwhile, in the absence of all the elements inherent in the classic plot, the story slowly reveals each of the characters, giving only subtle hints of their actual conversion. Only by highlighting images from the art canvas and synthesizing them, you can come to understand the motives of the heroes.
Time is perhaps not only the basis of this film, but also the main element of the message, repeatedly expressed in the course of the film by its characters. Linklater, as a true philosopher of a new generation, views this magnitude from the position of a certain romanticism, quietly urging - but not obliging - the viewer to consider each step as a new experience and each subsequent moment of our lives as unconditional and unique.
Linklater expressed this idea in 'Before Dawn' bringing together in a strange city two strangers who were united by that very Moment. For a reason, the talent and main passion of Mason was chosen photography. Linklater like a photographer captures the elusiveness of life on film, making of everyday moments a story woven from frames.
Linklater illustrates not only the variability of the inner world of the characters, but also a certain dynamics in the development of the society in which the characters are, albeit in a somewhat generalized form. A barely noticeable background of the themes of growing up are political movements and social transformations that allow you to better feel the surroundings of this story.
'Adolescence' - at the moment, the most monumental work of Richard Linklater, who has already become a classic of American independent cinema; it is the poeticization of growing up and a real genuine poetics of life; it is certainly one of the most subtle paintings about the metamarphosis of growing up; and, perhaps, the main American film of the 21st century.
Do you know the expression “Seize the moment”? I don't know, I think it's quite the opposite. So the moment catches us.
- Yeah. Yeah, it's a constant. The moment is always the moment, right?
I have the courage to believe that Linklater loves me. I think he really loves me.
In his trilogy of sunrises and sunsets, he showed me what he knew about love and life. As a child, he showed me that he loved me. He loves me with "Adolescence." I am a part of this world, as a participant in life, as a human being. He loves everything in this life and in this world. And Linklater certainly does.
If you didn’t see it in “Adolescence,” you don’t love it. Don't love yourself. Don't like life.
So you won’t see him forgiving you with his film either.
Love it.
The film turned out to be: empty, boring, with many drawn-out unnecessary scenes, with a detached emotionless silent hero, heroes (the older the more), with crudely inserted signs of time, but with a stunning soundtrack.
However, this movie turned my reality. Why is that?
The film was shot for 12 years and in the course of the plot we observe the growth, maturation and formation of not only the main character, but also the people around him. From the very beginning in the film, I did not look for genius due to the fact that the hero at different ages will be played by one actor, but got a very funny change in appearance and, conversely, strengthening the essence, character of a young man.
Perhaps this is the subtle, almost imperceptible growing up, like growing up in front of a mother, and is the magic that fascinates in this film. Yes, we can say that we never recognized the main character - he didn't tell us much, but should he? He is an ordinary guy, he only learns what surrounds him and what he feels, asks himself questions and seeks answers, communicates, observes, lives. And the viewer is like a distant relative, almost a stranger, who stopped for a couple of days to spend the night.
It is this kind of silence of the protagonist, his observation of the world, his close people and makes you stop, realize yourself in reality and think about what you are doing.
For me, this movie is like getting to know someone who will only spend a few hours of his life with you, or minutes. He usually tells something — some strange funny story, something that worries him at the moment, or he just keeps quiet. But, he never expresses himself completely, and never tries to interpret his thought so that you understand. This movie is like a casually dropped phrase or look. With this he stops me - his unsolved mystery, a mystery that is in every person around me.
This movie is just about people. And the man sitting next to him. And about you.
And it would be nice to wake up.
P.S. And more. Do not expect anything from this film, do not build it in your imagination, just look.
It's a movie about you. Yes, it is about you, dear reader, and you, dear reader.
How old are you now? 25? Is the whole world open to you?
40? Are your children growing up in front of you?
Or maybe you're 15? And you try your best to stand out in front of your peers to win the attention of that pretty girl?
Everyone will find themselves and their relatives and friends in this film.
It's an amazing thing to take 2 and a half hours to look at yourself from a toron.
The plot is so familiar that if you sit you down and ask you to guess what the movie is about, everything you say will be there. There is no point in telling you, you know everything.
It’s funny how in 2.5 hours, 12 years of the heroes’ lives passed like one moment.
And with your life, reader, it's exactly the same. It seems that yesterday you learned to ride a bicycle, yesterday you graduated from university, yesterday you got a job, yesterday a son was born, yesterday parents died, and now your child is finishing school.
So how old are you now, 25? 40? Or maybe 15?
Stop for a second, buddy, look around and. . . . Capture the Moment!
The film “Boyhood” by American independent director Richard Linklater, shot for 12 years, boasts one attribute that no feature film has ever possessed. The film has a permanent cast, which passed despite various difficulties all stages of filming. This is certainly the main highlight of this picture. Before Linklater, there were similar works, but the authors who produced them made documentary films. Richard Linklater was a pioneer to some extent.
The film was one of the main contenders for the Oscar in six nominations, already having in its arsenal a rich collection of prizes collected at the Berlin Film Festival, the British Academy and a victory in 3 of 5 nominations in the Golden Globe. As a result, the Oscar went only to Patricia Arquette, who won the nomination for Best Supporting Actress.
But, of course, although the work of the American director is fundamental and very substantive (it is impossible to agree that the timekeeping of the filming process in fact does not play such a significant role in the value of the finished product, and you can recall many examples of various worthy films produced in a very short time, for example, “Phone box” Schumacher, which was shot for 12 days), he was not so good, if he was deprived of those basic topics, the importance of which was and will most likely always be relevant for humanity. This is the problem of growing up, loneliness, these are the issues of the relationship between fathers and children (and here also mothers), this is, in the end, the author touches upon the issue of parents’ awareness of the fact that once their baby will grow up and, having crossed the threshold of their home, will leave it forever.
In "Adolescence" there are no sharp twists and turns, in general there is no dynamics. Actions here are revealed in degrees. But that was Linklater's goal. With the help of dialogues and visual scenes, the author seems to want to warn, somewhere to direct his viewers. In the end, the ellipsis is put, which means that we build our own life, and what it will be, depends largely on ourselves.
8 out of 10
Mason's life story spanning a 12-year period: childhood and adolescence. The film will tell about his growing up, relationships with parents who are divorced, the formation of his personality, youthful love and the first steps on the way to the world of adults.
Opinion
The first thing I have to warn you is that the movie is almost three hours long. In the modern world, with its lack of time, finding a free three-hour period is not so easy. Therefore, someone may consider this parameter minus “adolescence”. I don’t want to argue with you.
If anyone has not heard about this film and does not know its main feature, I report that it was shot for 11 years (from the summer of 2002 to October 2013). That is why the actors of “Boyhood” age and mature, political and social events change each other, because of what the lives of the characters, the themes of their communication and entourage change.
To be frank, except for that, the film no longer shines with something unusual and is essentially almost a standard life drama. And yet, I am ready to call it good and recommend it. Let me explain why.
First, the actors...
Patricia Arquette, who plays the mother of the main character, received an Oscar for this film, a Golden Globe and a bunch of other awards in the category “Best Supporting Actress”, which, you know, says a lot. First we see her as a young girl trying to raise two children and just survive. Over time, she becomes an experienced, strong and wise woman. All these changes of character we see in the film, and it is for them that the actress received her awards.
Ethan Hawke played the father of the main character and the ex-husband of his mother. In my opinion, the actor also did well. At first, we see him as a bully and a cocksucker, who after a while gets a second chance with a new family. At the same time, the hero, of course, strives to do good things in this life and therefore does not forget children from his first marriage, although his father's impulses (of course, sincere) sometimes look silly.
The most important role went to Ellar Coltrane. At the beginning of the film, he appears before us as a small, cute and thoughtful boy. As the film moves forward, he matures and turns into a young man. The big question is, is it interesting to watch his life? Answer: I was curious. The main character played by Ellar, in my humble opinion, has charisma, allowing him to be the central character around whom everything revolves.
Let’s not forget that the actors played these characters for 11 years. And this means that from year to year they had to be included in their images again and again, and unlike the actors of the theater who play in the same performances, they had to participate in new scenes.
The film itself is calm and measured. It is not difficult to guess that there is little action and a lot of dialogue and contemplation. Just like in life.
Not everyone will like the movie. To many, it may seem boring and meaningless. But for some reason, I’ve always loved these kind of films and books, when there is a simple story about life, a simple story, but it’s all imbued with some natural magic of life. It seems like nothing special, but you still feel that life is amazing and beautiful. And the main character does not do anything unusual, but there is something deep and positive in him. For some reason, such films charge me with something good and allow me to look at ordinary gray life a little differently, with a slight smile and a thoughtful unfocused look somewhere in the distance. And with the thought in my head that we need to appreciate the positive aspects of life that we are given.
A lot of people might be upset by the ending of the movie. And to me, on the contrary, this was the most logical and justified end.
By the way, what's the movie about? Nothing. At the same time, nothing and everything.
Verdict
Knowing that the film will not please everyone, I would still venture to recommend it for viewing. Maybe it will be boring and uninteresting for someone, but it will almost certainly be remembered.
You know, there are also movies where you want to put your thoughts into a review, but when you sit at the keyboard or notebook, you realize you can’t do that. Everything you write seems silly, far-fetched, and often slips the thought “God, what the hell am I writing?” About a year after my last attempt, I decided to try again. I hope I finish it this time.
Childhood. The best time of our lives. As a child, everything is new. We want to learn as much as we can, everything seems insanely interesting. But even as we get older, and the adolescence phase comes, the unknown and the interesting doesn’t get any less. Yes, we have become older ... more reasonable ..., but still we are drawn to the unknown, because there is a saying “A century live, a century learn”. And that's what Richard Linklater's film is about. A film about a childhood.
The film tells us the story of Mason's boy growing up. For 3 hours, 12 years of life flash before the viewer’s eyes, filled with joyful and sad moments, new discoveries, and truths learned at a young age. As in accelerated playback, pop culture of the past 12 years is sweeping through, forcing those who were also growing up at the time and are now growing up to let a nostalgic tear. Here's little Mason playing GameBoy Advance, and after a while already playing Halo on the first XBOX. At the beginning of the films, Mason's sister sings Britney Spears' "Oops I Did It Again" and towards the end, Daft Punk's "Get Lucky" sounds. Mason at the beginning of the film attends the premiere of the sixth book about Harry Potter, and later discusses with his father “The Dark Knight”, “Pineapple Express” and “Soldiers of Failure”. And here in such minor details lies one of the main pillars of the film - these little things create the atmosphere of the time, which is shown on the screen. This, I will not be afraid of the word, the lamp atmosphere attracts, and does not let go until the very end. For the first time, I decided to watch this movie before going to bed. I thought about 20-30 minutes and look at the side. As a result, until the final credits crawled (which was at 4 a.m.) I couldn’t get away from the tablet. Of course, in many ways, this atmosphere was created due to the fact that the film was shot for 12 years. Thanks to this, the scenario could be adjusted on the go (and the installation to the ideal bring).
Also, at the end of the film, the theme of change, or rather the fear of change, is touched upon. Agree, for example, you have been doing the same thing for several years (at school/college), but then there comes a time when it all comes to an end, and then the unknown. My viewing of “Boyhood” just fell on the time when I literally had a couple of months to go to college. Everyone asks, “Where are you going?” and you can’t answer. You are so used to this place, to these people. It seemed like 4 years will last a long time... and then it’s time to think about what next... And I think if this movie had come out a year later, or a year earlier, I personally wouldn't have been so touched by this subject. And so, after watching, I lay down for another half an hour and just thought, “What’s next?”
Also, the actors add a considerable percentage to the overall pleasure of the film. There are only two famous actors here: Linklater's permanent actor Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette, who received an Oscar for her role in this film. They play their parents and play very well. It was especially interesting and pleasant to watch their metamorphosis, because at the beginning of the film that the characters were young (and the characters are also youthful unreasonable), and so, at the beginning of the films you look at a very stupid face of Ethan Hawke (seriously, he had such a facial expression at the beginning of the film that immediately caused a smile), and a young, trying to be a good mother Patricia Arquette, and at the end you see adults, wiser and wiser people. Perfect. That's great. But the main characters are of course Mason and his sister Samantha, played by debutants Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater. This is what the focus is on.
To sum it up in a nutshell: "Adolescence" is Richard Linklater's Magnum Opus. This is the main work in his life, along with the trilogy about Jesse and Celine. A film that stays in your memory for a long time. And I know Richard Linklater will never read this review, but I still want to say, Thank you. Thank you for the only film of the year that was able to make me feel the same way Life is Strange did. Thank you for your Magnum Opus. Evaluation is meaningless, and so everything is clear. No hard numbers.
P.S. Here. I was able to do it anyway. I spent a year trying to find the words to express my emotions about this film. Thank you very much for my work, which sometimes condescends on me interesting thoughts, thanks to friends who supported me. I just have to write a review of Interstellar.