Josh Dickey over at Mashable has posted a great infographic showing all that went into making one of 2015’s best films. It is one of the depressing things about an indifferent awards consensus that ignores the extraordinary ambition here, the leap of faith to say – I’m going to write this and film this in the time it takes for a young man to come of age. The awards consensus falls all too easily into the silly whisper campaign that says “it’s just a gimmick” or “take out the 12 years thing and it isn’t all that.” The thing is, you can’t take out the 12 years thing because it says so much about Richard Linklater’s lifelong devotion to thinking outside the box – not to razzle dazzle them but to excavate some kind of truth in the human experience. When the smoke clears on 2015 it will be a scandal to look back at what the awards race ignored, but especially if it ignores Boyhood, which is the kind of film that film awards were invented for: to reward the highest achievement in film, not just “what makes me feel kind of giddy right now?” Extraordinary means it goes beyond the realm of what’s possible. Are they really going to walk by this film?
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
Fantastic post, Sasha!! I am a graphic geek and love this!! I hope it’s rewarded as it should be. Movies like this just don’t come around like this; and probably never will again! Cheers!!
Oops – italicized the wrong part :/
Curious that you trash Boyhood for having so few memorable lines but thinks a movie that has absolutely nothing special In terms of dialogues is a perfect one. But If you wished the characters from Boyhood spoke like Downton Abbey characters of the New York high society from the Woody Allen films, that’s not my business.
@JP Whiplash is expertly directed and fantastically acted and written. Whiplash’s strength is its fluidity – the fact that it is an exhilarating and moving ride from start to finish. Boyhood is a languid bore, a compilation of LInklater’s yearly creative afterthoughts. It’s a movie comprised of slack.
Julief, It’s definitely possible that Whiplash will win best editing. In these types of technical awards, general voters tend to go for whichever film that is the most obvious in that craft. The cuttiest (editing), the most beautiful looking (cinematography), the loudest (sound), the most eye-candy clothing (costumes)…
Editing is Whiplash’s greatest strength.
Alan,
You are so right, that probably needed some paragraphs (probably a long rant kept too long in my head):)
I would greatly prefer for Boyhood to win Linklater *something*, but since Arquette is a slam dunk this isn’t like when Beasts was skunked a few years ago. I do find it somewhat comical the whining about “gimmick” films. Would you prefer every Oscar contender/winner be cookie cutter paint by numbers Oscar bait? Save for the King’s Speech winning (mostly because Social Network *lost* in my opinion, the last 15 years or so of BP have actually had some fairly interesting choices (silent film, Bollywood imitator, slave epic, two thrillers). It’s not like they’re all Crash.
@ Passive, good writing. (Do you use paragraph breaks next tinme 🙂
I concur with lots of what you’re saying. You have a very thorough knowledge of movies. The “Being There” mention was particularly refreshing.
Longtime viewer of the posts, but I rarely speak on the issues (so excuse the lack of brevity).
Just wanted to speak on the race this year. Should Boyhood win (and I suppose there are some doubts), it would be the first time this life-long Oscar viewer would see his favorite film of the year win. Even though I was happy with past wins, such as No Country for Old Men or The Hurt Locker, for example. I always like when the BP race is unpredictable, but I thought I might of finally seen my favorite film of the year take it. On the “gimmick” issue, I would just like to add that despite the fact that I think this is idiotic, I can’t possibly see how films such as Birdman and Whiplash are less “gimmick” films. Birdman, though has a lot about it to love, and Whiplash, less so, both seem to be jazzy, beat films that are built on a series of contrivances. I thought that if Birdman, which I was excited to see because of my predilection to hate superhero fanboy films, had ended with Keaton’s character looking at those birds as the last scene of the film, I might of understood the film as a kind of nature vs. fantasy kind of meaning that spoke to the larger issues the film was trying to grab. That Being There ending made me question what, if anything, I was suppose to get out this film despite the excellent photography, editing, and acting moments. Whiplash I mostly saw as a stylish empty package as well. Selma was another favorite of mine and if the impossible did occur, it would soften the blow that Boyhood did not win. I really had to laugh that the whisper campaign about LBJ. LBJ would have been more considered in history if not for his unrelenting support of a war that quickly was understood by the vast majority of America to be a quagmire that brought shame to our country (ahem, American Sniper). And even still LBJ could be considered heroic in this film despite DuVernay making the fatal mistake of giving history dimensions! I usually hate epic, sweeping historical biographies, but this film with such a balance of style and substance I can’t believe it won’t be the eventual winner. Even the usual paint-by-number we made them just for the Oscar race films Imitation Game and Theory are not bad. And I love that one of Wes Anderson’s dioramas finally made it in there. But I digress from Boyhood. The virtue of this film (among many) and the “gimmick” that I most marveled at the film is what Ethan Hawke said, and I’m paraphrasing: that Boyhood was pieced together with scenes that in any other movie, would not have been included. That is the quiet revolution of this film, to me: a film that captures little moments of life instead of dramatic scenes. I thought the whisper campaign would have been that the film is called Boyhood and it is basically middle-class white Boyhood (which would have been more legitimate). Given how little they care about this (ahem, Selma), I guess I should have known better. Anyway, had to get this off my chest. Here’s still hoping Boyhood pulls it out. Also, Keaton, Moore, Arquette, and hell, I’ll say it, Hawke as well. Sorry for going on (if anyone actually read it), and feel free to disagree. I get over the Oscar winner seconds after it’s over and always remember that Altman, Kubrick, H. Ashby and countless others never won (so which side would you want to be on).
WW: +1 to all you said about Nightcrawler, especially the three performances, all of whom merited Oscar nominations (especially Gyllenhaal). (And Bennett Miller for Foxcatcher was a terrible choice–what an empty movie that was.) And yes “Nightcrawler” deserves to be put in connection with the great “Network”.
If there’s one independent underdog I was rooting to get into the Best Picture race, it would’ve been ”Nightcrawler” (not ”Whiplash”). Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed all gave phenomenal performances and were robbed of Oscar nominations. And while I’m happy that Dan Gilroy is up for Original Screenplay at the Oscars, he deserved to be nominated for his Direction, too (certainly over Bennett Miller). I also was rooting for ”Nightcrawler” to score for Robert Elswit’s stunning cinematography and John Gilroy’s topnotch editing. This dark movie is the best media satire I’ve seen since ”Network.”
@ BENUTTI
I’m not a filmmaker, but as I writer—english is not my mother language—, I can see why Linklater—once he decided to shoot a boy over 12 years, the unfairly called: «gimmick»—, chose to tell his story the way he did it.
A conventional story, in general, follows several stages: conflict, development of that conflict, climax, and conclusion. The way you tell the story, so far, is irrelevant. However, all the events that you include in your story must be consistent with your conflict a your conclusion. That’s what makes the arch of a narrative.
The thing, however, is that our lives don’t follow that rule. We can see them as a series of episodes with their own beginings and endings. Linklater could’ve followed this path, but then, as you mention, the movie would’ve felt like a compilation of chapters of «Growing Pains»—which would have seemed too formulaic, of course. Instead, he followed, imho, a more organic route, which is to compile a series of memories, some of them inconclusive, some of them are fuzzy. And that’s how real life works. I mean, some of the things that we remember are events that don’t necessarily are connected to each other in a logical secuence. That’s why some people feel that the movie doesn’t have a narrative arch.
Sure, there are some episodes in our lives that seem to expand for several years. For instance, the story of Henry Hill in Scorsese’s Godfellas. But, if you wanted to tell that story, if you really wanted to focus in the plot of his humble beginings to his rising as a gangster and his final fall, why then run the risk of shooting your movie over several years? Can you imagine—as someone said before—what could have happened if one of the actors that play one of the main characters quitted the project? Why cast a younger Ray Liotta just for the sake of it? Would’nt that be, then, just a gimmick?
Of course, Linklater knew all this. I mean, he is not a mediocre filmmaker that woke up one mourning, 14 years ago, and said: “¡Eureka, I’m gonna shoot a boy over 12 years to win an Oscar!”
The bigger problem, though, (beyond the lack of quality) is that these stand-out movies are not representative of much diversity beyond the diversity of what it’s like to be an American boy or man (which includes a lot of diversity in itself, but surely not enough). Under the Skin’s alien-woman in Scotland is an important exception.
“4. 7 Up is not a continuous effort in the way Boyhood was. ”
HUH? Do you double as Sarah Palin’s speech writer, because that comment makes about as much sense as her word salads.
Actually I’ll say Under the Skin is perfectly crafted too — it’s just a bit hard to fully embrace. Nightcrawler comes close but loosens its brilliant power a bit by the end. Boyhood beats Nightcrawler because it is something really triumphant, even though I felt it is not Linklater’s best, and left me surprisingly a little underwhelmed. Inherent Vice is awesome, I loved it, it’s a classic, but doesn’t go the full distance that it might have, losing a bit of its mystique in the last half-hour. Birdman is so impressive, but also makes me frustrated–it shirks away from its potential, settling for absurdist comedy. Interstellar is awesome, but also stupid in some crucial ways.
Special sign that this was a bad year: in my top tier (top seven movies), every single one has left me underwhelmed and disappointed in some way (including Boyhood), except for my #1, Whiplash. Whiplash is a bit of an inconsequential movie, but at least it’s perfect.
Top movies of the year so far:
(first tier)
1. Whiplash
2. Boyhood
3. Nightcrawler
4. Inherent Vice
5. Birdman
6. Interstellar
7. Under the Skin
(second tier)
8. Snowpiercer
9. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
10. Life Itself
11. The Grand Budapest Hotel
12. The Lego Movie
13. Guardians of the Galaxy
(third tier)
14. Gone Girl
15. The Theory of Everything
16. Love Is Strange
17. Selma
18. Foxcatcher
19. American Sniper
20. Edge of Tomorrow
Haven’t seen: The Imitation Game, A Most Violent Year, Ida, Force Majeure, Leviathan, The Babadook, Into the Woods, Wild
”I’m BORED.” Me, too, but by same old whining that ”Boyhood” is just a 12-year gimmick. The detractors sound like sore losers who can’t get over the fact the vast majority of movie prizes (so far) have gone to ”Boyhood.” Taste can’t be explained. Either a movie works for you. Or it doesn’t. I’m not crazy about ”Birdman,” but if it wins the DGA, BAFTA and Oscar, so be it. That won’t automatically make me think ”Birdman” is a better picture. Nor would I browbeat the opinions of those who love it. But it won’t invalidate my high opinion of ”Boyhood” either. To me, Linklater’s film is unique in its 12-year filmmaking, but it’s much more than that: It’s how he’s created this time capsule of a boy’s coming-of-age, full of the little moments of life that add up to the big picture. It’s about the lovely and lived-in performances of Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke & Co. that are so seamless that they don’t seem like acting. If ”Boyhood” goes home empty-handed at the next awards, there’s nothing I can do about it, but I’ll always have the prize of experiencing a great movie.
And just one last thing about Boyhood: the film IS the process. What’s hard to understand about this?
Yes… Take the one shot out of Birdman and you have one thousand films, plays about actors in crisis. Take the designs and the fantsy touch out of The Grand Budapest Hotel and see what you have. If we are in the mood for writing bullshit, let’s talk the whole bullshit.
In regards to Boyhood, can Michael Apted have his Up series back now and everybody STFU already?
Daniel: “At this point, I just think we shouldn’t care too much about the Oscar race or the awards consensus (though I know it’s your job).” This is why the former tagline for awards daily (or Oscarwatch) was something like “the trick is not minding.” As much as it pains me, if Boyhood loses BP I will try very hard not to mind.
“Whoever compared Boyhood and Harry Potter knows absolutely fucking nothing about what it takes to make a movie, particularly an independent movie, in this day and age. The fact that this worked is amazing. Just seriously STFU now.
Harry Potter had everything: money in endless supply, resources, star power, huge distribution deal, major financial backing, extremely popular source material to grab virtually everything from, and a movie coming out every year in which to reap profit from in order to fund the next film. And yet all 8 movies were still over and done with in 3/4 of the time that it took to film Boyhood. As for the authenticity of the process? One Dumbledore quite noticeably died and had to be replaced with another actor. Something like that would have completely ruined Boyhood. When you’re tackling real life and not a fantasy world, the stakes are much higher and the profit is much lower. That’s why anything this film wins (and it already has enough awards to fill mantles) is well deserved.”
Perfect. And what bothers most of the Boyhood haters, other than pretending to be cool by trashing the film that aced Metascore and that only became a frontrunner because of the critics, is that it is about ordinary people. Not about heroes. Not about who changed the world. It’s a brilliantly developed look of 12 years In the life of an ordinary family. Not 200 happenings In 2 hours. Not licking the ass of the characters portrayed. Not being pretentiously smart. Just a once In a lifetime experience. Films like that usually don’t win Oscars. Films about ordinary people, psychos and non-ass-licking biopics like The Socisl Network usually don’t.
I don’t expect everyone else to share my taste in movies, but why are the ”Boyhood” haters so boring in whining repeatedly about the same things? ”It wouldn’t be so special if it weren’t shot over 12 years.” ”It’s just a gimmick.” ”The Harry Potter movies did the same thing.” Others far more eloquent, like Sasha, Steven Kane, Rob Y, etc., have refuted those inane remarks, so I won’t waste my time. Meanwhile, I noticed that a couple of pundits are suddenly rewriting history since the PGA. One says, ”I’ve always sensed some softness in the ‘Boyhood’ steamroller.” This, from someone who has been insisting that ”The Imitation Game” will win the Oscar. Another pundit: ” ‘Boyhood’ has been soft all along.” Really? Is that why it’s cleaned up for Best Picture at practically all the major critics’ awards? N.Y. Film Critics, L.A. Film Critics, Golden Globes, Broadcast Film Critics, etc. Suddenly, those victories don’t mean anything? I guess it’s inevitable; if you’re the frontrunner, there’s bound to be a backlash. Such are the ”growing pains” of being ”Boyhood.”
Films made with extraordinary ambition, sadly, get ignored all the time by the Oscars. Just this year, I would point to Interstellar, Selma, and Gone Girl–the ambition behind them is extraordinary. The first, to tell a wholly original, grandiose, vast story to encompass everything. The second, to tell the story of an American hero for all audiences and do so “while being black”–essentially putting oneself against all odds already. The last, of telling a difficult to film, sometimes disjointed book.
Sadly, for different reasons, some of taste, some irrational, some of prejudice, all three of these got ignored.
I’m not really surprised that the same fate is befalling Boyhood
So in other words, it was a gimmick.
Boyhood’s last chance is DGA. Birdman is such an overrated film, it is the comedic version of Blackswan.
Steve50, that is a great point. I hadn’t thought about that, that they would put his haircuts into the budget. That kind of blows my mind. Boom! 🙂
“I just think that’s amazing that someone even knows this stat.” (# of haircuts)
If the kid was committed to the film, Al, the haircuts were probably considered in the budget and would be noted in the expenses. Easy stat to access.
“Which of the following 15 Oscar nominated films have you seen?” (the 8 BP nominees and 7 movies that fill up the acting fields), None of These got 65% of the vote.”
This is the big problem with moving the Oscars ahead. It now takes a huge effort for most of us to see the majority of films before the ceremony. When the Oscars were held in March/April, everybody had seen ( and re-seen) everything they wanted. I don’t think they’re doing anyone any favors by this. Besides, awards are a snapshot in time. If all the awards are given out within 6 weeks of each other, the timespan being snapped is pretty small.
Good lord! Gimmicks in movies are nothing new. Neither are gimmicks in art. It is what is done with the gimmick that makes it a success or a failure. Boyhood is a monster success of artistic vision. I have never felt an epic feel so intimate.
I want more gimmicks which challenge the visionary, the director, the artist. Without those challenges, we get stagnation—The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything, both are fine films, but very paint by numbers.
“take out the 12 years thing and it isn’t all that” is one of the worst things anyone can say about an artistic piece. Take the gimmick of storytelling from the black perspective out of 12 Years, and it’s just another historical piece. Take the zero gravity gimmick out of Gravity, and it’s another triumph of the human spirit film. Take the black and white silence gimmick out of The Artist and it’s another man in midlife crisis film. Take the gay gimmick out of Brokeback Mountain and it’s just a cheap western. Take the gimmick design and direction out of Grand Budapest Hotel and it’s just another screwball comedy. Take the heroism gimmick out of American Sniper, and it’s a two hour war movie with a fake baby. I hope I never hear “take this key stylistic, creative, dynamic direction gimmick out of this, and it ain’t all that” applied to a film whenever that gimmick is so effectively executed,
Whoever compared Boyhood and Harry Potter knows absolutely fucking nothing about what it takes to make a movie, particularly an independent movie, in this day and age. The fact that this worked is amazing. Just seriously STFU now.
Harry Potter had everything: money in endless supply, resources, star power, huge distribution deal, major financial backing, extremely popular source material to grab virtually everything from, and a movie coming out every year in which to reap profit from in order to fund the next film. And yet all 8 movies were still over and done with in 3/4 of the time that it took to film Boyhood. As for the authenticity of the process? One Dumbledore quite noticeably died and had to be replaced with another actor. Something like that would have completely ruined Boyhood. When you’re tackling real life and not a fantasy world, the stakes are much higher and the profit is much lower. That’s why anything this film wins (and it already has enough awards to fill mantles) is well deserved.
@Jake
The HP series is a tremendous achievement in modern film history that I feel is sort of unappreciated by the critics and the industry. The final film, as a way of recognition of the series, was easily more deserving than virtually all the Best Picture lineup of the weak year of 2011. Not only that. The Academy couldn’t give a single Oscar to the fantastic craft work done there over the 8 films. The last film received only 3 nominations. Transformers 3 tied it in 2011.
What makes Boyhood something unique, in my opinion, are two things: 1) the 12 years filming with the same cast; 2) the fact that it is about ordinary people. About people that are not heroic in the classic sense of the word. About people who didn’t change the world. About people who will never be famous.
That’s a sweet graphic!
Keep posting the Boyhood stuff, Sasha. Even if it becomes clear at some point that Boyhood won’t win, keep posting the Boyhood (and Selma) stuff. Your job now is to fight for these movies to be seen and appreciated.
I believe 72 haircuts is possible. When my fiancee leaves the hairdresser, her hair look exacly the same when she was going in, I swear to you. However, I’m pretty sure she actually had her hair cut, I don’t know how many times, maybe even 72, but the hair did not change one bit.
What a great graphic. It gives you a hint of Richard Linklater’s ambition, scope and the logistics involved. So many things could’ve gone wrong through its 12 years; that it’s as magical as it is, is a testament to its cast and crew. It’s a one-of-a-kind snapshot of a boy’s coming-of-age. Yet for all the prizes it’s received so far, I feel it’s been underrated in some areas: It’s really not fair that only 4 actors from ”Boyhood” got recognized as SAG Ensemble, when there were a number of other wonderful actors, like Marco Perella (as the professor), who contributed to Mason’s story. I also think Lee Daniel and Shane F. Kelly deserved kudos for shooting the film over 12 years; they not only maintained a consistent look and tone, but captured a number of beautiful shots along the way.
I’m loving all the stats, but 1 makes me wonder if it could possible be true. Ellar Coltrane got 72 haircuts in 12 years. That’s 6 times a year, or 1 haircut every other month. But in the scene when he turns 15 his hair is longer than his face.
But, then again, it could be that his 72 haircuts just mean a little trim, and not neccessarily making drastic changes. IDK. I just think that’s amazing that someone even knows this stat.