839 Boyhood

[tenia]

differences in color timing, audio, cleanness of the print, speckling, whatever.

Boyhood on BD never had such things to fix so it would be hard to expect the new release to be better there. When Criterion releases such recent movies, it's always on the supplements-side that they can beat other releases, never on the technical one.

[Ribs]

Er, well, just to compare it to the Blu-ray.com review of the first release, you can see what I think might be a bit of a substantial framing difference from this near-match of a capture: Original Release/ Criterion. Considering the last release was a pretty lame transfer overall it'd really not surprise me if this looks a lot better.

The "actually being in 1.85:1" thing is a good thing in my opinion too.

[mfunk9786]

Fair, but I don't remember the scene: That could be a zoom within the film between the two images. I'm sure there are improvements and am not trying to pretend there won't be, but I think (and scold me if I'm wrong) Roscoe might've been looking for the sort of remaster porn that is the McCabe & Mrs. Miller post, among others. Which we all enjoy - but this film came out two years ago.

[Ribs]

It actually probably pans a bit to the right; there's more things visible on the shelf behind them (and there's another set of screencaps that are similar near-matches that look much more similar, though the 1.85:1 framing does mean there's quite a bit more info on all edges of the frame). I can't find info on what the bitrate was for the original release anywhere but, all things being equal, the new framing and a maxed-out bitrate means this release will ultimately look a lot more like the film was supposed to than the first release.

[Roscoe]

Not looking for remaster porn -- just looking to see if there were any differences between the original BluRay release and the Criterion release. The film having come out comparatively recently can also mean it might have been rushed onto BluRay before possibly getting the fuller Criterion transfer that might have gotten more attention from Linklater himself.

[Minkin]

Svethood

[barryconvex]

Kind of strange watching this a couple years removed now from the hype of the original release. Meaning it didn't readily occur to me during this viewing the amount of time that went into making it. I have to salute Linklater for seamlessly passing from one scene to the next where a lesser director might've used title cards to mark the next stage in Mason's life i.e Fall:3rd grade, Winter:7th Grade etc. It seems like such a small detail but it just emphasizes how masterful a job he did pulling this behemoth together. I'll be forever amazed how Linklater tackles a subject as huge as childhood and then glides through it without ever belaboring any of its most important developments while still managing to include all the universal rites of passage. I think any adult of any age could watch this and remember their own triumphs and humiliations or at least identify with the milestones of adolescence that are happening on screen. Specifically first loves and first breakups..

I remained fully impressed with Arquette's character this time around whereas Hawke's came across as way more fully realized than my first time through. Probably because i caught the great parallel of the story: Mason jr. is just beginning to live out his adolescence while Mason sr. is finally finishing his. Arquette's character could never be in any kind of a carefree position since she started taking her responsibilities seriously on the day her daughter was born. On a somewhat superficial level she reminded me at times of the donkey in "Au Hasard Balthasar" as she sometimes seems destined for a lifetime of servitude, even cruelty that she might be powerless to overcome. One of the most profound scenes in recent memory is towards the end of the movie when Mason is leaving for college and Arquette sums up everything it means to be a mother in about a minute or so of screen time. This scene could've gone wrong in 100 different ways but it's played so perfectly by both actors that it's nothing short of miraculous.

[djproject]

I'll be forever amazed how Linklater tackles a subject as huge as childhood and then glides through it without ever belaboring any of its most important developments while still managing to include all the universal rites of passage. I think any adult of any age could watch this and remember their own triumphs and humiliations or at least identify with the milestones of adolescence that are happening on screen. Specifically first loves and first breakups.

This is actually why I felt Boyhood was more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar than Birdman. (And Birdman is its own marvel to behold ... but thematically I find it no different than say Sunset Boulevard or Barton Fink or The Player.)

For myself, I love how you can pick any character and find some parallel with your own life. You can look at Mason going from carefree child to experienced child to jaded adolescent to even more jaded though perhaps still hopeful young adult. You can look at Samantha, being about three years older than Mason going through the same thing. You can look at either parent and their distinct journeys. There is something identifiable in each viewing and it can - and probably should - vary with each viewing.

To build on this a little more, I love how it celebrates the "little things" and can serve as a reminder that is more often than not the "little things" that make up your story. These are the events that may serve no great consequence in your life, but they happen nevertheless. For instance, there was Mason's fifteenth birthday where he and Samantha visit his dad's new in-laws and experiences something of a cultural shock compared to what he was used to before (and certainly from Mason Sr.). From his new grandfather by marriage association, he inherits his shotgun rifle (another rite of passage: the receipt of some family heirloom with a deep history) and even tries it out. This happens only once and is never brought up again. I've had moments like that myself. The one I like to use when thinking about this was the one time I went fishing whilst on a family vacation out in the Grand Tetons and this was amongst extended family. I never since fished, just like I'm sure Mason will never fire that gun (though I'm sure he'll keep it out of respect for what it is). But that doesn't mean that moment wasn't any less important.

One of the most profound scenes in recent memory is towards the end of the movie when Mason is leaving for college and Arquette sums up everything it means to be a mother in about a minute or so of screen time. This scene could've gone wrong in 100 different ways but it's played so perfectly by both actors that it's nothing short of miraculous.

I think what made it really work was the fact that Patricia Arquette was close to that experience with her own children, who were also leaving the nest. Having those emotions definitely helps as much as being able to channel it in a constructive way. And, of course, Ellar Coltrane experiencing this in something like real time and in real life as well (though it was more experiencing what Mason experiences rather than what Ellar experiences ... and Ellar has talked about this in the supplements). What I like about it from Mason's side is that it's the reveal of something of warmth and concern, which was arguably obscured during his adolescent years.

Then, of course, it's a nice lead-in to when he drives off to Sul Ross State U and Family of the Year's "Hero" underscores it. (By the way, *that's* one of those moments where the music could have completely backfired but I think it hit the right notes, pardon the metaphor.)

[hearthesilence]

No screencaps, but this is the only review I could find that went into any detail about transfer differences:

As can be expected from two releases of a 2014 film, the differences between the two high-definition presentations are subtle, but noticeable with scrutiny. For one, Criterion's newly-scanned 2K-resolution treatment presents the film in its correct aspect ratio of 1.85:1, instead of the prior release's 1.78:1-framed transfer, and it's a shade either darker or lighter depending on the scenes being focused upon. Criterion's transfer tends to be a hair warmer in many sequences, rendering incrementally more natural skin tones and robust shades in grass greens and brick reds, and sports slightly more stable, natural film grain. There's probably about the same amount of mild print speckles between the two, both have their fair share of deep black levels that get too close for comfort in darkening details in shadows, and the level of detail remains impressive no matter which you're viewing; strands of hair, patterns in garments, and earthy textures in the wilderness are pronounced regardless. The edge, however, goes to Criterion's slightly more refined compression, even contrast balance, convincing warmth of palate ... and aspect ratio accuracy.

[Gregory]

I don't remember there being much "wilderness" in the film, but as temperatures drop it's good to know that the new transfer doubles as a hair warmer.

"Print speckles"? The transfer was done from the original camera negative.

[djproject]

This has now become my New Years viewing (along with Tokyo Story).

[hearthesilence]

Mine's The Phantom Carriage. More appropriate but a wee bit intense.

[Noiretirc]

Hey guys. Long time Criterion fan (550, first 305). I don't mean to step out of formation here, but I can't believe the outpouring of love and admiration for this film. I like Dick Linklater's stuff--Slacker is bitingly funny, and of course Dazed and Confused is a true comedy classic for anyone my age who grew up on it--but I just didn't see this as anything other than a marketing gimmick and a piece of major Oscar bait.

Let's be honest and just call a spade a spade: if this was anything other than an albeit clever set-up and idea, would we consider it anything other than a bad Lifetime Movie? Had it not been filmed over a 12 year period with a troika of artistes as the main players, we'd have simply written it off as a cute little tchotchke. The kid is about as uninteresting as child actors get, the story is about a good hour too long, and finally, for all the crap we had to endure about how smart and empowered and wonderful Alabama Worley acted in the film and onstage, she kept making the dumbest decisions. I can abide a good deal in a film, but characters doing stupid things chaps my ass to no end. She leaves Ethan Hawke and we hear how childish he is. This seemed like a great direction. The cool dad who pits the kids against the mom who has to work hard. But that was entirely wasted when it became obvious that he had his shit together more than she did. He married a good woman, and became a good dad. Alabama on the other hand continued to marry drunks. How much worse could Ethan Hawke have been than the guys she ended up with?

Any points it got for being a unique concept it gave back by being...stop me if you've heard this one...a movie about a single mom who is cool enough to let her kids puff a little cheeba, with a dollar's worth of pluck and a nickel's worth of luck trying to fight (insert one): the establishment, corporate America, evil politicians, society in general, or her past. She does this despite raising the world's smartest kids all while making herself better in the process by going to night school in between two jobs. Wow. No movie has ever been made about that concept. And of course her kids happen to be the most brilliant and enlightened whippersnappers alive. They listen to Elvis Costello, smoke just enough ganja to be cool but not enough to do those drugs society says are badder than bad, and of course, they read Dave Eggers, volunteer to elect politicians and basically have it all figured out from about birth. Why do we need to be worried about how they turn out, again? Kids like that never turn our great, upstanding people in real life, or anything.

Give me a movie about a bunch of astronauts trying to blow up an asteroid--at least I don't know how that one will turn out. It's a C-- movie with a unique concept. Why was this movie beloved and yet Act of Valor universally panned by critics?

This was soprismb's only post!

You know how everyone’s always saying, ‘Seize the moment’? I don’t know, I’m kinda thinkin’ it’s the other way around. You know, like, the moment seizes us.

[RitrovataBlue]

Hey guys. Long time Criterion fan (550, first 305). I don't mean to step out of formation here, but I can't believe the outpouring of love and admiration for this film. I like Dick Linklater's stuff--Slacker is bitingly funny, and of course Dazed and Confused is a true comedy classic for anyone my age who grew up on it--but I just didn't see this as anything other than a marketing gimmick and a piece of major Oscar bait.

Let's be honest and just call a spade a spade: if this was anything other than an albeit clever set-up and idea, would we consider it anything other than a bad Lifetime Movie? Had it not been filmed over a 12 year period with a troika of artistes as the main players, we'd have simply written it off as a cute little tchotchke. The kid is about as uninteresting as child actors get, the story is about a good hour too long, and finally, for all the crap we had to endure about how smart and empowered and wonderful Alabama Worley acted in the film and onstage, she kept making the dumbest decisions. I can abide a good deal in a film, but characters doing stupid things chaps my ass to no end. She leaves Ethan Hawke and we hear how childish he is. This seemed like a great direction. The cool dad who pits the kids against the mom who has to work hard. But that was entirely wasted when it became obvious that he had his shit together more than she did. He married a good woman, and became a good dad. Alabama on the other hand continued to marry drunks. How much worse could Ethan Hawke have been than the guys she ended up with?

Any points it got for being a unique concept it gave back by being...stop me if you've heard this one...a movie about a single mom who is cool enough to let her kids puff a little cheeba, with a dollar's worth of pluck and a nickel's worth of luck trying to fight (insert one): the establishment, corporate America, evil politicians, society in general, or her past. She does this despite raising the world's smartest kids all while making herself better in the process by going to night school in between two jobs. Wow. No movie has ever been made about that concept. And of course her kids happen to be the most brilliant and enlightened whippersnappers alive. They listen to Elvis Costello, smoke just enough ganja to be cool but not enough to do those drugs society says are badder than bad, and of course, they read Dave Eggers, volunteer to elect politicians and basically have it all figured out from about birth. Why do we need to be worried about how they turn out, again? Kids like that never turn our great, upstanding people in real life, or anything.

Give me a movie about a bunch of astronauts trying to blow up an asteroid--at least I don't know how that one will turn out. It's a C-- movie with a unique concept. Why was this movie beloved and yet Act of Valor universally panned by critics?

This was soprismb's only post!

You know how everyone’s always saying, ‘Seize the moment’? I don’t know, I’m kinda thinkin’ it’s the other way around. You know, like, the moment seizes us.

That post is certainly more memorable than the film.

[TheChubbyEmo1991]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNwa3rZ19k

I made a videoessay about Boyhood, and how it's much more impactful as you get older, as you view it in terms of the parenting effort and sacrifice that goes into raising a child. This is essentially a big fat thank you letter to my mother, to all mothers. This movie has impacted me deeply, and I think it's actually somewhat underrated now.