criterionforum.org

zedz wrote: My favourite grace note of the film (if I read this correctly), which really gets to the heart of Linklater's smart and generous approach:

Spoiler

the Nicole who Mason hooks up with in the final scene being the same Nicole who showed him kindness when he had that forced haircut, and more to the point, the fact that neither of them seem to be aware of this fact. It's a little detail that the two of them will have the pleasure of discovering somewhere down the road, and might just seal their relationship as a 'fated' one if they discover it at the right time and in the right circumstances. As the film indicates more than once in its final stretch, timing is everything.

Wait, is this true?

Luke M wrote:

zedz wrote: My favourite grace note of the film (if I read this correctly), which really gets to the heart of Linklater's smart and generous approach:

Spoiler

the Nicole who Mason hooks up with in the final scene being the same Nicole who showed him kindness when he had that forced haircut, and more to the point, the fact that neither of them seem to be aware of this fact. It's a little detail that the two of them will have the pleasure of discovering somewhere down the road, and might just seal their relationship as a 'fated' one if they discover it at the right time and in the right circumstances. As the film indicates more than once in its final stretch, timing is everything.

Wait, is this true?

Spoiler

I'd need to rewatch the film specifically with this in mind to be sure, but as far as I recall, 'Nicole' is the only character name to (possibly) appear in two different places, and imdb's credits only list a single 'Nicole'. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but it would be tremendously satisfying if it weren't.

It isn't true.

Zot! wrote:For all these "effortless moments", this film was littered to my mind with equally cliched clunkers that do nothing but drive the supposedly unimportant story. Like the pep-talk in dark-room, or that preposterous moment with the waiter in the restaurant, or for my money the entire denouement, which seemed like a hollow approximation of the joyous coda from Slacker.

How exactly do any of those scenes drive the narrative? I can't remember Mason Buckling Down to Be a Better Person and Achieve His Dream after the pep talk. He rather pointedly just rolls his eyes and passive aggressively goes on his merry way at the football game. It seems like that's an instance where Linklater goes out of his way to show us how that kind of cliched 'inspirational' scene would actually play out in real life, right down to the buggery jokes. The waiter scene (and the first appearance of that character) is a contrivance, mainly because it's very rare for the film to spend much time with tertiary characters like that, but it serves an important thematic purpose, and again, I can't figure out how you think it drives the story. The print I saw didn't have any scene where Arquette decides afterwards to quit her job and become a life coach. And isn't the whole point of the denouement that it's absolutely NOT a great, joyous moment of clarity? It's hardly hollow, but it's not anything that any of characters, at the time, see as any particular milestone. It's just one more step on a path that might lead somewhere or might not.

LittleFerret wrote:It isn't true.

Looks like it's not the same actor in the two roles. We'd have to ask Linklater if it's intended to be the same character, I guess!

zedz wrote:

Zot! wrote:The waiter scene (and the first appearance of that character) is a contrivance, mainly because it's very rare for the film to spend much time with tertiary characters like that, but it serves an important thematic purpose, and again, I can't figure out how you think it drives the story.

What thematic purpose is that?

knives wrote:

zedz wrote:

Zot! wrote:The waiter scene (and the first appearance of that character) is a contrivance, mainly because it's very rare for the film to spend much time with tertiary characters like that, but it serves an important thematic purpose, and again, I can't figure out how you think it drives the story.

What thematic purpose is that?

See my post of the 29th.

Fair enough, though the fashion he is reintroduced still strikes me as a bit hackneyed depending too much on coincidence and sentimentality.

knives wrote:Fair enough, though the fashion he is reintroduced still strikes me as a bit hackneyed depending too much on coincidence and sentimentality.

I'd agree with that. Though I think the first scene is more intrusive, because there seems to be no good reason why we're focussing on these characters rather than what's happening at the front of the house. The follow-up scene would probably have run smoother if it had been played a little more off the cuff, but I can certainly understand the restaurant manager being so earnest in his gratitude. Maybe it comes across as a Big Speech because, for that character, it is a Big Speech. Not coincidentally, that pair of scenes play much more like the narrative handholding and highlighted significances of generic US indies than the rest of the film.

Yeah, though, at least for myself, I probably would have been more receptive to the second scene if it didn't come in the middle of a series of scenes that had a similar sentimentality. You're right he could be excused due to earnest gratitude, but the rest of the characters not so much. I think that during this last year for the filming with the end of this 12 year experiment Linklater (and probably the rest) got a little emotional and treated his going off to college as equal to them ending this long relationship.

It's now listed on the Paramount website. My guess is the Criterion edition follows a year later. I suspect they are planning a best picture run for the film and shopped the vod and dvd/blu rights to the studios and went for whoever would put up the most $$ for marketing for a home video release smack in the middle of Oscar season. Good way to get a third party to pick up a good chunk of the tab for an awards run.

ianungstad wrote:It's now listed on the Paramount website. My guess is the Criterion edition follows a year later. I suspect they are planning a best picture run for the film and shopped the vod and dvd/blu rights to the studios and went for whoever would put up the most $$ for marketing for a home video release smack in the middle of Oscar season. Good way to get a third party to pick up a good chunk of the tab for an awards run.

Such an odd move. Why wouldn't IFC and Criterion just release a barebones version first like they did for Blue is the Warmest Color? With Sony distributing Criterion product now, it seems like their potential distribution network would be just as wide as Paramount's. This could have been a huge financial windfall for Criterion if they got their disc out at Oscar season, but the Paramount release is sure to cannibalize sales from more casual consumers.

ianungstad wrote:It's now listed on the Paramount website. My guess is the Criterion edition follows a year later. I suspect they are planning a best picture run for the film and shopped the vod and dvd/blu rights to the studios and went for whoever would put up the most $$ for marketing for a home video release smack in the middle of Oscar season. Good way to get a third party to pick up a good chunk of the tab for an awards run.

Kris Tapley from In Contention was skeptical about the film's Oscar chances because IFC typically doesn't put much if any marketing into Oscar campaigns, so perhaps it's a "you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" arrangement with Paramount of some kind, like you suggest. Anything that gets this film into more people's hands (Oscar voters or not) makes me happy, so.

Drucker wrote:For anyone who wishes it was more dramatic, I guess there's always American Beauty?

Funny, . the scene where the first step-father just basically says Fuck It, I'm going to booze it up with* dinner, reminded me of Spacey in American Beauty. And then sure enough he starts throwing shit.

* or maybe instead of -- it looked like he just had a bottle, a glass and no food.

knives wrote:Fair enough, though the fashion he is reintroduced still strikes me as a bit hackneyed depending too much on coincidence and sentimentality.

I can see what you're saying, but it wasn't as much of a problem for me. I can easily see her having an impact on someone's life and then having them later run into her by chance to thank her. It happens in real life occasionally.

Although my family circumstances are slightly different, I found the film to be a wrenching and largely convincing portrayal of the difficulties of raising children as single mother, and of having alcoholic/abusive stepfathers in the mix. It really hit home in a way that I didn't expect. In fact, Patricia Arquette's performance is what really makes the film for me. If she doesn't get at least an Oscar nomination--and preferably walks off the stage award in hand--then there is no justice.

eerik wrote:Megan Ellison on Boyhood: "BOYHOOD is a wondrous show of epic genius. It's a perfect film. The work of a masterful visionary. Fuck. I think my life just changed."

I wonder if she'll start throwing money at Linklater now?

She will.

The film is indeed coming to Blu-ray/DVD combo from Paramount Home Media in January.

well it looks like the Criterion edition will be confirmed sooner than later.

That doesn't mean much - it's already been confirmed that Criterion will release it eventually, and Blu-ray.com makes placeholders based on that sort of information.

The Criterion edition of Boyhood--12 years in the making...

Hahah, that would be the ultimate bonus feature, filmed over 12 years. Hell, that could be the hook for every subsequent reissue!

But we've already done all the Manhood jokes!

Probably next-morning anger about losing the Oscar. That sounds like hangover talk.