"Outside the gimmick, there was only Arquette's performance to add any color to a bland generic film."
Sorry, not seeing any gimmick in BOYHOOD. The whole twelve-year production process seems to me to be an anti-gimmick, a rigorous rejection of the conventional gimmickry artifice of conventional cinema -- there's just an unblinking honesty that extends even to the actors, who aren't allowed to take refuge in BENJAMIN BUTTON-esque age make-up or phony quavering voices. Time marches on, and it marches right across their faces and bodies.
Sure there's a story. There's the story of a boy coming of age, of his parents relationship with each other and their new partners, of his gradual acquisition of an outlook on life, all brought to the screen with not a moment's phoniness or artficiality, and a general refusal to indulge in big fat in-your-face explanations of BIG MESSAGES. Well, mainly, this is Linklater after all...
Life. It happens. And BOYHOOD shows it happening. It ain't everybody's cup of tea, clearly and of course. But I'm not seeing any gimmicks going on, certainly not in comparison with the ever-so-meta "look ma, it's all one take!" BIRDMAN and that Wes Anderson creature's entire phony contrived ever-so-cutely twee career output.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
Updated On: 2/23/15 at 09:52 AM