It was always one of those “wouldn’t it be neat if-” things you heard people occasionally chat about. Then someone did it, so no else will ever need to. The story was mediocre at best, but I bet film classes will grab it for decades to come. They love gimmicky crap. Better choice is La Jetee. Gimmicky, but at least you get a decent time travel story.
but I bet film classes will grab it for decades to come.
Yes, they will (and too many do). Yes, the film will “hold up” but as a curiosity, IMHO.
La Jetée is generally brought up simultaneously if it isn’t touched on itself. La Jetée is a vastly far superior film (for a short) and is told almost entirely with still photos. It is breathtaking in beauty, overly-complex simplicity (purposefully I am being dichotomous) and as a piece of art it may not have a parallel (contemporaneously to the era). La Jetée inspired Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys (among others) and was named the 50th greatest film - ever - by the British Film Institute (a more inclusive international ranking structure than most - and tougher, critically).
These two films are so divergent that really the only thing they have in common is “time travel” (term used loosely).
La Jetée will still find life long after Boyhood has faded from being a film of mention.
@Pavlov certainly agree. I was going more for that both films use an interesting gimmick (same actors over years, still photos rather than active film) to try to enhance the story being told. And honestly, both succeed in that.
La Jetee amps up the sense of disorientation and decay for the future, while also calming you in the present, all by taking well-known techniques and stripping them down to there most basic forms. It is a surprisingly visceral experience that sticks with you. La Jetee feels like it would work, even without the gimmick, but it works better with it.
And Boyhood certainly makes you look and think about it more as a result of the gimmick, but unfortunately, the more time you think about it, the more you realize that, without the crutch of the gimmick, it would never have gone as far.
I was already doing nothing but post-calculus and post-differential equations math when I first saw the film.
The math was not an issue.
Talking about the film left me a little tongue tied tho. Since I tried to use English as tho it were a mathematical language. It’s not.
All that fucking connotation and denotation. All that ambiguity and resonance. All those subtle cultural shout-outs. All those “human condition” meditations.
Personally struggled with those little sets of dichotomies for more than a decade.
Now I just fuck around with them.
BTW I still like that film.
BTW I always pick up the last card, unless the other party insists.
You know the actual French name. Cool!
I am too stupid or too lazy to learn languages other than English and math. I tried. They wouldn’t “take”.
It’s been so many decades since I’ve seen that.
What’s significant about its existence in the year 1961 per se? I’ve no idea.
I don’t know enough “film linguistics” (if I may grab a bullshit phrase); or enough critical film theory; and don’t have the cinema vocab or anything like that - and don’t remember it well enough - to know if it’s a masterpiece or shit or something else.
I think it’s fun. Does that mean I have a trivial brain?
If I were programming the Thalia, instead of putting it on a double-bill with some other European oh-so-avant something or other, I might double-bill it with Eraserhead.
And that may be one of the reasons why no one is looking to hire me for that job.
@f00l Yes, I know the actual title, but it really should be L’Année dernière à Mariánské Lázně, the Polish name of the place, not Marienbad, the German.
The oneiric narrative appearing from Europe at that time (1961) is the larger discussion to have.
Kael thought it was pure European pretentious “meaningful” over-thought, over-constructed junk or something.
(I knew that once but had forgotten; I so loved reading her each week …)
So if she thought that:
it might be terrible, or it might fail to kiss/bang, or it might betray the very heart and core of cinema in favor of high-intellectual-garbage, or it might be weird, or a bore, or it might have originated from a non-English-language-dominated culture. Or it might be interesting. Or all of the above.
But wait!
Medved thinks it’s horrible!
Ok. That settles it. If Medved trashes it, it can’t be all bad. Might be very good. Might even be a masterpiece.
Even good writers, once they go all conservative and stupid, and then they foolishly become art critics, can safely be deconstructed with vicious and joyous scalpel-glee.
Except Buckley of course. But Buckley had an artist’s being, even if he was mostly wrong about political things; a great personality, possibly a great “soul” (no religious implications); and a genuine poet’s love of sailing and old New England ways that are mostly lost now.
(The “fading flinty NE” portion of his being had nothing to do with conservatism of course; tho he would have, in error, claimed otherwise.)
Being an American, a Texan, somewhat comfortable with tech, I am, therefore, obviously, an uneducated idiot.
It was always one of those “wouldn’t it be neat if-” things you heard people occasionally chat about. Then someone did it, so no else will ever need to. The story was mediocre at best, but I bet film classes will grab it for decades to come. They love gimmicky crap. Better choice is La Jetee. Gimmicky, but at least you get a decent time travel story.
@simplersimon
Yes, they will (and too many do). Yes, the film will “hold up” but as a curiosity, IMHO.
La Jetée is generally brought up simultaneously if it isn’t touched on itself. La Jetée is a vastly far superior film (for a short) and is told almost entirely with still photos. It is breathtaking in beauty, overly-complex simplicity (purposefully I am being dichotomous) and as a piece of art it may not have a parallel (contemporaneously to the era). La Jetée inspired Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys (among others) and was named the 50th greatest film - ever - by the British Film Institute (a more inclusive international ranking structure than most - and tougher, critically).
These two films are so divergent that really the only thing they have in common is “time travel” (term used loosely).
La Jetée will still find life long after Boyhood has faded from being a film of mention.
Best Boyhood review I have read to date:
http://www.the-solute.com/the-problem-with-boyhood-2014/
@Pavlov certainly agree. I was going more for that both films use an interesting gimmick (same actors over years, still photos rather than active film) to try to enhance the story being told. And honestly, both succeed in that.
La Jetee amps up the sense of disorientation and decay for the future, while also calming you in the present, all by taking well-known techniques and stripping them down to there most basic forms. It is a surprisingly visceral experience that sticks with you. La Jetee feels like it would work, even without the gimmick, but it works better with it.
And Boyhood certainly makes you look and think about it more as a result of the gimmick, but unfortunately, the more time you think about it, the more you realize that, without the crutch of the gimmick, it would never have gone as far.
@simplersimon
@Pavlov
I am so out of it re cinema.
: [
@f00l
@Pavlov
I was already doing nothing but post-calculus and post-differential equations math when I first saw the film.
The math was not an issue.
Talking about the film left me a little tongue tied tho. Since I tried to use English as tho it were a mathematical language. It’s not.
All that fucking connotation and denotation. All that ambiguity and resonance. All those subtle cultural shout-outs. All those “human condition” meditations.
Personally struggled with those little sets of dichotomies for more than a decade.
Now I just fuck around with them.
BTW I still like that film.
BTW I always pick up the last card, unless the other party insists.
Don’t wanna be rude …
@f00l Many consider L’Année dernière à Marienbad to be a masterpiece . . . most feel it is pretentious shite.
I’m of the opinion that it’s actual existence in 1961 is far more significant a discussion.
@Pavlov
You know the actual French name. Cool!
I am too stupid or too lazy to learn languages other than English and math. I tried. They wouldn’t “take”.
It’s been so many decades since I’ve seen that.
What’s significant about its existence in the year 1961 per se? I’ve no idea.
I don’t know enough “film linguistics” (if I may grab a bullshit phrase); or enough critical film theory; and don’t have the cinema vocab or anything like that - and don’t remember it well enough - to know if it’s a masterpiece or shit or something else.
I think it’s fun. Does that mean I have a trivial brain?
If I were programming the Thalia, instead of putting it on a double-bill with some other European oh-so-avant something or other, I might double-bill it with Eraserhead.
And that may be one of the reasons why no one is looking to hire me for that job.
@f00l Yes, I know the actual title, but it really should be L’Année dernière à Mariánské Lázně, the Polish name of the place, not Marienbad, the German.
The oneiric narrative appearing from Europe at that time (1961) is the larger discussion to have.
@Pavlov
I looked up some reviews.
Kael thought it was pure European pretentious “meaningful” over-thought, over-constructed junk or something.
(I knew that once but had forgotten; I so loved reading her each week …)
So if she thought that:
it might be terrible, or it might fail to kiss/bang, or it might betray the very heart and core of cinema in favor of high-intellectual-garbage, or it might be weird, or a bore, or it might have originated from a non-English-language-dominated culture. Or it might be interesting. Or all of the above.
But wait!
Medved thinks it’s horrible!
Ok. That settles it. If Medved trashes it, it can’t be all bad. Might be very good. Might even be a masterpiece.
Even good writers, once they go all conservative and stupid, and then they foolishly become art critics, can safely be deconstructed with vicious and joyous scalpel-glee.
Except Buckley of course. But Buckley had an artist’s being, even if he was mostly wrong about political things; a great personality, possibly a great “soul” (no religious implications); and a genuine poet’s love of sailing and old New England ways that are mostly lost now.
(The “fading flinty NE” portion of his being had nothing to do with conservatism of course; tho he would have, in error, claimed otherwise.)
Being an American, a Texan, somewhat comfortable with tech, I am, therefore, obviously, an uneducated idiot.
Comes with the turf.
How could I forget?
@Pavlov
I read a bunch of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic-deconstructionist stuff once.
Lacan
Merleau-Ponty.
Derrida
There were some others.
It’s been a long time. But I’m not sorry I read it.
And so forth.
Of course, we, being Americans, Americanized it.
It’s what we do, so to speak.
Norbert Weiner
Gregory Bateson
Margaret Mead
And more.
Hive digital mind.
It can be coded, perhaps.
Code it.
…
It’s no accident that the true home of classical psychoanalysis today, and since the 1930’s, is Manhattan.
Psychoanalysis is a form of tech.
"Have tech, will travel"
To America.