Archive

Monthly Archives: September 2014

We know what is good about Boyhood. This is one of the best films of the year, and perhaps, one of the best American films in recent years. The film’s greatest success, I think, is how Linklater assembled events across 12 years into a coherent narrative and, for the most part, collected the events against the grain of monumental history. 12 years of possible situations is a vast expanse of time and space. Linklater not only gave us the key moments that were transformative for Mason and his family, but took a bit of time to rejoice in the ephemeral moments of childhood and adolescence (e.g., finding a dead bird and awkward teenager romance).

boyhood---big

There are three negative things that need to be said about the film. The first is simply the lack of reflexivity. When Linklater appears as a charcter (I think) – in a diner as a professor speaking to himself – the director Linklater could have linked us back to Before Sunrise’s cafe scene. When Mason and Sheena ask what all those people were doing there at 3am, the answer could have been shown through several shots, a la Before Sunrise, in which the audience is privy to the patron’s conversations. I also missed Linklater’s long, strolling conversations. While this is more difficult with a child actor, we don’t really see this until the very end of the film. Ethan Hawke appearing more or less as his character from the Before… movies could’ve made for interesting reflections on those earlier films as well. The are numerous others examples I could give here. (Of course, there was the same actor from Dazed and Confused as the clerk.)

The film was also very quick. On the one hand, this was an excellent aesthetic choice. 12 years fly by and I certainly did not feel as through 3 hours passed in the cinema. I was entertained, fully, for the entire movie. On the other hand, some silences, longer dialogue, and longer takes seem appropriate.

More importantly, while I certainly praise Linklater’s selection of moments to depict, I didn’t appreciate the under-representation of sexuality. For me, as you can tell from my blog posts, sex and the cinema go together like chocolate and peanut butter. Part of adolescence is sexual, if not a large part. Linklater sidesteps this by briefly showing Mason making-out on his 15th birthday and Samantha mentioning she had lots of fun in college. But the ways in which wet dreams, masturbation, and my first sexual encounters haunt my memories will be missing for Mason (perhaps a good thing) I understand that any hint or scene might have pushed the rating over the edge (perhaps to an R here in Canada), but I still feel a little cheated; a film called Boyhood, about boyhood, neglects the central character’s sexuality. Although, the young boys looking at lingerie models and later at pornography, sparked some funny memories for me. These scenes were headed in the right direction, but a clever director could have done more while still keeping it a 14A feature. Putting Mason’s sexual preference/orientation into question on a number of occasions is perhaps an American thing. It seemed pointless to me.

Even with these faults, the film is a gem. It needs to be watched and re-watched, and I expect with each viewing, I’ll see things that I initially missed. Boyhood is worthy of all its praise – I just wanted to say something a little different.

I’m furious about recent developments involving Jennifer Lawrence. She has worked hard to establish herself as an A-List actress and this did not happen overnight. Now the internet wants access to her body for free.

Illegally downloading films and images needs to stop. Internet users are flooding the internet with images of Lawrence in David O. Russell’s American Hustle (2013). In this film Lawrence wears several revealing outfits and images such as the below are easily accessible to anyone with a web browser.

jennifer_lawrence_american_hustle_i0OnpSF1.sized Jennifer-Lawrence-american-hustle-A2_zps8cbc8898

These images must be paid for by consumers. Russell and Lawrence did not intend for us to freely access the film – both director and actress took time and energy to create this film and we should pay to see it. But Jennifer’s body isn’t merely for aesthetic pleasure: her character Rosalyn was dressed to highlight certain qualities of that character. Thus any viewing of the film or sexy image is not only out of context, but is clearly theft.

Lawrence labored in the making of American Hustle. Throughout her career she has crafted a particular image of angelic purity, whether as Katniss or Rosalyn, even if the latter has a bit of edge. Images such as the above break our preconceived notions of that purity: Katniss would never pose so sensually, nor would we like to believe that the actress portraying fictional characters has anything like a sex life. Lawrence would like to maintain this facade – her career depends on it and we as her faithful fans want such out of context, and stolen, images taken down from websites.

If actresses choose to show their bodies, and the producers intend for audiences to pay a fee to see the star’s body, anything less than the full price of a theater ticket (or DVD rental) is unethical. I know I wouldn’t want my images stolen by internet perverts. Clearly I can understand Lawrence’s plight because I wouldn’t want my privacy breached, and further, I wouldn’t want my images circulating the internet and global news. I can imagine myself getting such press and attention due to my success and fame. In fact, as I am imagining myself as a celebrity figure, I feel a great sense of pathos with Lawrence.

The following flow chart can help you decide if illegally downloading movies is the right choice:

1trE69q

NB: This is satire if that wasn’t clear.

It suggests that the debate about Lawrence’s privacy is misguided, and crazy. The questions we should be asking are: what are our relationship to celebrities, what kind of product is being sold to us (“Jennifer Lawrence”), and how do we consume the product “Jennifer Lawrence.”

Our response to hacked photos, as an invasion of privacy, is really our response to poor labor practices: since we accept that celebrities can show their bodies onscreen for a fee, and we subsequently fill the internet with these images, what we are really upset about is that Lawrence was not ready (and not paid) to present her nudity for public consumption. We know that A list celebrities reserve their nudity for art cinema, not cell phone pics. (Cf. Scarlet Johansson in Under the Skin [2013], for a recent example.)