Boyhood editing blog post

Boyhood is an unique film to say the very least as it documents the boyhood of a boy using the same actors for continuity. In order to accomplish such a feat, good editing was needed to connect the scenes where he aged. For the most part Linklater, the director, does a great job with this never totally blindsiding us with any changes. This was particularly true with The "alcoholic Dad" sequence where it went from the Mother meeting him to her marrying him and then to their life together. Linklater then gives us a sense of time passing and their situation getting worse and worse without disorienting us. This was not true however, with the transfer from the angsty Mason to the super profound and hipster Mason. While we did a glimpse at his budding interest in photography from the darkroom scene, the changing of his overall attitude is very sudden and comes off a little irritating in my opinion. You could argue that such is the nature of this film and it was intentional but seeing as how it deviated from the rest of the films smooth transitions I'd beg to differ. This one hiccup however, does not negate the value of this film which tells the story of about from ages 6-18 in the most accurate way possible and is beyond a shadow of a doubt a historical milestone in filmmaking.

MYST #4: Children of Men

When we first saw clips from this movie my initial thoughts were that this movie would cover an intense civil war/rebellion and cover it in a documentary style which I had not seen before. I was disappointed by the eventual outcome of the plot but was nonetheless blown away by the superb cinematography and interesting world in which the story took place. First of all like I said the cinematography in this film is really good as it has long uninterrupted shots that caught some of the most important moments in the film. The first scene, which I find particularly effective, introduces our main character Theo hearing that the youngest person in their infertile world has just been killed. It then follows him outside to the gray, gloomy streets filled with cars and rickshaws uncharacteristic of a first world country. The camera then pans to the coffee shop that Theo just left, which explodes and then zooms to a dazed Theo and showing the viewer that this movie wasn't playing around. This method is utilized throughout the film and is able suck the viewer into the scene like nothing ive ever seen before. Also the World that the film creates is also gorgeous as it manages to look believable and classically dystopian at the same time. it is gray but also filled with ads and other aspects of modern life.
The overall plot is another story, however. Theo is an uninteresting cliche of a government bureaucrat caught up with some rebels. To be fair, the film doesn't really revolve around him but having his character be so dull really slows down the beginning of the film significantly. Also, it seems like the film does not know exactly what it is criticizing as it goes all futuristic one and consumerist one minute but then shifts to immigration. It is probable this is to satirize America in general, but the film could be much stronger if it chose to specifically satirize immigration. No particular character really stands out in this film as they are all mostly cliched. For example there Theo as I mentioned earlier, and Key the pregnant woman in this film is innocent but realizes her "ark" type status. I honestly think that if the environment and cinematography weren't so excellent this film would not be nearly as memorable. Also, the ending is absolute crap and has little payoff. Maybe I'm this cynical about it because of my overall opposition to the political message of the film which may be a factor behind the praise for the film, some of which is probably unwarranted praise. I give this film a 7.5/10 stars
 

Goddamn Conglomerates

Tuesday, after I came back from history club, I was watching TV in my living room. not too long after I sat down a commercial for the final installment of the hunger games flashes onto the screen. However, this one was different as it was simultaneously a Chrysler ad  that was telling me to go and buy a shitty domestic car with "0% APR financing for 75 months". Of course, this would've been ironic with any large corporation advertising a movie about a revolution but ,Chrysler, the company that only stayed in business because of $1.3 billion of tax-payer money and the peak of this Government's corruption, is just too much. This is of course to be expected with how corporations since the 80's have all but taken over from the independent studios and now tie in movies with merchandise and many more products, seeking to squeeze every dollar they can out of it. I just saw this as the most ironic ad ever and represents the slow erosion of the art of filmmaking.