Why ‘Boyhood’ should have won best picture

Re: The Oscars

Why+Boyhood+should+have+won+best+picture

Christian Bale lost 60 pounds for his performance in “The Machinist”. No Academy with a conscience could refrain from rewarding this feat of utter dedication in method acting with an Oscar. “Schindler’s List”, too, a heart-rendingly memorable film rended the heart-strings of these blonde haired, stiff-faced wizards of cinema. “Boyhood”, directed by Richard Linklater could be described as notoriously lacking in any such display of climactic bravura. Of course, the method in which it was filmed, spanning over a decade with the same actors and employing their burgeoning identities in a collaborative union, was certainly unique. However even this variance was fairly unobtrusive, and it was all simply part of the vision.

The true genius of this movie lies in its subtlety, and its subtly arresting realism.

“Boyhood” spans the youth of Mason, played by Ellar Coltrane, from early childhood to early adulthood and documents the trials of his family as they struggle to make different sorts of ends meet. It is just as much about his single mother, played by Patricia Arquette, and the Oscar did award this phenomenal woman Best Supporting Actress which stands to their credit. Arquette perfectly exemplifies the sheer humanity Linklater manages to delineate in his films; we find ourselves in love with these people we see on screen, and all people by extension. We become more invested in the private battles of our peers.

“Boyhood” is a masterpiece of a film without being a spectacle, at least in the usual sense. The entirety of its effects as an artwork are not immediately perceptible. It works its way into one’s consciousness and leaves a sense of lasting sympathy, and a totally unaffected belief in the serendipity, the wonder even, of life. It would have done our decade credit to award such a movie.