Director: Pablo Larraín
Writer: Noah Oppenheim
Cinematographer: Stéphane Fontaine
Producer:  Juan de Dios Larraín, Darren Aronofsky, Mickey Liddell, Scott Franklin, and Ari Handel

by Jon Cvack

I’ve been anxious to check out Jackie since discovering it was directed by Pablo Larraín, who made No (2012) four years earlier; another historical drama in which an ad man gets involved on the 1988 Chilean plebiscite, deciding whether or not dictator Augusto Pinochet should stay in power for another eight years. While the story itself was engaging enough, it was the photography that etched the film into memory, shot entirely on old video news cameras that made it look as though I was watching a film that was shot during the period.

Jackie is shot with comparable complement, utilizing Super 16mm film to match the actual footage from the period, along with breathtaking set design from Jean Rabasse that looked like they somehow gained access to the actual White House and all its amenities. The film takes place from the moment JFK was shot, all the way up through one of the first interviews Jacqueline Kennedy (Natalie Portman) gave about the horrific event, including the physical transition from Kennedy’s administration and into LBJ’s; providing an intimate look into Jacqueline’s determination to handle the situation as best she could.

From the interview, the story begins with Jacqueline on the plane, covered in blood, as LBJ (John Carroll Lynch) is being sworn in. John Carroll has large boots to fill after both Bryan Cranston in HBO's All the Way and particularly Michael Gambon’s brilliant performance in HBO's other LBJ bio-pic Path to War (from my count, LBJ has been portrayed in five films, as of 2019). However, counter to those films, we receive a more superficial look at the man who unfortunately is portrayed as at least mildly excited for the position, offering little in the way of empathy for the Kennedy’s grief. 

The film moves on to follow Jacqueline as she works with Bob Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard) to make the funeral arrangements, with Jacqueline determined to provide her husband the grandest procession the country has ever seen, going so far as to have an assistant research Lincoln’s funeral, which included Heads of State from the world over, all led by horse drawn hearse down the eight blocks to Arlington Cemetery. Though when Lee Harvey Oswald is suddenly assassinated, the LBJ administration cautions her about security, advising against the Kennedy’s walking such a relatively long distance. We watch as Jackie drifts between melancholy and madness, seemingly incapable of making a decision without second guessing herself and forcing everyone to change the plans.

What the film does so well is take an objective look at the woman and what it means to be a Kennedy. As I’ve mentioned before - most recently in Street Fight (2005) - what I find most interesting about politicians, and especially the presidency, is the expansive ego it demands; in which the candidate has to believe that they are the one who can lead an entire nation against the vast challenges it faces. In the modern era, and matters of seniority aside, a person is not often chosen to be president so much as possesses the faith they could be. Working in entertainment where egos run sky high - and for things which do not matter in any comparable way - I have trouble grasping the idea of someone thinking they can guide the country in the correct direction; that their ideas are the ones the people should vote for. 

Given the increasingly expensive cost to run, it often demands that the individual comes from wealth; with only a fraction having come from more modest means (I highly recommend reading McCullough’s "Truman" to gain insight into a modern example of how things use to be). The Kennedy wealth, stemming from Joseph P. Kenny, Sr., came from banking and investments, some originating in bootlegging and others arguing insider trading (back when the SEC, in its lenient stage, was far more lenient). Currently, there’s yet another Kennedy serving in congress - 36 year old Joe Kennedy III, who’s allegedly inherited between $15-55 million. While I agree with much of the man’s politics, there’s something I find gross about the Kennedy dynasty; the way I find both the Bush and burgeoning Clinton dynasties gross. In a country that was founded on the principle of all people being created equal, families of this sort, with their vast wealth and name recognition, make it increasingly difficult for the average person to reach higher office.

​Continue to Part 2...

BELOW: Probably one of the top ten accents ever designed

Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon

Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer: Mark Boal
Cinematographer: Barry Ackroyd
​Producer:  Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Matthew Budman, Megan Ellison, Colin Wilson

by Jon Cvack

Continued from Part 1...

As terrifying as Platoon’s Mai Lai portrayal was, it didn’t go on for the majority of the film; it was a scene within a larger film, which I think could have benefited Detroit. The more appropriate portrayal would have focused on the shocking trial, where even with nearly half a dozen witnesses, mostly black, testifying to what happened, the officers were found not-guilty and simply relieved of duty.

In the end, we hear that the filmmakers don’t know what actually happened that night, relying solely on the surviving participants. Unfortunately, having sprinted through the trial and its proceeding, I couldn’t help but take this fact and wonder what else was left out. We see how the witnesses’ individual histories and unrelated character impacted the trial, but with the absence of hard facts, I was left wanting more from both sides. What was the officer’s defense? What was the strategy? How did the media respond? How did the community respond? Countless questions began popping up, leaving me to think that this story would have been much better served by abandoning the extended torture and murder of those involved and toward what happened with the trial and what it all meant. The movie might have been better and less effectively titled The Algiers Motel than Detroit, as I was hoping to see more of all the events that occurred; the injustices throughout the city and the way the politics played a role between the governor, mayor, community leaders, National Guard, and police; allowing us a well-rounded view into these tragic days.

I was left depressed in the end; in a way that I don’t think is needed right now. The black community and those on the left don’t need to see such grotesque actions in a film in this era; they see them every month, if not more; with officers often excused with equally similar slaps on the wrist. To see that this has been going on since 1967 and essentially for all of time, often in much worse terms, doesn’t add much to the conversation. Seeing how the system worked and the ways in which it was used to favor officers against the black community is something that would have provided value. And thus the film seems relevant solely for conservatives, who refuse to see a problem, and yet would very likely take issue with the closing statement regarding the facts. And if not for a political audience, I’m not sure who this is for, as even someone removed from current affairs would likely have a hard time watching this.

It’s a very well made film, telling a story that’s better to exist than left unexplored. All problems with focus aside, it contains some of the finest performances from an ensemble cast in years. One of the strongest performances from Will Poulter, who masterfully conveys the sheer hate, bigotry, and blatant disregard for the law in order to maintain his white supremacy, all without the slightest degree of empathy. He’s one of the most vile characters I’ve seen graze the screen this decade. To show the world what the dregs of humanity actually look like - that it stands to infect anyone from any race, should power and opportunity present itself - that is what’s most terrifying to see. Just as most have no clue what would possibly cause them to set fire to their own community, we also don’t know where or when evil will infect humanity.

BELOW: Truly one of the most vile characters of the decade

Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon

Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page

​

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer: Mark Boal
Cinematographer: Barry Ackroyd
​Producer:  Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Matthew Budman, Megan Ellison, Colin Wilson

by Jon Cvack

The film opens up at a party, shot in a handheld style that I truly wish could be retired for all big budget dramatic stories (military films excluded), containing bumpy camera work and tiny snap zooms that is ugly to watch and completely unnecessary; sacrificing creative camera work in order to achieve a realistic style that has been long played out. It was distracting enough for me to dread the near two and a half hour running, wondering what to expect.

Well, I was completely wrong, and while the opening scene did little to capture the essence of 1967, the rest of the films looks and feels as though it was shot during the period, intercutting footage from the era, and often leaving you wondering what was Bigelow's footage and what was actual. Having no understanding of the history, we see that the state brought in tanks, with the black community destroying and looting property, setting much of the town on fire.

I often hear ignorant criticism from white people who wonder why people would want to burn down their neighborhood. It’s an inherently racist statement, indicating that - as white people  - they would never do it to their neighborhood. The refute, which I was glad to see included, is to reframe the question - in that how bad things must have to get for you to burn down and destroy your neighborhood? Things had become so desperate, particularly with relationship to the police and their responsibility to protect the neighborhood, that the community was willing to do whatever necessary, and then watch how much more extreme the animosity would become (Trump's presidency and his supporters could likely understand this point, metaphorically speaking).

Days later, we meet the young and very punchable faced Detroit Officer Philip Krauss (Will Poulter) who while patrolling the shoots a black looter that’s running away, who crawls underneath a truck to hide. Krauss is interrogated by an aboveboard internal affairs detective - he’s going to file a case of murder against Krauss.*

Nevertheless, until convicted, Krauss is free to continue roaming the streets. Rarely have I so hated a character based solely on their looks, which when combined with a devastating performance by Poulter, provides one of the most despicable characters since Anton Chigurh. He heads out with his other two partners and night begins to falls.

We then turn to pop black boy band The Dramatics, who are about to play to at a packed music hall where record producers are checking out the talent. The group is led by Larry Reed (Algee Smith) and his friend Fred Temple (Jacob Latimore), convinced that the night will provide their big break. We remember that this is Motown’s heyday, where amidst all the incredible songs, there were riots outside the door - in this case literally, and the show is shut down. Larry and Fred decide to walk back to the hotel and we see a world that looks like the apocalypse, with police everywhere, lining up dozens of black citizens, and others throwing rocks through the bus windows. They manage to navigate through the riot police, getting back to their motel at The Algiers. Regardless of the riots, the place is bumping, with people drinking and hanging in the pool.

We meet Julie Ann (Hannah Murray) and Karen (Kaitlyn Dever) as two white girls wearing dresses, and it’s here that Bigelow’s talents shined, as this would have been so easy to overlook the additional layer of sexism occurring during the period and yet she combines the two with taste and perfection. It’s tough for me to admit, but after seeing situations like this across hundreds year of cinema, I assumed the two girls were prostitutes and I’m comfortable assuming I’m not alone. And I believe that was the point. Bigelow wanted to play with our expectations, to unravel our assumptions and stereotypes and make us feel guilty in the process. 

Turns out they're friends with some of the other men in the house, and while open with their sexuality, they're portrayed as comfortable with their bodies and fully aware of who they are. The girls introduce Fred and Larry to Carl Cooper (Jason Mitchell) and Aubrey Pollard (Gbenga Akinnagbe; in a great role; hoping to see more from him) as they pass around a joint, with Julie making out with Larry, as Carl and Aubrey talk politics and what the situation means. In a brilliant scene we see Aubrey and Carl put on an act, culminating in Aubrey pulling out a pistol, pretending to shoot Carl who plays dead. Aubrey declares the best trick is to shoot out the window, scaring the police into thinking it’s a sniper. Against everyone’s recommendation, he fires away, discovering the gun loaded and alarming the police who return fire, soon discovering the source and entering into the house.

I can’t remember the last film that offered such a realistic immersion into another time, as often period pieces will rely on far more extravagant photography and style. As much as I hated the handheld style, like subtitles, you quickly get use to it, and the story takes over. It felt as though Bigelow had time traveled with a production crew, and like journalists, snuck into the heart of the ‘67 Detroit riots. Unfortunately, not knowing that this was based on a very specific story, the film then went inside the Algiers house, and all of that was abandoned, focusing on a terrifying and almost unbearably uncomfortable scene from recent American history.

I had seen many of the political blogs attack the film, and in an age where it’s nearly impossible to make a film without offending some group or individual (recently a co-worker said she was boycotting Get Out because she was in an interracial relationship; I didn’t want to start the debate). Without having read the details of these blogs, I do see where their overall point. The scene that follows involves Officer Krauss and his crew of crooked officers as they torture the black men and two white girls in order to find out where the gun is - refusing to accept that there is no gun. Similar to the opening scene, Krauss shoots and kills Aubrey point blank in the back, tossing a knife down next to him to make it seem like he was under threat.

Amidst the chaos, the body’s discovered by security guard Melvin Demukes (John Boyega), who’s accused of being an Uncle Tom, willing to suck up to the white Guardsmen and Officers in order to avoid any mishaps, in addition to offering a little extra protection to the store he’s protecting. The action at Algiers causes him to abandon his post and check out the situation, discovering Aubrey’s body and being entrusted to accomodate the officer’s interrogation tactic of taking each suspect one by one into a private room and pretending to assassinate them; hoping one of the other suspects would eventually provide the information.

The scene is full of yelling and crying and such abhorrent injustice, all dragging on for what has to be a least forty-five minutes, soon making me realize that this film is not about “Detroit” at all, but rather this specific event that would go on to make national headlines. Similar to Platoon’s and the Mai Lai massacre of the innocent and unarmed civilians, this film enrages you over the gross injustice taking place; especially as guardsmen and other officers (even one of the police Lieutenants who arrives and leaves) enter into the scene, saying nothing, not wanting to cause any problems for their fellow men in blue.

It’s a terrible and tragic moment, and yet I couldn’t stop thinking about Haneke’s criticism over Schindler’s List in creating entertainment out of the holocaust. While I disagree with attacks against Spielberg, a film like this does float a similar question. I was watching this film in a high luxury AMC theater with reclining sofa chairs, and the fact that some people might make money off this film left me feeling uneasy. Later digging into the criticism from other sources, the writers too took issue with essentially showing black men be tortured and killed for two and a half hours. Personally, I thought that this situation was far too much and veered toward bad taste.

*In writing this that I realize this was never raised in the court case, leaving me wondering what ever happened to this pending offense.

Continued to Part 2...

BELOW: Great scene of both politics and tension

Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon

Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page

Director: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker
Writer: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker
Cinematographer: Michael Beach Nichols
Producer: Joey Carey, Jenner Furst, Michael Beach Nichols, Christopher K. Walker, Joshua Woltermann

by Jon Cvack​

Continued from Part 1...


Welcome to Leith is documentary about a small North Dakota town with a population of about twenty-five people, where the legendary, geriatric Neo-Nazi Craig Cobb moves in order to start a small Nazi governed community. We’re introduced to Leith by its mayor Ryan Schock, who explains that the three mile wide town includes a single black man, Bobby Harper and his wife, along with couple Lee and Heather Cook, who had who had left Utah after Lee’s daughter was shot and killed.


The documentary follows Craig Cobb as he tries and succeeds in attracting additional Neo-Nazis to the community. Craig and his Nazi cohorts then purchase property, with plans for an elaborate layout of the city that would feature memorials of famous Nazis. By attracting enough Nazis to gain a majority of the voting population, they could then seize control of the town, forcing Schock, Harper, and Cook, amongst others, to watch as their town is hijacked. This soon attracts the attention and support of the leading figures of the major present day Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist organizations.

The combination of gorgeous photography and the situation’s absurdity create a story unlike anything I’ve ever seen. To watch this days after Charlottesville, with everyone thinking this was just some rare occurrence, and having watching PBS's Oklahoma City, The Battle of Bunkerville, and Ruby Ridge, I began to see that this is a very serious and frightening problem; where after a disgustingly timid and ambiguous response from the President - in a Presidency that has always been very specific when he wanted it to be - it is now helping to empower these individuals. I never thought I’d see a racist sympathizer again in my lifetime, as Ronald Reagan, for as much as I disagreed with him, epitomized the boy scout, Great American attitude that other Republicans would strive toward. I think of if I saw this film in 2015 when Obama was president. I’d probably think it was the fringe. Now it feels eerily close, and in an age where divisions already run high, we’re now seeing a lot of nasty ideas coming to light, as the amount of Republicans who agreed with Trump's response, including his remarks on there being good people on both sides, hovers at 67%. 


One person I came across on Facebook shared a video of ISIS pulling down statues along with the liberals pulling down the Confederate statues; equating the two. It’s truly one of the stupidest and most anti-factual things I’ve seen. Of course I had to ask how she’d feel if Jews were forced to live in a town with a statue of Hitler or other Nazis, and then decided to tear it down. She didn’t respond. But these ideas, with a president refusing to condemn them, are therefore now permissible to explore. And the thing is one day Trump will be gone, and a move toward decency will return, and those ideas will once again have to be contained, and yet there they were, for all of us to see for while.

The film is shot beautifully, falling far from the traditional, more neutral style of traditional news documentaries (such as Frontline). It contains a cinematic quality, and while Wikipedia doesn’t cite the source, allegedly directors Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker wanted to shoot it like a horror/western, accomplishing both, and raising interesting questions about aesthetic’s role in capturing the truth. I found it an engaging style, subtle enough to remain objective, with enough style to enhance the excitement. I think of one scene at a local bar, where Shock is talking to the other patrons, shot in profile while a larger, 30-something man in a mustache lends his small town advice about the situation. All these people just wanted something simple for their lives, and listening to them try and make sense of it all is fascinating.

What’s most inspiring is the people’s willingness to fight, with Lee and Heather, living right across from Cobb, later purchasing guns and rifles, later practicing with the weapons, refusing to be run out of town by Neo-Nazis in the year 2017. We see the fantastic use of the law that condemns the Nazis property, requiring them to spend tens of thousands of dollars to repair it, or have it torn down.

The boiling conflict comes to blast when Cobb and his Nazi friends roam the street with loaded rifles, terrorizing the neighbors and finally attracting the police. If anyone in some way, some how needed additional evidence of racial bias in policing, look no further than this situation, in which although Cobb and his crew are declaring that they have loaded rifles, and after receiving numerous calls from ostensibly all of Leith’s residences, with the Nazis at one point threatening to shoot one man in particular, the police simply tell them to go home. Fortunately a few days later, an arrest warrant is issued. Unfortunately, due to some conflict with a key witness, Cobb is let go, under four years probation, finally accepting that he’s unwelcome in Leith and leaving (though still preserving his land).

While the film’s ending tanks in comparison to its first two thirds, that’s simply the consequence of catching such a surreal event. The documentary leaves you uneasy, and given that it was made in 2015, makes you wonder how many other Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists will follow in Cobb’s footsteps, and what Cobb might try to accomplished in a couple years when his probation expires. Welcome to Leith is an incredible documentary; serving as a harbinger of things to come and a perfect film to accompany the present feud between these groups, Trump, and the rest of America. The hope resides in the fact that the rest of the townspeople were willing to fight and, while not the victory they were hoping for, came out on top by banding together and fighting against this evil.

BELOW: A news report as the Neo-Nazis attempt to cease control of city hall

Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon

Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page

​

Director: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker
Writer: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker
Cinematographer: Michael Beach Nichols
Producer: Joey Carey, Jenner Furst, Michael Beach Nichols, Christopher K. Walker, Joshua Woltermann

by Jon Cvack​

I always know I’m in for a treat when my friend Tim text’s me about a movie. I’m writing this right after the Charlottesville Riots, where for the first time I think we’re seeing the true side of Trump and his supporters finally coming out, and it’s breaking my heart. I see people that I would consider friends defending Nazis, masking that defense behind the First Amendment, as though just because something is currently a particular right the law cannot evolve. 


I once considered myself a pretty vehement first amendment supporter, but I do not consider Nazis and White Supremacists right to free speech falling within the First Amendment purview, as the very nature and foundation of those ideologies is the mass disruption and often destruction of specific human lives. The defense that so long as an individual is not inciting violence that it is within the bounds of free speech is negated when the very purpose of that idea is to destroy life. I believe in free speech as it comes through constructive dialogue. The moment one side poses to murder human life, that is no longer a constructive conversation. This seems pretty straightforward. The first amendment doesn’t apply to yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater as it could hurt or kill people, and the Nazis are a far more extreme version of this idea.

The amazing thing about the first amendment's evolution is that that we now live in a world where our ability to consume speech as changed. The same amendment that allows Nazis to go out and protest is now the same amendment that allows us to watch it and judge. The founders would never fathom us watching videos on computers and cell phones, captured by the people who were there and published for the world to see. In their time you’d have the news filtered, if you ever heard it. Think of how long it would take for someone to have heard of Charlottesville Riots in rural Nebraska in the early 19th century? It’s no longer that we are reading about someone’s thoughts and what they did with them, but that we are first hand seeing the actions based upon those ideas. Amongst a freer economy, free speech has allowed us to see the smallest moments. I think of all the police killing, and of these riots, and how much was filmed. We now get to watch it and pass judgment; that is as citizens - do we want this or not? I do not and I would support the law adjusting to designate Nazis and White Supremacists as terrorists who do not have the privilege to exercise their first amendment right. It’s dangerous and produces zero benefit. The law evolved to one day allow us to see the ugly side of America, and we now must ensure that that same law is used to properly protect people against things we might not known about.

Charlottesville opened a lot of people’s eyes to the extreme right of America. Not too long ago I watched a PBS documentary Oklahoma City, which is about the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 men, women, and children, committed by White Nationalist Timothy McVeigh, and while I was figured it was going to examine the events about the bombing specifically, it actually was about the rise of White Nationalism from the 1980s onward, where with the early Reagan economy, when farms were hit hardest (a period seen in both great films American Fable and God’s Country, if you’re wondering), with many having to declare bankruptcy or seek work elsewhere, especially in Iowa. During the period, many White Nationalist groups started moving to upstate Idaho, hiding out in the woods, where in one terrifying shot we see a miniature Nazi compound, covered in Swastikas. The film examines the tale of Ruby Ridge, but for the sake of brevity just check those essays out, if you want to know more. Most recent was The Battle of Bunkerville, examining Cliven Bundy and the stand off between the cattle ranchers and the accompanying militias against the Federal Government, where the Federal officers retreated against Bundy and the others pointing their loaded rifles at the police, threatening to shoot. Later he went to the Oregon Reserve Building, taking it over for a few months, with the police simply waiting for him to surrender peacefully.

There was a strange combination of anti-government extremists on one hand, willing to shoot the police who they love so much because of grazing laws and Nazis/White Nationalists further to the right. I was left wondering where all the militias were who could have brought their loaded AR15’s and stand to ensure the Nazis didn’t do anything stupid. The point being that a very intense division is occurring within modern politics today, a split that is unprecedented in recent times and unprecedented for such a media heavy age, and there is a man in power who is willing to go easy on White Nationalists and Nazis, or at the very least, to appease those who disagree, he didn’t go nearly hard enough, especially for a man who knows how threaten “fire and fury.” So what happens when these behaviors are more excusable?

Continue to Part 2...

BELOW: I was left wondering at what point a person decides to fully embrace Nazism, uproot himself to try and start a Neo-Nazi colony with any degree of confidence that it'll work out well

Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon

Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
​

Director: Richard Linklater
Writer: Richard Linklater
Cinematographer: Lee Daniel and Shane Kelly
Producer: Richard Linklater, Cathleen Sutherland, Jonathan Sehring, and John Sloss

by Jon Cvack

Check out the first thoughts on Boyhood from January 4, 2016.

​There are many movies that use iconic songs that elicit a heavy dose of nostalgia - Stand by Me ('86), Now and Then ('95), Dirty Dancing ('87), My Girl ('91); essentially any coming of age story having taken place in the 1950s has that one track that elevates the story and impacts the culture. Yet while most of those films I watched as a kid, Boyhood was my first encounter with a coming of age story as an adult, portraying the era in which I grew up; realizing that for how fresh the film's opening song of Coldplay's “Yellow” feels in my memory, the song was released close to sixteen years ago, demonstrating how fast time moves, in which the period seems both close and distant, as with most of the things that’ve transpired since.

For a three hour film, I was absolutely blown away by how quickly the story plays out, though I suppose it’s due to the ten different individual segments, creating an anticipation for what Mason Evans (Ellar Coltrane) will experience next. There would be best friends who come and go and fights with parents and first loves and subsequent heartbreaks and those first drinks and drug experimentsd. We watch as Mason encounters each problem, often assessing it all wrong and taking away the wrong lesson, all while his parents are doing the same. It’s a movie that allowed me to go back and re-experience all of my own ups and downs while growing up, with an amazing cast that brings such profound flavor to moments that seemed so banal or fleeting when first remembered. It allowed me to reconsider how certain events have affected latter ones, and that the small moments that seemed so large then and I laugh about now actually were strong and powerful and in no way insignificant, allowing me to no longer cringe at their memory, but instead embrace them as real and universal, serving as rite of passage.

In the end, during one of the most powerful scenes between Mason and his mom Olivia (Patricia Arquette) we discover her adult view of life. Nothing goes as expected and the frustration is neverending. Just when things seem to calm a new event occurs. As Linklater explores, the challenges we all face in adulthood become increasingly more serious and consequential, and it’s only by pushing through the pains of adolescence that we could ever possibly be prepared for those later in life.

Boyhood celebrates where one is at in any particular moment, no matter the age. The mom can’t find the right husband, or she’s a moment too late. The dad gives up on his dreams while his friend continues and reaches some success. Boyhood takes a look at those small moments that assemble and evolve us into becoming what we are. We cannot escape our choices or the way we respond to certain situations anymore than we control the actions of others and how we're impacted by them. I look at all the chapters in my life, the past year, the past eight years, and I consider how they’ve all affected me; realizing that aside from the spectrum of events - from heartbreaks to deaths to professional and personal frustrations - that the only consistent piece is the feeling they’ve all provided. Whether something goes well or terrible, the response is the same, except with a little more knowledge that time will heal, or that the sheer ecstasy of good news or a good day cannot last forever. Everything passes and all we’re left with are the memories of those moments, which Linklater has shown to be some of the most precious of human experience.

BELOW: Not a perfect drunk step-father, but pretty dang close 

Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon

Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page