Boyhood and Birdman: two award juggernauts, one problem.

Movie Reviews: Boyhood (2014) & Birdman (2014)

Birdman is an excellent exploration of film theory. It is an interesting and in-depth discussion of the role of film, actors, directors, critics and the point of it all. It is liquid gold for the Oscar's Academy, as shown by the Best Picture win, and great to analyse for film students and people intrigued by looking under the mask of Hollywood. But, is it an enjoyable watch? Not really. The characters are okay, they are kept afloat by stellar performances, but are not relatable or charismatic; they offer interesting discussions for the theory of film, but are not really lovable or even likeable. There are no character arcs or emotional moments that make you feel anything. Don’t get me wrong characters learn and transform but only ever in the wider scale of film theory. If the film was not shot in faux unedited fashion that gives the audience something to marvel at, then the films character flaws would be in the mouths of more critics. It is definitely an interesting watch though simply not an enjoyable one. There is nothing here for the average viewer because the characters are vessels for theory, analysis and not there to be cared for or loved. But hey, that’s what Blockbuster are for, right?

Boyhood is a fantastic way of pushing the boundaries of film. It is an extraordinary analysis of the lives for boys, sisters, mothers, fathers and everything mundane about life. Mundane being the important word. The film captures twelve years of a persons world very well and it is an interesting way to make a movie, but some things are just not enjoyable to watch. We come to the same question: though it is a highly respectable and interesting film to analyse, is it enjoyable? Again not really. Nothing movie-worthy eventful in ordinary life really happens. Not every film needs explosions I know, but in much better coming of age stories they take one aspect of a persons life and make it feel dramatic or at least important. In this movie they attempt to cover so much ground that nothing feels important or eventful; it feels real, mundane and as if we filmed my next door neighbour’s life, but as stated, mundane life is not necessarily an enjoyable movie. If this film wasn’t shot over twelve years with the same actors, then the lack of an interesting story would be in the mouths of more critics. If the film was shot in a couple of weeks with different actors playing each age, then audiences would have little to take of interest or enjoy. But, an enjoyable watch is what blockbusters are for, right?

Both films are excellent to analyse and deserves a lot of discussion, however they are not enjoyable to watch. When I say enjoyable I mean the audience does not feel invested in the characters, they do not care what happens to them and unless they are leaving the cinema to write an essay on the film then they will feel unsatisfied. As snobby Oscar film watchers, certain critics will tell me that being enjoyable is not the point because that’s what blockbusters are for. To these critics I challenge: can a film not be interesting to discuss and be enjoyable to watch. I point to The Favourite, Get Out, Ladybird, Dunkirk, Moonlight, The Revenant, The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, The Grand Budapest Hotel, 12 years a slave. These are just a list of some recent examples, I could go on. My point is, a movie is meant to be more than theory, it has the power to move people and to offer new ways of exploring life. A movie no matter its calibre is meant to be enjoyable. Birdman and Boyhood deserve respect, but are not enjoyable experiences.