So basically a non-boring film story gives excitement, passion and danger in the safety confines of being a film audience. We want boredom in our lives for safety reasons and survival, but we want passion and excitement in our entertainment and arts to feel alive.
If there is something that has realism and was too great was two animes called 5 Centimetres Per Second and Kids on the Slope. The realism in that and the way it hits home really hurts. Two great classics.
Boyhood is a generational film. Growing up the same years of the main kid and watching him grow was like watching me and friends lives. The movie broke me I felt the story
Mr. Walter makes interesing points. Movies shouldn't preach or lecture, but make you think between the lines. Because good movies are about relatively realistic human beings in relatively realistic scenarios. Also I think there's a huge difference between watching a movie about maybe "The Imitation Game" and watching a documentary (series) about the same stuff. I also am starting to get the feeling that christian (themed) movies should follow the example and stop preaching and instead of showing a black/white good/bad world, should not force themselves on the viewers (though they seem to be targeted mainly at churchgoers anyway) but give the audience room to think and breathe.
The first half of Boyhood was great since if felt real, growing up with things happening in the world around the character. The second half felt artificial in comparison as it tried to create a narrative for the character's life, but in my view was working to create a narrative too late in the film. I did think that the relationship between Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke was interesting throughout, and think Linklater did a good job developing their dynamic.
I really disliked Boyhood. Way too long. Ending lacked. More stuff happened to Patricia Arquette than the boy. I was irate when it got a ton of Oscar noms, then elated when they lost all but 1. Glad Walter didn't like it either. lol.
Forgetting about the actual story-what about 'the realistic' in the sense of actually being there, an example of which may be the forthcoming high frame rate 60fps Avatar 2, and previous 48fps Hobbit movies at the cinema? The hobbit had a limited release high frame rate 3D version, and standard 23fps version on dvd. I remember the former received a very mixed opinion upon release, with some stating it felt too much like the characters were in front of them, as if they were watching a theatre production. So it felt 'too cheap' for some as a result, taking away what they want from a movie altogether, to be dragged into another world. Ironically, when it comes to other media such as videogames, people seem to want the complete opposite, going for high frame rates, but then the want for immersion and to believe in that case is likely the reason why
I agree with most of the things in this video and I can see he is a wise man indeed. Personally I don't agree with his view that we all want boredom in our lives and excitement in our art. I want excitement in my art but in my life aswell. An airplane flight with a bit of turbulence is better than one that ran on time, in my opinion. Its an adventure.
I was so disappointed by boyhood. I heard about the concept and became really excited to see it. I was thoroughly disappointed. I feel like they just decided that the idea was enough to make it good and they didn't really need to tell any sort of worthwhile story. And while people will say it's real and because of that it's interesting, I just think it's a tremendous waste. To have a concept which is so intriguing and open to creativity, I think it really had the potential to be great, if you could engage with the character and go on this journey with him that is transformative and really resembles the turbulent time in his life that the movie is aiming to portray it could have been brilliant and an instant classic. However, the character grows up. He doesn't command any sort of empathy and instead becomes less interesting. So, while I understand that some people admire the realism, all I can see is a shell with no substance or anything special at the core. Great interview though.
Thousands of years of storytelling illustrates what we prefer. There are very little stories of the expected happening to the unambitious in a mundane setting. We crave the extraordinary events in exotic locations that have great / life changing repercussions. We don't all need that all the time, but human psychology shows we respond to devastating / awesome / shocking events with charismatic people has higher emotional involvement than 'Jo goes to the shops and buys some bread, then does it again tomorrow.' I've watched hundreds of short films in the past year, I remember very few of those stories, only one stands out th-cam.com/video/MYa0mtfdxFk/w-d-xo.html about a little girl that is kidnapped and thrust into unexpected events - it grabbed me because I didn't expect it to.
Personally, I believe that lessons can be taught through movies, but this has to be done in a subtle manner-In a way that coaxes the audience to think about it on the way home and then realize what the movie was doing/commenting on in that one part. Otherwise, it'll come off as being too preachy and "In your face" to the masses.
what crap. To compare Boyhood which compresses 12 years into two hours to the experience of walking outside and watching people walk by, is absurd. Movies that draw on reality still use every bit of movie craft to tell their stories. Some films using realism are very busy and entertaining, and some total fantasies are bleak and slow. I have never seen a movie based on reality that reminded me of actually sitting outside and watching people, and that's because a movie is a movie, not reality. It's hard to fully explain why I find his opinions so ridiculous.
Having studies film for 8 years and done another 20 in the industry, along with having made 2 features and watching thousands of movies (most of which on 35mm or 16mm) I can uniquely say that this very qualified man is only qualified to express his opinion, and in my opinion, Boyhood is a very fine film and very much aware of itself.
I prefer realism in movies. Today, filmmakers are trying hard to appeal the casual viewer who has the attention span of a nat. Results? Suspension of disbelief. Not my thing... give me real anytime.
I think disappointment mainly comes when you-re going to a movie expecting something and coming off feeling dishonest about itself. If I'm going to a B-action movie I want thrills, excess, action and a passionate story. If I go to biographical or period piece I expect it to be more grounded and faithful to what it's showing. Sometimes there's too much "realism" in fantasy and fictitious movies, and sometimes there's a lot of silly and toon-like dialog in what is supposed to be a more relatable film.
I agree that you don't watch films to have a lecture in theology, but you don't watch Boyhood expecting Imitation Game either. The structure Linklater uses has a lots of good sides that Walter doesn't even mention here (the depth of character psychology, open discussion on life and so on). The dramatic moments of Linklater films become more dramatic because he also shows the mundane moments. Contrast is the key.
That’s my problem with high concept block buster productions, they are praised because the follow the paradigm in Hollywood structure. Doesn’t mean they are any good. Place a few big stars in the movie and the critics fall in love.
Also, this guy works at UCLA? My guess is he's never been able to sit through the brilliance of a Tarkovsky film...because...it's too boring? Come on now. Much of film is about the experience in the gap, or the silence, or the long take. I dunno. Maybe it's a UCLA problem.
![It’s All About Story And Nothing Else - UCLA Professor Richard Walter [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_tT_GjjlCLs/mqdefault.jpg)
![It’s All About Story And Nothing Else - UCLA Professor Richard Walter [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/tr.png)
From these videos alone I can tell this man is a great teacher. Even when he rambles there is a lesson to be learnt.
So basically a non-boring film story gives excitement, passion and danger in the safety confines of being a film audience. We want boredom in our lives for safety reasons and survival, but we want passion and excitement in our entertainment and arts to feel alive.
Realism is a spice, not an entree. Some meals use more, others less.
Movies for me are an escape, so I like over the top, but with a real world commentary hidden in it.
If there is something that has realism and was too great was two animes called 5 Centimetres Per Second and Kids on the Slope. The realism in that and the way it hits home really hurts. Two great classics.
He had me at "It's available for free on the streets"...
Boyhood is a generational film. Growing up the same years of the main kid and watching him grow was like watching me and friends lives. The movie broke me I felt the story
boyhood was also one of the best review movies of all time so...
Too bad it lost out to BIRDMAN for the Oscar for Best Picture!!!
I didn't see Boyhood because I knew, based on what I read about it, that it would be as he presented it. Excellent discussion
Agreed, Boyhood was so real that it was utterly boring and not entertaining.
Mr. Walter makes interesing points. Movies shouldn't preach or lecture, but make you think between the lines. Because good movies are about relatively realistic human beings in relatively realistic scenarios. Also I think there's a huge difference between watching a movie about maybe "The Imitation Game" and watching a documentary (series) about the same stuff. I also am starting to get the feeling that christian (themed) movies should follow the example and stop preaching and instead of showing a black/white good/bad world, should not force themselves on the viewers (though they seem to be targeted mainly at churchgoers anyway) but give the audience room to think and breathe.
The first half of Boyhood was great since if felt real, growing up with things happening in the world around the character. The second half felt artificial in comparison as it tried to create a narrative for the character's life, but in my view was working to create a narrative too late in the film.
I did think that the relationship between Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke was interesting throughout, and think Linklater did a good job developing their dynamic.
I really disliked Boyhood. Way too long. Ending lacked. More stuff happened to Patricia Arquette than the boy. I was irate when it got a ton of Oscar noms, then elated when they lost all but 1. Glad Walter didn't like it either. lol.
Forgetting about the actual story-what about 'the realistic' in the sense of actually being there, an example of which may be the forthcoming high frame rate 60fps Avatar 2, and previous 48fps Hobbit movies at the cinema? The hobbit had a limited release high frame rate 3D version, and standard 23fps version on dvd. I remember the former received a very mixed opinion upon release, with some stating it felt too much like the characters were in front of them, as if they were watching a theatre production. So it felt 'too cheap' for some as a result, taking away what they want from a movie altogether, to be dragged into another world. Ironically, when it comes to other media such as videogames, people seem to want the complete opposite, going for high frame rates, but then the want for immersion and to believe in that case is likely the reason why
I agree with most of the things in this video and I can see he is a wise man indeed. Personally I don't agree with his view that we all want boredom in our lives and excitement in our art. I want excitement in my art but in my life aswell. An airplane flight with a bit of turbulence is better than one that ran on time, in my opinion. Its an adventure.
I was so disappointed by boyhood. I heard about the concept and became really excited to see it. I was thoroughly disappointed. I feel like they just decided that the idea was enough to make it good and they didn't really need to tell any sort of worthwhile story. And while people will say it's real and because of that it's interesting, I just think it's a tremendous waste. To have a concept which is so intriguing and open to creativity, I think it really had the potential to be great, if you could engage with the character and go on this journey with him that is transformative and really resembles the turbulent time in his life that the movie is aiming to portray it could have been brilliant and an instant classic. However, the character grows up. He doesn't command any sort of empathy and instead becomes less interesting. So, while I understand that some people admire the realism, all I can see is a shell with no substance or anything special at the core. Great interview though.
Thousands of years of storytelling illustrates what we prefer. There are very little stories of the expected happening to the unambitious in a mundane setting. We crave the extraordinary events in exotic locations that have great / life changing repercussions.
We don't all need that all the time, but human psychology shows we respond to devastating / awesome / shocking events with charismatic people has higher emotional involvement than 'Jo goes to the shops and buys some bread, then does it again tomorrow.'
I've watched hundreds of short films in the past year, I remember very few of those stories, only one stands out th-cam.com/video/MYa0mtfdxFk/w-d-xo.html
about a little girl that is kidnapped and thrust into unexpected events - it grabbed me because I didn't expect it to.
boyhood was a great film, too real doesn't mean boring, there are exciting things happening in the real world
Personally, I believe that lessons can be taught through movies, but this has to be done in a subtle manner-In a way that coaxes the audience to think about it on the way home and then realize what the movie was doing/commenting on in that one part. Otherwise, it'll come off as being too preachy and "In your face" to the masses.
what crap. To compare Boyhood which compresses 12 years into two hours to the experience of walking outside and watching people walk by, is absurd. Movies that draw on reality still use every bit of movie craft to tell their stories. Some films using realism are very busy and entertaining, and some total fantasies are bleak and slow. I have never seen a movie based on reality that reminded me of actually sitting outside and watching people, and that's because a movie is a movie, not reality. It's hard to fully explain why I find his opinions so ridiculous.
Having studies film for 8 years and done another 20 in the industry, along with having made 2 features and watching thousands of movies (most of which on 35mm or 16mm) I can uniquely say that this very qualified man is only qualified to express his opinion, and in my opinion, Boyhood is a very fine film and very much aware of itself.
totally agree on boyhood. really smart fellow.
I prefer realism in movies. Today, filmmakers are trying hard to appeal the casual viewer who has the attention span of a nat. Results? Suspension of disbelief. Not my thing... give me real anytime.
I think disappointment mainly comes when you-re going to a movie expecting something and coming off feeling dishonest about itself. If I'm going to a B-action movie I want thrills, excess, action and a passionate story. If I go to biographical or period piece I expect it to be more grounded and faithful to what it's showing. Sometimes there's too much "realism" in fantasy and fictitious movies, and sometimes there's a lot of silly and toon-like dialog in what is supposed to be a more relatable film.
Solowolf If you want realism go watch documentaries simple as that.
I agree that you don't watch films to have a lecture in theology, but you don't watch Boyhood expecting Imitation Game either. The structure Linklater uses has a lots of good sides that Walter doesn't even mention here (the depth of character psychology, open discussion on life and so on). The dramatic moments of Linklater films become more dramatic because he also shows the mundane moments. Contrast is the key.
That’s my problem with high concept block buster productions, they are praised because the follow the paradigm in Hollywood structure. Doesn’t mean they are any good. Place a few big stars in the movie and the critics fall in love.
Also, this guy works at UCLA? My guess is he's never been able to sit through the brilliance of a Tarkovsky film...because...it's too boring? Come on now. Much of film is about the experience in the gap, or the silence, or the long take. I dunno. Maybe it's a UCLA problem.