Richard
Linklater's "Boyhood" tells the story of a boy,
Mason, and as much as the title articulates our applying his story somewhat
to all boys, the "chapel" within advises caution.
Since Mason's biological father is a major influence on the boy, it's not quite
fair to slough off his inspiration -- Lennon, Paul, George and Ringo --
as "divinities" to seek greatness from, but it's clear what has
clearly replaced the trio of God, Christ and church in this film is the
university, and the supreme research psychologists who've worked there to incur
relevant understandings of what makes human beings tick.
Behavioralism
is the first psychological theory we hear discussed, and it's all but rejected
in the film ... not only because it's mouthpiece turns out an alcoholic,
wife-beating, dictatorial brute, but because it's clearly linked to a cynical
take on human beings and ultimately corrupt societal applications -- like the
irresistible dopamine hits corporations know we receive when people
"like" us, that Mason references as part of his dislike of popular
culture. We hear of John Bowlby's "attachment theory" next, from
Mason's mother, and the implications of his theory aren't to take all human
beings as essentially the same but to imagine a cut -- only not that
of boys and girls.
According
to the theory, if you were a well-attached infant and child, of either sex, so
long as your society's not prohibitive, the future's open to you. If you
weren't -- you'll be insecure, plagued by demons, who won't amount any significant
adventure into life ... one of Harlow's distraught, self-isolated monkeys, who
knew too little of their mother's breast. Since children can be suckled close
more as a source of nurturance for the parent, however, being
well-attached isn't necessarily a matter of time spent. More if they truly loved
you, rather than from the start, immediately began to reject and even hate you.
The
interesting thing about this film, helped out by the setting which is somewhere
in Texas ... a state which in some parts is a "high-tech, social democracy", and
in others, a "Protestant fundamentalist taliban," is that you
could take the same "facts" in the life of this boy and show two very
different fates -- one that leads to a well-adjusted adult with a bright
future, and another as him part of those shortchanging any such a bright and
beautiful thing. All depending on whether or not the primary caregivers in his
life wasn't compelled or unconsciously intent to abandon her children.
The
first fact we are introduced to about Mason's life, is that his parents are
recently divorced, and that his mother has decided to uproot him and his sister
further by retreating from their first self-acquired home, back to her mother.
But in the film, the mother's intent throughout is portrayed as mostly loving
... and so as much we are directed to note that this move will cost Mason his
very first best friend, who in all likelihood he'll never see again, and how
his older sister plants herself heavily against the move as if moved by the most
basic elements of her, shaking her into saying something strong lest their
young organism is requited into something that can't be recovered from, we know
it's something that's maybe probably best in that her mother's difficulties in
keeping their family afloat will be greatly eased by the move, and she'll be
able to attend to them subsequently in less of a harried and more of a focused
manner.
The
mother gets her children back into a home that'll allow them each their own
space, their own rooms, and has provisioning enough for herself now to go to
college. There, like any new student entranced by the opened world of knowledge -- and
therefore further entranced by those familiar with it, she crushes on a
professor, which for her develops into marriage. Unfortunately, however wonderful his
world not just of knowledge but of palatial affluence is -- his home is a
McMansion, spared our contemporary derogatory assessment of them as homes for
those who borrowed much but were doomed back to "pumpkinhood" once
the investment world sobered -- it turns out home life with him means
sequestering all of them to a litany of constant rules, of lines not to be
crossed, and herself, also, to the occasional beating. Again harried with
stress over this -- of innocently having inflicted this man on her children,
and not quite knowing if departure or weathering-through is the wise solution
-- she doesn't quite acknowledge Mason's complaints about him, doing her best
to pretend homage to the idea that ... "we all have our faults."
But
when he grossly grabs Mason and forces him into a military cut of his longish
hair, her true feelings are expressed, without any resolve not to upset the
perpetrator and raise family stakes by placing herself on one side only. And
when he gets close to physically harming her children, smashing plates and
glasses before them -- he's done. Mason's mother assembles the required phalanx
of guard-women to block him, while she grabs her children, and off they're again
to a refreshed life.
Mason's
adolescent life is mostly made to seem about plenty of harmless experimentation
... which'll lead to smart sifting and targeted development as he enters young
adulthood and university. He does booze, drugs; experiments with dress. He
knows being bullied, but also hanging with older boys whose talk is macho and
who play with "knives." And though it isn't him who asks the
if-your-so-cool-why-are-you-hanging-out-with-grade-8ers-on-a-friday-night?,
it's implicit as well in his overall manner with them: they have no affect. He
dates women, and seems already to possess naturally the genuine interest in
them as individuals his biological father advises him to learn quick to
separate himself from the pack. His childhood interest in spray painting,
forging a signature, branches into an interest in finding a vision through
photography, which stakes him purpose and resolve, and also impressed elders, who want to attach themselves to his promise as he eventually leaves home for
university.
On
the cusp of departure, his mother breaks down and admits how his leaving
seems to mean her own life is over; but he's allowed his retort, as he mostly
always is with her, and it's to explain the clear absurdity of what she is
saying. His mother is completely for his own adventure, however, and so while
promise is abundant as he first experiences his life there, it's shallow of guilt.
But
if she wasn't attached to her children, if she meant to hurt, harm, or abandon
them, the film would have veered ... like this. The divorce from her husband would
have been paired with her retreat from her independent life/home, in that both
would meant abandoning the pretensions to a good life-partner and a new
beginning away from her own mother: self-realization and pleasure. Her
ex-husband, who is treated defensively when he arrives to see his kids, and who
is to some extent blocked away by the grandmother, is revealed as the film goes
along to have been a vastly better man than any of the others she subsequently
marries, as well as being a much better person to have had around their kids.
But she didn't feel she could keep him because she felt under compulsion to
sacrifice her first start, bring her kids around her mother's orbit, so her
mother wouldn't get angry at her for making herself the centre; for aspiring to
greater happiness than her mother allowed herself. Late post-partum, with kids
given/sacrificed to her mother so she could be spared terrible hauntings of seeing
herself driving them into a lake.
She
would have been revealed to have been attracted to the psychology professor,
already sensing he would treat her brutally ... his talk of flashing meat
powder before a dog to make it salivate, an anticipation of how he'd possess a
belittling and all-knowing sense of the motives of children, whipping children
into shape through rewards and punishments. The freedom-killing home life he
instituted, would have been something she's wished for her children, so that
aspects of herself, projected onto the children, that she felt required
containing -- actually great things, like one's desire to explore and grow --
would have found themselves stifled and bound up. When Mason came to her and
complained of him, she wouldn't have shown underneath obvious sympathy but only
the refusal: how selfish of you to only see a person's flaws!
Adolescence
wouldn't just have been about exploration, but showed more genuine signs of
troubles, delinquency, as his mother spent most of her time at university and
home life was dominated by a thug. His interest in hanging out with
older boys who pretend ninja, would have been him wanting to distance himself
from his aloneness and vulnerability. The fact that they were all boys and cast
all girls as "whores," would have been an attraction ... a
homosexual shell against the rest of the world. The painting of his finger
nails wouldn't, then, have shown femininity, but interest in
approbating the power of the maternal. His ear-piercing, a fascination in self-cutting ... where control of pain is clearly yours. His dark worldview wouldn't have shown
he wasn't a fool for corporate manipulation, but that the only way he intuited
he could allow himself to participate in adult freedoms is if tainted that
terrain with gloom beforehand.
But
even that wouldn't prove sufficient for much subsequent adult license, because
his mother would have wanted to know that his abandoning her for university
meant he was bad -- guilty. And so after enjoying some time
self-actualizing in university, he'd eventually be with those others who first
enjoyed liberality before renouncing it thereafter for conservatism -- the
fiercely conservative taliban, everywhere, who's leaders so often knew for a time American licence before garbing themselves back into caves and no running water.
And so in this version, if the
film was rather released in 2015/16, it wouldn't have shown him helping out the
next democratic option but punching Rand Paul signs into other
people's lawns. His due would be to be with all those other poorly attached,
insufficiently loved, "Texan" boys, who've become problem number one
for the other lot, fighting for a chance of more hope in the world.
Comments
Post a Comment