The Simplicity of 'Boyhood'

I do think we all too often prize style and flash, overlooking the subtle and straight-forward genius that inherently provides us with a much deeper and profound experience.

Here's what I think the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—those folks who decide the Oscar winners—completely missed in their deliberations between Birdman and Boyhood for Best Director and Best Film, both of which went to Birdman under the direction of Alejandro González Iñárritu:

1. The skill it takes to create a cohesive film is challenging under the best of circumstances. To accomplish this with footage shot over 12 years is an unimaginable feat. It takes not just skill, but tremendous planning, attention to detail and patience.
2. The directing in Boyhood is subtle, but sure-handed. Like the best kind of leadership, it's unnoticeable, but if it weren't so good, we'd notice. Linklater lets the actors shine, he lets the story unfold in its quiet way without feeling the need to distract us with camera tricks, and the fact is, he doesn't need to because the story he's telling, though simple, is stirring and affecting, and the actors do great justice to it in their realistic portrayals.
3. There's a universal truth to what unfolds on the screen—even if it's not everyone's exact story, aspects of the story are familiar to everyone. As a result, it's simply relatable to more people.

I certainly don't mean to denigrate Birdman or Alejandro González Iñárritu, but I do think we all too often prize style and flash, overlooking the subtle and straight-forward genius that inherently provides us with a much deeper and profound experience.