Would It Be Truly Terrible If 'Boyhood' Was in Fact About a Racist?
Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 9:19AM
Roland Ruiz with Patty Arquette on the set of Boyhood (image via his Facebook page)Jose here. A recent article on Latino Rebels in which the author claims that Richard Linklater’s Boyhood contains the worst kind of racism has caused a bit of a stir. Grisel Y. Acosta uses the infamous gardener subplot, in which Patricia Arquette’s character unexpectedly turns around the life of the only non-white character (played by Ronald Ruiz) featured in the film, as his basis to explain that the film is racist both by omission (where are all the other Hispanic characters in a film set in Texas?) and also by depicting “the horrific ‘save me White person’ trope” that has been prevalent in American filmmaking since, well, always.
It’s a shame that the article turned up the week when Oscar voting ends, because now it will be dismissed as having an “agenda”, or being part of a “smear campaign”, when the truth is that, beyond silly movie awards, the piece only directs us to a conversation we should have been having since the movie came out.
As a Hispanic immigrant living in the United States, there is not a single week that goes by where someone hasn’t congratulated me for "bothering" to learn English “...and writing it so well”, assumed I was Mexican or Puerto Rican, or when I’m asked by a peer if I went to college, or have a random person ask me if I’m a doorman or a cab driver. I have learned to live with people’s assumptions because of my ethnicity, and I often brush them off, because race is not something that's easy to discuss in this country...
Before going further, let me say that out of all this year’s Oscar nominees for Best Picture, Boyhood is by far my favorite, and the one that would get my vote; but it’d be nonsensical to pretend it’s a flawless film (and besides what’s the point of having “holy cows” we can’t question?) When I first saw Boyhood back in the summer of last year, that scene stuck out horribly and bothered me more than I wanted to accept:
The one thing I did not like at all about BOYHOOD was that sub-sub-plot with Patty Arquette and the plumber. THE BLIND SIDE much?
— Jose Solís (@josekicksass) July 10, 2014
It didn’t, however, stop me from thinking the film had many merits, although I found it curious that few, if any, articles brought up the condescending nature of this subplot. Being a huge fan of Mr. Linklater’s work, I came up with my own justification: while Boyhood itself is not racist, perhaps the boy in question is. Think about it, the film is clearly Mason’s (Ellar Coltrane) story and as such, we can safely assume that everything is seen from his perspective. But is he a reliable narrator when it comes to political correctness and tolerance? As a Caucasian, heterosexual male, growing up in one of the most conservative states in America, wouldn’t it make sense that Mason would grow up to be racist?
His liberal father (Ethan Hawke) sends him out to place Obama signs on strangers’ lawns, which could bode for him at some point rebelling against his father’s political beliefs and turn more towards the gun-toting, Bible-loving parents of his stepmother. Even his father suggests that he can keep the rifle he’s given for his birthday, as long as his mother doesn’t find out, which suggests that Mason harbors tastes he knows his parents wouldn't necessarily approve of. Added to this, it must be said that Mason is kind of a jerk. He’s offended deeply when he realizes his girlfriend doesn’t want to be with him anymore, often sees his mother as a figure who nags all the time, and throughout the film he’s prone to throw tantrums whenever he doesn’t get what he wants. Considering this, it would make sense then that the narrow minded Mason would only notice a Hispanic person when he’s serving him (first as a gardener and then as a waiter/manager) or thanking his mother for having rescued him from a life without education.
My point with this isn’t to badmouth the film - again, I think it’s a rather brilliant achievement - and Richard Linklater has in the past (in Fast Food Nation) already highlighted the struggles of Hispanic immigrants, but instead to ask people who are complaining about Mr. Acosta’s article, why are they so offended because someone claims a film they love contains a racist element? Why are so-called liberals so often afraid of embracing art that contains characters whose beliefs don't align with their own? More than that, would it be truly terrible that Mr. Linklater’s film was in fact about a racist in the making?
In these times when political correctness is considered such a virtue, shouldn’t we be welcoming depictions of intolerance that don’t necessarily end with racists learning their lessons or being absolved for their sins? When I watched Boyhood, after my initial distaste for the gardener subplot, I was in fact glad that it was there, so that parents who watch the film with their children would explain to them that, contrary to what young Mason sees, Hispanic people are the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, and as proved in Obama’s reelection, Hispanic people have also become a powerful political force. Hispanic people are more than service providers waiting for white saviors to turn their lives around (don’t even get me started on the holy caregiver in Cake), but while we wait for the movies to catch up with this fact, and acknowledge the importance of telling stories about minorities, we shouldn’t pretend that these issues are nonexistent. After all, visibility should be everything.
Reader Comments (38)
"He’s offended deeply when he realizes his girlfriend doesn’t want to be with him anymore, often sees his mother as a figure who nags all the time, and throughout the film he’s prone to throw tantrums whenever he doesn’t get what he wants."
It's a movie about a teenage boy - I don't know that any of this should be shocking or label him a "jerk".
"As a Caucasian, heterosexual male, growing up in one of the most conservative states in America, wouldn’t it make sense that Mason would grow up to be racist?"
As a Caucasian male growing up in one of the most conservative states in America, I feel like this is an extreme stretch and a somewhat offensive take on growing up white in the South.
congratulations on writing this article so well
Dr. Grisel Y. Acosta is a female professor (you refer to her in the possessive as "he"). Otherwise, I enjoyed the read.
Are we sure none of the other kids in the film are Hispanic?
Regardless, this is not the only non-white character in the film. Angela Rawna has a fairly significant role as Arquette's professor friend.
Great read!
Buffalo Bill had a Swastika quilt and Annie Wilkes supported Nixon.
I think reading so much into the fact that the only Hispanic character is in that subplot is rather pointless. Yes, the movie may not be very representative of the actual demography of Texas. But it's simply the story of a boy growing up. Not a jerk, not a racist, just a boy. It so happens that none of the characters Linklater chose to include as bystanders of this boy's boyhood were non-caucasians. In my opinion drawing such conclusion from this "sub-sub-plot", as you've put it, is splitting hairs. Shall we say that, because there's no African-American's in the main cast of Boyhood that means Iñárritu's suggesting that non-caucasians can't be true artists? Exactly, that'd be ridiculous. (Obviously that's a narrative that a Hispanic director would never have to face, but I'm just trying to make a point).
Narratively, I don't think that subplot worked. It would have made the film stronger if they'd had the sense to cut it. Nothing else in that movie was contrived or on-the-nose, so it was a little jarring and out-of-place.
Politically, I found it even more offensive than, say, The Blind Side, because it seemed to excuse Arquette's behavior because "she's been poor, too, so she gets it." It's like any time someone tries to reduce racial issues to socioeconomics.
While I accept that it's odd that the film doesn't include more Hispanics given the Texas setting and while I agree that the landscaper/waiter subplot is cringeworthy, I take some exception with your assertion that Mason is some sort of conservative-in-waiting or racist. I don't see much support for the "conservative" thread at all other than that rebellious teens are rebellious and Mason's parents were liberal so...
It's a massive leap if you ask me.
As for the racist argument, it's been a while since I saw the film, but from my recollection it's not so clear that the film is told through Mason's perspective. The number of jokes we've seen that the film should have been called "Childhood" or "Motherhood" would seemingly back up that not everybody sees the movie as being told from his vantage point. I personally didn't pick up on any sort of judgments about Hispanics on his part so we're left merely with the lack of visibility. And ultimately, this is a film about a non-Hispanic white boy and his family. That there are few Hispanics in scenes with his family kinda makes sense.
One of the many unnecessary plotlines on Boyhood.
I like Boyhood and adore Linklater for his sheer determination, but this movie just doesnt click with me.
If I rememebr well, right after the hips of manager of the restaurant had come over to thank Patricia Arquette for her advice earlier in his life, it contrasts with the fact that she was trying to alleviate herself of the things that she had worked for and made her "successful". Her children were grown up, she was single, she decided to simplify her life and she later realizes that maybe all she worked for was not really all that. On the other hand, the immigrant Hispanic character had made major strides, on his own throughout his life and became a succesful person and who knows, maybe in the future even own a restaurant. If anything he represents the American Dream more than anyone else. For a second after he approached her and thanked her tough love, the camera stays on Patricia arquettes face asking herself "what have I done with my own life?".
I meant Hispanic! Not hips
fadhil: I didn't hate it and more of it clicked with me than didn't, but if there was one thing that definitely DIDN'T, it was the kid. It's definitely in my top 10, but probably low because of him.
None of your far-fetched arguments could be enough to suggest Mason is a racist in-the-making. Mason is just a cute, shy kid who grows up to be a boring teenager and will then grow up to be a filmmaker one day. His stage name will be Robert Linklater, or something like that. His first movie will be about his experience as a slacker and then one day he will have an idea: to make a movie about a kid as he ages from 6 to 18, shooting once a year as he gets old. He will make movies with interesting ideas, but he'll still be a little boring as a person. Maybe he'll even win an Oscar one day.
Mr. Goodbar: That was kind of my prevailing feeling at the end: This is what Linklater imagines his childhood would be like if it was happening NOW.
"As a Hispanic immigrant living in the United States, there is not a single week that goes by where someone hasn’t congratulated me for "bothering" to learn English “...and writing it so well”, assumed I was Mexican or Puerto Rican, or when I’m asked by a peer if I went to college, or have a random person ask me if I’m a doorman or a cab driver. I have learned to live with people’s assumptions because of my ethnicity, and I often brush them off, because race is not something that's easy to discuss in this country..."
This whole paragraph spoke to me. As a black guy who's not from the US, the amount of attention paid to race in the United States is something I had to learn to deal with. Whether if it is me being followed in Duane Reade or having people stop in the street so I no longer walk behind them (even if i'm one of the least threatening people I know), it's annoying but ultimately, i just go on with my life. "Did you learn English on the plane ride over here?" is one of my all time favorites though.
But about Mason and "racist". Maybe it's just me but I really believe that word is thrown around way too easy these days. Aren't you basically making the same assumptions here that other ignorant people make about you and me?
Beautifully expressed.
no on "the boy is a racist" with those 'evidences', but yes the scene was silly, corny and unnecessary.
"Shall we say that, because there's no African-American's in the main cast of Boyhood that means Iñárritu's suggesting that non-caucasians can't be true artists? Exactly, that'd be ridiculous. (Obviously that's a narrative that a Hispanic director would never have to face, but I'm just trying to make a point)."
A less ridiculous (but no less troubling) assumption might be that Iñárritu doesn't think about African-Americans* at all. And I really have to disagree with the part of the last sentence I italicized. Why would a Hispanic director be immune to such an accusation?
For the record, Birdman is one of my favorite 2014 films.
*I did not say "black people" on purpose
Derreck: No. The difference is that, as beautiful as we are and all, we are people, not works of art. When people make assumptions about me and you, they're based on first impressions, our accents or the color of our skin. I'm making my "assumptions" based on the six hours I spent watching this boy's story, so more than "assumptions" they're my "interpretations" of the work. If the people who make assumptions about us had spent half the running time of "Boyhood" actually learning about us, then that would be a whole different story, you say so yourself, they're "ignorant", they know nothing about who we are or where we came from.
To others who have chosen to dwell on the "is the boy a racist or not" issue, the questions I'm asking in my piece are different ones! Again, what I seek to know is:
- Why are people so offended because someone claims a film they love contains a racist element?
- Why are so-called liberals so often afraid of embracing art that contains characters whose beliefs don't align with their own?
- Would it be truly terrible that Mr. Linklater’s film was in fact about a racist in the making?
Thanks to everyone for reading though!
Regardless of when and where he learned English, Jose is the best writer on this site!
re: Pops
He's not. He should have stuck to one idea. Why become dismissive of art for having politics different from your own?
I couldn't care less for "Boyhood", but the article makes me think of backlash that "Ida" has been recently suffering from in Poland, and with at least three high-profile films released in the U.S. this year that a viewer from Poland might feel (overly) sensitive about - "The Imitation Game", "Ida" and "The Immigrant" - it makes me ask if a filmmaker really should bother not to hurt someone's national (or any other kind of) pride?
"Ida" may suggest that Poles are to blame for the Holocaust, as it doesn't mention German occupation at all and introduces some "Polish peasant" characters who are bad enough to take over a Jewish property and hide a dirty secret in the woods. "The Imitation Game" wants us to "Honor the man", but it doesn't even bother to mention the names of men who invented the first code-breaking device on which Turing's team based their work. And just to note, Poland is probably the country that suffered the most because of the WW2.
Should I consider the choices that the filmmakers made offensive to the Polish nation?
Jose - To answer your question, No, I do not think it'd be truly terrible at all if Boyhood were about a boy growing up to be racist, and I would welcome films like that covering and expressing viewpoints other than my own, as I think most readers of this site would as well.
My qualm with the article would be that it's quite a stretch to infer that because this particular film is about a white, Southern male who seemingly (in the course of a 2.5-3 hour film) has very little interactions in his daily life with minorities, it's reasonable to assume that he is a "racist in the making" of sorts. Assumptions like this seems just as prejudice as anything else you've mentioned in the article as an example (i.e. language assumptions based upon skin color, etc.) and seem to perpetuate the thought process that if someone comes from a particular background, there's a chance they have a natural hatred for another group of people.
Would I mind if Boyhood were about a "racist in training" because that viewpoint is different than mine? Of course not, I would welcome it and enjoy the film as art and a way to view a different walk of life I am not daily exposed to. But do I think that's remotely what the film is about? No, I do not, and to do so seems like a prejudiced jump.
I think the film would've been more interesting if in fact it were about a "racist in the making," which, as you mentioned, would make plenty of sense in the context of a working class white family in Texas. Mason's POV was so uninteresting to me...I would have appreciated the complexity. And I liked the film. I think the white savior subplot is more a reflection on Linklater as a director and his need to have an Important Moment.
And, for the record, there's not such thing as reverse racism.
This plot line didn't work at all, and worse, suggested that all of life's problems can be solved by just going to college (because affording and getting in and committing to college is super easy for all classes and races!)
I never got any of this from the film and after reading the piece, I still don't.
This is poorly written in that you use faulty logic. I can only assume you have not had exposure to "Bible loving," "conservative," "gun carrying," "caucasian, heterosexual [men], growing up in one of the most conservative states in America." I was one of those young men and was surrounded by them - I must admit I never socialized with hispanics, nor saw many, but that hardly equates to racism. I am not a racist and didn't know any.
Your article congratulates itself in being virtuous and politically correct - ironically you are only projecting a negative stereotype of a group of people you don't fully know. I respect that you have to live with prejudice everyday, but this essay does not help the cause.
You're right, Jose, movies should not be sacred cows. If there was a Latino version of the Bechdel Test, Boyhood would not pass it.
But I can't follow the rest of your argument, which seems to go something like: (1) Because Boyhood has only one notable Latino character who gets advice from a white woman, (2) and because any white boy in Texas whose step-grandfather gives him a gun for his birthday would likely grow up to be racist, (3) the whole film is actually from the point of view of this narrow-minded, proto-racist jerk. (4) Why are you white liberal supporters of Boyhood so offended to discover the film is racist?
I re-watched the film last night, and I think you're misreading the character: I did not see a Mason who is a narrow-minded, tantrum throwing jerk who secretly loves guns and will likely grow up to rebel against his parents' liberal beliefs, starting with the very moment his mother is thanked by a Latino man for her kindness. I saw a kid who spends his whole childhood being fed advice by adults, good bad and in-between, and is left at the end trying to figure out his own mind.
"Would it be truly terrible if the film was about a racist in the making?" But that would be a completely different film! What's terrible is to suggest that this is the trajectory of Linklater's film, when it's so obviously NOT.
I agree with the first comment from jr. As a non white non heterosexual male, I don't just assume that straight white southern guys will grow up to be bigots. In fact, many are not, and our perceptions of them shouldn't be as blanketed as our perceptions of other races. It would be nice if we didn't make sweeping generalisations about any race, including whites.
I'm usually a fan of Jose's writing, but this article totally misses the mark in my opinion. To mourn and challenge the portrayal of hispanics and latinos in this film and then to make the leap and assume that the main protagonist would be racist based on his regional surroundings, racial make-up of his friends, and by one silly scene where he's given a gun by a man he's not even related to is highly questionable and problematic, to say the least, and perpetuates the idea that we judge people on face-value.
I'm Southern and white and also gay, and even though I no longer live there I would never venture to say that the kids I grew up with were racists either. Far from it. My partner is a native Texan and very socially and economically progressive but has an affinity for guns. Go figure.
And to be honest, I think we're really grasping at straws to equate the Mother/Latino kid scene with racism, too. I empathize with the author about his daily struggles and can imagine how horribly offensive and degrading it can be to be hounded by inane and derogatory questions all the time when he is obviously a very well-rounded, cultured, and educated human being. However, I interpreted this as a scene between an educated woman, who previously herself was a struggling, single mother raising two kids on a minimal salary who went to college & grad school on her own volition without any noticeable encouragement or support (at least not known to the audience) and who has now encouraged someone else she sees with talent, drive, and intellect to dream bigger. We need these people in our lives who offer us encouragement and support and who make us feel like we matter and that we can contribute. Screw political correctness. Plus, she's an educator. Of course she's going to encourage people to pursue a higher education, no matter their racial background!
Sorry for the rant, just my two cents.
This post has left a sour taste in my mouth. I read the Acosta piece and it represents the worst "we must support our agenda at all costs, even if the subject can't support our agenda" of Fox News style rantings. So many omissions of facts and projections based on personal prejudice. It made me wonder if Ms. Acosta (and the bio at the end of the article makes it clear she is a she) has a financial stake in keeping racism alive.
"- Why are people so offended because someone claims a film they love contains a racist element? "
I guess it's because they take it as a judgment of their taste and , by association, they believe it makes themselves racists.
My all time favorite film is Gone With The Wind. :-)
Aaron -- that's how i read the scene too. I think it's played awkwardly in the movie and while i was watching it i assumed people would take it to be racist but i read it as about her struggle and that she's a teacher.
It's weird that this issue has reared up again in the final week of vo--- oh yes welcome to Oscar season!
I don't get the whole "Mason is racist" thing, but I definitely thought that the whole subplot was soo cringe-worthy when I saw the film. Like, yay white lady saves a poor latino man's life with her broken spanish (that was just plain horrid) by telling him to go to school. I let it slide because good intentions were there, but the way they handled the scene in the restaurant really ruined it. It could've turned out less cringe-worthy.
I let it slide because it had less to do with race and more to do with her being the ever-nurturing mother and teacher, but it was definitely the most awkward part of the movie. Even Patricia's reaction to him in the restaurant is awkward, lol. Her face is like "ok thanks just give me my salad" hahah
Wow, I read this totally differently, although I also understand Aaron and Nathaniel's interpretations about it being about what she has achieved as a mother. I also understand how it can be read under the white savior narrative, but I actually think its totally aware of the white savior trope and is messing with it a little. When I watched it, I remembered that when he comes over, no one remembers him at first, and then he tells his impassioned story. No one is bursting with glee; she is not sure how to take it; the kids are embarrassed and awkward. What's implied by all this is that in a movie with such a strong commitment to realism, a stock character has been allowed to drift into the scene of their family life for a moment — right near the end — and disrupt that aesthetic and the minutiae of their quotidian lives. It has the effect, as many mentioned above, of feeling *really* weird and out of place in the movie, but that is to my mind what makes it so smart. The movie stops for a moment to reflexively look at its own artistic method and I think pokes fun at the kind of movie it is by throwing in such an out of place scene — hey, in this 12-year movie that is tightly focused on the believable progression of a tight-kint group of people through small gestures and acts, here is a Hollywood trope just to mess with everyone! I thought it was hilarious, and it got laughs in my theater. Perhaps some were laughing because they thought it was simplistic and racist or perhaps some were laughing for the same reason as me, because they saw a purposeful and absurd inconsistency in the film's affect, but I would argue that it worked.
Jose, I agree that problematising race in a movie doesn't necessarily mean "racists learning their lessons or being absolved for their sins" but to think that Boyhood touches on that issue at all is such a stretch! I get that you like the movie (i like it too) but it's wishful thinking all the way. I am Latina (not US Latina though) and i found it incredible offensive.
There's no sugar coating it. It's a huge problem in an otherwise very competent movie. That character is ridiculous, stereotypical, and that subplot is 100% about the white saviour thing. And in my opinion there's nothing on the script or on the direction or in any element of the movie to suggest that this is all being seen by Mason's eyes and should therefore be questioned. (Not to say that assuming the perspective of a racist or racist-in-the-making main character wouldn't be an efficient cinematic device through which to comment on race, but I really don't think that's the case here).
Also from a narrative perspective, that subplot makes no sense whatsoever. To the guys who said the whole thing is about the mother and her struggle, I think you're absolutely right, but that doesn't make it any less problematic, now, does it? You could've talked about her journey in so many different (and more interesting) ways without resorting to that particular storyline...
First of all the whole exchange looks out of tone with the rest of the movie to me. And second of all, come on! The one Latino character in the movie is used only to serve the mother's story AND by use of a racist trope (the white saviour)!! That's like the definition of what not to do with any minority character. If that's the only purpose you have for a Latino in your movie, then maybe don't even go there??
But why? You know, why not make the dad's friend a Latino character ? Why not make one Mason's girlfriends? Why not make dad's second wife Latina? Why not make the sister's boyfriend? I mean, there are many many many options. And why not? Is there a reason why those characters are why white?
Or, if you guys really do think that sounds unlikely for Texas (and may i say, WOW. that's really fucked up), Linklater could've simply not cast any Latino in his movie and then addressed that issue through a conversation between Mason Sr. and Mason Jr, for instance. Hawke's character could've easily pointed out to his son, how come he doesn't have any Latino friends or something like that. It totally sounds like a thing the dad might say, being the "progressive" guy that he is. That would've covered the race thing and, from what I gather about life in Texas (and other parts of the US), Mason not having Latino friends would've been completely credible.
That's just one of many others solutions Linklater could've made use of to avoid that incredibly lazy subplot. And you know, come to think of it, that's the biggest problem for me: it came off as super lazy, super cheap storytelling, that had no place in an otherwise good movie.