Boy (2010)

Taika Waititi is a filmmaker who is effortlessly intriguing, he has such an interesting style and his films are so complex and a treat to unpack. But Waititi has built up an image of a funny man, that’s not too say that his films aren’t funny, the trademark New Zealand comedy is so slick and incredibly well made. But his films balance that Happy-Sad ratio so well that the sad is hidden in subtext of a well-constructed narrative, this is very evident in his 2010 picture Boy. My favourite of Waititi’s 5 films, Boy is about a Maori child confronting the reality of his built up image of his absent father played by Taika himself. It’s hilarious, but subtle in the way it demonstrates very vital character beats through visual representation. It’s a melancholy film, mostly due to the deadpan comedy being placed with extremely flawed characters in a flawed situation, however that childhood optimism pulses through the film resulting in an overall positive tone to the dark situation.

The film’s writing is where it really sores. The comedy and wit is effortless, with every single character having excellent comedic moments. It always remains naturalistic, many of the jokes come from situation and performances that feel like they could happen. Waititi loves his visual comedy as well, using slapstick to expose the faults in Alamein (Boy’s father) or just the simple appearances of some characters being comedic. The comedy is constructed to be subtle and mostly off hand remarks, so the film doesn’t have you rolling in laughter, but you are consistently smiling. Something I admire in Waititi’s work is how hes not a fan of punchlines in his comedy, he uses them sparingly and instead uses long form comedic situations.

But the character writing is Waititi’s strength, it always has been, he's a writer who understands the complexity of human beings. You can see it in all his films, but especially Boy. Each character isn’t defined by a category, there is no hero and there is no villain, because there isn’t in real life. It’s an atypical narrative, so requires an assortment of atypical characters. Our protagonist is understandably flawed, and his father is also revealed to be understandably flawed. No character is treated at face value, there’s a reason behind the way they are and that’s excellent writing. This is very valuable to the film, as at its core it’s a character piece. its linked a lot to Waititis own childhood and due to the situation being so personal, the film uses its characters and themes to feel universal, to explore childhood and parenthood as a concept, to look at the moment you realise your parents are human beings. Occasionally the film becomes a bit too subtle, elements of the plot and development become a bit unclear, which is more of a pacing issue, some scenes could rely on being ten minutes shorter or ten minutes longer.

Waititi’s choice to appear in his own film as the father was a very clever move. He manages to convey his character’s transformations through several depictions of the same character, until finally Boy learns to understand him and we are left with the final scene being the true Alamein, the extremely flawed but not evil person. For a film featuring a lot of child actors, most of them are great! James Rolleston as our protagonist is surprisingly effective, he plays that fantastic middle ground of responsibility and childhood clashing, encouraged by the arrival of Alamein. His younger brother, Rocky played by Te Aho Aho Eketone-Whitu is one of my favourite characters in the film, he plays a shy kid who believes he has special powers, the acknowledgement of being a ‘weird’ kid and how kids cope with past experiences is a lovely touch to an already packed film. The rest of the cast is mainly small comedic roles form children, who are very hit and miss, none noticeably bad. Special mention to Rachel House in a very minor role, who’s couple of scenes are really well performed, her moments become pivotal in context of the whole film and she communicates it really well.

Technically, this film is really good for what it is. The cinematography isn’t overly ambitious, but that’s because it doesn’t need to be. The framing is always using the New Zealand countryside to make every shot look beautiful. The lighting is used very naturalistic, setting the mood of every scene really well but also used to convey the tension of a scene; for example making a scene shot at night almost impossible to see as a means to convey the danger. Theres slight editing and shot choices that I would change, but it’s hard to imagine it differently due to the perfect tone that’s created. I’ve mentioned the naturalistic strength in the film, however this film features several dream sequences that are a really nice break of pace, as they delve into how Boy see’s the situation.

Taika Waititi is my favourite filmmaker. His approach to film making is something I have a lot of appreciation for. I hope to review both Eagle Vs Shark and Hunt for the Wilderpeople in the future, as they are equally as well constructed. Boy is his Magnum Opus, a screenplay that took years to write clearly paid off in this end product, the complexity and skill that is in this film comes across magnificently. Hopefully, Waititi returns to his smaller films like this, it’s a stereotype to dislike when an indie filmmaker hits the mainstream, but Wilderpeople proved he can maintain this level on a higher budget. My problem is with Thor: Ragnorok, it’s a hilarious film, but I want Waititi to pursue and write his own crazy projects, which thankfully Jojo Rabbit is looking like it is going to be an insane journey. Maybe we’ll return to this type of film, or maybe we won’t, either way Boy is still here and deserves the appreciation.

Thanks for reading.