Boyhood should have been named Best Picture at the 87th Academy Awards

I apologize for not posting my opening arguments sooner. Just a clarification to future voters, we are debating whether or not the film Boyhood should have won Best Picture at this year’s Oscars. I am taking the pro stance that Boyhood should have won (giving me the BoP). Before I begin my arguments, I ask that any future voters do not vote based on their own preferences of the film, instead base your vote on my opponent’s arguments and mine. With formalities out of the way, onto my opening arguments. The Oscars are notorious for disappointing both critics and fans in their selection for Best Picture winner. 2014’s 12 Years a Slave triumphing over Gravity, 2013’s Argo triumphing over all other nominees, 1997’s Shakespeare in Love triumphing over Saving Private Ryan, and 1994’s Forrest Gump triumphing over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption: these are just a few examples of the long line of noteworthy Oscar snubs. This past year, the Oscars gave one of their greatest snubs ever in their failure to recognize Boyhood for Best Picture. My arguments will all revolve around the fact that Boyhood should have been named Best Picture because of its own cinematic mastery and the fact that it is a more worthy contender than any other nominated film of the past year. My first point will utilize five key aspects of filmmaking Boyhood applies that make it a worthy Oscar winner. 1. ) Technique. To argue on Boyhood’s behest and not mention it’s central concept would be negligent. So, for any who are not aware, Boyhood was made over the course of 12 years using the same 4 actors with additional characters popping up every once in a while. This gamble alone should have won Richard Linklater the Best Director Oscar (Which it did not! ). 2. ) Writing. Boyhood’s writing is often subject to overwhelming praise from critics and near universal criticism from naysaying audience members. Some argue that Boyhood does not tell a proper story, includes little conflict, and ignores character development. To refute these arguments, firstly let me start out by saying that everything people complain about in regards to writing are actually there, just not overtly so. For example, there is a central story to Boyhood is growing up. This story is carried out in the changes the two parents go through as their children age into adulthood. The argument of little conflict may seem true, however the central conflict is stated from the beginning: the parents’ divorce. Lastly, the assertion that there is no character development is ludicrous. Firstly for the kid, Mason, we see him slowly come into his own identity (which is character development at it’s best). Secondly, the parents go through changes as well. The father undergoes growth by finally maturing into a proper adult. The mother undergoes change by learning to be selfish, yet still maternal: a balance she had not yet discovered. 3. ) Acting. Right alongside writing with the same dichotomy of criticism and praise is Boyhood’s acting. While audiences mostly criticize Ellar Coltrane’s performance, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette have had their fair share of bashing. My argument is that what some may view as bland and emotionless, others may view as low-key and underplaying the scene. 4. ) Nostalgia. One thing that Boyhood seldom gets criticism for is its use of nostalgia. Depicting the adolescence of one of kid, Boyhood is the perfect throwback film for anyone of this generation. 5. ) Authenticity. The last aspect Boyhood holds is it’s authenticity. No matter how many arguments are made against the film, people cannot deny that Boyhood’s depiction of life is extremely realistic. In my future arguments, I will go further into these points. Also, I will address fact that Boyhood is a more worthy contender than any other nominated film of the past year. With that in mind, I await my opponents response. Let's have a nice debate!