La La Land — Page 6

seahag2, I think icecreambenjamin was being sarcastic

I finally had the chance to catch this film after hearing all the hype about it for, what seems like, the last month. I'm going to have to agree with some on the board here who found the film to be pleasant enough but thoroughly overrated.



First, the pros:

* This film has absolutely gorgeous cinematography. The use of colors and selective film editing was well-executed and, at points, breathtaking.

* The music, while not entirely memorable or hummable, was enjoyable to listen to. In fact, some of the the individual pieces had enough thematic heft that they could be meaningfully reprised as underscoring in later scenes to great narrative or emotional effect. (It reminded me of the ingenious ways Crazy Ex-Girlfriend uses reprises to underscore scenes in their episodes...but that's for a whole other discussion.)

* For those of us living and breathing performing arts -- whether professionally or not -- this film will likely have some sentimental effect on you (it hit me hardest during Emma's final song).

* While I wasn't a huge fan of the Mia character (she's not well-developed [as this New Yorker film critic noted] and she didn't grow at all), I found Sebastian to be a deeply satisfying character to watch, as he wrestled with the conflict of pursuing "true" art vs. "selling out" and dealing with loss, in its many manifestations throughout the film. I thought Ryan Gosling did a great job portraying the nuances of this character.

* The first 45 minutes of the film and the final musical segment may have you floating on cloud 9 -- or at least grinning from ear-to-ear.



Yet, despite these strengths, the film has some pretty significant shortcomings:

* First and foremost, the film felt hyper-choreographed. Every shot, dance step, and subtitle was so mechanically placed, I could just imagine Damien Chazelle signaling from behind the camera when certain lights would dim only, only to, two seconds later, slowly bring up a spotlight on one of the leads. It was all very showy and well thought-out, but, ironically, it also caused the loss of that spontaneous magic that makes movie musicals so damn charming in the first place. For instance, while I may be cognitively aware that the Singin' in the Rain is highly choreographed, I don't feel that way when I watch it. I cannot say the same about La La Land.

* In the same vein as the last bullet point, La La Land's nostalgia felt superficial and formulaic. As one film critic pointed out, there is a "danger of feeling nostalgic for times and places you weren’t alive to experience".

* The film has tonal inconsistency. There are many songs shoved into the first 45 minutes of the film, allowing it to flow briskly along. After that, the songs are placed sporadically, rejiggering the film's pace completely off-kilter from how the movie set out. Maybe this was intentional, given the changes in the characters' circumstances as the plot moved along, but it still felt weird. For instance, the musical film The Umbrellas of Cherbourg had fairly major dramatic changes throughout its narrative, but the pacing did not change nearly as significantly as La La Land's did.

* La La Land is structured in such a way that the two leads pretty much have to carry the entire film. This is fine, as long as you have strong actors that can do so. While Ryan and Emma are incredibly charming and have fantastic on-screen chemistry, their dancing was just simply "good" while their singing was merely passable. While I don't see this as a problem in itself -- I was one of the few (it seemed) people who found Michelle Williams' turn as Sally Bowles on Broadway to be incredibly powerful, despite her lack of strong singing ability -- La La Land's narrative structure doesn't do either of the leads a favor by putting them in a position to be more harshly judged, in light of their singing and dancing, than may be warranted or necessary.

* I know others had mentioned their disappointment in the film's ending; count me in as one who agrees. Without spoiling the ending, I'll just say that it didn't feel like Damien Chazelle really committed to a clear idea as to what he wanted to portray at the end of his film. One only has to look at the disagreements on this board as to the ending's "meaning" to see this as the case. In fact, it was because Chazelle brought forth such big ideas throughout the film -- especially immediately prior to the film's ending -- that made the non-commitment all the more glaring and unsettling for me. While some may argue that leaving the ending open for interpretation makes it more interesting, I would contend that Chazelle actually did have an idea he was trying to get across but did so sloppily.



All in all, I was glad to see this film, if only to be able to experience it on the big screen with full sound. However, I would be severely disappointed if it wins a Best Picture Oscar. The film certainly provides an interesting story, but the massive hype for La La Land seems pretty unwarranted.

White men know nothing about jazz. Gershwin was a hack.

Rewatching it, I was startled at the decision to exclude the two leads from even a line of sung dialog in the (kinda wonderful) opening. It seems inconsistent not to introduce these two -- who as someone noted, must carry the whole film -- as characters who will sing at (subsequent) key moments, and then not begin their singing in that terrific genre-defining sequence. The song's POV certainly fits both of these frustrated, planetarium crossed lovers. Why didn't they get to join in? It could be useful, establishing "I want" moments. A missed opportunity to make the film more of a piece, though clearly not an egregious lapse.

icecreambenjamin said: "White men know nothing about jazz. Gershwin was a hack."

Literally not the point I was making. But you don't think it feels a little weird that, other than Gosling, pretty much every other jazz musician we see in the movie is black?

Some of you seem so troubled by the idea that anyone who isn't white could have played these parts. Again, Gosling was fine. But the point is- this a story that has been told many a time before (and better). Would it have killed them to have either actor played by anyone of color? At this point, it's just revisiting incredibly well-trod ground, which the filmmakers certainly have a right to do. But don't be surprised when people are tired of seeing the same thing hailed as a masterpiece over and over.

You say tomato, I say to-mah-toe, let's call the whole thing off...

:/

My boyfriend and I saw the film last week. I loved the music and songs the most, but I thought it was strong in some areas and weak in others. I still applaud them for trying something big and daring, but the movie was good, but not great in my opinion. I do think Lin Manuel Miranda has got a real fight on his hands because 'Audition (The Fools Who Dream)' should win Best Song at the Oscars.

mc1227 said: "To add to the discussion regarding casting Gosling, like Broadway, stars are required to sell tickets and Gosling draws moviegoers. He has the style, looks and edge that this part required and imo, he did a fantastic job considering he is not a singer or dancer by trade. also, people overlook how difficult it is to pretend to play piano and be believeable doing it. He was spot on with that much in the way Jessie Mueller was when she portrayed Carole King. "

He didn't fake it. He learned how to play piano for the role.

It is possible to discuss race and still enjoy the movie for what it is. And maybe some other actors were tested, but I think the only two people who were seriously considered for the roles were Emma Watson and Miles Teller. As far as the ensemble goes- sure, the opening number was wonderfully diverse! Good! But that's basically the only time we see them.

Look- I get it, it's a fluffy movie that's pretty and fun and nice. I'm not saying that it's a racist movie or anything like that, but what bothers me is that this will probably Best Picture over Moonlight. Subjective questions aside, Moonlight is telling a story about black queer men- name the last mainstream movie that dealt with that at all. La La Land is perfectly fine, but right down to the racial politics, it doesn't do anything that movie musicals from the 50s did time and time again. If awards bodies continue to award the same milquetoast stuff, how are other voices supposed to break through? That is why this matters- if we can't expect bigger movies to embrace this, the industry is going to continue to be stagnant.

you cannot blame la la land for a decision made by an award committee. that is not the movie's fault. your blame should be directed at THE OSCARS

I'm not blaming the film for anything, but films don't exist in a vacuum, and reaction to this movie will absolutely be colored by the fact that it's probably gonna have Oscars thrown at it. It's the type of thing Hollywood loooooves but it feels hackneyed at this point. I'd still be critical of the film if it started two actors of color, but at least something would be different about it as compared to the thousands before exactly like it.

JM226 said: "and yet that didnt happen so we have no way to know if you're actually telling the truth or not. oh well!!! fair points though...



"

I have no idea what you're talking about.