La La Land

[sabrelady]

Having problems with the story will not be popular, starting with this post.   

Not by me- sections of the film certainly were less than others 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

 the play and it's poor turn out. Really, none of her friends could bring a date or other friends? but I get the epic fail is more striking. Less real but moves the story forward.

 

[Auggie27]

Sabrelady:


MINOR SPOILER.

Yeah, her actual show we never see, by the way, though it looks like Parker Posey's at the end of "Best in Show," one of those self-indulgent one-person pieces that reek of vanity. It seemed as if the film wants us to believe she's a "real"-er actress, putting on her own autobiographic material (No working knowledge of theater? Odd.) Had she simply been cast in a 99 seat house production of a regular play, and cajoled a film rep to see her, it would've been twice as believable.  But of course, the movie-within-the-movie has 3 months of improvisation and then a shoot, with the actor contributing to her role, so it had to be an Altman-like experience so that she'd be needed.  Again, I wouldn't nitpick if the overall sweep of the story felt more believable. The big fight in the third act just felt contrived to drive them apart. Even as they profess their love. (My grown son said, "why would she object to him touring with a singer like Legend, to pocket some money?  When she worked in a coffee place to pay her bills?"  He was supposed to turn down money to open a jazz club, or starve? It's ludicrous.  

[sabrelady]

I get what your saying.

I found myself thinking of Begin Again with the whole artistic integrity vs selling out ( the people LIKE it)thingy.  I suspect that's why they portrayed Seb as a Purest acolyte  in the service  of the  JAZZ.  ( even tho it was her conversation w her mom that got him thinking about artistic compromise so he could keep her) so it would make his fall ( at least in her eyes) greater.

But a stretch.

OH any by the by I wondered if Nia ( Mia geddit?) Vardalos  story was being referenced here. One woman show gets seen by someone important and the rest is history.

[wickedfan]

I didn't find the argument in the third act to be about her objecting to his playing with the band. She was pointing out to him that he intended to play in the band order to pocket money for buying a club in the future. But he was now discussing a permanent career with the band, which was not his dream. It wasn't an accusatory "You're sacrificing your art for commerce." It was a more practical assessment of "This was meant to be a necessary stepping stone to realizing your dream, but now you don't seem to have that dream in sight anymore and you don't even like what you're doing now...so why keep doing it?" A very reasonable point I've had friends make to me and I've made back to friends when we get comfortable with the stability of our day jobs, no matter how glamorous or unglamorous they may seem to others.

These were two characters who were serious about their passions. But when life comes in and offers you an easier way out, many times you slowly start to head down that easier path and not even know it. The fights at dinner and in front of her parents' house were the two moments when they each saved the other and pushed them back towards their original goal.

Needless to say, I loved this film. The style and technical achievements were wonderful, yes, but I was very drawn to the story which I thought was crafted very intelligently and acted beautifully by Stone and Gosling, who really do continue to have amazing chemistry. Those last 8 minutes will go down in cinema history. It's as if Gene Kelly were commissioned to create a ballet based on "We'll always have Paris." 

[Auggie27]

MAJOR SPOILERS.

Actually, Seb just says it's a 2-year commitment to the road.  And that stall seems to stick in her craw, which I still say is fairly ridiculous.  Her inflexibility -- unwillingness to see any benefit in a guy who played Christmas carols in a restaurant pocketing money while touring with John Legend -- made the argument petty, not about commitment to dreams.  In 2017 (or 1999, or 1989, or--) the idea of opening a jazz club that goes -- for profit -- in L.A, not Peoria -- is so off the charts filled with financial difficulties.  For a young woman who'd slaved in a coffee shop to have issues with his touring with a great singer is odd. Again, they didn't put some American Idol also-ran in, as the choice for Seb; it's John Legend, who is portrayed, appropriately, as a gifted near-star.  As a reason for their relationship to deteriorate, it's just not real world enough.

And the film tries to have it both ways: to be soft-pastel MGM and to create the "real" world of show biz the very one we know: filled with financial peril. Remember the one scene between Seb and his sister (and oh, how this film cries out for supporting players!): we learn he is in serious debt.  So the love of his life won't cut him that particular slack? A couple of years on the road, during which he might pocket a down payment for a club's myriad costs?  This man can't pay his rent or light bill, but wants to open a club?  I'm sorry, I'm haggling, but money is at the core of this story: she can't pay to rent the 99 seat theater where she does her autobiography.  Why is his savvy commitment to the road -- he's not taking a 9-to-5 in some dreary office -- such a terrible delay of his dream?  If the film's story had other issues, old loves, anything else, we might see that their break-up was built on a crossroads. But they literally fall apart at that damn dinner.  It's bizarre, and makes her character shallow, for this supposedly great artist.  

And hell, she goes off and makes -- from the audition process, employing a major casting agent -- a big budget studio film. Which makes here a star. She doesn't relocate to the boonies or lower east side to shoot a handheld video masterpiece. She goes to Paris, and earns a salary!  Yet his working with Legend dilutes his integrity?   Huh?

[wickedfan]

First of all, she asks him at the table when he thinks he'll be done and he says something to the extent of "What do you mean? This is it." THAT'S what she objects to. She doesn't even object to the music or Legend, she admits she likes the music the band plays, she just doesn't think he does. Again, it's not the idea of touring to pocket money that she's fighting him on. It's the the fact that he's no longer viewing it that way, he's now starting to commit himself fully to something he doesn't like. I don't see how that makes her petty. And even if it does, people are ALLOWED to be petty and then grow from their mistakes. 

I also don't see what point you're trying to make comparing her movie and his touring. The fight for integrity wasn't about doing something that's "worthy," it was about doing what you love. Acting was what she loved and so doing that film made sense. His dream wasn't just to "play music," but specifically jazz and specifically at his own club. 

[YouWantitWhen????]

From what I recall, it was also not conveyed to Mia that Seb was going the road purportedly for her (as the decision was made after over hearing the conversation with her mom). Maybe there was a conversation we don't know about - but his motives are his, and not shared with Mia until way after the fact. From what I inferred, it was not that he was doing it, but that she knew it was something he did not love, with no apparent end in sight - and that is what she objected to.  Then, he wanted her to come with him on the road a couple of weeks before her one night show, and that read to Mia as he wanted her to give up her dreams/change in order to be with him (or did not take them seriously, because he had possibly given up on his) - which she would not do.  

As wickedfan pointed out - her love was acting, and there is no disconnect between that and the opportunity that materialized.  I did not find that inconsistent.

I think the ending scene shows us that they both got what they loved, but lost who they loved in order to achieve it.

Anyway, just my opinion.

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Just got out of the movie. Just that ending sequence alone deserves best direction and picture. Both my sister and myself agree. This was the greatest film, if not Ryan gosling film, we have ever seen. Beautiful piece of art. Everything from music, choreography to the two leads were perfect. I also loved how the film made homage to all the classic musical movies. 

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Yet another wonderful 2016 film that only gets better and better the more you let it sit and think about it. It's a love letter to Demy and Gene Kelly and MGM, but it is so much more. Someone complained about the film wanting to have its cake and eat it too by showing the fantasy aspects juxtaposed with realism and that's completely missing the point of the movie which is using elements of the fantastical movie musicals to tell a story grounded in reality. That is what makes the movie so relevant to today and so much more than just an homage or a pastiche. It has what most musicals (including some of the great Broadway musicals) lack which is a great script (or book, if you will).

Add me to the list of those who see this as a continuation of MOULIN ROUGE, a completely different film that still clearly relates to this one in terms of its story and what it's trying to do with the movie musical genre. I can't praise this movie enough. Yes, some of the lyrics are wonky, so what? When the end result is this, you just let it wash over you. The ending is brilliant.

[madbrian]

I saw this yesterday and loved every minute of it.  Along with thinking about the movie itself afterwards, my other immediate thought is that I can wait for Damien Chazelle's next movie.  Oddly, the ending of the movie brought the 70s Harry Chapin song Taxi to mind.

[Roscoe]

I've seldom been so utterly bored by a major motion picture -- certainly not since that BIRDMAN thing.  Yeah, LA LA LAND has pretty pictures and pretty sets and a lot of prettyosity, including the two leads, but I never found myself giving much of a damn about either one of them.  The film aims for an UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG vibe, youth giving way to experience with a lot of cinematic artifice right sure fine got it, but it never for me approached that film's achievement.  The musical elements are the chief offenders here -- the score is the single blandest assembly of musical velveeta I've ever heard, with lyrics that are a study in banality.  As is the entire movie.  

It is just useless enough to clean up at the Oscars.

 

[sabrelady]

But tell me Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?