La La Land

[Gabby Hayes]

It sounds very white.

[JP2]

Gabby Hayes said: "It sounds very white.

 

"

You're thinking of Manchester By The Sea.

[TotallyEffed]

Manchester by the Sea focuses on a white family.

La La Land has less of an excuse for how white it is.

[icecreambenjamin]

Is La La Land that white though?  I mean the two leads are white, but doesn't John Legend have a fairly large part?

[TotallyEffed]

It's not a very big part. He sings a song with a band but the focus is not on him and we get to know very little about his character.

[aaaaaa15]

The trouble with calling LLL out for diversity is that it only has two substantial parts - Ryan and Emma's. John Legend has the third biggest part. The extras are very diverse as well. On the whole, it's less white than Spotlight and Birdman, the previous two winners for Best Picture.

I do think the message of 'it's hard to succeed in Hollywood' may have been more impactful if Emma's part had been played by a non-white actress though.

[Gabby Hayes]

It's me not you.  I'm just not sure a return to the golden age of musicals that perpetuated such an ideal fantasy world totally removed from reality is such a great idea.  I'm sure it makes people feel good to forget the horrors that are enveloping our country and the world by focusing on two privileged people and their supposed trials and struggles.  Again, it's me not you.  I'm sure it's very well done.

[icecreambenjamin]

I agree with aaaaaa15 that, that would have made a very compelling and important statement, but Emma Stone is fabulous and I'm happy to she her do this.

Gabby, I don't think that everything needs to be about something political.  La La Land chooses not to expore the horrors that are facing our nation and instead focus on two artists.  Yes, they happen to be white, but I'm sure that's because they were the best choice for the roles.  Also, to suggest that they are privileged and have no trials and struggles simply due to the color of their skin is a little ludicrous. 

Also, between Moonlight and Fences, there is already quite a bit of diversity.

[smallvillefan16]

Saw the movie on Friday -- thought it was beautiful and a great film.  Emma Stone, per usual, is the highlight of the film bringing the laughs and the tears making Mia feel extremely real.  Ryan Gosling, while a great actor and dancer, could have been dubbed. His singing felt a little flat and off key -- but I get that the film wasn't trying to have amazing singers.  The dance numbers are excellent and it's brilliantly directed.  The final song by Emma Stone is an absolute stand out.

Easily will win Golden Globes for best film comedy/musical; best actress comedy/musical.

[TotallyEffed]

Gosling's singing was average at best but if he was really playing the piano and dancing like that then I am very impressed. If there were fancy cuts or CGI tricks then they were masterfully done.

[clb10162]

TotallyEffed said: "Gosling's singing was average at best but if he was really playing the piano and dancing like that then I am very impressed. If there were fancy cuts or CGI tricks then they were masterfully done.

 

"According to Vulture, he really did:

  http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/can-ryan-gosling-really-sing-and-dance.html

[ColorTheHours048]

I've already seen this twice since it opened on Friday and I haven't loved a movie so emphatically in quite a long time. Debating whether this was better or more deserving of Best Picture accolades than Moonlight just proves how silly award prestige is. Two totally different things, achieving two different cinematic ends. Both are wonderful in their own ways. But I was absolutely enchanted by La La Land.

[aaaaaa15]

I don't think there's anything silly about debating which is a better film. Yes they're aiming to do different things but in my eyes one completely achieves what it set out to do and the other only mostly does. LLL's screenplay falls apart somewhat in the second half and then luckily the ending is fantastic enough to bring it back and make you forget about the weaknesses. People shouldn't fret anyway, there's no way a movie about black, gay men will beat a movie about Hollywood at the Oscars.

[Scarywarhol]

I did not care for this at all. Relentlessly cloying. Empty characters. It seemed really impressed with its mere idea to "do" "a" "musical." If you're going to be that cute about it, your leading lovers better be more than hipster cliches. 

[Scarywarhol]

I'd be interested in what could possibly have been confusing about Moonlight.

[aaaaaa15]

Scarywarhol said: "I'd be interested in what could possibly have been confusing about Moonlight."

Agreed...

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

ColortheHours, you are absolutely right. It's impossible to compare Land to Moonlight because they both embody the two distinct things that art is meant to do. That is- to both take us out of reality AND teach us about it. We need both.

[JP2]

Scarywarhol said: "I'd be interested in what could possibly have been confusing about Moonlight

"

I thought the first two acts were strong, but then act three left me cold. I personally lost all investment in the characters by then. 

[Auggie27]

This film and "Moonlight" are both gorgeous, personal, ambitious films. They have nothing in common. Not a thing. The idea that they must compete is just part of the inherent dishonesty in award season.  We need both films, desperately.  

[BwayGeek2]

This film is absolutely breathtaking in my opinion. I was enchanted from the moment it started. 

As a theatre lover, which I'm sure we all are, it excites me that there is a musical as an Oscar contender this year. 

When I was watching the movie, it brought me back to the times I would sit at my friend's house as a quiet 5th grader and watch those old Hollywood Musicals with Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Anyone else have this feeling? I really hope this allows producers and filmmakers to take more risks and make musicals again!! 

[aaaaaa15]

JP2 said: "I thought the first two acts were strong, but then act three left me cold. I personally lost all investment in the characters by then."

And the third act was by far my favorite.

-

I just don't understand the argument that because two films are about completely different things, one can't be judged to be better than the other. Putting aside subject matter, one can judge which has the better structure, acting, direction, screenplay etc. I agree, they're both great movies and I'm really glad both got made and are getting attention. That doesn't change my opinion that one deserves an award for Best Picture more than the other...and it's the one with more critical acclaim.

[Jordan Catalano]

Boy, I'm glad I didn't read this before seeing the film today. Otherwise I definitely would have compared it to MOONLIGHT (huh???) and sat there shaking my head in anger that I had to look at white people on that screen for two hours. 

 

[Scarywarhol]

I'd give this movie a second watch to see if I change my mind, but the thought of listening to Ryan Gosling seduce a girl by explaining jazz at her again makes me break out in a cold sweat. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Ryan Gosling could seduce me by describing the chemical formula of a fart. 

[aaaaaa15]

Jordan Catalano said: "Otherwise I definitely would have compared it to MOONLIGHT (huh???)"

Not sure why that confuses you. They are the two frontrunners in Best Picture and Best Director. They have already been compared in quality numerous times in other places.

[Jordan Catalano]

After reading the ridiculousness you've written in this thread, it doesn't surprise me why you don't understand what I wrote.