Thoughts on "La La Land"?

bradley hayman · January 25, 2017

Could someone explain what’s the deal with this film? I saw it, more than a month ago, I think. I feel that it is being horrifyingly overpraised. (What’s funny and infuriating is that I have this feeling that all the news anchors seem to praise it, yet when they ask one another “Have you seen it?”, the answer is almost always “No.” :lol: :ph34r: )

I get it that Hollywood love films that sing its praises, but that alone can’t explain for this amount of fawning over this movie.

well if it's not for you that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. I haven't seen most of the nominees this year but I feel like the academy likes to appear relevant by nominating a checklist of movies from all genres. La La Land was unique, ambitious, had star power, a young director generating buzz, like you said it paid tribute to a Hollywood golden era, and for the most part it was upbeat and innocent. Those things aren't really what I liked about it but I think that's how they make up their list. The noms usually include a biopic, an uplifting "triumph over tragedy" story, the "dealing with a crippling disease" movie, the "underdog fights city hall" movie etc etc. They seem to love acknowledging all types of movies (except for Marin Scorcese ones apparently)

Personally I liked the photography, the chemistry of the leads, most of the music, and the overall fantasy/fairy tale element of the movie. Or something like that.

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos · January 25, 2017

Thank you, Bradley! That does clear a few things.

I didn’t want to sound mean, but I really think, at this moment, that it’s not that good. I also feel that it would have been better if they played the story straight, instead of that detour and the ending. Much better to do a full-blown happy-end love story. This somehow felt forced and divergent.

I was quite hesitant to say anything, partly because the other day I heard a critic on TV say how much allusions to previous works it had in there and felt illiterate for not spotting them. Perhaps had I spotted them, it would’ve made for a better overall impression in the end.

I didn’t hate it, just so you know, I’m actually still a bit confused as to what would be my final mark, but I do feel it’s not the second coming some make it to be.

Tyler Purcell · January 25, 2017

Well, they played the story "truthful". What you see in La La Land is pretty much the truth straight up. To play it as a happy love story, would NOT be the truth and it would defy the point of making it.

In a world full of falsehoods on screen, FINALLY we see the truth. It's the problem with Hollywood and getting involved with someone who has a similar career path, in this case stage music and acting. They're both very similar professions, both require travel, both require prep and long hours, both are make it or break it careers. Living in Hollywood, it gives you an appreciation of how representative the film is of the hardships and sacrifices people make for their "art". I could go on all day on the sacrifices I've made, but they PAIL in comparison to some of my friends. I've physically seen very similar stories to that of La La Land, unfold in front of my eyes.

Needless to say, La La Land's staying power is that Hollywood simply doesn't make movies like it anymore. So, to see such a production coming from Hollywood, is pretty amazing and it IS a very entertaining movie, which is the whole point.

I left the theater really enjoying La La Land because of these points above. I didn't think of the historical aspects at all, I simply went in and loved what I saw on screen. I even got teared up a few times due to the masterful filmmaking, mixing visuals with music and the somewhat somber ending. I mean what's better then something that MOVES you, right? You want to FEEL that emotion and I believe the movie does a good job. Is it the best movie of 2017? Probably not, but it's the best movie that came out of HOLLYWOOD and that's the important piece of context. If you look at the rest of the world, there are probably better made and more interesting movies out there.

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos · January 26, 2017

I dunno, Tyler... I just keep slapping myself around for not having seen in it what you did and just described. The truthfulness kind of felt forced.

What hardship exactly did she go through? I mean, she worked in a coffee shop and got rejected at auditions a thousand and one time. It’s not exactly slavery. It also felt like an appalling thing that the filmmakers seemed to imply, or perhaps it is only I that inferred it, that she was somehow better than the rest and above a job in a café. It all screamed: “I am made for great(er) things.” Then that moment when she comes back as a big movie star... Yuck. On the other hand, if you consider her childhood story, perhaps I’m wrong, and it was all sweet and actually adorable.

He, on the other hand, certainly managed the unmanageable: all of a sudden going from a piano player in a bar to becoming an owner of a hot new jazz club. Talk about a Hollywood fantasy...

I just remembered yesterday why it was worth seeing. It’s the following exchange:

Sebastian: What do you mean you don’t like jazz?

Mia: It just means that when I listen to it, I don’t like it.

:lol:

Everything else – not bad, but far from splendour of a lost age.

I don’t know what’s stopping me from calling it, say, a bad movie. I guess confusion and allowing for there being something I missed, so I’m still undecided.

It’s funny that this morning as I was going through the news, just after I asked about this yesterday, I bumped onto an article on BBC’s Web site: “Has La La Land been overhyped?”

Perhaps there’s something to that marketing-research story of creating divergence between the general public and the crtics for a film to be successful.

Robin R Probyn · January 26, 2017

Well its just a film.. if Ken Loach had made it ... then escapist crap comments would soon follow for sure.. but come on, its a musical.. its certainly not pretending to be a hard hitting portrait of the mean streets of LA.. and for what it is.. its pretty well done nes par..?

Was Chicago an accurate portrayal of the death and destruction bought down on the heads on the law abiding citizens of 1920,s South Side.. by psychotic sadistic mobsters.. not really.. was it a great film.. yes I think it was..

Did Shirley Temple actually board a ship made of lollipops .. and travel to a bay made of peppermint.. doubtful in the extreme.. she still won an Oscar..

The economy is going down the shitter.. people are worried .. they go to see musicals .. relax why dont you.. get a drink and sit by the pool ..

Tyler Purcell · January 26, 2017

What hardship exactly did she go through? I mean, she worked in a coffee shop and got rejected at auditions a thousand and one time. It’s not exactly slavery. It also felt like an appalling thing that the filmmakers seemed to imply, or perhaps it is only I that inferred it, that she was somehow better than the rest and above a job in a café. It all screamed: “I am made for great(er) things.” Then that moment when she comes back as a big movie star... Yuck. On the other hand, if you consider her childhood story, perhaps I’m wrong, and it was all sweet and actually adorable.

Well, things are very different here in Hollywood then most other places on the planet. People who dream of being actors, they struggle big time because auditions generally happen mid-day and with a very random schedule. If you don't take auditions, you will never work as an actor. Furthermore, spending time at industry parties and hobnobbing with the elite, is also critical. So you can't necessarily work "nights", or you'll never be able to attend those events either. So most actors have part-time food service jobs and they're always coming and going. So what you saw in the movie was, straight up truth. It was stereotypical truth, but it was truth.

It's the reason I took a 10 year hiatus from the industry. It became impossible to work full-time and visit clients for potential work. It's not like you leave your office on lunch, say hi and go back. It takes hours to get across town from your work and hours to get back, thanks to the never-ending traffic jam that's LA. Ohh and trying to find a "good" job with flexible hours, good luck, they just don't exist.

He, on the other hand, certainly managed the unmanageable: all of a sudden going from a piano player in a bar to becoming an owner of a hot new jazz club. Talk about a Hollywood fantasy...

WOOAHHH Hold the horses. If you're part of a famous group on tour, you're gonna have a lot of money. His goal was to start a jazz club and remember, when we return to the story after they split up, it's been 5 years. So he raked in the cash since he didn't need a place to live on tour and he had enough to start a club. This is 100% realistic to me, there are clubs just like that all over LA (not jazz, but other forms of music) and a lot of them were started by famous musicians. One could argue that 5 years isn't enough time for that to happen, but if you're focused on it, then why not? Sometimes the right deal happens and you jump. I think it's pretty realistic, though them not talking in 5 years isn't. With social media, they'd be talking to one another for sure.

Perhaps there’s something to that marketing-research story of creating divergence between the general public and the crtics for a film to be successful.

It's called "split opinion syndrome", where the negative buzz drives even more people to like it. This movie isn't purposely crafted that way, it's just that a lot of people can't buy into something so magical and truthful - truth may not be the best form of entertainment. People who don't live in L.A. who aren't in the industry, they may think it's bullshit so they just write it off. Maybe they don't want to see some "hollywood" person struggle through life, thinking they've got it made. Most people don't have any clue the struggles us hollywood types go through on an hourly basis to make our dreams come true. I also didn't think the goal of the film was to bring back musical's. I think the story holds it's own without the dance numbers.

La La Land is good ol' hollywood entertainment and ya know, it's much needed in this world of serious drama's. I've seen almost all of the best picture nods and ya know, they're all ok, but none of them are as downright entertaining as La La Land. Some of the competition this year was downright boring... 'Moonlight' being the top of that pile. I don't go to the movies to see something boring, I go to see something entertaining. I want to be moved, emotionally involved and "care" about the characters. Maybe that's why I liked La La Land so much, because I understood first hand what the characters were going through. Maybe it's that association that drives so many people to like it and others, well they simply can't associate with the idea of people wanting to have success in hollywood, it goes right over their head. When you're struggling to put food on your own table, why would you like a movie that shows two hollywood star's "struggle", its like some sick joke.

Gregory Irwin · February 3, 2017

I must be honest. I barely made it about a third of the way through the picture. Am I the only one who thinks La La Land is a very average production? Just because the camera wandered doesn't make it revolutionary. BIRDMAN has already made that case for long, continuous takes as many other pictures before it. The movie simply made no sense and severely lacked energy. The opening dance number is elaborate but really lacked energy. It seemed contrived and self indulgent to me. I also thought the image was crushed to a point where I couldn't even see the actors' eyes in many circumstances. I would have expected a more polished style of cinematography with an edge. I got the same lighting as a murder mystery. Dark and muddy. I just don't get all of the adoration.

G

Tyler Purcell · February 4, 2017

Greg, did you see it on the big screen or at home? I saw it in laser projected 4k and it didn't have any of the issues you're describing.

Gregory Irwin · February 4, 2017

Greg, did you see it on the big screen or at home? I saw it in laser projected 4k and it didn't have any of the issues you're describing.

Tyler, I saw it in a very good theater. I just flat out didn't like it. But then I'm not a fan of Linus either... I wanted to like it though!

G

Tyler Purcell · February 4, 2017

Honest and interesting, thanks for the clarification.

Marshall Hendershot · February 7, 2017

I must be honest. I barely made it about a third of the way through the picture. Am I the only one who thinks La La Land is a very average production? Just because the camera wandered doesn't make it revolutionary. BIRDMAN has already made that case for long, continuous takes as many other pictures before it. The movie simply made no sense and severely lacked energy. The opening dance number is elaborate but really lacked energy. It seemed contrived and self indulgent to me. I also thought the image was crushed to a point where I couldn't even see the actors' eyes in many circumstances. I would have expected a more polished style of cinematography with an edge. I got the same lighting as a murder mystery. Dark and muddy. I just don't get all of the adoration.

G

Curious if you have any thoughts on the focus pullings? Quite a bit was soft but it seemed understandable to me given the circumstances

Gregory Irwin · February 9, 2017

Curious if you have any thoughts on the focus pullings? Quite a bit was soft but it seemed understandable to me given the circumstances

I don't criticize other focus pullers because I just don't know what they had to deal with. I did notice the soft focus. But then again, I thought the camera work in general was weak and underwhelming. That beautiful scope format had numerous opportunities wasted.

G

Max Field · March 1, 2017

So actually sat down and saw it in theaters over the weekend. Theater was so crowded I was mashed to the front row looking up at the screen like a gerbil on the floor. Even through that handicap, it still visually stuck out from other movies I had seen in the past year. The coloring was fantastic, wish I could comment on the blocking but my angle would have squares looking like rhombuses.

As for the screenplay/concept itself, it being a musical somewhat deflated it for me (like I mentioned before). Only one of the songs I found alright, and for the rest of them I sunk into the viewer hole of "don't like it? well screw you listen anyway". A musical with non-goofy music is the thing needed to reinvent this genre. It's a damn shame cause the normal parts were great to follow but when they broke out into song I got completely taken out of it.

While both films are great achievements on creative levels, I'm glad Moonlight got the best picture nod as it tackled much more complex issues. At no point in La La land did I think that these characters would face any real consequences for failure. Emma Stone's character moved back in with her parents after her play bombed, that's a pretty sweet deal if you ask me. Now if she ended up getting in fights with territorial homeless people, that would've been incredible range.