La La Land (Damien Chazelle, December 2nd 2016) Movie • Page 11

okay fine, im seeing this tonight. I like musicals, my girlfriend don't... im flying solo. brb

 

I absolutely loved this, but is it weird that I'm annoyed that it opens with a huge musical number that has nothing to do with the story / doesn't feature the main characters, quickly followed up by another huge musical number with Emma Stone and that's pretty much it for actual singing/dancing scenes. I kind of wish there were more big singing/dancing scenes

 

This piece is way more harsh than I would be, but I can't disagree all that much with its stance

La La Land’s White Jazz Narrative

And it might partially get to the root of some of my issues with Chazelle. I think Whiplash is incredibly well made. He is a very talented filmmaker who I have enjoyed watching and I hope he continues to make more movies. But if you look at Whiplash, I think the most fascinating reading on that film is if you were to accept that Teller and Simmons' characters are wrong about jazz and what it takes to be great, that they are two narcissistic egomaniacs and speak to the death of jazz, a genre that lives in collaboration, and when Tellers' father watches the final confrontation in horror, it's because he's watching the death of jazz. But knowing Chazelle was a jazz drummer adds an autobiographical reading, and in La La Land, seeing as his two leads both eschew collaboration for insular, isolated pursuits that speak to their genius (Gosling's rejecting the setlist/the pop group, Stone's one woman show), in these two films it feels like Chazelle's primary interest is in telling stories about geniuses who are held back by everyone else, and when they pursue their own independent goals, that's what's celebrated, even to the detriment of what else we know about jazz or filmmaking (another medium where collaboration is essential). It feels almost Randian. So much of what Whiplash hinges on is actually false: Buddy Rich, Miles Teller's idol, was "a loud and insensitive technical whiz, a TV personality, not a major jazz inspiration", according to Richard Brody (also: a white jazz musician), and Jo Jones never threw a cymbal at Charlie Parker's head, but Teller and Simmons both repeat the story and the movie hinges on it/a recreation of it. It feels like Chazelle believes it and thinks it speaks to the dedication of what it takes to be great, but it never actually happened. Jones threw the cymbal at Parker's feet.

Now, I still think Whiplash is a great movie and the reading of it as a condemnation of two awful, horrible white guys who don't get jazz at all can still exist, even if I'm less convinced that was Chazelle's aim. But, much as I like Whiplash and La La Land, I just can't totally buy in when I think Chazelle is fumbling some important ideas and maybe unintentionally spreading some potentially harmful ones. There's no taking away his talent, he is an exciting and interesting filmmaker, and I've had a lot of interesting thoughts and conversations as a result of both Whiplash and La La Land so I appreciate that they exist and, again, really like both films. But I do so with reservations.

 

Really well said, and this is mostly where I find myself with the Chazelle canon. Looking at how Whiplash faced many of the same criticisms for the whiteness of Chazelle's jazz, only to have him follow it up with the mansplained manifesto of jazz purity in La La Land gives me little hope that Chazelle gives attention to any of these very legitimate criticisms. Like you said, this aspect doesn't necessarily *ruin* either film for me, but I have a hard time fully buying in or disputing those who are fully turned off from Chazelle due to his oversights.

 

I don't get why people use this as a criticism of that movie. We constantly use the legend of stories to hype or motivate ourselves up ... the tall tale version of so many musicians, legends, "greats" are what get passed around and told to people. I've used them myself as motivation for things (Steve Jobs, Einstein, etc.) only to find out later they were either false or completely overhyped as a story.

 

The fact that the story isn't even true and Neiman is motivated by an urban legend elevates the film for me.

 

Yes, but the film doesn't acknowledge it's a myth. It's presented as fact, or at least an attitude to aspire to. And I'm not using it to critique the movie, I said that a fascinating and very strong reading of the movie exists on its own, regardless of whatever Chazelle intended. But, when examining the thematics of Chazelle's work as a whole, I think it's interesting and plays into an identity in his work that I'm uncertain about.

 

I don't get why that matters though. Plenty of films (and real life) present false motivation for characters and never tell you that it's a myth. The truth of the urban legend isn't what's important, it's that the character believes it. The character does believe it's a fact, just like there's probably people practicing guitar right now that believe some of the myths about Tom DeLonge or Kurt Cobain or Jesse Lacey. The legendary status and the stretched truth of the origin story or greatness of musicians, I would argue, is one of the more common occurrences of this phenomenon.

 

It matters because what the movie as a whole feels about that myth clues us in to how to read it, it communicates the film's message. If there's even the tiniest hint or acknowledgement within the text of the film that the Parker incident is myth, then the story reads completely differently. Most viewers likely don't know the Parker incident didn't happen the way the movie says it did, so all the information they're getting about it comes from the film, and the film presents it as fact, a justification for the abuse and slavish devotion to craft the characters are so beholden to. An audience member then identifies "so these brilliant jazz legends were just as brutal and horrible, to get to that level, this drummer and his teacher are embodying the same attitudes". But if the film were to acknowledge that the true story of what happened between Parker and Jones isn't what Teller and Simmons say, it changes the reading completely. An audience gets a fuller reading and context for the two characters: Oh, these people are misinformed, or they're so enamored with the myth that they're embodying an attitude based on mistruth, that throws their whole philosophy into question. It changes the message of the film, or at least how aware we can understand Chazelle is about it. Based on the way the film is constructed, how it contextualizes the story, I doubted Chazelle was aware the story was myth: that he as a person believed it to be true and that the attitude the story reflects is one potentially necessary for greatness, and when he made a film grappling with those themes, he as a filmmaker presented the story as fact. And, looking into it, Chazelle does believe that Joe Jones threw a cymbal at Charlie Parker's head.

It doesn't make the movie worse. Death of the author and all that, I think knowing the truth behind the myth adds dimension to the film that Chazelle wasn't aware of. But had he been aware of it, he could have, in the text, provided an even more nuanced and complex battle than he already did.

 

Of course, as you get older, you find that the story is almost like a fable or a biblical story that just gets repeated and replayed in so many different people’s careers,‎ so I really like it as kind of a primal origin story and it certainly wound up motivating [the story of this film].

He says exactly what I've been arguing about the story. Anyway, we disagree completely, I've said why and don't wanna go in circles, I disagree with your conclusion or the assertion that any movie or art should tell the viewer/reader the "truth" when discussing legends or fables, or that the film suffers from the legend being presented to the audience, from the characters, as many know it.

 

The conclusion he draws from it still seems to treat it as if it literally happened at some point. Regardless, I don't think any movie or art is required to tell the audience the truth when discussing legends or fables. But Whiplash is about the morality of such an extreme and literally harmful pursuit of greatness, to acknowledge within the text of the film that the parable these two have drawn so much inspiration from is not what they think it is would go a long way towards emphasizing and understanding the complicated nature of that idea. And again, I never said the film suffers. I think it's really good. I stated in the original post you quoted that this is less about critiquing Whiplash or La La Land as standalone films and more my own examining the way Chazelle explores artistic greatness, and why it is that the conclusions he seems to draw or the way he presents his characters' pursuits don't quite land for me, personally. If you're not interested in discussing that any further, I understand and am not trying to extend the debate, just wanted to explain a couple last thoughts.

 

Just got back from seeing this and while it was enjoyable I'm not sure why it's so widely praised.

 

Yeah there was a lot of things story wise that don't work.

 

okay finally saw this.

8/10...maybe 9.

Basically, I definitely liked this film. There were many moments that I was certainly smiling ear to ear, but honestly, for a movie like this, i thought i was going to fall in love with it and i didn't. Something felt so forced about it. Something so obvious that I could never get fully invested into the atmosphere of it all. I love musicals and I'm also a big fan of LA, as I often fantasize the city myself, so this movie really should've been a grand slam for me...and it was close!

I was happy watching this and i'll leave it at that.

 

lets give that a little edit and ahh yes.... i admit, my opinion changed halfway through my post. I definitely really LIKED the film, but in the end i didn't fall in love with it like I thought I would*

bam

 

La La Land Is Clueless About What’s Actually Happening in Jazz

the linked title is way harsher than the article, going back to what's previously been brought up about modern jazz having some great artists

 

I finally saw this the other day. I had high hopes going in, but was a little let down overall. I thought it was just alright.

 

yeah shouldn't the link be more "I hate Sebastian's stance on jazz?" Aka you don't agree with the characters point of view on jazz? The article kinda glosses over the fact that John Legend's character outlines these exact points, specifically to counter point Sebastian's.

not agreeing with a characters take on jazz doesn't sound like a fair critique of the movie. I don't think the movie made John Legend's 'new jazz band' seem ridiculous or bad....just not what Sebastian likes.

 

saw this today, It was great in my opinion.

 

Yeah, something I didn't notice until the second viewing was during the dinner fight when Mia asks him if he likes what he's playing, and he asks her "do you?" And she says "yes! BuT I didn't think you did." I really like the song, and I like that Chazelle didn't just make it a generic obvious bad band. Just not what Sebastian is into.

 

I'm going to see this tomorrow and I'm very excited.

 

It's out there now. I will probably watch it tonight or tomorrow.

 

Still got the soundtrack on a pretty heavy rotation a few weeks after seeing this. Another Day Of Sun is up there as one of my favourite songs of recent times.

 

Watched Moonlight last night. Will probably watch this and Arrival tonight and tomorrow.