La La Land (Damien Chazelle, December 2nd 2016) Movie • Page 7

It's not about being deep, it's about functioning as an arc. I've seen this twice, I really really like it, but Seb's arc is mismanaged. There's no textual implication for a lot of what we're supposed to "fill in the blanks" for. Seb's resentment of Mia comes out of nowhere. There's no clue leading up to the argument that anything he says is something he'd actually feel, especially towards her, when she never really seemed to care that he didn't have a steady job. The whole argument scene is based on Mia's wondering why he cares so much about the band and "what people think" when he's never been that person. The movie doesn't show him turn into that person. Arcs go from A to B to C to D, and you can trace them based on things the movie does. Here Seb goes from A to C to G to B back to A. And while you can read into his skipping the play logically, that he signed a contract and he has to go to the photoshoot, the portrayal of that dilemma is inadequate dramatically and the movie doesn't dramatically justify why this character who hates something and loves something chooses the thing he hates. No explanation I've heard for the shortcomings of the film works well enough for me, even if I think so much of the rest works beautifully.

Seriously. The lines he throws at her in the argument have no basis in anything the movie established.
"Why do you care what people think?"
"Are you kidding me? You're an actress!"

"Maybe you just liked me when I was down because it made you feel better about yourself."

Those threads are nowhere leading up to or falling out of that scene. At least not in the way where Seb would actually think Mia feels that way. He takes the job because he overheard her talking to her mom, where Mia's mom was the one who cared about Seb getting a steady job, not her. And when he was "down" they had a beautiful montage relationship where we never ever hear them talk so there's no way to tell if she actually felt that way.

 

I like the movie a lot and Richard Brody does not, but I don't disagree with most of what he has to say.

The Empty Exertions of “La La Land”

 

I've noticed a trend recently that has been growing ever more prevalent, not just in the realm of film but also in television, where people take movies to task for not being the film they personally wanted or expected to see when they sat down in the theater. Things like not focusing on Mia's entire creative process while writing her play (in a film that is supposed to be a simple story about a relationship and what it means/whether it's worth it to sacrifice/compromise one's dreams for someone they love) is not a flaw, in my opinion. It's that writer not getting the story he personally wanted to see. For example, one wouldn't criticize Goodfellas for not showing us the Lufthansa job as it occurs (rather than simply showing us Henry Hill learning about it over the radio) because the film isn't about those people or that job, it's about Henry's rise and fall in organized crime. Same goes for her family life (although we do get a glimpse of that when she speaks with her mother on the phone). I just don't think it's fair to any film to ding it for things we wish it had done, as opposed to criticizing films for the things it does do.

And I still am not convinced that the argument is out-of-character. I mean, it logically follows everything that has come before it. Seb overhears the conversation with Mia's mom and, even though Mia doesn't seem to care that he's down, it makes him feel inadequate or not good enough so he takes the job. He starts to enjoy the success and fame, even if maybe he doesn't like the music (although the concert scene seems to indicate that he at least enjoys performing it). He gets swept up in the band even though he has compromised his former artistic beliefs. Then when Mia asks him if he likes the music they're playing it all comes crashing down. It reminds him that, no, he doesn't like what he's doing. He's become everything he used to hate. And he did it for Mia, whether she wanted him to or not. Honestly that argument felt all too real because he was basically just saying things to hurt her because he realized he didn't like the direction his life was going in and was taking it out on Mia unfairly. He criticizes her for being a hypocrite when she asks him why he cares what people think (because, as an aspiring actress, her entire career is based on people liking her), he makes baseless, wild accusations that she only liked him because he was doing worse than she was and it made her feel superior, etc. It's such a realistic representation of those kinds of irrational arguments that it honestly hurts to watch.

 

When the film cares a lot about Gosling's artistic process, there's an imbalance when it doesn't care at all about Mia's.

Okay. That can all be inferred, none of it is dramatized. That's the audience doing the work, not the film. Which works sometimes, but I find lacking and not good enough here.

 

But it doesn't really spend any meaningful time on his creative process, it just shows him appearing at a rehearsal and then at a concert performing. The former scene was to lay the groundwork for the later argument by illustrating that he doesn't consider what Legend's character is doing to be "jazz," while the latter is essentially just an excuse to have a musical number featuring John Legend in the film (who was severely under-utilized, even though I recognize that the film isn't about him so I can't really hold that against the film either). Not to mention the concert scene makes literal the idea that the band is currently and will in the future be driving Seb and Mia apart.

I don't think anything I said wasn't in the film. Unless we need Seb to literally say out loud to the camera "I'm taking this job to provide for Mia," or "I am now going to suppress my hatred of this music because I'm successful for the first time in my life," or "Mia reminded me that I hate what I'm doing and so now I'm going to take my self-loathing out on her rather than own up to my own decisions" lol.

 

We see Seb play his own jazz, music that actually means something to him. He practices at his apartment, he ditches the set list for music he prefers at the restaurant, he plays and sings at home and explains what jazz means to him to Mia. Meanwhile she auditions for empty, generic roles and likes movies but has nothing to say about them. When she does have something to say, we see none of it. Not a line. That's a weakness in the script.

I'm not asking for blatant, obtrusive dialogue. Where are the story moments that speak to Gosling thinking Stone liked it when he was down? Where is the moment where he has a reason to critique her being an actress because it's all about what people think of you? Where is the moment where we understand why he chooses a photo shoot for empty art he hates over supporting the woman he loves and supported the entire film? Where is his struggle between hating the music he's playing with the band and getting caught up in fame? He smiles and enjoys playing with them the one show we see. Otherwise it's the one practice session where he's not into it and Mia watching interviews we can't hear on YouTube. What in the film speaks to her asking if he likes the music as a realization for him? It plays like he always knew he doesn't like it and never did, but that doesn't appear to be the case in the dramatization.

 

I'm taking this to task for being not good tbh.

 

That's a fair reading of it but I don't personally see it that way. It spent a lot of time on her life and career aspirations both before they met (her side of the day they meet gets much more time than his does, including the musical number with her friends) and at the end of the film as well (from the audition on through the finale). He gets a little more time in the middle, especially when Chazelle has to give his jazz lecture. I didn't get the sense that it was favoring one of them over the other (aside from, again, making Seb the vessel for delivering Chazelle's jazz lectures).

Where are the story moments that speak to Gosling thinking Stone liked it when he was down?
-There are no story moments that speak to Gosling thinking Stone liked it when he was down; he's not thinking rationally in the moment, he's trying to force the blame for his own perceived creative bankruptcy onto her. He thinks because he joined the band for her, it means he can take out his anger on her. He's mad at himself and trying to hurt her. Remember, that whole argument is set off because A) she won't come to the gig with him and B) she reminds him that he doesn't like the music he's making when she asks him about it.

Where is the moment where he has a reason to critique her being an actress because it's all about what people think of you?
-Come on, that's an unfair critique. You need to be told through the story that actors and actresses rely on sustained popularity and a so-called "It"-factor to continue getting work? He's generalizing based on her profession, it's not a specific dig at her personally.

Where is the moment where we understand why he chooses a photo shoot for empty art he hates over supporting the woman he loves and supported the entire film?
-Well, I mean, it's his job. I can't just leave my job whenever I want to. So staying at the shoot is continuing to support her in that way (financially). And the film wasn't interested in providing a happy ending, otherwise he would have realized he hated his life, quit the band, left the shoot, and made it to the theater in time. I mean, it's not like he's portrayed in that scene as enjoying the shoot and not caring that he's missing the play.

Where is his struggle between hating the music he's playing with the band and getting caught up in fame? He smiles and enjoys playing with them the one show we see. Otherwise it's the one practice session where he's not into it and Mia watching interviews we can't hear on YouTube.
-We don't necessarily see a struggle but it's clear from the argument that he's had these feelings bubbling up inside of him from the moment he accepted the job. Not to mention that he didn't even want to accept the job in the first place, rather only did it because he felt he had to. And the contradiction of him seeming to enjoy performing and the adoration of the crowd illustrates that he was getting caught up in it, just as Mia asking him if he likes what he's doing snaps him back to reality and makes him realize that, no, he doesn't. It's like he was doing his best to not think about that until she asks the question.

What in the film speaks to her asking if he likes the music as a realization for him? It plays like he always knew he doesn't like it and never did, but that doesn't appear to be the case in the dramatization.
-The argument speaks to her asking if he likes the music causes a realization in him. The whole tone of the conversation changes after she asks that. It sets him off. It plays as though he was trying to convince himself he did like it, at least the performance aspect of it, but deep down knows he doesn't. And he also knows he did it to provide for Mia, which makes him resent her even though it wasn't her fault that he accepted the job in the first place.

Look, I don't know. I didn't have any of the problems you and others seemed to have with the characterization in the film. It all made sense to me. I'm just trying to provide an explanation that answers some of the problems you had so that maybe you can feel a little better about the film. That's all. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, just offering my perspective.

 

This is the result of everyone only following like minded individuals/publications though. The reason you've seen little to no hate for this is the same reason the majority of the people I follow on Letterboxd have dissenting opinions on the film.

 

The clash between telling someone to disregard the praise because those people only follow like-minded individuals in one sentence, while then saying believe my dissent because "Most of the people I follow on Letterboxd have dissenting opinions" in the second.

 

So dramatize a build up to Seb not thinking rationally. Dramatize his creative bankruptcy and crisis. Show a conflict in what the band does to him on a further level than "I miss my girlfriend" to build up to that moment and really make it land hard.

I don't need the movie to tell me that actors rely on being liked. I need it to show me that Seb would even dream of saying something so blatantly generalizing and mean spirited to his girlfriend, who he knows and loves. Again, where does that come from? Dramatize Seb's arc better so we actually see insecurity in him about not being liked or being liked so that when he lobs it as a criticism of Mia's profession/defense of his current situation, it lands.

That's dramatically unsatisfying, because everything we know about him leads us to believe that he wouldn't care that it's his job, he loves and supports Mia and would be there for her. He kind of just accepts it, even if he's sad about it, but that's not really been who he is. I can buy the film saying "small moments or choices we make, even if we know they're wrong, can be all that it takes to change a relationship forever", but I don't see enough authorial awareness in the text for me to buy it as is.

Then show that! Show him getting wrapped up in it and not thinking about how little it means to him! Then when Mia asks if he likes what he's doing, we understand better what he's going through.

Dramatize his resentment of her. The only place it exists is in the argument scene. Build to it. Show it in his arc. All the montage leading up to it tells us is that they miss each other.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me, either. And I do like the film, it just has its issues that I'm explaining best I can. You don't have to agree, but I enjoy talking about film so when debate starts up, I talk about it.

 

What? No. You've completely misunderstood. I never once told him to disregard the praise. I never once said to believe my opinion on the film. What I said is that we build a certain network around us. I know @tdlyon and I probably have different tastes in entertainment, thus I am not surprised all he has seen is praise and that I see more negative opinions on the film because I more often follow like minded people.

 

So are we onto the backlash to the backlash yet? I'll be here for that. Guess I gotta wait another few weeks for the winds to change.

 

good movie youll like it

 

I've seen it.

Why are you using a duplicate account to post a bunch of kinda spammy things in the forums? It's kinda weird. They're being reported a lot as well.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

The always predictable "critic" cycle. Thing gets built up, first round of praise come in, then it's a little too much, so to get through the noise or being contrarian you gotta get the takes about why it's not actually that good, then you get the it's actually bad takes, there's the let's nitpick all the stuff sandwiched between, and then sooner or later we'll get back to the praising the thing takes until awards shows come around and then we do it all again. I'm waiting to get back to the fun praising part of the cycle because it's way more interesting to me.

 

Hm. Almost all the critics I follow love the movie, one or two aren't enamored with it. I know there are circles who think it's bad, and that's fine. Maybe I'm divorced from that cycle you're talking about but I can't say I've seen that arc. Maybe because I think the movie has flaws and they're fair to discuss, and that discussion exists authentically and independently of that cycle.

But in regards to the cycle of conversation here, it feels like it's just been people seeing the movie and then reacting to it. There's been praise, criticism, and debate. I don't feel that some of the things talked about are nitpicks, there are legitimate criticisms and negative takes on the film that I don't feel come from contrarianism, but from authentic feelings, and dismissing or reducing that doesn't do anything interesting. There's always the opportunity to praise, even amidst more critical discussions. If that's the conversation that interests you, create it. I love a lot about the movie and would be glad to join in.

 

I'm not even remotely going to argue about it — literally the exact opposite if what I said I wanted to do. You asked; I gave an answer.

 

Okay. I wasn't trying to argue, just get a sense of where you were coming from and what you might have wanted to see going forward.

 

This cycle exists because distributors always feel the need to ride out the festival hype for months after a film premieres. It always creates this false set of expectations for many who becomes disappointed then the next round of people are up (say, when the film expands from limited release) who fight back. It's annoying, but nothing will change until we stop prolonging the release schedules.

But I also don't think hiding away until your "team" is the most prevalent voice is great either. This is why good discussions surrounding these types of movies is hard to come by. Why can't we just have healthy conversations about a film instead of only voicing the consensus?

 

This was so charming

 

Because I, personally, don't think much of this is actually a "good discussion" ... it's literally the same shit most of us were saying on old BBS boards or mailing lists back in the day. It bores me to tears at this point to read the exact same arguments over, and over, and over again ... especially when presented as new ... so, instead, I choose to engage in conversations when and where I, personally, find edification. And I really don't care if someone else thinks it's "great" or not that I choose to do that. Makes me a happier person, so I'm gonna keep doing it.

 

It's just silly to complain that there is an opposing opinion dominating and choosing not to do anything about that discussion. Or to provoke new topics that might move towards the direction of more interesting/healthier discussion. I don't know, if you're happier not talking with people who have a different opinion, why pop in here to say you have no interest in the discussion going on?

 

Nah, I don't find it silly at all. After spending decades online I find it preferable. I'm cool waiting.