Not to deride LA LA LAND, especially not having even seen it, but how does any film that's basically a tribute to a genre, however beloved it may be, bag 14 Academy Award nominations?
As I've stated in my previous post, I haven't actually seen LA LA LAND, so I'm just going by word of mouth, which admittedly usually doesn't tell the full story. Your take obviously has more substance than mine, at this point.
I'm not saying LA LA LAND wouldn't live up to my expectations, or at least be at a level where bagging 14 Oscar nominations seems understandable. Only that it's a pretty rare thing for any film to bag 14 Academy Award nominations. To be honest, the film's title doesn't exactly scream either epic or substance to me, but I recognize that's my own hang up, so to speak! Don't get me wrong, Mike. At some point, I DO want to see this film, as I enjoy musicals to a degree, and DO certainly appreciate those that are well done! On that note, I suppose knowing that many great musicals of the past didn't get anywhere close to 14 Oscar nominations (Heck, I believe SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952) only got 2!), figures into my struggle to sort out how LA LA LAND got 14, but I suppose making comparisons from 2 vastly different eras is a bit apples to oranges!But aren't you being quick to question the movie's "substance" Tony...without having seen it? How could you possibly decide that it doesn't live up to your expectations of what a "14 nomination film" should be?
Just some healthy banter!
Well, LA LA LAND does seem to be lacking at least a bit in the near universal appeal one might associate with a 14 Oscar nominated film! My own expectation is that any film with that many nominations should be of a special breed, which presumably would include near universal appeal, at least during its initial release (TITANIC (1997) has admittedly, taken a pretty significant critical drubbing in more recent times, but initially enjoyed near universal appeal on its way to becoming a 14 times Oscar nominated film!). Just my opinion!
Yeah, right.
I want to make it clear, I have seen the film. Some here may be wish-washy about seeing the film from the less than enthusiastic comments made by a viewer or two. My reaction to the film is my reaction, YMMV.You're basing any part of your opinion of the film's Oscar worthiness on it's title?
I think you might agree that the title "All About Eve" probably didn't mean much to people either...until after they saw the picture.
And some people think Ben-Hur is a film about a chariot race.
While I really liked La La Land, I'm not advocating that it deserves 14 nominations (let alone a big number of wins). I just don't understand some of the comments I'm reading here today. The Oscar's are so damn subjective...as is any rating of art. But people at least need to see the art before commenting on it's "worthiness." Outside of impact on future box office, Oscar noms/wins are pretty much useless in the long haul--except for maybe keeping certain films in the public consciousness longer than some might think is appropriate.
When the choice is between an actor who can best perform the part but isn't a trained singer and a trained singer who is only bringing her voice, it is right. I'm not even the biggest cheerleader of La La Land but whatever Emma Stone lacked in her singing, she more than made up for in other aspects of her performance.
How about dubbing?
That's a possibility but that singer still isn't likely to be able to bring the same emotion that the actor does.
So Marni Nixon didn't "bring it" to My Fair Lady?
