A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ La La Land (2 Viewers)

[Thomas T]

I think a lot of people went to La La Land expecting an old fashioned musical homage to those MGM musicals (this was partly fueled by critics) and they were disappointed because it's not and was never intended to be. This is not your traditional musical with Stone and Gosling as "golly gee" Judy and Mickey trying to break into show biz. It's not your Fred and Ginger get together in the end and dance off into the sunset kind of musical. Those movies are already here and we have access to them readily, why remake them? This is 2016 and movies like Babes In Arms and The Dolly Sisters just don't work for 2016 audiences. Why do I suspect if La La Land was made exactly the way it is now but in 1945 at Fox with Betty Grable as Emma and John Payne as Gosling that the naysayers would declare it a masterpiece? The songs in La La Land weren't meant to be hit tunes like songs from Oklahoma! or The Sound Of Music, they were intended to move the narrative forward, not stop the movie insert song here. I prefer actors who sing rather than singers who act and Gosling brings more pathos and feeling to City Of Stars than Howard Keel, John Raitt or Gordon MacRae ever could. And someone with a great voice would only be distracting to Stone's character. I adore Streisand but she would turn something like Stone's Audition into a one woman tour de force while Stone merely let's us into her heart. I totally understand Nick's rejection of the film, he's not the first to spout such an opinion so there is a vocal minority that feels that way and they have every right to voice their opinion. What I don't understand is his rage toward the film. In the end, it's just a movie, folks.

 

[haineshisway]

It's not a vocal minority. And he's not "spouting" - he's offering an opinion. If he's "spouting" then what would you call what you and other rabid fans are doing? To say that 90% of the population LOVES this film is hilarious. You know that how? I have many friends, in and out of show business - the ones who tended to like it were in the business and had similar experiences to the characters in the film - the ones who didn't like it felt nothing and just didn't care for it - along with the rabid fans and love-fest posts on Facebook are an exact equal amount of folks who don't get the love and that is their right, that is their opinion, and they are allowed to have it and they are not "spouting" any more than any lovers of the film are. I was in the middle, if you want to know. I liked some of it and I didn't like some of it. I admired them for trying and, for me, they succeeded some of the time. It's nothing I need to run back and see five times - I'll probably watch it again at some point. Do I think it's the best film of 2016 - nope. Do I think it's the best directed film of 2016? Nope. The best score? Nope. But that doesn't mean I hated it or think it's a bad movie.

 

[Tino]

I dunno. With a Rotten Tomatoes 93% fresh rating and audience score of 88% wouldn't most say it IS a vocal minority?

TOMATOMETER
93%
AUDIENCE SCORE
88%
Critic Consensus: La La Land breathes new life into a bygone genre with thrillingly assured direction, powerful performances, and an irresistible excess of heart.

 

[Thomas T]

It's not a vocal minority. And he's not "spouting" - he's offering an opinion. If he's "spouting" then what would you call what you and other rabid fans are doing? To say that 90% of the population LOVES this film is hilarious. You know that how? I have many friends, in and out of show business - the ones who tended to like it were in the business and had similar experiences to the characters in the film - the ones who didn't like it felt nothing and just didn't care for it - along with the rabid fans and love-fest posts on Facebook are an exact equal amount of folks who don't get the love and that is their right, that is their opinion, and they are allowed to have it and they are not "spouting" any more than any lovers of the film are. I was in the middle, if you want to know. I liked some of it and I didn't like some of it. I admired them for trying and, for me, they succeeded some of the time. It's nothing I need to run back and see five times - I'll probably watch it again at some point. Do I think it's the best film of 2016 - nope. Do I think it's the best directed film of 2016? Nope. The best score? Nope. But that doesn't mean I hated it or think it's a bad movie.

Sorry Bruce but it is a vocal minority. The critical consensus is favorable to raves (of course, there are some negative reviews, universal praise doesn't exist). And of course, Nick is spouting. And what would I call what the rabids fans are doing? Uh ..... spouting! I didn't realize spouting had a negative connotation. We're all (including yourself) spouting our opinions. And they're all valid. This isn't a "We're right, you're wrong" win or lose battle. Crikey, I think the La La Land cheerleaders have been relatively even keeled with their responses while some of the La La naysayers seem downright angry at the film's success. I reread my post very carefully and nowhere did I see that I claimed 90% of the population loves this film. If someone said it, it wasn't me and I seriously doubt 90% of the population has even seen the film (and probably never will). Lighten up, Bruce. This isn't a personal attack on you but a generic response to the La La detractors. Surely a discussion on the merits of a film, any film can be conducted without it turning into a war zone. There are a lot of admired films that I don't like and I realize I'm in the vocal minority and I have no problem being in the minority (as a gay Latino, I've been in the minority all my life). I don't know why you're telling me the naysayers have a right to their opinion. Of course, they do. Where did I say, "Shut up La La Land haters! We don't want to hear your trashing our films, get out of town by sunset!" You've stated your opinion, I've "spouted" my opinion. Now, can we move on?

But one last word. The final judgement on La La Land's worth won't come from either of us. Posterity will be the judge. In 75 years, will the next generation look at it the way we look at The Band Wagon or An American In Paris with affection and respect? Or the way we look at The Great Ziegfeld and those Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy musicals and think "I'd rather have my teeth pulled!"? We'll talk in 2092!

 

[Nick*Z]

I'll just go on record as never having spouted in my life. Offering an opinion - yes. Sorry, but I am entitled to have one...just like you.

 

[haineshisway]

Well, somebody said 90% - I didn't pull it out of thin air. It's in someone's post. And I'm not talking about critics - I understand it's the critics' darling of 2016 and I understand it's the "it" film of 2016. I get it. I'm talking about real people, people I've talked to and hundreds upon hundreds of Facebook posts from folks who simply do not like the film. I'm not "detractor" really, but there are plenty of them, just as there are plenty of folks who LOVE it beyond all things. But this film's fans do have an air about the way they voice their opinions and the way they take on anyone who disagrees with those opinions. There has been that tone in this thread from the start. And finally, I'm light, baby, I'm always light, lighter than light. After I lose the next few pounds, that is. Now I think it's time to watch The Young Girls of Rochefort, if you get my meaning

 

[ahollis]

It's all in the eye of the beholder and nothing else.

 

[usrunnr]

I'll just go on record as never having spouted in my life. Offering an opinion - yes. Sorry, but I am entitled to have one...just like you.

I never spout either. I have been accused of "ranting" once in a while, and I stand proudly by it. Onward!!!!

 

[Thomas T]

I'll just go on record as never having spouted in my life. Offering an opinion - yes. Sorry, but I am entitled to have one...just like you.

You should try spouting, it's fun! I think it all started with the Mrs. Potts character in 1991's Beauty And The Beast and with the live action remake due in March, I think spouting will be all the rage! I wasn't aware anyone here said you weren't entitled to have an opinion. But surely you realize that once you give an opinion, someone else may very likely disagree with you. That's the nature of the game. No one is trying to shut you up! You loathe the film. Point taken!

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's all in the eye of the beholder and nothing else.

You're so right! Some people have a tendency to be defensive when another person's opinion doesn't agree with their own. There shouldn't be any type of hostility towards people having conflicting opinions.

Furthermore, when I love a film and if another person doesn't have the same affinity for that particular film or even thinks it just stinks, I actually feel kind of sorry for them. I don't feel pity for them, but it bothers me to a certain degree that they weren't as entertained by that particular film as I was because watching a film in which you truly enjoyed is a great feeling. While, watching a film that you think isn't good is a wasted opportunity in being entertained.

 

[Nick*Z]

Well, somebody said 90% - I didn't pull it out of thin air. It's in someone's post. And I'm not talking about critics - I understand it's the critics' darling of 2016 and I understand it's the "it" film of 2016. I get it. I'm talking about real people, people I've talked to and hundreds upon hundreds of Facebook posts from folks who simply do not like the film. I'm not "detractor" really, but there are plenty of them, just as there are plenty of folks who LOVE it beyond all things. But this film's fans do have an air about the way they voice their opinions and the way they take on anyone who disagrees with those opinions. There has been that tone in this thread from the start. And finally, I'm light, baby, I'm always light, lighter than light. After I lose the next few pounds, that is. Now I think it's time to watch The Young Girls of Rochefort, if you get my meaning

Well taken. The critics are the majority, also the people who flock to the Rotten Tomatoes and other sites where 'the polls' are taken as gospel truth. But is that the consensus of 'the world' at large? I really don't think so. And frankly, if this last election proved anything, its that you can take ANY poll and slant the results to suit a particular opinion/agenda.

In 2008, a similar entertainment poll trumpeted Slumdog Millionaire as the absolute greatest movie, by some estimations, not just of the year but of the decade. I disagreed with that assessment also then. Time passed since has proven the absurdity in labeling it a 'classic' for the ages. More like another forgotten darling of the Academy, who had a particular affinity for promoting the little 'indie' that could - and did - that year. Clever marketing. Lots of smoke. Occasionally, a mirror or two. But no real 'reel' staying power, alas. None at all after the hype evaporates. My prediction is La La Land won't fair much better once the klieg lights have dimmed. It's just a prediction, folks. No need to get our collective knickers in ball over it. We'll just wait and see.

 

[Nick*Z]

[QUOTE="The final judgement on La La Land's worth won't come from either of us. Posterity will be the judge. In 75 years, will the next generation look at it the way we look at The Band Wagon or An American In Paris with affection and respect? Or the way we look at The Great Ziegfeld and those Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy musicals and think "I'd rather have my teeth pulled!"? We'll talk in 2092![/QUOTE]

Personally, I look upon The Great Ziegfeld and 'all' those Eddy/MacDonald movies as masterpieces from another era - a simpler, kinder, more genteel and relaxed way of looking at the world; cinema's attempt to find beauty, splendor, escapism and joy in a world, then, sorely in crisis. The seismic shift in cinema today is that unlike movies then, that sought to take the public out of their woes by showing them an artificial glimpse of a world created, instead of one found, today's movies revel in rubbing our noses at the imperfections of life; occasionally with a grotesque satisfaction for making us feel lesser than or stirring our ire and contempt for our fellow man/woman; thinking upon the world as a place far uglier and self-destructive than it actually is.

So, does art imitate life or does it reflect it back at us? Hmmm. A little of both, I think. But honestly, if I want reality I'll just step outside by local Bijou. There it is. I don't need - or want - to be reminded of it when I go to the show. I want to be entertained. Depressing me with mirrored images of what I already know to exist beyond the silver screen doesn't translate to any sort of wish fulfillment or entertainment value for me. Never has. So, increasingly, I find very little to satisfy from my dwindling consumption of 'new' movies. But hey, opinions and tastes differ. And there is plenty of classic cinema like the titles being poo-pooed herein that serve both my opinions and tastes, along the way, also nourishing my soul and giving me strength to trudge onward from the Bijou and into the cold, cruel light of reality. For this, I sincerely pay homage and give gratitude to the American cinema masters of old. They knew their craft. They did their job. They entertained me. God bless.

 

[Will Krupp]

masterpieces from another era - a simpler, kinder, more gentile and relaxed way of looking at the world

Which is quite a feat when you consider that most of the studio heads were, themselves, Jews

(Sorry I just couldn't resist...I'm weak)

 

[Nick*Z]

...and it seems, I can't spell. I meant genteel, of course. But thanks for the chuckle, Will.

 

[Thomas T]

Personally, I look upon The Great Ziegfeld and 'all' those Eddy/MacDonald movies as masterpieces from another era - a simpler, kinder, more genteel and relaxed way of looking at the world; cinema's attempt to find beauty, splendor, escapism and joy in a world, then, sorely in crisis. The seismic shift in cinema today is that unlike movies then, that sought to take the public out of their woes by showing them an artificial glimpse of a world created, instead of one found, today's movies revel in rubbing our noses at the imperfections of life; occasionally with a grotesque satisfaction for making us feel lesser than or stirring our ire and contempt for our fellow man/woman; thinking upon the world as a place far uglier and self-destructive than it actually is.

So, does art imitate life or does it reflect it back at us? Hmmm. A little of both, I think. But honestly, if I want reality I'll just step outside by local Bijou. There it is. I don't need - or want - to be reminded of it when I go to the show. I want to be entertained. Depressing me with mirrored images of what I already know to exist beyond the silver screen doesn't translate to any sort of wish fulfillment or entertainment value for me. Never has. So, increasingly, I find very little to satisfy from my dwindling consumption of 'new' movies. But hey, opinions and tastes differ. And there is plenty of classic cinema like the titles being poo-pooed herein that serve both my opinions and tastes, along the way, also nourishing my soul and giving me strength to trudge onward from the Bijou and into the cold, cruel light of reality. For this, I sincerely pay homage and give gratitude to the American cinema masters of old. They knew their craft. They did their job. They entertained me. God bless.

Thanks for that post, Nick. That says volumes and explains a lot as to why you didn't like the film. It seems it was inevitable that you wouldn't like it. While I bow to no man in my love of classic cinema (the majority of my 5,000 collection is pre-1975), I am in no way a nostalgist. I get every bit as excited about seeing a new movie (but contemporary audiences are different matter) as I do revisiting an old classic. Cinema is a smorgasbord with a feast of offerings to choose from. While I enjoy escapist fantasies as much as the next man, I think I would rapidly lose interest in film if that's all there was. Just as I would lose interest if grim "tell it like it is" movies were all there was. In short, I like a cinematic world where Minnelli musicals, Tarantino shoot 'em ups, Sirk melodramas and Bergman's stark pessimism stand side by side.

 

[Tino]

Let’s Start the ‘La La Land’ Backlash Backlash

Read More: Let’s Start the ‘La La Land’ Backlash Backlash | http://screencrush.com/la-la-land-backlash/?trackback=tsmclip

 

[TravisR]

Don't most Best Picture front runners get hit with a backlash?

 

[Tino]

Always

 

[Tino]

Just imagine what's gonna happen when it wins![emoji33]

 

[ahollis]

You're so right! Some people have a tendency to be defensive when another person's opinion doesn't agree with their own. There shouldn't be any type of hostility towards people having conflicting opinions.

Furthermore, when I love a film and if another person doesn't have the same affinity for that particular film or even thinks it just stinks, I actually feel kind of sorry for them. I don't feel pity for them, but it bothers me to a certain degree that they weren't as entertained by that particular film as I was because watching a film in which you truly enjoyed is a great feeling. While, watching a film that you think isn't good is a wasted opportunity in being entertained.

Exactly! I do try to find out why that person did not like a certain film, but I never try to change their mind or berate them as I hope they also would respect my thoughts