Is La La Land Self-Aware of Its Flawed Message?

>>79721399
Women can be selfish its ok. Men can't.

Doest matter if a man sacrifices something to be with her and allow her to mooch off him for a year while she works on a shitty play

I've never seen a more dishonest movie.

Both are red pilled movies in that sense.

Ryan Goslings character was a supporting system for Emma Stones character, he was the reason she became successful in the end, he wasn't narcistic at all, he even became a member of a band he hated just for her. On the other hand, when she had everything she ever wanted, she never looked back. I think the ending is showing it very well, when she said to her husband that they will not go to a show from a friend of theirs because of traffic (or something like this?), even when she was so upset that no one came to her show.

>>79721399
True artistic expression has no right or wrong message.
If Chazelle planned something, it was for different people to come to different conclusions, that is art

>>79721557
That's true but if the details of an art piece point towards a specific point of view, it's important to acknowledge that so that you can critique its message for what it is. The criticisms of Whiplash for portraying jazz inaccurately were stupid because if you really looked into it you would be able to tell that these characters aren't supposed to be right

bumomp

>>79721532
Not at all. He joined the band so he can raise money to start his own club, she wasn't a bit happy about that since it meant he was touring all the time.

File: 2016-12-09 (1).png (3MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x900px

>>79722871
I guess there wasn't a clear message, which is good, nothing was shoved down our throats as to how we should perceive the characters, they did narcissistic shit and they did shit out of love for each other.
Also, best Emma is perfect

>best picture winners who stick with you like Schindler's List

Lol, K.

>>79721532
Damn never caught that at the end.

Also at the beginning when her friends are trying to convince her to party, its never about her hanging out and having fun with her friends, she only ends up going because she might meet someone with actin connections

>>79722871
Id argue he did it for her. As the movie progresses we notice him doing things solely for her, even how they met when he wandered all the way down with her when his car was right next to the house. Also when he made a fancy dinner for her. Her narcissism shows at the dinner when she cant even practice the shit play shes been working on, on the road with him despite him supporting her financially for a year.

>>79721399
telling someone they are stuck in lala land is more of an insult than not. I think whoever wrote it knows and is noticing the beautiful but tragic and ignorant state of Hollywood.

>reading newspapers

That said,

The film is a standard romance plot: he's down on his luck. She wants to be a Queen in her life with the financial security and attention that comes with that. She thinks he'll be her King: except there initial thrill of their relationship runs dry because they're both in love with the people they are now: not who they want to be. Gosling seeks authenticity in keeping jazz alive in his club, staying true to his art: Stone wants the life that comes with being a celebrity. They outgrow each other and enter into the next stage of their lives.

The film is telling of a generation which now devalues long term marriage: and this film captures the tension between personal creative freedom and domestic sacrifice and settling down.

>>79721399
Some good quotes in that guardian article:

>For some, the narrative sags and the plot fails to convince. Just why do Seb and Mia break up? A temporary separation doesn’t have to destroy a relationship. Then there is the counterfactual ending. What is it supposed to mean? That they should have stayed together? When they could have, but didn’t and appeared content with the alternative paths they had chosen?

>Mia points out the window from which Bogart and Bergman gazed in Casablanca. That film was about sacrifice for love. In La La Land, love is sacrificed for self.

>Once this becomes clear, La La Land’s disparate vagaries start to explain themselves. Of course, its characters are humourless and insensitive: narcissists usually are. They can’t be rich and complex, because self-obsessives aren’t.

As people in here have pointed out, it does seem like Mia is much more selfish. Sebastian gets a lot of grief for wanting to 'save jazz', but the arguments against his view of jazz are a lot weaker than the arguments that Mia is just a selfish bitch.

It's fake cinema

Following your dreams>>>>>love

File: 1484331849875.jpg (48KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 750x750px

>>79723347
>humourless and insensitive: narcissists usually are. They can’t be rich and complex, because self-obsessives aren’t.

That's the most stupid thing I've read in decades. I swear to good it's like they selectively breed idiots just for the guardian.

>la-la-lands-inevitable-oscars-win

Do you think this holds any true?

I'm thinking on betting and I would win a fuckton of money if I bet on high on Arrival, Fences, Hell or High Water, and Hacksaw Ridge but it seems like La La Land is the very favorite. What do you guys think?

>>79723347
That's a lot of opinionated shit. Calling the characters narcissists and not comprehending why a couple would fall out of love shows how narrow minded the author of that article is.

Such a dour look at an uplifting well directed movie.

>>79723025
This is pretty much my perspective. I enjoyed the film for what it is, and it is a lovely film, a solid 8/10. It's not the sort of film I see as trying to make some grander point, it's more just telling a story.

>>79723470
La la land is set in la where most of the voters live. And it gives a nice view of la too. It'll win most awards but maybe miss out on best picture / director

>>79723437
Its a very thinly veiled jab at Trump

File: 1485373364464.jpg (33KB, 528x450px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 528x450px

>>79723582
But he is every single adjective in those 2 sentences

>>79721399
>do you think it's possible that Damien Chazelle did not intend for Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone's characters to be right
They definitely weren't perfect, and I believe that was part of the point.
I agree with all the comments about "not one true meaning" but I think the themes of sacrifice for a relationship are definitely there. The other one that stood out to me, and relates to what you're saying, was about choices in life and the characters faced and made choices that modern people make.
I think it was supposed to lure us into this fabulous "1950's California" classic musical with the jazz songs, long shots, costumes, and set design and then pull you out of all that after the 5 years later when the more "realistic" choices set in.
I think they both ended happy, but they couldn't have it all.

>>79721399
To add to a lot of what's being said here, it's entirely feasible that Chazelle was self-aware about his characters and their goals/narcissism etc

WITH THAT BEING SAID
That doesn't mean anything. Michael Bay is self-aware that Transformers is a shitty action franchise for 13 yr old kids. That doesn't make Transformers secretly kino.
And here, Chazelle purposely writing about flawed narcissists who are only in it for themselves doesn't make the film worthy of being looked at in another light.
The tone of the film and the overt presentation is very much that we're supposed to root for these characters and relate to their struggles. If we're not, then the entire film seems pointless
The film is too "fun" for us to be supposed to hate them. And if in fact we are supposed to hate them afterall, then how can we enjoy watching them whine for 2 hours?

>>79724007
Yeah that's what I was starting to think. Like maybe he was being self-aware and satirical sort of, but I wasn't sure if there was really any evidence in the film that that was his intention. I want to think that maybe that was his intention just based on the fact that he made Whiplash which did have a message that wasn't just on the surface, but if Chazelle didn't really actually put in any details that show that he doesn't believe that the characters are right, that is a failure on his part.

>>79723347
>humourless and insensitive: narcissists usually are. They can’t be rich and complex, because self-obsessives aren’t.

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've read all week.
Some of the biggest names working in stand up and comedy are sensitive and very self aware narcissists. And some of the richest, most complex personalities in history became that way in large part because of how obsessed they were with themselves.

>>79723470
u forgot Manchester by the sea anguish acting is always rewarded.

>>79721399
I don't think it was a matter of the characters being right or wrong. They both made the decision to pursue their dreams even if it meant they had to sacrifice their relationship.

From the brief time we see them in the time skip they seem to be happy living their successful lives, even if they do have a moment where they regret what could've been.

The message I took, if there is one, is that often times you have to make painful sacrifices if you want to achieve the thing that drives you. The movie doesn't vilify or lionize the characters either way.

The simply life they could've had together seemed more genguine and happy to me. Im a sucker for that stuff tho so maybe its just me

>>79724359
I guess in some ways it kind of brings up the question of whether it is right or wrong to sacrifice love entirely for your aspirations. Again, that's something that Miles Teller's character in Whiplash does and it wasn't shown to be a good thing there at all. Maybe he doesn't actually have a clear standpoint on it and just thinks it's an interesting subject

>>79723470
if there's any justice moonlight should win
it's about poor gay niggers and it's also a great film, what's not for the academy to like?

>>79725104
I seriously don't get the praise for Moonlight
What was special about it in your opinion?

>>79721399

Except he had a passion and a talent for something he loved more than anything.

She is just the run-of-the-mill-want-to-be-famous-actress with 0 talent and even needs him to force her to go to an audition.

SHE sacrificed HER happiness for being a famous and rich actress. Sure, she had a daughter and a decent guy, but she will always miss the Goose.

He on the other hand probably slayed hundreds of semen demons and probably even met a qzt jazz fan who fulfilled him artistically too.

Its not even revealed, whether he has a gf or not, which he probably does.

She lost, he wins.

If you get what you want, you'll end up missing out on what you need.
If you get what you need, you'll miss out on the thing you want.

Relationships require sacrifices. So do dreams.
Neither scenarios were tragic, just the way of life.

>>79725140
This. It was derivative and didn't do much new. Any originality was marred by the disjointed plot structure.
The most interesting character is only in it for the first third of the movie, and the teenager is horribly miscast

It's not a bad film by any metric. But to claim that it's this masterpiece is so out of place and reeks of white guilt. Maybe I'm just cynical

It's a parody of itself

File: 1483907341079.jpg (71KB, 540x803px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 540x803px

>make a musical
>cut all the musical numbers halfway through the film
>leading actress can't sing or dance
>leading actor can't sing or dance
>14 Oscar nomination MotYAY

>>79725049
Yeah I thought that the whole point of that dream sequence at the bar where they were dancing through those fake painted sets was supposed to drive home the fact that they gave up on what would have actually been ideal for them in exchange for what they thought was best, and that the ultimate feeling at the end of it all was regret. That and that observatory scene where they dance through the stars and turned into silhouettes or whatever really made their relationship look like something deep, archetypical and cosmic that they were forsaking for things that are less important.

I might be reading too much into it, though, because like you I'm a feelfag

>>79721399
Finally saw this last night.
Why are they narcissists, exactly?
He wants to play music and she wants to be an actress. What about that makes them excessively in love with themselves?

>>79722871
I'd say he did it more for her desu. He made the decision to join the band specifically after he overheard her talking to her Mom about how he didn't have a steady job. Sure, he wants the club, but achieving his dream he thinks will make him more attractive to her as a serious partner.

>>79725473
Personally I really liked how there were fewer and fewer songs as the movie went on. The dropping of the classical musical format was symbolic for their own disillusionment. As their dreams died, so did the musical. It only picks back up again when she goes to the tryout at the end, and the elaborate fantasy she has of their life together is the most "phony" of the musical numbers - with sets made of plywood, etc. - symbolizing how fantastic and unattainable their happy life together was.

I found it really effective and also really depressing.

>>79723437
Ever met a self-absorbed narcissist? Having a conversation with them is like walking on broken glass or having a needle jammed into your urethra. It's a miserable experience.

>>79726235
Gosling's obsession with jazz seems more like a fashion statement than genuine love of the genre. He doesn't want the genre to advance because he likes romanticizing the past instead. And Emma Stone's character is pretty obvious in her narcissism. She works on a passion project that came from her heart and is disappointed with its limited audience, and only wants to become a famous actress. Both of them have little things they do as well that definitely seem self-centered, some of which are mentioned in the guardian article

>>79721399
>self-centered narcissists who forego love for their dreams
Literally feminism.

>>79721399
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbue2Pi2tNY
no it's just plain garbage.