Decided to revisit this after the oscars, and holy molly, it's wonderful, and so alive...

Decided to revisit this after the oscars, and holy molly, it's wonderful, and so alive, might become one of my favorite records. What does Sup Forums think of it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=demoZcI3QFw
youtube.com/watch?v=z4PKzz81m5c
youtube.com/watch?v=NIGhFJNCsRU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Lie Lie Land is a live-action Disney movie. Except Disney movies have better soundtracks, characters, and the struggles faced by those characters aren't fucking retarded. Hollywood hasn't put out a movie this self-masturbatory since The Artist. It is honestly unbelievable how shallow this garbage is.

>dude just follow ur dreams no matter how delusional lmao

The movie justifies this idiotic moral by having the characters achieve their insipid dreams through luck and happenstance rather than hard work. Mia shits out a single one-woman show and does one performance of it; of the 8 people in the crowd, one is a casting agent who falls in love with her and delivers her an A-list acting career on a silver platter. Seb's friend bumps into him, and immediately offers him a job. Following that, despite the decline of jazz in LA and having no experience running a business, Seb ends up owning a hugely successful jazz club. I am sure it is very easy to romanticize succeeding in Hollywood through dumb luck when the people making the film did just that. Many of the scenes in the film were homages, but it doesn't justify them. The overlong scenes of Seb and Mia dancing against romantic backgrounds get old very quickly, and just hammer home the fact that there is no substance to this film. It is also surprising that the relationship at the core of this film only came about due to coincidence; these two run into each other 3 times for no reason other than convenience for the writer.

Chazelle obviously has the self-awareness to realize how saccharine and empty the movie was. In order to make it seem like something other than a sugary bowl of sunshine, he attempts to give it a "bittersweet" ending, but he even fails here -- both characters get everything they wanted out of life.

>b-but they don't end up together, they were meant for each other

You have to be a teen girl to even consider this line of thinking.

3.5/10 - at least it looked good

reads armond white once

movie 9/10
soundtrack 8/10

Robot attempts to empathise with human emotions

...

>movie about Jazz
>barely any black people in it

>T. jimmy kimmel

It was aggressively okay.

If this isn't pasta, then this guy has some decent points, but is still a faggot for ignoring the fact that it very obviously considers itself to be a romanticized version of reality from the get go, which doesn't excuse it from its treatment re: that stuff, but certainly doesn't invalidate all the other legitimately well crafted stuff.

When you have so much bland garbage populating the popular film industry today I don't know how you could possibly be this vitriolic towards something that actually had some real passion put into it, regardless of how idealized it might have been.

you put into words what my brain was struggling to vomit out into a coherent sentence.

DON'T THINK IT DON'T SAY IT

This was pointed out as a problem waaaay before the oscars

i mean i've given up on my dreams of an artistic career so the whole thing just made me furious but there were some cool shots i guess

good points bad delivery
yeeeep

>movie about hollywood
>barely any black people in it
just as expected

Beautiful visuals and music
Mediocre script.

I really, really hope Damien Chazelle doesn't become a thing. In 2014 I had to hear people pissing themselves over the -1-dimensional characters in Whiplash. Now that this shit is getting attention, I can only pray that he'll go away.

There is nothing wrong with movies being unrealistic or idealized. If it's what the movie set out to do, and it's what they achieved, then it's a success.

I like the movie but that's a dumb argument
If you set out to be a steaming pile of turd and succeed you're still a turd.
The movie is good because the cinematography and score more than make up for it's lacking in good themes or compelling character arcs.

I can respect people who liked it when they first watched but I feel like there's gonna be a lot of dudes who were gearing up to hate it when they thought it'd win/had won the Best Picture Oscar who now begrudgingly feel they have to say they like it and wish it'd won over Moonlight.

Contrarianism is a hell of a drug.

What makes a piece of art a turd is entirely dependent on the viewer's opinion of it, user.

There's no objectively bad piece of art.

>movie about jazz
>barely any jazz in it

pic related is must read for brainlets like yourself

it's important to consider how art is subjective
but "it did what it was trying to do successfully" is dumb. My point is there are things that you might shouldn't be trying to do and shouldn't be happy that you successfully do it.

>downloads album
>deletes "Start a fire"

perfect

Quality isn't subjective and objectivity is and always has been a large part of art-making and the philosophy of objectivity and the foundation of art as a term happened around the same time.

Entertainment isn't art, either. Entertainment involves creating a product to entertain an audience for profit. It includes multiple industries such as commercial music and commercial cinema.
Art involves presenting something to an audience in order to communicate something to them in a specific way to get across something entirely specific (and it's free).

Just because something is made doesn't make it 'art' and just because you like something doesn't mean it's good or that you have some critical authority.
You should make a point of actually knowing something before bullshitting.

i liked it alot
gave me the feels

Someone in the Crowd > City of Stars

>if it's sold then it's not art
La la land certainly communicated something
whether or not it was a good thing to communicate or it was communicated well is very debatable
but it DID communicate something and it's not invalidated by the fact that tickets were sold for profit
it's art and that's a fact but you can debate whether or not it's good art

What makes art objectively good?

Agreed mostly but
>something that makes money can't be art
>something that makes money can't have a message
Why don't you look at the etymology of the word and its connection with words like artisan, you bloody idiot.

When a collective cultural understanding of aesthetic and social standards is applied to a form of skillful expression and the resulting evaluation can reult in the conclusion that a certain piece of art has cultural value.

The word "objective" is not a synonym for "universal fact proven through science", despite what retarded mouthbreathers with no access to a dictionary such as yourself seem to believe.

whats ur definition of objective then, mr art man

Movie is shit and the music, while good separately, is terribly during the film. The editing is some of the worst ive heard in recent years and the vocals are outdone by the backing track. Also why hire actors who can't sing nor dance? Surely there are attractive young actors with equal or greater talent (shouldn't be hard) than these two posses.

I'm not here to help people who are so clinically retarded they don't even know how to use google. You're going to have to find out yourself.

>>if it's sold then it's not art
No one wrote that

>La la land certainly communicated something
So does a text message. That's far too literal and ignorant a response. Gearing something so that it's experience specifically communicates something in particular and arranging cinematic tropes aren't really the same thing. I haven't seen the film yet so I won't comment on whether or not it could constitute art and never mentioned that at all, but it's a film, not 'an art'.

I never said either of those things.
The audience views an artwork for free. The audience typically pays for entertainment. That's a typical metric. Some national galleries (which are really just decor museums if you want to get into specifics) charge entry and some entertainers perform at free events but I'm not going to go all in on the subject on Sup Forums.

That's a juvenile question, especially the way it is phrased.
An work is made for an audience to be shown in a specific place. It is produced with an awareness of the education and cultural context of the people and locale respectively. A work communicates its intended message effectively to those people and does so in a non-derivative way. It's case by case, mostly, given the intangible nature and limitless media with which art operates through.

I did just google it and the definiton that comes up is

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

i can understand the general population coming to a consensus that a specific work has cultural value, but at the end of the day thats not really a "fact", its just a bunch of people saying something is good

If all you got out of it was that it was trying to deliver some message about following your dreams, you probably weren't paying attention to any of it.

>Your definition of something is on google
Ok

thats subjective dumbass

Even though it is probably some ironic meme copy pasta thing, I agree with a lot of it.

Acknowledging that something is something is an objective task. We have a literary society - we have words for things and those words need to maintain meaning or else we lose the ability to communicate - which we happen to be doing thanks to the nonsense 'everything is subjective' scholars.

If you make something with the intention of it achieving something and it does then it is good given that criteria. That's objectivity. If you make a song meant to display dissonance through bad musicianship and someone reviews it based on musicianship and calls it bad then they're being ignorant, but so long as they display awareness of the intentions behind the work and explain their criteria then it remains objective.

It's not hard, mate.

>asking for a subjective take on objectivity
Nice ironic shitpost, lad, that guy was being nice.

I wouldn't have been as hars but I agree with the general sentiment. I'm very glad this didn't win best picture.

so if Damien Chazelle makes La La Land as an homage to old musicals that he likes, who decides whether or not he did it well? who's perspective do we give weight to, and why?

The audience that it's designed for, specifically, but it depends on the criteria. If you want to grade the lighting then you have to ask lighting professionals, et.c.

If you just want to grade the concept then you need the target audience, though - theoretically. I'm going to watch that film now if I can find a good rip.

understandable, I can't really say who the target audience of La La Land would be honestly. From what I understand, Chazelle wrote it back in 2010 before he even was involved in the industry at all. it was all probably just a big pipe dream for him, which is interesting considering the movie.

personally, I'm a theater guy so I watched it from that perspective. am I the target audience? maybe, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.

the pasta is stale

It's a musical, right? It's sure to have theatre tropes and transitions then so maybe, I guess. From what I understand from seeing 0 trailers and basing it on the people who I've heard say it's good I assume it's about the American Dream and Hollywood/LA life and it's idealistic. So middle-class white Western people who have a reasonable understanding of the film industry is probably the main demo.

But that's a guess, I'm watching it now. If the thread is alive when I finish I'll... Post again, I suppose.

I'm a teenager girl? nice

sounds good then. i'd say that one thing to note about the movie is that, since it is a musical, one thing thats essential to enjoying the movie is being able to disconnect from the reality that the movie is set in. for most people that i spoke to about the movie, that was usually the breaking point. as somebody who very much loves theater, the disconnect wasn't a problem for me but for others it may be. at the end of the day, its all just what we spoke about regarding the "target" audience of a work

i feel like this is a subtle swarmfront thread, eventually going to stir up some racial shit about the oscars. they lost because it was a shit movie, and hollywood has to get tired of stroking its own dick some time, at least momentarily.

the bye bye man!

>they meant to make it that way
>so by definition it's a success

you could say that in response to any criticism of any film ever made. especially when you give zero evidence that was the case. it's just silly logic

>if someone makes something for a reason and that gets across then it's a failure because some autist get suspend his disbelief or understand a metaphor or read a narrative structure native to a medium
You're either baiting or a complete idiot desu

It's The Artist all over again. Nothing but Hollywood congratulating themselves. This movie couldn't have been more bland if it tried.

Manchester by the Sea was vastly superior.

You mean people criticising something for not being mundane and completely literal? I never understand the complaints about a medium being used fully for storytelling purposes - it's nonsense, really. Especially in the 21st century.

So, yeah, it's at the very least 'good' for sure. I don't understand where all these guys are getting 'Hollywood congratulating themselves from' since it idealises the 60s - when Hollywood was actually considered glamorous - and doesn't reference anything recent at all. Plus, it's about career goals vs love essentially and all the conflicts and events are based around that as opposed to 'hollywood'. The setting just makes it easier to understand for an audience - a film about a plumber and a secretary would require a lot more explaining and plot padding while this entertainment based dreams and careers are universally understandable.
The picture was really well composed all of the time, even during pans (which is really cool), the colours were spot on (something often overlooked) and really helped the plot, the casting was perfect.
Really good, yeah. Music was alright I suppose, didn't really stand out too much.

Yeah exactly, people just want real nitty gritty shit with lots of social commentary and "realness", with some wide shots and moderately interesting colors thrown in every once in a while

Good to hear that you liked it though, i agree with the sentiment about not getting the whole "Hollywood patting itself" thing.

I personally love the music, though I can admit that more songs in the film wouldn't hurt. They use alot of reprises and refrains, which im personally a sucker for, but some more standalone songs wouldnt hurt.

dishonest filmmaking

I did watch it on a shitty streaming site so a lot of the audio quality was missing, I assume and I forgot to take that into account. The use of the piano bit (my music lexicon isn't great) through the film that culminates in that final 'what could have been' dream sequence was really cool. I'll watch it again in actually good quality when it comes out for sure.

can someone explain this meme to me

I assume ironic shitposting from Sup Forums that the autists thought was serious and required opinions to fit in. Similar to grimes thread guys on here

>"this film is for the dreamers, the artists!"
>film was created on an assembly line as a product to sell to the lowest common denominator of white Americans by bourgeoisie corporate studio executives

what did they mean by this?

The plot is about people struggling to achieve their dreams so people who have dreams will relate to it so it is for people who are dreamers.

It's an effective tagline, that's what they mean.

It's like if a film was subtitled
>for contrarians, the losers; for people who ape political ideologies they heard someone say confidently while misunderstanding them and ultimately looking like an idiot
Then they'd be aiming more at you.

so what you telling me a white man saving jazz is accurate
i swear you crackers excuse everything to make it go your way
anyway moonlight won so keep writing your mini-essays

zing

nope

terrible

I'm not white.
White men exist who like jazz.
The film's setting and genre required music and thematically jazz was necessary for the plot.
Winning an award isn't a mark of quality or a point worth making; Coldplay won best band so they're better than Boris.
>5 lines is an essay
Enjoy sitting on your own at the highschool cafeteria, mate.

look man if you wanna be uncle thom to impress your Sup Forums buddies go ahead
but we blacks won with moonlight. la la land isn't accurate and never will be.
white men have ruined jazz

thanks for the ironic shitpost. I appreciate how little sense it makes.

>avoiding the truth

they got fucking robbed at the oscars

>subjective
Pathetic meme to make up for your own illiteracy. It's okay not being able to read user, but it's best to keep it to yourself.

Is it really a movie about jazz tho? Every other jazz musician in the film is black. It happens our protagonist is white and happens to be a jazz musician. I guess I forgot a white guy can't play jazz. My bad

>Is it really a movie about jazz tho?
No, it's a movie about a couple who sacrifice their careers for love and their love for their careers that happens to feature jazz music as a career

That director got cucked out of an Oscar for his truly phenomenal Whiplash by the aggressively Hollywood-esque Birdman

So he went and made a movie more like Birdman. Eccentric, surreal, pandering to Hollywood insiders. He added phenomenal color and life, but lost the soul.

I'm glad it didn't win best picture. Movie makers should set out to make a good piece of art, not set out to make win an Oscar. Manchester should have nabbed BP tho.

>film was created on an assembly line as a product to sell to the lowest common denominator
>lowest common denominator
There were like 20 superhero movies shilled out last year. None of my normie friends even knew about LaLa land

If you think white albums ruined jazz, you don't even know the history of it.
Black Americans and Italians brought that shit into venues back in the 20s.

• Joe Venuti, who did this shit since like 1928:
>youtube.com/watch?v=demoZcI3QFw

• Chet Baker, can't tell me this ain't some good shit.
>youtube.com/watch?v=z4PKzz81m5c

• The Tailgate Jazz Band, white trombonist.
>youtube.com/watch?v=NIGhFJNCsRU

Would you like me to go on, or are we gonna take the training wheels off now?

>posts three shit links
>anime poster
fucking crackers i swear
can't even pick a side

...

Begging the question, ad hominem, appeal to lobotomy. Get real, brother.

Just on the side, who was the first real jazz cellist?

oscar pettiford

Close. Some people were performing before the mid 50s, I'll give you another guess.

does gostling actually play the piano in this?

Yeah, even John Legend said he was kind of impressed with how fast he picked up on his marks.