criterionforum.org

I ultimately agree with you, knives, but I think tenia’s points are fair. The film talks out of both sides of its mouth about the issue.

That’s definitely true. I was thinking about where Gosling ends the film at which definitely simplifies its aims.

tenia wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:00 pm Regarding Legend, he might not be a sellout but his character is in the end too thinly written to give enough mind to it, and he ends up being summed up by what can arguably said to be an extremely overly slick pop-ish song. It's thus not difficult to think of him this way, or at least being misled in this direction, because the movie doesn't really do much to prevent us from this.

knives wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:07 pm I took the film to be saying that sell out is a false pardigm and that Gosling is being overly small minded.

Gosling's character was supposed to be small minded, but only to a point - the one-dimensional depiction of Legend made the film seem unintentionally small minded in how it perceived jazz's evolving role in contemporary pop. Something like Kamasi Washington's extensive work with Kendrick Lamar would have no place in this world because it annihilates the film's own view of jazz. I'm sure I posted this elsewhere here when the film came out, but I don't recall much discussion picking up around it, so before starting this new post, I did a quick search and not surprisingly I wasn't the only one who thought of Washington while watching this film.

The timing is especially poor because Washington is easily the biggest boundary-breaking jazz figure in ages, probably since the '70s. There have been plenty of great, innovative jazz records since then, much better ones in fact (no slight to Washington, it's just that the competition is tougher than you'd think) but except for legacy acts, no one's had the same commercial success as Washington. One of the last shows I saw before the pandemic hit was Washington at Kings in Brooklyn, and it was a far younger and far bigger paying audience than any I've sat with for a jazz show, either here in NYC or in Chicago. Had the film come out in, say, 2010, I'd still have the same issues, but it wouldn't be so egregious. If it was 1985, maybe Gosling's character would have a place with Wynton Marsalis et al, but even those artists were seen as reactionary, going "forward into the past" rather than breaking new ground like James Blood Ulmer, John Zorn, etc.

But none of this sinks the movie for me. It's a bad flaw, but they're concentrated in just a handful of scenes. The movie's mostly about other things that don't have to be rooted in musical politics (unlike Whiplash) and I still found it engaging in that respect. On the other hand, some like Richard Brody flat out detest the film, and what it has to say about jazz only fuels the hate.

I wouldn't call myself incredibly knowledgeable about contemporary jazz, but the first time Gosling's character says "jazz is dying" my immediate thought was "people really love Snarky Puppy, though." He probably wouldn't see that as jazz, to be fair. Although I disagree that the flaw is concentrated in a handful of scenes - it's an effect of the thinness of certain aspects of the script, which has far-reaching consequences.

One more thing, it does bother the hell out of me that Gosling explains jazz to Stone by talking over every single damn note.

soundchaser wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:24 pm I wouldn't call myself incredibly knowledgeable about contemporary jazz, but the first time Gosling's character says "jazz is dying" my immediate thought was "people really love Snarky Puppy, though." He probably wouldn't see that as jazz, to be fair. Although I disagree that the flaw is concentrated in a handful of scenes - it's an effect of the thinness of certain aspects of the script, which has far-reaching consequences.

I'm not the biggest Snarky Puppy fan, but it would've been more interesting if they swapped out Legend for Snarky Puppy. That would've opened up the film's arguments to what's really happening instead of what's going on within Chazelle's world. It would add a new dimension too - you could have the same dialogue and same performance from Gosling, but now the audience would have to question him rather than take his word over everything.

That's a well-argued position, soundchaser, and I'm not so sure I can or want to refute it in totem, but the film worked for me- along Altman's own loose definition there- as a sublimation of "dreams." These dreams are both literal (idealistic fantasies about romantic connections, alternative lives that could have been) and metaphorical (aspirations- acting or opening a jazz club). Sometimes the dreamy musical montages elide the drama that occurs in the banality between events in real life (I don't recall if this is how the film addresses Gosling missing the play or not, but I feel like it's persistent) in order to heighten the emotional response as of the utmost significance, transcending rationalizations in domestic arguments or plateaued lulls in romance with exposure to this intensity of spirit.

Personally I think Gosling is a flat character, while Stone's star persona is more focused on unveiling her behavioral idiosyncrasies that attract people ineffably beyond characterization. For all I know Gosling does this too for those attracted to men. Regardless, my point is that the musical numbers between them elicit the enigmatic connection between ourselves and someone else divorced from logic or palpable personality traits, and honed in on the inarticulate energy of attraction- so it's expressed in that beautiful moonlit dance after the party as the elusive 'why' without necessitating a detailing of reasons to earn its vacuumed passion beyond that externalized pizzazz. So this feels very much in the spirit of a musical to me, and I think the film knows why it is a musical, and how to be one- though definitely quite different from the mechanics of Haut, Bas, Fragile, which I agree is much better and thematically symbolic around the varying types of, and barriers to, self-actualization using the genre in a very inspired way.

The ending of La La Land solidifies its genre-logic most blatantly by showcasing the trauma from friction between reality and dreams.

Spoiler

The triggered fantasy from the eye-locked former lovers communicates so much that could not occur outside of a musical; the fatal sacrifices destined by living one's dreams in actuality when your lover's dreams don't line up, an often mutually exclusive cocktail that endures absent of clearcut 'why's making the sacrifices easier. People move apart, grow apart, move on, without an arc of venom or moral failing triggering the split, and what more perfect genre than a musical to disempower that myth of dramatic simplicity by allowing the characters to join in a fantastical space where they can hold onto dreams that involve their romantic intimacy and personal goals to coexist, yearning collectively for the indigestible fate that's been denied closure via tangible reason.

It's deeply tragic but reflective of our desire to be validated by our lost loves, to think about them and have them think about us, and be meaningful to one another as a vibrant feeling that escapes rationalized choices. This doesn't get to happen in real life, but it happens here in that final scene. And then she leaves and he moves on, reality sets back in and we realize that they're both actually just fine without the other- she with her family and he by signaling the band to play on with gusto. So their bubble of possibility is partly devastating yet profoundly meaningful, in what they did have and what effect they had and continue to have on one another, in assisting the other to be the best version of their self, even if that couldn't be together due to uncontrollable cosmic and temporal factors, providing a powerfully optimistic sheen on the present to challenge an alternative timeline begging to exist. As someone who admittedly has mused on what Could Have Been and wished for those encounters to symbiotically grant one another value in reciprocal gratitude, well, the movies exist for that. Specifically musicals. Specifically this musical.

hearthesilence wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:25 pm One more thing, it does bother the hell out of me that Gosling explains jazz to Stone by talking over every single damn note.

Yes, especially when you're in a genre that allows you to make the act of listening engaging on-screen.

hearthesilence wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:25 pm

soundchaser wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:24 pm I wouldn't call myself incredibly knowledgeable about contemporary jazz, but the first time Gosling's character says "jazz is dying" my immediate thought was "people really love Snarky Puppy, though." He probably wouldn't see that as jazz, to be fair. Although I disagree that the flaw is concentrated in a handful of scenes - it's an effect of the thinness of certain aspects of the script, which has far-reaching consequences.

I'm not the biggest Snarky Puppy fan, but it would've been more interesting if they swapped out Legend for Snarky Puppy. That would've opened up the film's arguments to what's really happening instead of what's going on within Chazelle's world. It would add a new dimension too - you could have the same dialogue and same performance from Gosling, but now the audience would have to question him rather than take his word over everything.

That's what I mean when I say the film talks out of both sides of its mouth - the pop-jazz performance is both genuinely good and continually undercut by Chazelle, when it should be undercut by Gosling's character alone.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:32 pm That's a well-argued position, soundchaser, and I'm not so sure I can or want to refute it in totem, but the film worked for me- along Altman's own loose definition there- as a sublimation of "dreams." These dreams are both literal (idealistic fantasies about romantic connections, alternative lives that could have been) and metaphorical (aspirations- acting or opening a jazz club). Sometimes the dreamy musical montages elide the drama that occurs in the banality between events in real life (I don't recall if this is how the film addresses Gosling missing the play or not, but I feel like it's persistent) in order to heighten the emotional response as of the utmost significance, transcending rationalizations in domestic arguments or plateaued lulls in romance with exposure to this intensity of spirit.

[...]

my point is that the musical numbers between them elicit the enigmatic connection between ourselves and someone else divorced from logic or palpable personality traits, and honed in on the inarticulate energy of attraction- so it's expressed in that beautiful moonlit dance after the party as the elusive 'why' without necessitating a detailing of reasons to earn its vacuumed passion beyond that externalized pizzazz. So this feels very much in the spirit of a musical to me, and I think the film knows why it is a musical, and how to be one- though definitely quite different from the mechanics of Haut, Bas, Fragile, which I agree is much better and thematically symbolic around the varying types of, and barriers to, self-actualization using the genre in a very inspired way.

Now this I like, and I think it's part of why the first kiss sequence works as well as it does. Our emotional response is in tune (to make a questionable joke) with that of the characters. I don't think you're that far off from my position, because I'm not demanding that every song justify itself through "moving the plot forward" (and apologies if that's how it came across!), but I do think numbers should be doing *something* beyond just acting as a musical number. As you say, the moonlight dance is an expression (or a sublimation) of the energy of attraction between the two characters, which is why it works so well where it is. I just don't feel many of the numbers pull off what you're describing here, unless I'm misunderstanding.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:32 pm The ending of La La Land solidifies its genre-logic most blatantly by showcasing the trauma from friction between reality and dreams.

Spoiler

The triggered fantasy from the eye-locked former lovers communicates so much that could not occur outside of a musical; the fatal sacrifices destined by living one's dreams in actuality when your lover's dreams don't line up, an often mutually exclusive cocktail that endures absent of clearcut 'why's making the sacrifices easier. People move apart, grow apart, move on, without an arc of venom or moral failing triggering the split, and what more perfect genre than a musical to disempower that myth of dramatic simplicity by allowing the characters to join in a fantastical space where they can hold onto dreams that involve their romantic intimacy and personal goals to coexist, yearning collectively for the indigestible fate that's been denied closure via tangible reason.

It's deeply tragic but reflective of our desire to be validated by our lost loves, to think about them and have them think about us, and be meaningful to one another as a vibrant feeling that escapes rationalized choices. This doesn't get to happen in real life, but it happens here in that final scene. And then she leaves and he moves on, reality sets back in and we realize that they're both actually just fine without the other- she with her family and he by signaling the band to play on with gusto. So their bubble of possibility is partly devastating yet profoundly meaningful, in what they did have and what effect they had and continue to have on one another, in assisting the other to be the best version of their self, even if that couldn't be together due to uncontrollable cosmic and temporal factors, providing a powerfully optimistic sheen on the present to challenge an alternative timeline begging to exist. As someone who admittedly has mused on what Could Have Been and wished for those encounters to symbiotically grant one another value in reciprocal gratitude, well, the movies exist for that. Specifically musicals. Specifically this musical.

I like this a lot, too! I agree that the ending as a sequence is brilliant, and I think in isolation it's exactly the kind of development of thematic material that musicals can do best. I don't think it's mutually exclusive with a tightening up or shuffling around of the script elsewhere, though; and I suspect it would actually be to the ending's benefit.

The only thing I liked about First Man is that it's the first Chazelle film that stops discussion from inevitably becoming a "My jazz opinions can beat up your jazz opinions" dead horse beating. Like, come on, every time

soundchaser wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:52 pm I agree that the ending as a sequence is brilliant, and I think in isolation it's exactly the kind of development of thematic material that musicals can do best. I don't think it's mutually exclusive with a tightening up or shuffling around of the script elsewhere, though; and I suspect it would actually be to the ending's benefit.

Yeah, well that's why I don't want to refute all your points because I agree with some of them! For example, taking issue with the "City of Stars" Gosling piece I understand, though that too could be a momentary pause away from J.K. Simmons' aggressive reminder of reality, some semblance of a dream beginning before sputtering out. There's some reading in there where he's unable to turn it into a full musical number yet (just as it's a half-realized song so far), matching the energy of Gosling's hopelessness and reflecting the love-sized hole in him until he meets Stone and they begin to inspire each other. Anyways, that doesn't exactly serve an internal logic to the whole considering the entire crowd in traffic would have to be more self-actualized in making the best out of a bad situation, and I'm not that optimistic about the population of L.A., or the capabilities of people sitting in traffic. My point is that I think the film does have a rationale for why it's a musical, albeit perhaps not a consistent one across musical numbers, thought certainly one in spirit of the whole and its thematic relevance.

domino harvey wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:32 pm The only thing I liked about First Man is that it's the first Chazelle film that stops discussion from inevitably becoming a "My jazz opinions can beat up your jazz opinions" dead horse beating. Like, come on, every time

I'm not sure what you expect when it's so bound up in discussing how the script works. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:33 pmFor example, taking issue with the "City of Stars" Gosling piece I understand, though that too could be a momentary pause away from J.K. Simmons' aggressive reminder of reality, some semblance of a dream beginning before sputtering out. There's some reading in there where he's unable to turn it into a full musical number yet (just as it's a half-realized song so far), matching the energy of Gosling's hopelessness and reflecting the love-sized hole in him until he meets Stone and they begin to inspire each other. Anyways, that doesn't exactly serve an internal logic to the whole considering the entire crowd in traffic would have to be more self-actualized in making the best out of a bad situation, and I'm not that optimistic about the population of L.A., or the capabilities of people sitting in traffic. My point is that I think the film does have a rationale for why it's a musical, albeit perhaps not a consistent one across musical numbers, thought certainly one in spirit of the whole and its thematic relevance.

I always appreciate your willingness to meet a film where it is, twbb! I'm sure on a potential rewatch somewhere down the line my expectations wouldn't be quite what they were this time, and I'll be able to see more of that rationale clicking.

soundchaser wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:45 pm

domino harvey wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:32 pm The only thing I liked about First Man is that it's the first Chazelle film that stops discussion from inevitably becoming a "My jazz opinions can beat up your jazz opinions" dead horse beating. Like, come on, every time

I'm not sure what you expect when it's so bound up in discussing how the script works. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Exactly. It's a senseless complaint when he had only two widely-known films at that point, both heavily involving jazz.

More than just a handful of people I know in my personal life who are either jazz musicians or audiophile jazz enthusiasts loathed Whiplash purely because they felt the way it treated jazz was offensively 'wrong'. It's interesting considering I believe Chazelle himself studied jazz, and I'm not sure who else has seen it, but his debut Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, while not very good, certainly seems to comprehend this world with familiarity. I obviously don't 'get' the complaints, but I mean, I certainly get peeved by some depictions of therapy in film and TV and still find ways to acknowledge merits beyond my professional bias. The hyperbolic hate I've heard has been enough to make me curious though, especially coming from people who usually give films rope and are even-keeled in their criticisms.

Disagree that Guy and Madeline is not very good

Well I haven't seen it since around the time Whiplash came out, so it might very well be better than memory serves. However, I wish instead of just saying "disagree" there was a defense that named at least one redeemable quality of the movie that might actually persuade a reevaluation.

Hey, I haven't seen it in years either! But I remember it having a charming ramshackle quality to it

See, you had me at "charming ramshackle"! Also, for some reason, I always associate it with Cassavetes' Shadows. Unless I'm mixing them up, I feel like there are similar scenes. And now domino will never see this.