La La Land (Damien Chazelle)

[Old draft]

La La Land was a bit of a magical experience for me - arresting and emotional. I have some discontentments and more-developed criticisms, but ultimately this is a unique film, and it struck me uniquely. I was able to become invested in the musical aspect, and likewise in the relationship, such that this was a memorable theater experience. Although I say the film is unique, I don't think it operates on unique ideas -- perhaps it just has a kind of bravery, or maybe just willingness, to execute on such an idea as it has. Oh well, the film stands apart from the stream of average Hollywood output, and for me - this was a special experience.

Praise to the cinematography, the humor when it's there, and the classic Ryan Gosling charisma (when it's there). Praises, praises to the dancing when it happens. I like Emma Stone a lot. Criticism is directed at the rushedness of the plot and tonal inconsistencies.... I resurrect my ideas on Under the Skin and denounce filmmakers' compulsions to advance plots where it is unnecessary and undesirable. The same goes for unnecessary character evolution. I'd also like to note the unspectacular music and mediocre lead male singer. Those are fine.

It's a very pretty movie, I love the art of it all -- but I wish the music was a little better and the narrative more consistent and relaxed.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was exciting to me, joyous at times, and quite poignant at other times. Overall I was strongly connected to it. I didn't really want to leave it, until I had pondered it further. I know it held lessons for my life.

"Star Wars" Original Trilogy

Three of the few movies for which I have lasting affection are the movies of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy -- yet I do not consider these very good movies. I in a similar way do not think that the movies of the "original" Star Wars trilogy are good movies. They have not aged well. What's respectable about these movies is the story and the universe; but more often than not these elements take a back seat to visual stimulation, cheap thrills, weightless sentimentality, and other such entertainment-industry essentials. I say the movies have not aged well largely because of the amount of time and energy they spend on visual stimulation, which 30-40 years later has lost its stimulating aspect. Though it must be appreciated, of course, that these elements are no longer novel simply because they themselves permitted the advancement of visual ideas and effects. But this is the essence of creating a good film -- it must be timeless art, involving itself more with permanent subjects and themes than with a momentary thrill. The backdrop of these movies taps into lasting themes, but the foreground is almost always consumed with transient entertainment. What's more than my belief that these are not very good movies is my belief that they will only grant a worthwhile experience to those that have seen and known them for years. Nostalgia is what can save these movies for the modern viewer -- without it, they are fairly emotionless experiences. Such was my experience.

Though I did like these movies -- again, I appreciate the underlying story, themes, characters, world. I really wanted more of it. I also appreciate the impact, and the fact that these movies are their own undoing; they in their wake produced better movies of the same kind, and thus worsened themselves in a great Hollywood sacrifice. The experiences were lackluster and I do not think the movies contain essential elements of good film -- but I liked them, and appreciate them in aspects.

I emphasize my criticism of these films only because it is natural and immediate for me to react to the opinions I have been told, when I sense strong disagreement. If I had not heard praises of these films all my life, and by people I usually respect, I would be noting much pleasantry and favour with the films. They would be a nice surprise. But it is disagreement and frustration with the opinions of my companions that make the criticism most present in my mind. I would be grateful to write about Star Wars without this frustration, to write a fond and wonderful review. Indeed, I am more frustrated with those that call these good films than with the films themselves -- they offer me something, which I would not say of most films, and which is entirely enough to invoke my appreciation.

Manchester By The Sea (Kenneth Lonergan)

Wearing only the humblest artistic skin, the crux of Manchester by the Sea is the viewer's individual ability to connect to the story and the characters -- the human element, not artistic. I liked the characters, the setting, the atmosphere -- but for me this was a very mild experience. I can't denounce the film, nor can someone with a stronger experience celebrate the film; it's good, and not much more can be said. I wish I could say more about the artistry, since it's that element on which I want to focus in film nowadays. But the writing and acting really weren't special, despite their probably being the basis for this film's praise.

This is an unsuccessful blend of Hollywood and independent cinema, of vague comedy and vague drama. It's a fine movie that just doesn't do enough.