#yes. this is influenced by the fact that i just watched moulin rouge

[thestobingirlie]

the avatar live action should’ve been a musical. why? because i would’ve enjoyed it.

[beebleboosuwu]

Alright.

There are a lot of conflicting emotions about having The Music Man kicking out Beetlejuice from the Winter Garden. Although I am bitter that one of my favourite musicals is being replaced in favour of money and two big names is just.. not sitting right, but I am open to everything and trying to look at everything with open eyes and an unbiased opinion.

Did Will Blum’s influence this a little? Yes.

Was the post a little unsound and unprofessional? I think so but it brought up some great points.

Yes, I agree. The fact that you are selling a name instead of a GREAT show is disrespect to the source material. Hugh Jackman is an awesome guy and his tenure as the Boy From Oz is forever embedded into Broadway his(her)story as being a stepping stone for Hugh’s career. Also you have Broadway star, Sutton Foster, another big name who, if you are a theatre lover, can’t help but fawn and scream in excitement.

We all know and love Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine/James Howlett/ Logan, that’s what people associate him as such. Fun fact he played that role from 2000-2018. Wolverine is known to be big, all muscle and raw strength, but in the theatre world we know him as a musical theatre actor. Jackman first claim to  international's fame was in 1999 when he played the leading man, Curly McLain, in the film adaptation of Oklahoma! He played the titular character Peter Allen in Boy from Oz in 2004 which he won a Tony for and Jean Valjean in the film adaptation of Les Miserables in 2012 while that wasn't the best adaptation of that musical, they did include Broadway and West End actors which was awesome! And lastly the most recent entry musical/film role was P.T Barnum in The Greatest Showman, Jackman went on tour last year singing songs from The Greatest Showman and some other songs from other musicals he previously worked in. He is an amazing vocalist, actor and dancer. His performance in Boy From Oz says as such in a review by Charles Isherwood: praising Jackman but panned the show: "Jackman is giving a vital and engaging performance in this pitifully flimsy musical almost in spite of the material he’s been handed. It’s a sad waste of an exciting talent." I’m pumped.

Sutton Foster is a Broadway actress that is well known for her two-time Tony award winning performance as Millie in Thoroughly Modern Millie. She has also roles from other shows such as: Chess, Funny Girl, Les Miserables, Anything Goes, Grease and MANY more. I knew her best as Reno Sweeney from Anything Goes, her vocals are nothing but extraordinary and her acting is nothing to sleep on, she is an excellent dancer and I cannot help to try and recreate in my bedroom when I’m alone. You can say all you want about her, but she is one of the Broadway actresses I know from the top of my head, alongside Patti LuPone, Sierra Boggess and Liza Minelli. She is also the younger sister of Hunter Foster of Little Shop of Horrors and Urinetown fame. Foster is going to be amazing as Jackman's partner in the upcoming production and honestly as a fan, I am so excited! 

They are both triple threats but.. no one knows a lot about the Music Man. It is a classic and has been around since the late 50′s.

Broadway, coming into the new decade of 2020, is becoming more MODERN. All these new musicals that have come out during this past decade might not have made it to Broadway but they are more aligned with the changing times and modern settings. Though there are musicals based on films from the 80′s that reach out to that generation and reintroduce them into that mind space they were in back in the day.

American Idiot, great musical, angsty music but has that throwback niche to that rebellious stage some, or not most, of us went through in the 2000′s.

Elf, that also starred Will Blum at one point, is fan service to those who love the holiday season and those who loved the film that came out in 2003. I haven't listened to it yet BUT I WILL EVENTUALLY.

Heathers, we all love the Heathers. Also Winona Ryder, who played Lydia Deetz in the 1988 Beetlejuice film, starred as Veronica Sawyer. Like Elf, IT BRINGS INTEREST TO THAT GENERATION SO THEY COULD BUY TICKETS TO THIS SHOW THAT WAS BASED ON A FILM THEY WATCHED AS TEENS. Also can we just forget about the horrible rendition of Candy Store done by the cast of Riverdale? That never happened. NEVER. HAPPENED.

Beetlejuice, Come From Away, Ghost, Once, Book of Mormon, Finding Neverland, Newsies, Kinky Boots, Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812, Big Fish, 21 Chump Street, Amélie, Be More Chill, Hamilton, Head Over Heels, Lazarus, School of Rock, Something Rotten!, Tuck Everlasting, Waitress, Anastasia, Hadestown, SpongeBob SquarePants, The Prom, Ain’t Too Proud, Everybody’s Talking About Jamie, Frozen, Mean Girls, Six, Summer: The Donna Summer Musical, The Lightning Thief, Jagged Little Pill, Moulin Rouge!, The Cher Show, Tina: The Tina Turner Musical, & Juliet, Mrs. Doubtfire.

These are SOME of the MANY shows that came out this decade!

Some musicals are entirely satirical so that was a niche for audiences who love the weird and messed up humour, some musicals are named after the films or shows they were based off of. So old audiences can take interest into coming to Broadway, okay I get that because again, nostalgia, some are entirely original or had little to no source material! Some are based around history, some about civil rights issues and some of them are jukebox musicals that appeal to people who like those artists.

Broadway has always been conservative and prefers to play it safe when it comes to opening a new productions and the dominant audiences have been older and more traditional. So that stereotypical Broadway show people think of is just that, the lead character getting their “want song” in, a lot of dancing, internal or external conflict that ultimately gets resolved with cheerful songs and set pieces. Although newer audiences want those boundary pushing shows so CAN get introduced to musicals like the Music Man, it means nothing if they were never introduced to the strange and unusual first. Everyone wants to advance to find that next big thing but they can’t do that when it is all safe but we did get some of them with Cats, Beetlejuice, Carrie, Matilda The Addams Family and more.

I totally get the interest of bringing back a musical that hasn’t been on Broadway for 20 years (last performance was in 2000) and it is a great way to reintroduce an old piece back into the world again, but it was at the expense of new artists making their Broadway dream a reality. The decision to evict, not close, evict Beetlejuice from the Winter Garden was a big mistake by the Schubert Organization. The Schubert Organization is one of the biggest landlord of theatres in New York, they at least own 17 Broadway theatres. Here’s the reason why they’re so successful:

They don’t keep shows that don't bring the cold hard cash. It’s show business, it has always been about the business and never about the show. As much as we could scream and shout to keep Beetlejuice in the Winter Garden all we want, it is unfortunately their decision to keep them or boot them out. We all know that productions have to be approved by a theatre organization so that production can be leant one of their many theatres, they show also had to keep up a total of sales from tickets above that number per week. As all of you know, that’s what happened with Beetlejuice. Ticket sales dried up and fell way below the amount. There was talk around the theatre community that a production of the Music Man was in the works with Hugh Jackman as the lead. So... they saw Beetlejuice as dead weight and sought out to cash in on Hugh Jackman’s name and fame.

There was a lot of problems from the show but most of their problems came from the critics. Mixed reviews was all the show got but the biggest blows came from the New York Times and Ben Brantley saying that the show never came to that same conclusion of home and belonging like other Broadway shows. This killed their ticket sales cause everyone goes through those reviews before they see a show. However that’s the thing, Beetlejuice never wanted that. The entire creative team and the cast knew that what they had was entirely unconventional, like it was their way sticking of the middle finger at the word conventional.

There's no doubt that the Music Man, Hugh Jackman, Sutton Foster and the cast and creative team will be amazing at the Winter Garden and it is highly unfortunate that the eviction of Beetlejuice was done for the sake of financial greed. I’m glad they were only evicted and not closed, the show IS still on and the public demand for the show is high. I know a lot of us hate the decision but what could you do? It’s all about the business aspect of Broadway and never the show.

Even though Beetlejuice had its problems with its opening following the Harvey Weinstein controversy, having the Music Man revival during this time of political conflict is a little awkward. Let’s trade a sexual, murderous demon for a eulogized conman.. that seems right.

I’m sure the show will be fantastic but the circumstances leading up to the opening is shady and not shining a good light for the Schubert Organization but lets not hate the actors and the creative team of the Music Man, they didn't do anything wrong. Instead, point that dislike to corporate greed, but is okay. The show is not closed and is only evicted from the theatre. Eventually they will find a new theatre on or off Broadway for everyone’s enjoyment again! Also that National Tour is coming up in Fall 2021 I believe, I personally can’t just fly to New York but I will be watching the National Tour if it does roll by where I live.

Keep safe my friends 💚🤍🖤

[chvrrybaby]

*itzy  vc*  hey  hey  hey   !   (  i  see  that  i’m  icy  )   what’s  up,  i’m  diana,  i’m  nineteen,  and  i’m  ur  resident  girl  group  stan.  i  reside  in  the  est  timezone  &  go  by  the  pronouns  she/her.  now,  finally  introducing  ...  loona    !!   jk,  her  name  is  blair  &  u  can  learn  abt  her  under  the  cut   !   my  discord  is  lana del rey is coming <3#5522   (  stream  her  new  album  august  30th  ),  so  feel  free  to  message  me  there  or  through  tumblr  im’s  if  u  prefer  that   !   otherwise,  i’ll  come  to  u <3

—  kim doyeon. she/her. cis female. | was that blair ryu i just saw in the hideaway lobby ? i hear the nineteen year old spends most of their time working as a sugar baby/studying classic literature and women’s studies, but i’ve always just seen them writing in her dream journal. they live in 5A and i often see them in the halls. they always give me a vibe of loosely curled hair, cherry lip gloss, the lingering scent of vanilla in the air.

(    𝑩𝑨𝑪𝑲𝑮𝑹𝑶𝑼𝑵𝑫.   )

born on october 5th, 1999  ( this is literally a day before my bday ooc but anyway ajkdhsjdh )  in rochester, new york, blair’s first impression of the world was a crisp autumn day

she was her parents first and only child. her mother was an elementary school teacher, while her father worked at a nearby power plant in ontario

the family never made too much money, but they were able to get by, at least at first

she had a fairly happy childhood, though it was a lonely one. her father was always working odd hours, and with her mother gone during the day, she spent most of her time with a babysitter and the family golden retriever

eventually, she herself started going to school. she immediately excelled in the english department and fell in love with reading. blair realized early on how much she enjoyed escaping reality with a novel, immersing herself in a story so exciting compared to her dull life

almost everything was fine until her high school years. aside from the fact that she never had a present father figure, she was closer to her mom and still loved by both of her parents. however, when her high school years came around, her father lost his job

her father was the families main provider, and her mothers salary alone would not be enough to take care of the entire family. while he searched for another job, they had to give away the family golden retriever to one of blair’s aunts because they couldn’t afford the extra cost :(

on top of losing her beloved pet, the loss of her father’s job prompting the family to pick up and move their entire life

already in the midst of high school, blair had to leave her life as she knew it behind. the family moved to statesboro, georgia, and her father found a job at the nearby power plant

the transition to life in georgia was not easy for blair. though she didn’t exactly have trouble making friends, she didn’t feel like she could truly connect with anyone

once again, blair turned to losing herself in a book to pass the time

shortly after the move to georgia, her parents experienced some difficulties within their marriage. they ended up separating, and blair spent the remainder of her high school years living with each of them for half of the time

she did not mind her parents separating, as she knew it was for the best. however, her father found a girlfriend fairly quickly, and blair would eventually find out her father had been having an affair

her father spent most of his free time with his new girlfriend and her family. blair was upset at how he prioritized his the new people in his life over her when he was barely ever around for her growing up

meanwhile, her mother was having trouble adjusting to being alone, so she moved back to new york to live with her sister

blair stayed behind in georgia to finish high school, but knew she wanted to go elsewhere for college. she wanted to get as far away from her father and his new life as possible

once blair turned eighteen, she began to sell pictures for money. she wanted to earn as much as possible so she could afford to go away for university. she created an alias and began to sell pictures and videos of her feet. eventually, she expanded her horizons once she realized how much money she could earn

she never went as far as sleeping with her clients, but she would go on dates with them and spend the days with them to earn more money ( kind of like ludovica/chiara in the italian show baby on netflix minus sleeping w them )

she dated a few people throughout her high school years, and began to more “seriously” date a guy during her senior year in high school, though she knew the relationship wouldn’t last. despite appearing as a more serious relationship, to her, it wasn’t really anything of the sort, and she mostly wanted a relationship for senior prom and other trivialities

after senior year ended and she had accepted admission into uni in seattle, she basically cut ties with everyone in georgia aksdjskdjh she said good bye forever ! rip poor unnamed boyfriend he didn’t see it coming ...

her father also did not see it coming because she didn’t even tell him where she applied. but at the same time, did he ask ? no :/

once she left for uni, her relationship with her father became very very estranged. she still speaks to her mom on a pretty regular basis, but even then, she has a whole secret life and doesn’t feel particular close to either of them sjkdfhskdjh

and that’s that for background !

(   𝑷𝑬𝑹𝑺𝑶𝑵𝑨𝑳𝑰𝑻𝒀.   )

blair is a libra sun leo moon ( rising sign & other placements tbd )

she is definitely a friendly/sociable person. she can be pretty outgoing and loves to be around people. idk her mbti yet but she is def an extrovert ! ( she does tend to keep her feelings to herself tho )

despite her friendly demeanor, she does have a fiery spirit. if u wrong her she will hold a grudge against u until it gets settled/sorted. she can be more on the mean side when she’s upset, but even then she does not have a bad heart at all

when it comes to relationships, blair is all over the place. she can be very flirty/charismatic and is constantly hopping from one relationship to the next. she hasn’t quite been able to settle down, but it is possible. she kind of thinks being in a real relationship means losing her freedom, because that’s kind of what she saw happen with her parents, so she doesn’t really want to be tied down to someone in fear of losing herself in a way. does this make sense ? maybe ? ok !

blair has a fairly strong sense of self, but she’s still very young so she’s still growing and changing. she is the type of person to know what she wants and go after it ( yes, even with ppl ! ). she will stop at nothinggg to get what she wants ( oop ). u could say she loves the chase, but kind of gets bored afterwards unless u have more to offer !

omg she literally loves 2 be the center of attention. i mean, who doesn’t love attention ? but blair takes it 2 another level. she gets all :( if she’s being ignored or isn’t receiving enough attention

kind of bouncing off the whole attention thing, blair loves a good party ! she’s young and here for a good time. she def loves to drink at parties and stuff even tho she isn’t legal here in the us, why should that stop her am i right ? when it comes to drugs, she’s a veryyy casual user and doesn’t do anything crazy. a social weed smoker n will do pills here and there

being a libra sun with a leo moon, i think it’s safe to say she can be a bit dramatic at times ( i mean, as a libra sun with a leo venus i am not one 2 judge xx ). she reads 2 much and watches 2 many movies like ajkdhsjkhd life rly isn’t that serious but she can b a lil overdramatic sometimes whew ! we told u this was melodrama ... lorde stans make some noise !

blair’s fav books are anything by jane austen and les liaisons dangereuses by pierre choderlos de laclos, aka the book cruel intentions was based on ( which happens 2 be one of her fav movies )

shows she loves: gossip girl ( she shares a name w blair so she probably used 2 call herself queen b in high school or something ), desperate housewives ( no wonder this binch is so dramatic ), big little lies, pretty little liars ( the early seasons only ), the netflix show baby, and buffy the vampire slayer

movies she loves: clueless, almost famous, thoroughbreds, moulin rouge, palo alto, marie antoinette, coyote ugly, american beauty, cruel intentions, and valley of the dolls ( to name a few )

her fav colors are pink, red, and white !

u can find her pinterest board here.

she is bisexual babey !!

(   𝑾𝑨𝑵𝑻𝑬𝑫 𝑪𝑶𝑵𝑵𝑬𝑪𝑻𝑰𝑶𝑵𝑺.   )

party buddies - this is pretty basic and self explanatory, but someone blair can go out and have fun with. their friendship might be more surface level, or started that way at least, but it’s possible they’re closer friends ( maybe she opened up under the influence and it brought them closer aksdhsdjh drunk blair def would )

ex-fling/gf/bf - blair relationship hops, so she could have quite a few of these. we can plot it however, there can b feelings there, they can hate each other, of they can be just friends now, u name it !

unrequited crush -  ur character could have feelings for blair, but maybe she doesn’t feel them back or is unaware that they like her. this could develop into her eventually having feelings for ur muse or not, whatever we want ! OR blair could def have a crush on someone who does not like her back. maybe that person is super non-committal, or they simply do not like her back. we could plot this out however <3

current fling/friends w benefits - someone she is currently seeing/sleeping with. could be no strings attached, or there could b some feelings there. maybe they don’t want to make it anything serious, or maybe they’re ready to take it to the next level. maybe one person is ready to go further, and the other isn’t.

enemies w benefits - imagine the tension!!! they started out hating each other, but ended up hooking up. maybe it was a one time thing, or maybe they can’t stop going back to each other. i think it would b cool if they kept it a secret, they don’t want anyone else to know. this could develop in soooo many ways !

ex-friends - someone she used to consider a close friend, but they had a falling out for whatever reason n maybe they hate each other now. maybe they want to re-kindle their friendship but don’t know how

sibling-like friendship - someone she sees like a sibling. they’re there for each other and look out for one another, always have each other’s backs. being an only child and not really close to her parents, blair would love a friend that she could basically call family !

dynamic duo - basically like her current best friend. this person is prob one of the closest people to her and knows her very well ! they could b a power duo, always looking out for each other 

take care - someone who kind of looks after her ?? maybe when she parties a lil too hard and drinks a lil too much, someone who kind of takes care of her n makes sure shes ok ! they would be someone she trusts a lottttt

confidant - someone who confides in her or someone she confides in, or they confide in each other. they don’t necessarily have to be the closest friends ever, but they get along, trust each other, and maybe they talk more in private

rivals - they hate each other for whatever reason. maybe it’s jealousy or their personalities just clash, but for whatever reason they do not get along. i love a good enemies plot. they can just b nasty to each other !!! maybe they bring out a really bad side to blair that most ppl dont see. someone who makes her act like blair waldorf ( i’m def kidding abt the blair waldorf part )

bad influence - blair isn’t a goody-two-shoes by any means, but doesn’t really do anything crazy, so i’d luvv for someone to kind of influence her to do shit she normally wouldn’t on her own

these are all the plot ideas i can think of for now, but i’ll prob make a plots page later on and add more stuff !

so this is everything !! this has taken me longer than it should have but i’m finally done whew,,, cheers 2 me <3 anyway i would absolutely luv to plot, so feel free to hit me up on discord or tumblr im’s, or i can also come to u ! i’m so excited to get started <333 i’m gonna b logging off now most likely, since it’s 3 am my time, but i’ll be back in the morning

[englishgeek82-blog]

Great Scott! Is Back to the Future the best film trilogy ever?

I was watching the Back to the Future films recently, and it dawned on me that I'd forgotten just how brilliantly enjoyable the trilogy is. In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I started to wonder if it just might be the best film trilogy ever made. I know it wouldn’t be first choice for a lot of people, but I thought that nevertheless, it might be worth comparing it to some of the other standard choices to see how it measures up. The major issue of course, is how you define “best”. I’m looking at the films as a collective whole, the overall story and effect of the entire narrative. I’m not judging it on solitary acting performances, or even the depth and development of the major characters, but rather how enjoyable and convincing the story is, and how easy the films make it for the viewer to enter and accept the premise of their world. For instance, the Back to the Future trilogy is about as unrealistic as any films could ever be. But so are Lord of the Rings, Terminator, Star Wars and The Matrix. The Bourne films and the Godfather films have a more realistic feel to them, although I’m not sure anyone would really defend them as being 100% true to life if placed under oath, so let’s remember that suspension of disbelief is an important part of any film experience. But what counts is that once you are inside that world, that the films stay true to it. This is a glaring error in the Matrix trilogy, which seems to make its own rules up as it goes along. The Indiana Jones trilogy seems to suffer the same problem, with Temple of Doom really never making up its mind as to what kind of film it wants to be, and consequently ending up as not much of a film at all. Plus, of course, there’s a fourth film in that particular trilogy but I’m being polite and not mentioning it.

I’m also judging the films as a trilogy, not as single films. Die Hard is an incredibly brilliant film, but the trilogy of which it is a part is not. There’s a fourth AND fifth entry in that trilogy, but I’m being polite and not mentioning them. The same goes for The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Matrix. I’m also not counting “unofficial trilogies”, like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet, Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge. Plenty to recommend in all those films, and they have been lumped together by Luhrmann, but as far as I’m concerned, it simply doesn’t count. Even Kevin Smith’s films in the View Askewniverse aren’t going to be counted in this, largely because there are more than 3 of them anyway, and second of all because the films are completely different stories linked tenuously together by supporting characters and locations, which doesn’t quite cut the mustard, and so they too, do not count.

The reason they don’t count is that unofficial trilogies aren’t telling the same story, and so you can’t have sly little references to the other movies therein. One of the many things that impress me about the BTTF trilogy is the self-referential nature of the films, which is common in a lot of sequels and trilogies, but rarely as subtle as it is here. Even the way Marty crosses the road when finding himself in a new time zone by the clock tower is consistent, not to mention the supporting characters such as the Statler family’s horse/car business, and the Texaco filling station, shown in the first two films and referenced in the third. This is one of the cleverest techniques in this trilogy and makes the films feel all the more familiar and makes repeat viewings all the more rewarding.

Now, obviously I realise that when it comes to epic genius in terms of acting and directing, the films may not be up there with The Godfather. That being said, Godfather III is notably poorer than the other two, and it could be argued that it's not even thematically consistent, which I don't think you can say about BTTF. The first two Godfather films are undoubtedly cinematic masterpieces, (though on a recent viewing I was surprised at how the first one has aged) but they certainly don’t have any of the feel-good factor of the Future films. You don’t just channel surf, spot Godfather II and decide to watch it for a laugh – like so many other classics, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, to name but a few, you have to make a decision to sit down and watch it. This is all well and good, but it’s a solitary journey. It’s a rewarding one too, but you could never sit down with friends at a party and play those films and expect the humour levels in the room not to nose-dive. Al Pacino is incredible, in all three films, and Brando still sends shivers down the spine in the original, not to mention the more-than-able supporting cast who ply their trade with such style alongside them. But the story and cast of Godfather III seems completely out of kilter with the tone of the original two, and this was commented on heavily by critics. I personally think the third film has much in its corner, another fine performance by Pacino, a fitting conclusion to the epic story of Michael Corleone and Andy Garcia’s impressive turn as the young hot-headed Vincent. But there’s no denying that it stumbles through some very tenuous plot lines and is over-populated with characters that completely fail to enhance the story. Finally, Sofia Coppola, although she is not as bad as everyone says, is still bad. The Godfather is so hugely different from Back to the Future that it’s almost pointless to even hold them up under the same light, but for a trilogy that I would pick to watch when I was at a loose end and wanted cheering up, there is no doubt that I would dive for the Delorean every time.

I also know that in terms of Sci-Fi influence and impact, the films are not up there with the original Star Wars films. And the Star Wars films hold the aces in some areas too. For instance, Biff and the other Tannens are effective villains for their genre of film, but they’re more pantomime than would be allowed in a film that took itself seriously. Darth Vader, on the other hand, is a truly great villain, especially when his story is further revealed and his tragedy brought to the fore. As heroes go, Luke Skywalker certainly undergoes a more immense journey of personal development than Marty McFly, but he doesn’t have Marty’s quick wit and he’s a whiny little so-and-so, a trait that he obviously picked up from his father, if the god-forsaken and indeed critically-forsaken, and indeed audience-forsaken prequels are anything to go by. As for things that are wrong with the films, there’s very little – especially with the first two films, but by the time of Return of the Jedi, the Ewok storyline grates on even the most sympathetic fan. Once you compare the original three to the prequels, the originals look like genuine masterpieces, but then once you compare the home video my grandmother shot of my 10th birthday to the Star Wars prequels, you get the same result. And once you start to bring in the storylines of the prequels, the rule about staying true to the world that you have asked the viewer to enter goes flying out of the window like a drop-kicked Ewok. The prequels are truly three of cinema’s great horrors in my opinion, and sadly because they are prequels, their very existence adversely affects the original films. Incidentally, and strangely, even though the insinuations of incest are much greater in BTTF, and in fact both sets of films contain exactly the same amount of screen-time for blood relatives kissing each other, it’s much more unsettling in Star Wars than it is in Back to the Future.

So, we arrive at this century’s most titanic Sci-fi achievement (if you ask some people) - Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy? Batman Begins is one of my favourite films of all time, with Christian Bale’s performance so impressive that I thought I’d never see a better turn in a Batman film, until Heath Ledger’s incredible Joker burned itself into all our minds. I remember thinking  If the third Nolan/Bale film was even half as good as the two that precede it, I would find it almost impossible to pick holes in it. Fortunately, it wasn’t. I wanted to like The Dark Knight Rises, I really did – and I did like it, but it was not the conclusion to the story for which I was hoping. Bat Bale’s growl whenever he speaks (which seemed like a good character move on Bale’s part in the first film) is irritating at best by the end of two hours plus of The Dark Knight and another two hours plus of The Dark Knight Rises. Tom Hardy’s Bane is menacing in appearance, but a big softie deep down and also speaks through his (ostentatious, to put it lightly) space mask in a way that makes him sound like the Head Boy of a southern private school who is addressing his prefects via a home-made walkie-talkie. There are also plot holes so massive in both TDK and TDKR that you could quite comfortably drive a DeLorean through them. The plot hole accusation is also true of the BTTF films, but since they never took themselves too seriously anyway, you could argue that the minutiae of time travel physics don’t matter as much as the overall effect of having a really good laugh.

The Back to the Future trilogy might not be considered as impressive, visually, as the Lord of the Rings films, but if you look at the standard of visual effects against the era in which the films were made, I think there’s a fine argument to be made that BTTF was hugely impressive. The LOTR films have been received incredibly well, and have plenty to recommend them, although they're all 16 hours long and if you don't like that particular genre, you'll be asleep before you see your first hobbit. And yes, I know they won a million Oscars, but that doesn’t always equal sheer enjoyment. Titanic won Best Picture because it looked nice, but was it really the best film of that year? Here are some films that didn’t win Best Picture at the Oscars, just for fun.

Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, Dr Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Cabaret, The Exorcist, Dog Day Afternoon, Jaws, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Goodfellas, Dangerous Liaisons, Born on the 4th of July, My Left Foot, JFK, A Few Good Men, The Fugitive, Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, LA Confidential, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hudson Hawk. All masterpieces.

For action and adventure, it's possible that the Back To The Future films don't compare with the Indiana Jones films; although they have more than their fair share, they admittedly are not as action-oriented as the Indy films. Sadly, following the below-average-but-probably-still-better-than-Temple-of-Doom “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, that trilogy has also been unnecessarily tampered with. Even if it hadn’t been, (or if Crystal Skull had been really good), the fact remains that Temple of Doom is pretty naff compared to the other two original movies. I’m not sure any adventure film will ever rival The Last Crusade, because that film pretty much has everything you could ever want from an action movie. Nazis being crap? Check. Exotic Locations? Check. Sean Connery? Check. Harrison Ford? Check. Biblical epic-ness? Check. And finally, Alison Doody...check. So, on its own, yes I would concede that Last Crusade is a better film than any of the BTTF flicks – but only just. As a trilogy though, our survey still comes back with a big X.

For Biblical allegory, although not for mind bending “ooh, makes you think”-ness (which isn’t really a thing, I just made it up) – the films don’t compare with the Matrix trilogy, but then unlike the Matrix trilogy, the second two BTTF films aren’t redolent of the Chernobyl aftermath. The first Matrix film is a really good (not great) film, with a really good (not great) idea behind it. As a standalone piece of cinema, it must rank as an important contribution to the art. However, the sequels are so mind-bendingly awful and lost in tracts of their own self-righteousness that really the whole concept is ruined and the brilliance of the first film is lost.

Pirates of the Caribbean is probably the closest set of films in terms of the general style, some wacky characters, good old fashioned escapade fun and some funky special effects and pretty far-out plot lines. BUT, the films are long, especially the completely directionless third one. This is nothing compared to the fact that Orlando Bloom AND Keira Knightley “act” in all three films. Now, Keira Knightley is a strangely alluring actress, despite her funny mouth, and in the last decade she has proven some admirable acting chops, but here her wooden stylings are not to my tastes, and for the schoolboy crush factor, she’s certainly no Lea Thompson. As for Orlando Bloom, well, I’m really not a fan. Yes, you could argue that Jack Sparrow is a better single character than any in the BTTF films, and Johnny Depp a more accomplished actor than any of the “Future” cast, but that on its own isn’t enough to rescue it. Also, by the third film, Depp has disappeared so far up his own Black Pearl that the character doesn’t have any of its original charm anymore.

For hard hitting pace and action and gritty realism with intrigue and espionage, it definitely doesn't come close to the Bourne trilogy, and I can't really think of anything bad to say about that one. It’s different, for sure, but the Bourne trilogy actually reminds me of the BTTF films in more than one way. For instance, there’s no single performance in any of the three films that truly stands out. Brian Cox is excellent, as always, as are Joan Allen and Matt Damon, but none of them put in an Oscar-winning turn. This is a good thing, in my opinion, because the films don’t demand it. The story and action is enough. Like BTTF, the cast are brilliant in their roles, but none of them dominate the screen and take away from the rest of the film, like Heath Ledger does in The Dark Knight. When he’s not on screen, all you can think is that you wish he was. This is not the case in the Bourne films, where no single character is so crucial that you can’t live without them. The films are not made for fun, and have little humour in them, and so there is no comparison there, but they stay thematically consistent and tell a story that stays completely true to the world it inhabits. If I had to pick a fault, it would be that the non-linear style of the end of the second film and start of the third is hugely confusing, but then I could hardly deny that certain parts of the third BTTF film could have been trimmed, so let’s not get too close into criticising brilliant trilogies.

Other notable trilogies could include:

·       Die Hard (except there's 4 of them now, and the second one is rubbish)

·       Home Alone (only joking. The first two are good though.)

·       Jurassic Park (maybe if the third one had had some effort put into it by anyone associated with it, director, actors, etc)

·       Evil Dead (first one, brilliant – other two, I’m not sure)

·       Spiderman (Hmmm, the first two are superb. But any trilogy that includes that pointless “Emo Spidey” section of Spiderman 3 doesn’t deserve a place at this table. I mean, seriously, what the HELL were they thinking? It’s a bad film without that, but that absolutely nails its coffin permanently shut.)

·       Terminator (third one rubbish, and there’s a fourth one now anyway)

There are also other film trilogies of course, like High School Musical, Matrix, X-Men, Mission: Impossible, Ace Ventura (yes, they made a third), Austin Powers, Mighty Ducks, Beverly Hills Cop, Blade, The Ocean’s films, Robocop, Rush Hour, Scream, Spy Kids, Transporter, Ice Age, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc but all of these are discounted for either being a) completely terrible or b) let down by at least one entry in the set.

So, this is obviously a gigantically subjective theme, and a very subjective blog – and I’m fine with that, and I hope that everyone has different ideas about what constitutes the perfect film trilogy. After all, all of the above is only my opinion. But, fellow film lovers, let me ask you this - if someone sat you down and said "Right, you've got to watch an entire trilogy all the way through for pure enjoyment," is there a better choice than Back to the Future?

[bangtanculturetechnology-blog]

Koreaboo/Weaaboo Rant

Ok, ok, ok. Y’all need to educate yourself if you call every k-pop fan a koreaboo or a weeaboo. Before you do shit like that, look up the PROPER definition. To be a weeaboo/koreaboo, you are a non-Japanese/non-Korean member of society that completely denounces their own country of origin and the culture that it entails; they believe themselves to be Japanese or Korean. BUT, I am a fan of K-pop AND (here’s the important part)  am inspired by Korean culture and customs and it just so happens that I took the path of  discovering more about Korea through the introduction of their music. BUT, I am not so delusional as to only have a positive outlook on everything Korean. There are things I don’t like about MY culture and things I don’t like about THEIR culture. I don’t like all of their food or food from my country. There are things I love about their culture due to my culture being deficient in that asset. For example, the way they treat their elders is admirable but in my country, it seems that elders are afraid of teens and I find that an abomination. Or in my country, I love Scotland (where I came from) because it doesn’t get too hot as I hate really hot weather, but Korea has really hot summers. I’d miss the traditional, cobbled English streets and traditional English tea and scones. Yes, I want to learn the language and live there temporarily but that is because it is a beautiful country with a dark history that I find absolutely inspiring and intriguing. I want to be able to teach the next Korean generation about MY culture as my country’s history is just as intriguing It also happens that I have a knack for languages and want to learn as many as I can. I can already speak French and I want to learn Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Hindu. But, again, if someone from, say, Japan moved to America and adjusted to American lifestyle, there is no problem. It’s this single mindedness that really pisses me off. Most of you, who throw around these koreaboo insults are uneducated in everything I have and will mention

The fact that I have been brought up around a mother who is fascinated by Eastern cultures has definitely influenced how I view them. I love Chinese culture and constantly read books about it, I watch documentaries about Japanese Geisha and documentaries on Korean food, I like anime and Korean dramas. BUT, I also love the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, an AMERICAN television show, Friends and my favourite film is British! “Moulin Rouge” I have an interest in Korean fashion but do not go out of my way just to wear that style of clothing, I wear whatever I feel like wearing at the time, especially as I am a bit of a tomboy. I don not go out of my way to perform aegyo or to look more Korean but even if you do, it is not an issue. I have tried Korean style make-up and didn’t like t, so I just stick to what I know and like.

Also, just because someone may seem to only like K-pop doesn’t mean they have no other interests. Me, for example, I love K-pop but I also love Bring me the Horizon, Sleeping with Sirens, One Direction and Thirty Seconds to Mars. 

People move to Korea on a daily basis and as they live there, they become more and more Korean but the fact that they have Korean friends proves that they have no issue with it! I mean why is i, that no one makes a comment when Koreans get PLASTIC SURGERY to look like Westerners (e.g the whole double eyelid surgery; not usually apart of their their DNA). This is is no issue but people make such a big issue about Westerners trying to be Asian but not when Koreans may get plastic surgery to look more Western.

How is liking Asian style through the viewing of their style, any different from an American punk fan trying to dress like their idols. There is no difference. We are living in a globalized society where people are free to pick and choose what they listen to and what they are interested in. The improvements in technology has allowed the global community to be introduced to new and beautiful places and things. So please, get out of your stupid little bubble and consider what you say about and to people. I think I speak for both ME and Jordan

Cherry

[sidestorystudios]

La La Land

Why the Backlash? and The Cipher of the Musical Film

By Colby Herchel

Originally posted here. 

       La La Land is a movie that is doing exceptionally well across the board, and deservedly so. It’s getting people from all walks of life into the theatre, and this reviewer has been dazzled by the work of both director Damien Chazelle and composer Justin Hurwitz, from both this outing and 2014’s Whiplash. So some are rightfully confused with the “Oscar backlash” it’s getting from both film critics as well as lovers of musicals. Why, if something is reaching out to everyone as a fun dose of optimism, is it worth the trouble nitpicking? There are certain moments that the film goer should relax and take it in, and not linger on inconsistencies. Tom Hanks said of it, “if the audience doesn’t go and embrace something as wonderful as this then we are all doomed.” I guess we’re not doomed.

       But there comes a moment, namely tying the record number of Oscar nominations, that gives these critics a pause for thought. This is no longer a fun distraction— this has become the representation for the musical film. And to answer the question, should it be? No, it should not.

       I’m certainly not making any friends here, but I urge you to see it this way: this article is not a put down of the movie in any way, but more importantly, a context provider, a reaching hand into another understanding. What were choices, what were mistakes, and, most importantly, where do we go next?

Musical on Film on Musical

       First and foremost, I would like to make one thing clear: a medium is a means of expression, like a book, a painting, a play, or yes, a film. They do different things and have their strengths in different areas. None are superior; they are different at the basest level. A genre is a trend or style of storytelling, like science fiction, horror, or comedy. As you may have noticed, the world at large lists the musical as a genre. This is understandable, as there are certainly tropes in classic Hollywood musicals that are consistent. But when you really think about it, the musical doesn’t have to have a romantic or cheesy slant in order to be a musical. It simply has to be a story told with the characters singing. In fact, musicals have their own genres, think of Jesus Christ Superstar and Hair as rock musicals, and Hamilton and Bring in ‘da noise, Bring in ‘da Funk as hip-hop musicals. So you can find it problematic that in the same genre are smushed Sweeney Todd and Hairspray. They tell completely different stories with completely different music, but both happen to have characters who sing. Isn’t the musical beginning to sound like a medium to you?

       Now, when you throw in the musical film, you have a whole new set of issues. For some reason or other, when people see a musical live, they are more forgiving of the singing. Whether people used to treat showtunes as pop songs or that hearing music live adds a concert feel to the event, it seems to work. But when you film a character singing, it is an entirely different moment. Film is constantly trying to create the most realistic scenario, and Theatre always requires a bit more imagination (which is why puppetry is especially jarring at first). When a character in close up belts that she is telling you she’s not going, there is no realism. The illusion is immediately shattered, and many film goers can no longer stomach it.

       This issue is usually explained away by this (which Damien Chazelle has discussed in interviews): the character has reached an emotional point in which they can do nothing but sing their feelings. I am not fully subscribed to this, as have you ever met anyone who has been so emotional that they have to sing? With backup orchestra and all? Chazelle, for that matter, does not subscribe to this either, as there is probably one instant in La La Land that the character sings a song out of desperate emoting. Oddly, we have some modern entries in this category, Les Miserables and Into the Woods, which I think both work pretty well, but lack a certain reasoning which is inherently off-putting. Adapting a stage musical to film is always an issue, to be sure.

       So alright, the Gene Kelly and Vincent Minelli explanation falls flat. And it physically did, in 1969, when the Hello, Dolly! film was an inordinate flop (which is a shame, that movie is comic GOLD). The stories that had characters just sing for no reason other than singing were no longer working.

       The musical film could never be the same. Bob Fosse, that rascal, was the first to really challenge back. With Cabaret in 1972, Fosse made a film where every number took place diegetically in a music bar, which offered commentary on the scenes. This device was so well received Fosse beat Francis Ford Coppola for Best Director at the Oscars the year The Godfather was up to bat. We all forgot about this device until Rob Marshall brought it back for Chicago in 2002 to similar praise. Every song occurs in Renee Zellweger’s booze addled brain. I personally like this idea, but unfortunately, it doesn’t allow for the freedom other solutions bring.

       So along came a little picture, a humble, indie darling you’ve never heard of. Moulin Rouge! I think it’s called. This was the first to sell the idea that sometimes, in a musical, everything is ridiculous and you can get it or get out. This is fun, but not very challenging. This embrace of the ridiculousness of the medium also bleeds into La La Land, but to a lesser extent. Obviously people in the real world don’t sing, but forget it, it’s fun! “What if they don’t like it?” “Fuck ‘em.” I usually find myself crinkling my nose at these outings, mostly because they do really well, and stigmatize musicals even more than they are by everyday moviegoers. To put it in perspective, I also classify Mamma Mia! in this subset. The post-Seinfeld cynical self awareness can go so far, but meta humor is a kind of well that all too quickly runs dry.

What is The Umbrellas of Cherbourg for Christ-sakes?

       What is this reviewer’s favorite, you may ask? Well, let’s rewind back to 1964, before Hello, Dolly! and even The Sound of Music. And while we’re taking the time tour, let’s pop over the Atlantic Ocean. Jacques Demy’s les parpluies de Cherbourg, or, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, is a film entirely told through a jazz soundtrack about two ill-fated young lovers (Michel Legrand the more than competent composer this time around). Sound familiar? The differences, then, are twofold. The characters only sing in this film, which makes Les Miserables critics moan. Don’t worry, the songs never take their time to withhold information, but rather press on at the rate any movie would (its run time is a blessed 90 minutes). It actually has more in common with opera than you would expect, but that’s a thesis for another day. The other difference between this and La La Land is in the fact that the characters are decidedly not dreamers. They are a poor daughter of a single mother, and an orphan who works at a petrol station. The dramatic kick comes at the end, at the pan out from a gas station. These emotional highs and lows came from the most mundane of locations, and the reason for singing is a beautiful one: your difficult life is worthy of music. How does this translate as a format, then? Simple: give a thematic reason. It doesn’t have to be revealed the minute the movie starts, but as long as it plays into the major themes of the film, it fits. These characters constantly talk about the opera, and about the melodrama in their lives. Genevieve and Guy are much more self aware, and both get full, emotional arcs. I’ll say no more, everyone who likes musicals should see this film.

       “Aha!” you may cry, “Chazelle has cited that very film as his major influence! Isn’t La La Land just as thematic?” Well, you certainly have a point, but please don’t interrupt me until I’m finished. Certainly, the choice of color palette, the cinematography, and many portions of that ending are swiped right from les parapluies de Cherbourg. The name of Mia’s character in the one act? Genevieve. That circle wipe that stops, then keeps going? Demy. The use of a jazz score? Gershwin, but Michel Legrand really was the one to perfect it on film. There are full scenes swiped from it in La La Land, and Chazelle seems to be kind of embarrassed about it. From a personal friend who broached these similarities with him, this is one of his favorite movies (as well as Casablanca). That’s not to say it’s a bad film— no, steal away! What else do we make art for but to be a reference? And to answer the question on whether the music comes in thematically, well, yes and no.

The Themes of La La Land

       Alright, so before we go any further, you should probably have watched La La Land if you don’t want to be spoiled. Below, I will discuss the thematic push behind the film.

       First, of course, is dreams. This is made apparent from the opening number— the difficulty of living life for one’s dreams. And this is essentially what’s at stake throughout: will Mia achieve her dreams, and to a lesser extent for some reason, will Seb do the same? This concept is brought forth in Whiplash, Chazelle and Hurwitz’s earlier venture, which makes this reviewer ponder if they are meant to be companion pieces. Whiplash is a much more cynical outing, exploring the selfishness of dreams in a high paced thriller. La La Land, is, essentially, the optimistic fluff. The stakes are never that big, and that’s ok. It is interesting that Mia is not punished for cutting off her connections to other people as much as Miles Teller’s character. She gets her dream, and leaves Seb (I really, really hate this name) behind. He’s sad about it, but all in all more than supportive.

       The second theme is less inherent— the death of art. Namely jazz, and Hollywood sensibilities. Seb explains that jazz is lost on young ears. You have to listen to it for the dialogue, which gives a cue for the rest of the film, particularly concerning their relationship. Mia, who claims she hates jazz, once taught how to hear it, finds a way to appreciate it. But other than these two, everyone else seems to be just fine with its fade from popular ears.

       Of course, there’s love, but isn’t there always?

Song to Theme

       I’ve heard some silly critiques that say Hurwitz’s score is not “hummable.” That is an absolutely useless critique unless you are trying to make popular songs. When you are writing songs for characters, all that matters is you honor the character and the story. Hurwitz’s score is deeply lyrical and rich and his orchestrations for that matter are quintessential. I give him every credit— but thematically, I have a few issues.

       Let’s begin with that opening number, Another Day of Sun. I personally really like what this song is saying. It’s an excellent way to delve into the struggle of all these everyday dreamers. As important to the song in a musical film is the way it’s shot. And Chazelle has done his homework, because we begin with Fellini’s opening scene from 8 1/2: a person in bumper to bumper traffic who, through some bout of magic realism, finds a beautiful escape (Guido Anselmi flies up and out, the cast of La La Land break into a musical number). This is a great way to indicate to the audience that their watching an old-style musical, right?

       But how does Chazelle shoot it? After celebrating the width of the aspect ratio (dear God, throw a parade why don’t you), we pan along different cars listening to all different kinds of music, some pop, some hip-hop, some classical. Oh! What an excellent way to launch into the death of jazz! Ah, but hold on. We keep panning, and begin to have that sure feeling that, oh no, he’s going to try his hand at the long take. And suddenly everyone, all these different people who from the first minute were shown to have separate tastes in music, are jumping out of their cars and belting jazz music! Is jazz truly dying in the world of this movie? No! It seems to be the heartsong of an entire traffic jam! The idea here is that since we’ve decided this is an old Hollywood musical, you can suspend your belief. Which is all well and good, but largely why I find this more akin to Moulin Rouge! than les parapluies de Cherbourg. “What if they don’t like it?” “Fuck ‘em.” Why on earth not use the music that the people were listening to in that same take? Make a fusion of styles to accurately represent the modern world, and, therein, one of the major struggles for our main characters? What could, and should have been an introduction into the major theme of the movie ended up being sacrificed for nostalgia.

A note on the long take: I think it’s absolutely fun, but unless there’s a good reason behind it, it is only a gimmick, an ‘Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better’ between directors. Alphonso Cuaron has made it his trademark, but you’ll notice he always has a thematic and filmographic reason to use the device. The Spielberg “Oner,” like the ferry scene in Jaws, is always trying to hide in plain sight, without convincing the audience that he is clever, but rather exploring the dialogue with proper attention and depth. Hitchcock, who explored it to its fullest extent in Rope, found it to be cheap and unfulfilling for the rest of his career, and very much regretted using it in the first place. Reel it in, Chazelle, Mendes, and Iñarritu.

       As you imagine these problems bleed throughout, at least concerning the other large group number, Someone in the Crowd. The song doesn’t seem to decide whether it’s critical of this ambitious world or not. Is it a joyful celebration of the struggling actor, or a condemnation of the shallow world? The prevailing image is the yet another long take of spinning in the pool, watching the chorus dance around like zombies. But in the following scene, we have an 80’s cover band featuring Seb at one of these parties. Good Lord, what is the real world of this picture? Is it in Mia’s Turner Classic Movie Mind? That could work for the party number, even A Lovely Night (sweet as a song, but clearly the talents the number is given can’t make it spin), but not the opening.

       Moreover, John Legend gets a song too, We Could Start a Fire, which clearly delineates popular music from jazz. Why, since the production was openly aware of their choices and the world around them, would they not remain consistent with this theme?

       Now, I do give a lot of credit to the cinematography, even in its gimmicky moments. It’s very difficult to shoot chorus numbers in a non stagnant way. Famously Tim Burton cut the wonderful chorus parts from his adaptation of Sweeney Todd, but this in effect made his film work that much better. Chazelle crafts a deft and complete world.

       Mia and Seb’s love theme is gorgeous, and a rival to many love themes throughout cinema history. The dance scene in the planetarium is just wonderful. But after a while (and as a composer I absolutely have suffered from this) it’s repeated a little too often. Hurwitz’s jazz arrangements are lovely, particularly Herman’s Habit. Here’s to the Ones who Dream is the only number to really come from a character’s emotions, as stated before, and largely it is the best song in the movie, if preachy. A few lyrical flubs, but we’ll certainly get to that.

       That dream ballet at the end is basically a medley of all the songs to come before it, which orchestrally, it’s lovely, but thematically, it’s weird. When we get into sequences of the film repeated we have all the right beats, their love theme and the audition song most prominent. But at the beginning, there are musical mentions of Another Day of Sun and Someone in the Crowd whichonly serve as musical filler. When a musical theme is assigned to a scene, whenever it is played again, it should have a direct correlation between them.

       You’ll notice I left out a rather popular song.

City of Stars is Terrible

       The big question that always comes up for a songwriting team is “What is written first, the music or the lyrics?” Friends, we don’t have to ask this question about Hurwitz and his lyricists. We know. It is the music first.

       The lyricists of the film are actually fairly well versed in the musical genre, Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. They are both composers and lyricists, known for Rent of the year Dear Evan Hansen as well as Dogfight and the Christmas Story musical. This reviewer thinks they are more than competent and have a deservedly rich career ahead of them.

       Therefore, it is troubling how many awkward lines sneak into the final film. Theatre can always be changed and edited, but a film is forever. We have some slant rhymes in many songs:

“When they let you down/you get up off the ground”

Another Day of Sun

“Then everybody knows your name/we’re in the fast lane”

Someone in the Crowd

       In City of Stars, we have issues of prosody (how syllables and poetry are naturally spoken) and the difference between masculine and feminine rhymes. To illustrate the culprit of prosody, I have put the strong syllables in bold:

City of stars/Are you shining just for me/

City of stars/There’s so much that I can’t see

City of Stars

       Repeat those lines back in the as if you’re speaking them, then in the rhythm of the song. Do you feel how they don’t fit together? Rhyme goes beyond words, it’s in the meter as well. An example of how it should be done:

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens/

Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens

My Favorite Things, The Sound of Music

       Feel how they’re different? And now the culprit at the end of the song, the recipient of the masculine/feminine rhyme debacle. A masculine rhyme has the center of the rhyme based on an emphasized last syllable, i.e. Men/Den or Forgot/A Lot. A feminine rhyme puts emphasis on the second to last syllable, i.e. Belly/Smelly. You would never force a masculine and feminine rhyme together, like Foreplay/Today, simply because you never say Today or Foreplay. For each rhyme, the emphasized syllable must fall on an emphasized beat of music, be that at a downbeat or at least on a kind of beat. Not off. That’s when you feel that weirdness. So our culprit in question:

City of stars/Are you shining just for me/

City of stars/You Never shined so brightly

City of Stars

       Other than “Me” rhyming with “-ly,” there is really nothing in common with the final couplet. You never say “brightly,” you say “brightly.” These flaws show that the text was smushed in to fit the music, and not composed hand in hand. This juxtaposition ruins the intent of the song.

       “What a nitpick!” you must be screaming. “People don’t need to rhyme correctly for it to be good!” And I would say you’re correct if we were talking about popular music, and stuff you can listen to day in and day out, without needing to pick up everything on first listen. But what, I ask you, is the function of rhyming? Clarity. And what, then, is the great function of film language? Clarity. So, in a film, if you’re not doing your due diligence to perfect every facet of being clear to an audience, then, you are doing a disservice the audience and diluting your craft. But don’t take my word from it— living legend Stephen Sondheim quoted lyricist/composer Craig Carnelia in his book Finishing the Hat:

       “True rhyming is a necessity in the theater, as a guide for the ear to know what it has just heard. Our language is so complex and difficult, and there are so many words and sounds that mean different things, that it’s confusing enough without using near rhymes that only acquaint the ear with a vowel… [a near rhyme is] not useful to the primary purpose of a lyric, which is to be heard, and it teaches the ear to not trust or to disregard a lyric, to not listen, to simply let the music wash over you.”

       Moreover, City of Stars stops the movie still to sing a Falling Slowly wannabe, which never really comes back into play. It could be there love theme but we already have a clear theme in their waltz. The lyrics, on the whole, try and double as generalizations about love and what the characters Mia and Seb are feeling. The song, at least in terms of the movie, is largely a lie. Everyone in Los Angeles is looking for their dreams to come true as dictated in the opening number, but now we also say that everyone is just looking for love. Dreams win, poor Seb.

       So, other than a hit love song, it doesn’t really service the movie. We already gleaned they were happy in love from the waltz, and maybe this articulates their thoughts with less subtext, and maybe (though it’s never clear) this is Seb’s love song that he’s testing out with her. Either way, we’re not learning anything.

       And then there’s the fact that-

Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are… Okay

       Alright, alright, they’re absolutely cute together on screen. But in a film that tries so desperately to soar with Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, it feels like your college’s club musical. I’m the first in line to claim that it is better to see an actor who can sing over a singer who can act, but goodness. If we’re buckled in for a nostalgia trip, why cast people who cannot tap in a tap number? What a Lovely Night made me long for the actual Singin’ in the Rain. And though this reviewer respects both of their acting abilities in a great way, and loves their work, Emma Stone’s singing voice is rather breathy, and Ryan Gosling is, frankly, flat. Whilst Russel Crowe felt the brunt of the masses for Les Miserables, ol’ Gos gets a pass.

       There is the rebuttal that this amateurishness was entirely the point, which is absolutely fair. Most dreamers are amateurish, and only the lucky few make it. But ask yourself seriously, in a world where they casted some of the myriad of amazing singer/dancer/actors who might not have the name recognition of Emma and Ryan, would you have been upset that they gave good performances? Not really.

Conclusion

       Is La La Land a musical? Yes, it has songs, but you’ll notice that after the first 20 minutes, there are barely any tunes until the end. This is more of a romance/drama than a complete musical. And that’s wonderful for it. It seems to keep the music as a reference to happy times, and the spiraling out of Mia and Seb’s relationship is done in silence. But when a musical is plotted, that’s when the songs really mean the most. They say Broadway composer Jerry Herman makes his name on production numbers, namely Hello, Dolly!, Mame, and The Best of Times. But go to one of his shows, and you find yourself enraptured in the sad moments, the I’ll be Wearing Ribbons Down My Backs, the If He Walked into My Lifes. The musical has not been explored to its fullest extent, and La La Land has ignited a spotlight. It is dangerous to be represented by a mere pastiche of the past, albeit lovingly and warmly. We must understand that this movie is not the example— rather a doorway. I really enjoy this film, even plan on buying it when it’s available, which is why I’ve thought so deeply about it. Through this lens, we can clarify much about where we are to go. Focus on telling a story with music, telling it surely, honestly, and clearly. There are a myriad of possibilities, and perhaps it’s time to move on from nostalgia and pastiche, and into the forays of tomorrow. Medium, not genre.