Be honest...you lolled hard when La La got snubbed! LOL!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fedfan34
  • Start date Start date
No, I could not believe it. I thought it was a silly joke that was coming off really badly.
I had actually almost shut off my cellphone to go do some work when they announced LLL.

I was just shaking my head, but very happy for Moonlight, as I really did not care of LLL at all.

All said and done, I was hoping Moonlight would get it, and I can't say I am too displeased with the way it went.
 
stringertom said:
I was hoping they would come out and say they had also got the wrong envelope for a recent election.
Click to expand...

Someone said that on tv this morning. They also said they were glad it happened to La La Land and not Moonlight because it would of been disrespectful, based on the themes portrayed in the latter of the two films. How the tv anchors laughed!

Give me a break :rolleyes:
 
200_s.gif
 
I have a feeling that Beatty, having understood the mistake, simply decided not to stop the mistake from happening.
 
That's my preferred explanation too, but it seems clear that he understood a mistake had been made and chose the worst course of action.

Offering the envelope to someone who just read what she expected to find - a film title - was done with, imho, a rather sly chuckle.

The other odd thing is that this was first reported as Beatty having read the wrong title when, of course, it was Dunaway who read it without reading.
 
Fedfan34 said:
Lol Lol Land!

Discuss!
Click to expand...
that was to be expected. why should a silly comedy win a Oscar ? movie that won is impact making world changing type of movie and portrays real life problems..........Hollywood needs to be good at something like sending a good message to the world
 
One person handing out one envelope depending on which side the presenter is entering is hardly building redundancy into the system.
 
A closeup of Beatty’s hand as he came on stage showed he was holding an envelope for the best actress award – which had already been announced and went to Emma Stone for La La Land. Stone said she had retained the envelope that announced her Oscar, so Beatty must have been holding the duplicate.

When he opened the envelope and took out the card, Beatty appeared concerned, pausing and looking to see if there was another card inside. He then passed it to Dunaway who, seeing only La La Land named on the card, proclaimed it the winner.
 
From the NYT:

PricewaterhouseCoopers prepares two identical sets of sealed envelopes. The two partners from the firm who oversee the voting process, Martha L. Ruiz and Brian Cullinan, each have a briefcase with a complete set of the envelopes inside and stand on opposite sides of the stage.

The envelope for best actress, the penultimate award of the night, came from the side of the stage where Ms. Ruiz stood.

After Ms. Stone accepted that honor, Ms. Dunaway and Mr. Beatty came out to present the best picture award from Mr. Cullinan’s side of the stage, where a best actress envelope was still unopened. Mr. Cullinan clearly handed Mr. Beatty the wrong envelope.

And on Mr. Beatty:

“I read the card that was in the envelope,” Mr. Beatty told reporters on his way to the Governors Ball. “I thought, ‘This is very strange because it says “best actress” on the card.’ And I felt that maybe there was some sort of misprint.” Pressed further, he said, “That’s all I have to say on the subject.”

It seems Mr. Cullinan is the man responsible, but that Mr. Beatty was either a bit too slow or a bit too 'méchant'. And a little history:

 
Last edited:
No,I just couldn't believe it. I didn't care that much either way,I thought both films were OK,but neither would have been my choice.
Sentinel said:
I'd be interested to know how many people here think LLL deserved best picture.
Click to expand...
In saying that,it's hard to say that any film 'deserves' best picture. Especially when you look at some of the god awful films that have won best picture in the past. It's simply the film that they want to represent them,to make a statement
 
i found the whole thing fascinating!

mainly because many have criticized the academy and critics for pining over La La land, which is basically a fluff piece musical, with so much critical acclaim while paying far less attention to far deeper movies with more diverse, farther reaching stories.

basically La La Land vs Fences, Lion, Moonlight, or Hidden Figures became a proxy fight over Hollywood's historical exclusionary environment vs embracing more diversity in storytelling.

the racial makeup of the two casts (one being very mixed and the other nearly all white) spoke volumes, while they were embarrassingly up on stage together.

with all that being said; i felt bad for LLL's people and its probably not fair to have all this put on them. they just made a movie...
 
Last edited:
Didn't watch the Matrix collapsing in real time or on replay yet, but seeing "Hell or High Water" get snubbed in favor of not one, but two inferior films, speaks for itself as well.
 
Sentinel said:
Which are the best/better films of the last year, in your opinion ?
Click to expand...
Well,my favourites were probably Manchester By The Sea,American Honey,Tower and Paterson. I liked La La Land a lot more the 2nd time I watched it,I have yet to get to a 2nd viewing of Moonlight though...
 
I think it was a toss between sureshs and Casey Affleck but sureshs will eventually get the credit he deserved with his performance in the action movie 'sureshs tennis'. A sad day for the film industry and the Vortex inhabitants.
I'm at least glad for that sad man Casey Affleck, after all he's gone through in Manchester and Boston, hopefully this award will cheer him up a bit.
 
Last edited:
Midaso240 said:
Well,my favourites were probably Manchester By The Sea,American Honey,Tower and Paterson. I liked La La Land a lot more the 2nd time I watched it,I have yet to get to a 2nd viewing of Moonlight though...
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have yet to see American Honey. Had not heard of Tower.

Someone else here really disliked MBTS. I found it interesting, as I did Paterson.

Is there a specific reason you watch a movie twice, is it to see how it holds up to a second viewing, or just to understand it better. Which movies do you see twice ? Certainly not each one.
 
Sentinel said:
Thanks, I have yet to see American Honey. Had not heard of Tower.

Someone else here really disliked MBTS. I found it interesting, as I did Paterson.

Is there a specific reason you watch a movie twice, is it to see how it holds up to a second viewing, or just to understand it better. Which movies do you see twice ? Certainly not each one.
Click to expand...
Well,some movies benefit more from a 2nd viewing than others. I believe most professional movie critics watch movies twice though,at least the big ones in Oscar contention. It's so easy to be swayed,the first time I watched La La Land I was just looking for reasons not to like it since that was when the backlash was starting to kick in and it seemed like the cool thing to think. The 2nd time though,I just went with the flow and it was a lot more fun. I miss a lot of things on first viewing,it all depends on mood. Even my favourite movies ever can wear thin if I watch them when I'm tired or stressed or something
 
Carsomyr said:
Didn't watch the Matrix collapsing in real time or on replay yet, but seeing "Hell or High Water" get snubbed in favor of not one, but two inferior films, speaks for itself as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Hell or High Water and Hacksaw Ridge were both much better imo. Didn't really fit the the classic Hollywood musical vibe or tick the diversity box though.

I even liked Arrival, although most don't seem to agree. Those kind of films that make you think and question the universe appeal to me (Inception, Interstellar etc..).
 
The 'serious' films Hollywood sometimes chooses to honour are tedious 'sociological dramas' of little artistic merit. If LaLaLand is frippery, then that does not necessarily stop it from clearly being the better film.

Given that Jacques Demy was an inspiration, then the fim is undoubtedly in a great tradition even if it is somewhat derivative. it will undoubtedly come to be seen as the better film.
 
Bartelby said:
Given that Jacques Demy was an inspiration, then the fim is undoubtedly in a great tradition even if it is somewhat derivative. it will undoubtedly come to be seen as the better film.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pretty sure history will be more favorable to La La Land, and quite frankly this fatuous reading of the film (especially by those who should know better) as yet another instance of Hollywood patting itself on the back has further convinced me that understanding of high art is and always will be the domain of a select few. I posted this review elsewhere and will probably delete it in a few days, but here's why La La Land will likely stand the test of time:

The backlash was inevitable, but the contrarian grumbling about this supposedly surefire Oscar sweeper has been so strong that it’s looking quite likely Damien Chazelle’s glorious post-musical, which has been all but shut out of the most prestigious film awards, will prove to be an equally underperforming dud at the film industry’s glitziest PR extravaganza. [Update: La La Land went 6 out of 14 at the Oscars, winning Best Director and Best Actress but losing Best Picture to Moonlight after an unfortunate initial snafu.] I sincerely hope that won’t come to pass, as I’d rarely felt so alienated from the seeming critical consensus as I did this past year and then came La La Land which almost single-handedly saved Hollywood in 2016 for me. (Before Chazelle’s effort Arrival was the only one out of the mainstream contenders that excited me. I’m underwhelmed by Manchester by the Sea and find it little more than a series of vignettes designed to draw on-the-go emotional responses. And I’ve already laid out why I feel Moonlight despite its strengths is a slick PC marketing vehicle and prefer André Téchiné’s Being Seventeen in dealing with similar if crisscrossing themes.)

The mediocrities that make up most of today’s critical community have described La La Land as a valentine to Hollywood/Los Angeles and/or to cinema. We can promptly dispense with the former attribution, as it is easily debunked by the film’s long-standing popularity in America and beyond ($369 million and counting) and, let’s face it, apart from a few select attractions—including the Griffith Observatory, which happens to be the setting for the movie couple’s most dramatic (and literal) flight of fancy—LA is quite possibly the most impoverished of all major cities in their capacity for meeting (let alone exceeding) the expectations of visitors and newcomers. (Angelenos, you know it is true.) Unless you happen to be completely in the dark, LA and dream destination simply don’t go together.

The latter attribution has more bite, but critics miss the complicated relationship between La La Land and the world of cinema when they see the movie as yet another entry in the long linage of Hollywood’s self-congratulatory love affairs à la The Artist. One who did not is the redoubtable Jonathan Rosenbaum, who correctly noted that Chazelle’s latest feature is less an unbridled celebration of cinema than a cri de coeur against its death and also the death of jazz. Otherwise its “happy ending” would lose nearly all of its poignancy and power, and while its irony may be too in the face for comfort its infectious musical numbers, as they do for the rest of the film, do much to alleviate the harsh realities of its world of largely unfulfilled dreams.

Speaking of which, the ultimate irony of La La Land may reside not only in its wannabe jazzman hero Sebastian (Ryan Gosling)’s life trajectory but also in his music itself, as he grouses throughout the movie about being unable to afford to play “pure jazz” but much of what he does play out of love wouldn’t qualify as such. In other words, his dream is doomed from the start, unlike that of the heroine Mia (Emma Stone) who does achieve something of upper-class domestic bliss in the end. Chazelle has revealed that despite a great deal of agonizing effort in school and unlike the protagonist of his previous feature Whiplash he came to realize he never had it in him to become a great jazz drummer, and it is surely no coincidence that the fate of Sebastian Wilder hits closer to home than that of Terence Fletcher for the auteur.

[Cont.]
 
And yet even the above analysis does not adequately explain what I believe to be the staying power of La La Land, and as usual in such cases it is helpful to turn our attention away from the social to the personal. Critics have observed the influence of Jacques Demy’s exquisite musicals (particularly The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort) on Chazelle’s own, and rightfully so (though Rosenbaum makes his case for John Cassavetes’ Too Late Blues, which I’m afraid I’ve yet to see). But I feel a more useful comparison can be made with another American classic, in this case one as certified and ubiquitous as any: F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. For what makes Sebastian’s relative failure especially poignant is the fact that he’s the one who makes Mia, as Meyer Wolfsheim made Gatsby, but who ends up paying the price in the cutthroat world of zero-sum Hollywood, this time much like Gatsby himself.

Now I suspect this resemblance has less to do with Chazelle’s affinity for the novel than with the stubborn grip Fitzgerald’s masterpiece continues to maintain on the American imagination, because on the surface the movie’s hero isn’t even afforded the luxury of being the benevolent caregiver from a safe distance, but particularly because at its core his true love, while unattainable from the start, is something less ideal and elusive than Gatsby’s—which, as Harold Bloom has convincingly argued in one of his greatest insights, is not “Daisy or love itself, but […] a moment out of time that he persuades himself he shared with Daisy.” Or put another way, Gatsby believes in his own fiction more strongly than Sebastian and thus transcends the ironies of his own story while Sebastian largely does not (he fails in his biggest mission, but he does end up opening his own jazz club).

But if Sebastian is no Gatsby—and Chazelle no Fitzgerald—that doesn’t mean the resemblance is only superficial, as both heroes display the kind of generosity which allows them to give themselves away to a dream, even though their destination may ultimately diverge. And whatever their differences both men are too much of an upstart to shed their humble origins completely. Both may pursue the American Dream of their own devising, but they are at the same time too uncouth to realize they also partake of American Transcendentalism which lies not beyond their capacity but beyond their comprehension. It is this dialectic which makes both such tragic figures and which gives the book and I expect the film such staying power.

But for all the charm of Ryan Gosling’s Sebastian the film would not be complete without Emma Stone’s truly delightful portrayal of Mia Dolan. Her character is too self-assured and self-aware to be pegged as a typical ingénue (which explains why she ends up hitting the artistic jackpot and not Sebastian), yet her innocence is heartfelt and real—a difficult combo which Stone has no trouble nailing to perfection. Sure, one can cavil here and there. You could point to her flirting at the wonderfully awkward party where Sebastian is keeping time in a ’80s cover band, which can be described as slightly over the top, or you could note that she’s not yet the finest voice actress (listen for one example to her forced laughs in her duet of “City of Stars“). But these issues melt away once you understand that Mia is a natural extension of Stone’s own effervescent personality and that her vocal hiccups if anything lend more credence to the unrefined worldliness of her character. And yes, that yellow dress glimmering against the violet night sky is a sensual feast for the ages, one that will likely prove as iconic as Audrey Hepburn’s LBD (you know which one).

It is telling that the film’s rousing songs (mostly by Justin Hurwitz who absolutely deserves his Oscars) reference such period pieces as Technicolor and such localities as Santa Fe but never Los Angeles itself, which instead is referred wistfully to as a nebulous “city of stars.” Chazelle wisely and rightfully leaves the eponymous setting of his dreamland ambiguous so that it can stand for any place of our own dreams and imagination, and while fantasy may be all it has to offer, harping on this supposed weakness is to miss the point—namely that the only thing that can make life bearable for those of us with countless setbacks and unfulfilled ambitions is our capacity to entertain and sustain that very fantasy itself. And while nothing in the film may match the sublime blink-and-you-miss-it twist of The Young Girls of Rochefort when Delphine’s romance with Maxence fails to materialize, one can counter that The Gatsby Gatsby has outlived its presumably subtler brethren for a reason. As cinema traverses its second millennium I suspect time will prove similarly kind to La La Land. If that happens to be wishful thinking, what else do you expect from the fools who dream?
 
NonP said:
And yet even the above analysis does not adequately explain what I believe to be the staying power of La La Land, and as usual in such cases it is helpful to turn our attention away from the social to the personal. Critics have observed the influence of Jacques Demy’s exquisite musicals (particularly The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort) on Chazelle’s own, and rightfully so (though Rosenbaum makes his case for John Cassavetes’ Too Late Blues, which I’m afraid I’ve yet to see). But I feel a more useful comparison can be made with another American classic, in this case one as certified and ubiquitous as any: F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. For what makes Sebastian’s relative failure especially poignant is the fact that he’s the one who makes Mia, as Meyer Wolfsheim made Gatsby, but who ends up paying the price in the cutthroat world of zero-sum Hollywood, this time much like Gatsby himself.

Now I suspect this resemblance has less to do with Chazelle’s affinity for the novel than with the stubborn grip Fitzgerald’s masterpiece continues to maintain on the American imagination, because on the surface the movie’s hero isn’t even afforded the luxury of being the benevolent caregiver from a safe distance, but particularly because at its core his true love, while unattainable from the start, is something less ideal and elusive than Gatsby’s—which, as Harold Bloom has convincingly argued in one of his greatest insights, is not “Daisy or love itself, but […] a moment out of time that he persuades himself he shared with Daisy.” Or put another way, Gatsby believes in his own fiction more strongly than Sebastian and thus transcends the ironies of his own story while Sebastian largely does not (he fails in his biggest mission, but he does end up opening his own jazz club).

But if Sebastian is no Gatsby—and Chazelle no Fitzgerald—that doesn’t mean the resemblance is only superficial, as both heroes display the kind of generosity which allows them to give themselves away to a dream, even though their destination may ultimately diverge. And whatever their differences both men are too much of an upstart to shed their humble origins completely. Both may pursue the American Dream of their own devising, but they are at the same time too uncouth to realize they also partake of American Transcendentalism which lies not beyond their capacity but beyond their comprehension. It is this dialectic which makes both such tragic figures and which gives the book and I expect the film such staying power.

But for all the charm of Ryan Gosling’s Sebastian the film would not be complete without Emma Stone’s truly delightful portrayal of Mia Dolan. Her character is too self-assured and self-aware to be pegged as a typical ingénue (which explains why she ends up hitting the artistic jackpot and not Sebastian), yet her innocence is heartfelt and real—a difficult combo which Stone has no trouble nailing to perfection. Sure, one can cavil here and there. You could point to her flirting at the wonderfully awkward party where Sebastian is keeping time in a ’80s cover band, which can be described as slightly over the top, or you could note that she’s not yet the finest voice actress (listen for one example to her forced laughs in her duet of “City of Stars“). But these issues melt away once you understand that Mia is a natural extension of Stone’s own effervescent personality and that her vocal hiccups if anything lend more credence to the unrefined worldliness of her character. And yes, that yellow dress glimmering against the violet night sky is a sensual feast for the ages, one that will likely prove as iconic as Audrey Hepburn’s LBD (you know which one).

It is telling that the film’s rousing songs (mostly by Justin Hurwitz who absolutely deserves his Oscars) reference such period pieces as Technicolor and such localities as Santa Fe but never Los Angeles itself, which instead is referred wistfully to as a nebulous “city of stars.” Chazelle wisely and rightfully leaves the eponymous setting of his dreamland ambiguous so that it can stand for any place of our own dreams and imagination, and while fantasy may be all it has to offer, harping on this supposed weakness is to miss the point—namely that the only thing that can make life bearable for those of us with countless setbacks and unfulfilled ambitions is our capacity to entertain and sustain that very fantasy itself. And while nothing in the film may match the sublime blink-and-you-miss-it twist of The Young Girls of Rochefort when Delphine’s romance with Maxence fails to materialize, one can counter that The Gatsby Gatsby has outlived its presumably subtler brethren for a reason. As cinema traverses its second millennium I suspect time will prove similarly kind to La La Land. If that happens to be wishful thinking, what else do you expect from the fools who dream?
Click to expand...
Great analysis. I found the film tragic because it's thesis seems to be that the ultimate love of the dreamer is the dream, and two dreamers with mutually exclusive dreams can never be together. And because the dreams are innate to the dreamer, in essence, they could never have been together - in any timeline - unless one gave up on his/her dream and thus on him/herself. All the more sad because I think there's a spark of truth in it.

Dang it Chazelle, why did you have to make me fall in love with Miabastian then rip it apart at the end? :/
 
Feña14 said:
Yeah, Hell or High Water and Hacksaw Ridge were both much better imo. Didn't really fit the the classic Hollywood musical vibe or tick the diversity box though.

I even liked Arrival, although most don't seem to agree. Those kind of films that make you think and question the universe appeal to me (Inception, Interstellar etc..).
Click to expand...
so now there's a 'diversity box' to fit???
 
So La La Land defenders are now using box office receipts as proof the film is some great, poignant, work of art instead of being a lite, 'fun', puff of a musical.

Ok then...

usually the inverse is the argument, but whatever floats you all's boat.
 
Haven't watched a single new film since 2015 so no idea what's been going on - what do people think of this "Moonlight" film then? Was it a deserved winner?
 
It's great to see people are still passionate about movies and there are some good insights, but I think we are making mountains out of mole hills as hollywood is as predictable as it comes.
There are no deep thoughts required in predicting who and what would win this year given the political climate in the past 8 years especially what went on last year at the Oscar. Deep down we all knew that Moonlight and Fences were going to win and win big because there is a statement to be made. The debate of whether these two movies deserved the awards is irrelevant. And that is really sad.
Come on people, how can you lose with a storyline like the movie that just won the best picture?
 
It was a setup by La La Land so that they get a chance to go up on the stage and make their winning speeches :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

onehandbh
La Jolla Dec, 15 - 16
Replies
4
Views
437
onehandbh
onehandbh
NonP
The Greatest Living Filmmakers
2 3
Replies
104
Views
7K
Moose Malloy
M
S
Rod Laver Cup in La Jolla
Replies
2
Views
355
JoelDali
JoelDali
F
hard courts games are boring-be honest
Replies
5
Views
729
War Safin!
War Safin!
F
  • Poll Poll
Be honest...would you rather be Lord Fedr or the DOVAHKIIN?
Replies
5
Views
661
Poisoned Slice
Poisoned Slice
Back
Top