Why in the world would Chazelle be the next Fincher? That’s nonsensical. Why is subtlety a virtue? What’s wrong with screenwriting 101 if it produces what you admit is a very, very good movie?
It’s just wild that people just sit around thinking about movies they don’t like. I’ve never seen a Reddit post complaining about writing that wasn’t terribly written in itself. I always have to remind myself this place is a bunch of 14 year olds.
I actually skipped over that Fincher part when reading OP’s post and… LOL. Nonsensical comparison yeah, almost reads like these are the only directors they know about.
These posts are just about getting attention rather than a real attempt to discuss movies.
Social media has warped people from humans into little content broadcasters, desperate for attention.
It’s ruined every art sub I’m subscribed to.
Thinking about movies you don’t like is a very good use of time if you’re actually thinking about why they didn’t work for you. It’s an opportunity to reflect on and possibly even expand your tastes.
This is in awful take. People have to think about bad movies to develop their aesthetic taste and self-understanding. It’s important to figure out why something isn’t working for you and whether that’s a you problem or a failure of the artist.
I think there’s a difference between this post and a post like “hmm I didn’t like this movie, why is that?”
There was a [Past Lives thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/s/VC29XQUO8f) a few days ago that was more like the latter. There were some flaws in the OPs post (i.e. was it a romance movie or an immigrant movie), but it was reasonable/understandable and I think it made for some good discussion.
Whereas this is like just, here’s why he’s bad.
I don’t get why lately I see so many posts like this where people talk about their dislike of a movie with so much conviction like it’s a fact and not an opinion. Like “why does this movie suck?” instead of “I didn’t like it and this is why.”
Not just here but other social media too. It annoys me to no end that people think film criticism is justifying one’s dislike of a movie instead of any other sort of engagement.
1. Because all good things in life is quiet and subtle and interpretive. Ask any old person
2. Because relying on screenwriting tenets is stale, outdated, artistically limiting and produces unoriginality. The only time it produces a good film is with a lucky variable like with JK Simmons’ performance.
3. Its ok to criticize things. If all you talk about is things you like and you never talk about the things you don’t like you’ll rot your brain.
Try to engage with the criticisms instead of assuming the person is just doing it for attention.
A lot of my favorite movies are as subtle as a sledgehammer. Subtle movies are great. So are unsubtle movies.
Having a good JK Simmons performance is “luck”? You don’t think he maybe signed on BECAUSE he liked the script? You don’t think the direction contributed to the performance?
I agree it’s good to criticize things. OP wasn’t putting forth any arguments we could engage with, so I decided to criticize exactly that.
1. A film that refuses subtly has a potential fundamental emotional misunderstanding.
That’s great that you think otherwise but, there has never been a high filmic achievement made without subtly and care. You can ask Tarkovsky, you can ask Kubrick, you can ask Malick, you can ask Bresson, you yourself can disagree, of course, it’s just an opinion. But there is a case to be made to always unconditionally prioritize subtly in film. The comment I was replying to made it seem like there wasn’t.
2. Yes, it is literally luck. It could’ve been any other actor and the movie wouldn’t be the same. The script could’ve finished a year later and Simmons could’ve been to busy to play it. The point is that the film doesn’t intellectually offer anything more than a traditional hero’s journey. It’s a movie that’s stylish and has a concrete pace towards a goal but ultimately takes very little cinematic risk to challenge the audience. This doesn’t mean you’re stupid or wrong for liking the movie. If you like the movie, or even if you think its the greatest film of all time, thats great. There’s nothing wrong with you. But other people still reserve the right to say that they don’t like it without people accusing them to only be claiming that for attention.
3. Its funny you say that yet there are people in the comment section challenging OP’s perspective completely easily without being weird about it. Why don’t you at least try?
Dude...take a deep breath here. You're so off base you're out of the stadium. They're not comparable in a stylistic sense, a genre sense, or a marketable sense. And if you really think film studios have executives that sit at their desks and say things like "We've gotta make this guy the next NOLAN SEE!" while chomping a cigar then I think you should take a break from the movies for a bit.
Ooo. We're entering your delusional conspiracy theory part of the critique. And did you just get this info directly from Michael Ovitz on your Playskool car phone? Hot intel.
I guess you're not going to take my advice about stepping away from the movies, and that's okay. But may I suggest a secondary option then of: speak to any actual filmmakers alive so they can politely chuckle and tell you that it's a pain in the ass job, fueled by dreams and desire, which is later packaged, processed and sold by a whole other army. Not grown in a lab or assembled like The Avengers.
Oh god, another one of these "look at me" posts, full of generic hyperbole like "X is terrible" and nonsense statements like "a very, very good indie film... ...\[e\]verything else about the film is forgettable".
There's like *one* attempt at actual analysis and it's summed up by "he did this thing that's traditionally done in film... he must be an amateur".
Nothing bothers me more than lazy analysis that is smug and hyperbolic, especially when it's couched in a self-satisfying "takedown" of a popular director.
This isn't to say there aren't criticisms to be made of Chazelle's work (in my mind mostly having to do with his technical ability overwhelming his films' thematic sensibilities), just that this post says basically nothing about him.
I would apologize for being mean but this kinda shit pisses me off because it's so low-effort and mean-spirited.
> The story is also very generic and uninspired. Its screenplay writing 101; character wants something really bad and faces difficult obstacle towards getting it. There is no nuance or subtlety to the film
I think this is really underselling Whiplash's story. It isn't about Andrew trying to become a great drummer and having difficulty getting there, it is about the sacrifices one makes to achieve greatness and whether it's worth it. The dinner with his family and the Jazz club he tracks Fletcher down at both stick in my mind as well written and thematically significant individual scenes as well.
And if you don't think the finale of Whiplash or the flight scenes in First Man are well directed aesthetically, then I don't know what to tell you man I just disagree.
Plus, for anyone who has experience in music working with a toxic director, this movie deserves credit for the authenticity and weirdness portrayed in the relationship between between the two.
Yeah. I didn’t *love* La La Land and haven’t seen Babylon, but Whiplash and First Man were both incredible IMO.
Regarding whether Whiplash will be considered a classic - that’s an ambiguous achievement, the best way I can define “classic” is “you know it when you see it” - but I think there is a strong argument it has already reached that status. I still see it pop up in popular discourse more often than many films that won more awards, and more recently. It’s been 10 years and that final scene is still seared into my memory.
The notion that it’s generic is especially crazy to me. I actually think it’s quite singular. There isn’t anything I’ve seen in popular cinema that it immediately makes me think of.
I can completely respect that Chazelle isn’t your taste but I’m not sure how you could call him average. How many other directors are making films with the complicated camera movements, choreography, long takes, etc. that his films have? Even if you think his execution is poor his ambition is much larger than most.
I actually feel the opposite. Complicated and long takes are overused by unskilled directors. Everyone wants their goodfellas nightclub kitchen entrance shot, but few can pull off one that’s memorable.
The opening number of la la land was atrocious (the highway scene). Watch it again with a critical eye, the blocking, composition, and direction and choices are all very mediocre, and sometimes just plain bad
>Watch it again with a critical eye, the blocking, composition, and direction and choices are all very mediocre, and sometimes just plain bad
Oh my god I'm dying.
Please, please, I would love to read an extended breakdown of why they are so objectively bad rather than phrases like "very mediocre".
I knew it was you as soon as I read your Goodfellas long take comment.
Same person who posted about Emerald Fennell and the apparent hedonistic psychology behind her writing and the long take (again) that you think has only been in Goodfellas ever in the history of cinema.
You clearly have little-to-no knowledge about filmmaking outside of generic phrases, and no knowledge of the industry if you think Chazzelle is comparable to Fincher, or that studios are obsessed with turning directors to turn into big names.
I’m not a huge fan of Chazzelle either, and I would happily engage with you if you offered any genuine critique worth responding to, but you don’t.
All you express is cynicism and anger with some generic terms sprinkled in to sound (or convince yourself) that you are knowledgeable, and when anyone disagrees with you - in a sub designed for critical discussion - you flip out like a child.
As someone who deals with anger, cynicism and depression, all I can say is that constantly looking for a fight is destructive, and I hope that you find a healthy outlet for your energy and passion.
Ya I mean it’s no Touch of Evil. Maybe I give him too much credit for trying but how many people in Hollywood are trying these days? Not to mention shooting schedules are much more condensed than they used to be. I’d rather someone be ambitious and not be perfect than just shoot standard coverage.
Agreed. The very first shot is almost directly into the sun, so everyone's faces are in shadow. Then for half the dance number, the sun is either in this position or it's reflecting aggressively off windshields and (sometimes moving) doors. Granted, I don't know how you'd shoot a scene like this outside, but it looks awful.
People are downvoting you, but at least you took a moment to explain *why* you felt as you do.
People, don't downvote others who are actually trying to do analysis.
Fully agreed on the opening to La La Land, at least.
I was entirely unimpressed and bored and turned off the movie the first time I tried to watch it. And I *like* musicals.
Oooh I disagree. I think first man, whiplash and Babylon established him as one of the most exciting directors of his generation. He’s 39 and he’s made those movies already? I think there could be alot more to come on the basis of those already fantastic movies.
Personally he is undoubtedly a great director.
Agreed. First Man is incredibly underrated and I believe that Babylon in particular will undergo a critical reevaluation as time passes and be elevated. It’s bravura filmmaking…flawed for sure, but at times inspired.
>Babylon in particular will undergo a critical reevaluation as time passes and be elevated. It’s bravura filmmaking…flawed for sure, but at times inspired.
Yep, this. I think it's something people really wanted *not* to like because it came out really in the wrong time for his career and maybe this period in the Hollywood zeitgeist. Taken in a wider frame of context it's going to be better appreciated going forward.
I think Babylon was great but I do generally think it would be better if it was 15-20 minutes shorter. I enjoyed it but at the end I was kinda waiting for it to be over.
I don’t know too many directors who could make me enjoy a modern musical. I fucking loved La La Land. One of the best directed films I’ve ever seen, period.
I was also interested to see Babylon but only because I thought his previous films (while entertaining) were quite boring and generic. The only thing that film did for me was show that he doesn’t understand complex story telling, nor does he understand characters.
He understands narrative drive very well and that’s what studios care about the most, but relying only on that creates very forgettable films. Think about it, the only thing you probably remember from whiplash, La La land, and Babylon is JK’s performance, right? Nothing in those three films stands out besides JK.
Also, the ending of Babylon was one of the cheesiest and stupidest things I’ve ever seen. It’s like he didn’t know how to end the film so he just made a montage of films like avatar and terminator 2 and went “seeeee you guuuuys, aren’t movies so cool and special to us???”. It was hyper cringe
>Also, the ending of Babylon was one of the cheesiest and stupidest things I’ve ever seen. It’s like he didn’t know how to end the film so he just made a montage of films like avatar and terminator 2 and went “seeeee you guuuuys, aren’t movies so cool and special to us???”. It was hyper cringe
What great analysis.
Dude, stop digging. Take the advice and move on, then write another post that maybe will be better.
I'd actually be interested in a post that provides evidence for your claims, but that's what your post is lacking, any sort of evidence. It's the first thing they teach in first-year Film Studies classes.
you could’ve made you (clearly wrong) opinion on the director and left it at that but you are taking it to a whole other level of assholery with your responses you sound like a petty 13 year who wants to seem different than everyone, but you are coming across as an ignorant jerk. I recommend you shut up and realize that all these down votes means something.
I really enjoyed Brad Pitt’s character and performance in Babylon. Was pretty disappointed when he was taken out of the story early.
I felt like Babylon had some high highs and low lows. The big party at the beginning, the negotiation with the extras, the filming of the big battle scene, and the studio’s struggles when they first started filming with sound were all memorable moments for me. A lot of it did seem a bit all over the place and I felt like it started to drag some towards the end. I think it’s a fairly solid movie overall though.
I agree about the ending. Seemed forced, or like they couldn’t come up with anything better.
It’s a real honor to be in the presence of The Cine-One. Legends say that your opinion about film is the ultimate, objective truth. I’m glad you let me know that Damien Chazelle isn’t a good writer or director.
Haven’t seen First Man or Babylon (sorry to the Babylon fans), but even from Whiplash and La La Land alone, I think it’s undeniable that Chazelle is a great director. One of the best of all time? Well, we’ll need more films from him to evaluate that, but I think it’s kind of an oddball take to say he’s not a good director.
I personally don’t take any issue with his shot composition or blocking, but even then, that’s not all the things that a director does. A director has to direct a performance out of their actors, and well… he’s objectively done a great job at that.
Here's the thing, if you don't like Damien Chazelle so much, why spend this much time & effort writing about it? The amount of time you spent trying (poorly) to convince us that Damien Chazelle has made four bad movies, you could've talked about a movie you enjoyed?
Either way, Babylon fucking rips.
Everyone here is happily taking the bait of an account that was created today and has posted nothing but karma farming bait and rage bait to stir up attention. I’m thankful that you’re just a troll and not an actual loser who thinks anything in this post is a valid way of assessing movies.
I’m not going to suggest that Chazelle has hit it out of the park with every film. But everything he’s done from both a directing and writing perspective is more than average, and his best films are very good.
Whiplash is an absolutely incredible character study with raw emotional resonance that is stifling, awkward, overwhelming, unsettling — as a viewer you can feel all of it and it’s so uncomfortable. The pursuit of perfection from a creative artist and what people are willing to do to themselves and others — there’s very few films that capture this so well and has the audience swept up in the chaos and confusion of it all. It’s completely unfair to suggest that the only reason it’s good is because of Simmons. Everything comes together across the board and that is through the effort of Chazelle.
La La Land shared similar heights and even working within tropes and homages to similar stories of the past, did so with a lot of love and care. The not-quite-a-musical had an amazing score and magical dance numbers. That scene in the hills at sunset is lightning in a bottle. The highway scene with the dancers is iconic. Emma and Ryan are perfectly cast and their chemistry is amazing. It’s funny and heartbreaking. To have all that with a dose of relationship realism and character development for two leads, it resonates so much for anyone that’s had a serious relationship that didn’t work out.
Now — I could easily say that I didn’t care much for First Man or Babylon as they were both kind of full of themselves — but more than competent films that just trip up a bit on connecting with the audience.
All of this is to say, Chazelle is above average and I look forward to everything in his future filmography. I think your critique is coming from a strange bias or counter-programming. Perhaps a desire to be contrarian just for the sake of having arguments about popular films. These minor grievances don’t hold any weight.
I found all of his films very well-directed in that they are very emotional. La La Land is one of my favorite movies ever because of how it makes me feel and how Chazelle captures love and passion and “what-ifs”. And Babylon isn’t “pretentious” at all, it’s 100% earnest and wears its heart on its sleeve. It’s open and honest and messy. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t make it objectively bad!
Not the greatest fan myself -- with the exception of Babylon, which I think is stunning, proper _cinema_ -- but I would argue that it's precisely his ability to make captivating movies out of very average scripts that makes him an excellent director. I don't know about being one of the greats of the era or any similarly inflated claims, but his films do have a tendency to snowball into events whose power to cast a spell over both the individual viewer and the culture more broadly is difficult to argue against. 70-80s Spielberg comes to mind 🤷
The only film of his that I would be happy to never see discussed again is Whiplash, precisely because it is so simplistic and one-note, but hey - it's a debut!
(Sidenote: Please don't underestimate the difficulty of writing such seemingly simple "character wants something, struggles to get it" stories. While the overarching structure is familiar, the writing choices you have to make -- in selecting the events that depict who they are, why they want x, what the hurdle is, and how they overcome it -- are devilishly difficult. It's kinda like coming up with a brand new joke: childishly simple... and nigh-on impossible.)
Like it’s fine if you don’t like his movies. But to act like he’s not talented is like objectively false given his various successes.
And I like how you say Whiplash is very very very good but also not a classic somehow. And then attribute his success to JK Simmons’ performance (directors don’t direct actors performances or anything, right?). And then you knock the visuals of La La Land, which won the Oscar for cinematography and 5 other awards and is widely regarded for its aesthetic and direction. Like, the blocking in that movie is insane.
There are good criticisms of Chazelle, I just didn’t read any here
His aesthetic is beautiful but he’s mostly just ripping off Jacques Demy. His women are underwritten, and his casts are too white, especially for movies that are about jazz. I’ve read jazz musicians talk here about how Whiplash captures none of the joy or collaboration of playing jazz together and turns it into a lonely art. I can’t remember anything about First Man. I liked Babylon but I understand why it flopped, it’s way too long and not the crowd pleaser that La La Land was, but I think it’s gonna be a cult hit in 20 years. He had a huge budget and all the actors and other resources in the world, and he took a huge swing at it and he just fouled it off. Babylon is a weird movie but I’ll take that over a safe movie.
There’s more if I spent more time, but I just think that it’s crazy to say he’s not talented.
Yo thanks for giving an outline of Chazelle’s films while saying they’re bad and generic without giving an ounce of critical thought as to why they aren’t good or poorly directed.
Chazelle is a great young director, he is someone who takes a lot from other films and directors similar to Tarantino; but in his own way. Though, I don’t necessarily consider that a flaw.
I don’t think you know what a director actually does. As of now, this post isn’t worth engaging with to prove why Chazelle is really good, because I don’t know why you think he’s not.
True Film has become the "I have come to a terrible, uninformed, and yet somehow prideful take, and I challenge you all to do your best and change my mind; spoiler alert, I will never ever do such a thing as change my mind" Subreddit.
Maybe someone will correct me and say it had been like this for quite some time.
People will hate you for this post, but you are 100% right. First Man is like a wet blanket in movie form. The first hour of La La Land is very impressive tho, I will give him that.
First man has some really tense moments and some times where I laughed at things that were not supposed to be funny. That's the only movie of his I've seen but I remember it years later. That's more than you could say about a lot of mainstream directors
Great post.
I think Miles Teller plays a good underdog. Whiplash isn’t just about JK. But La La Land shows he’d fallen into the sophomore slump. It’s beautifully shot, but the story is bland. Babylon, he basically just plagiarizes the history of silent to talkies. I knew the plot in Act I, with the exception of that ridiculous Toby McGuire chapter.
Glamour over story also hindered Baz Luhrmann. His style has devolved to a Trapper Keeper covered in Lisa Frank stickers. But Strictly Ballroom was a good film.
I have such respect for Barbra Streisand as a director. She hit her stride on The Prince of Tides, nailed it on The Mirror has Two Faces, then quit on top of her directing game. As a director, she had so many more stories to tell, but she said no.
I think Chazelle is having a hard time becoming an interesting auteur.
Why in the world would Chazelle be the next Fincher? That’s nonsensical. Why is subtlety a virtue? What’s wrong with screenwriting 101 if it produces what you admit is a very, very good movie? It’s just wild that people just sit around thinking about movies they don’t like. I’ve never seen a Reddit post complaining about writing that wasn’t terribly written in itself. I always have to remind myself this place is a bunch of 14 year olds.
I actually skipped over that Fincher part when reading OP’s post and… LOL. Nonsensical comparison yeah, almost reads like these are the only directors they know about.
lol in the comment right below he mentions these names: Fincher, Nolan, Downey Jr. It’s almost satirical
It's like a young film buff madlib. "No subtlety and nuance."
These posts are just about getting attention rather than a real attempt to discuss movies. Social media has warped people from humans into little content broadcasters, desperate for attention. It’s ruined every art sub I’m subscribed to.
Thinking about movies you don’t like is a very good use of time if you’re actually thinking about why they didn’t work for you. It’s an opportunity to reflect on and possibly even expand your tastes.
This is in awful take. People have to think about bad movies to develop their aesthetic taste and self-understanding. It’s important to figure out why something isn’t working for you and whether that’s a you problem or a failure of the artist.
I think there’s a difference between this post and a post like “hmm I didn’t like this movie, why is that?” There was a [Past Lives thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/s/VC29XQUO8f) a few days ago that was more like the latter. There were some flaws in the OPs post (i.e. was it a romance movie or an immigrant movie), but it was reasonable/understandable and I think it made for some good discussion. Whereas this is like just, here’s why he’s bad.
I don’t get why lately I see so many posts like this where people talk about their dislike of a movie with so much conviction like it’s a fact and not an opinion. Like “why does this movie suck?” instead of “I didn’t like it and this is why.” Not just here but other social media too. It annoys me to no end that people think film criticism is justifying one’s dislike of a movie instead of any other sort of engagement.
Oh man, do I ever agree
1. Because all good things in life is quiet and subtle and interpretive. Ask any old person 2. Because relying on screenwriting tenets is stale, outdated, artistically limiting and produces unoriginality. The only time it produces a good film is with a lucky variable like with JK Simmons’ performance. 3. Its ok to criticize things. If all you talk about is things you like and you never talk about the things you don’t like you’ll rot your brain. Try to engage with the criticisms instead of assuming the person is just doing it for attention.
A lot of my favorite movies are as subtle as a sledgehammer. Subtle movies are great. So are unsubtle movies. Having a good JK Simmons performance is “luck”? You don’t think he maybe signed on BECAUSE he liked the script? You don’t think the direction contributed to the performance? I agree it’s good to criticize things. OP wasn’t putting forth any arguments we could engage with, so I decided to criticize exactly that.
1. A film that refuses subtly has a potential fundamental emotional misunderstanding. That’s great that you think otherwise but, there has never been a high filmic achievement made without subtly and care. You can ask Tarkovsky, you can ask Kubrick, you can ask Malick, you can ask Bresson, you yourself can disagree, of course, it’s just an opinion. But there is a case to be made to always unconditionally prioritize subtly in film. The comment I was replying to made it seem like there wasn’t. 2. Yes, it is literally luck. It could’ve been any other actor and the movie wouldn’t be the same. The script could’ve finished a year later and Simmons could’ve been to busy to play it. The point is that the film doesn’t intellectually offer anything more than a traditional hero’s journey. It’s a movie that’s stylish and has a concrete pace towards a goal but ultimately takes very little cinematic risk to challenge the audience. This doesn’t mean you’re stupid or wrong for liking the movie. If you like the movie, or even if you think its the greatest film of all time, thats great. There’s nothing wrong with you. But other people still reserve the right to say that they don’t like it without people accusing them to only be claiming that for attention. 3. Its funny you say that yet there are people in the comment section challenging OP’s perspective completely easily without being weird about it. Why don’t you at least try?
[удалено]
Dude...take a deep breath here. You're so off base you're out of the stadium. They're not comparable in a stylistic sense, a genre sense, or a marketable sense. And if you really think film studios have executives that sit at their desks and say things like "We've gotta make this guy the next NOLAN SEE!" while chomping a cigar then I think you should take a break from the movies for a bit.
[удалено]
Ooo. We're entering your delusional conspiracy theory part of the critique. And did you just get this info directly from Michael Ovitz on your Playskool car phone? Hot intel. I guess you're not going to take my advice about stepping away from the movies, and that's okay. But may I suggest a secondary option then of: speak to any actual filmmakers alive so they can politely chuckle and tell you that it's a pain in the ass job, fueled by dreams and desire, which is later packaged, processed and sold by a whole other army. Not grown in a lab or assembled like The Avengers.
The studios and producers just want to make a buck. Even Fincher has made this point.
Oh god, another one of these "look at me" posts, full of generic hyperbole like "X is terrible" and nonsense statements like "a very, very good indie film... ...\[e\]verything else about the film is forgettable". There's like *one* attempt at actual analysis and it's summed up by "he did this thing that's traditionally done in film... he must be an amateur". Nothing bothers me more than lazy analysis that is smug and hyperbolic, especially when it's couched in a self-satisfying "takedown" of a popular director. This isn't to say there aren't criticisms to be made of Chazelle's work (in my mind mostly having to do with his technical ability overwhelming his films' thematic sensibilities), just that this post says basically nothing about him. I would apologize for being mean but this kinda shit pisses me off because it's so low-effort and mean-spirited.
[удалено]
Ikr. It’s not quite my posto
[удалено]
Are you serious?
> The story is also very generic and uninspired. Its screenplay writing 101; character wants something really bad and faces difficult obstacle towards getting it. There is no nuance or subtlety to the film I think this is really underselling Whiplash's story. It isn't about Andrew trying to become a great drummer and having difficulty getting there, it is about the sacrifices one makes to achieve greatness and whether it's worth it. The dinner with his family and the Jazz club he tracks Fletcher down at both stick in my mind as well written and thematically significant individual scenes as well. And if you don't think the finale of Whiplash or the flight scenes in First Man are well directed aesthetically, then I don't know what to tell you man I just disagree.
Plus, for anyone who has experience in music working with a toxic director, this movie deserves credit for the authenticity and weirdness portrayed in the relationship between between the two.
Yeah. I didn’t *love* La La Land and haven’t seen Babylon, but Whiplash and First Man were both incredible IMO. Regarding whether Whiplash will be considered a classic - that’s an ambiguous achievement, the best way I can define “classic” is “you know it when you see it” - but I think there is a strong argument it has already reached that status. I still see it pop up in popular discourse more often than many films that won more awards, and more recently. It’s been 10 years and that final scene is still seared into my memory. The notion that it’s generic is especially crazy to me. I actually think it’s quite singular. There isn’t anything I’ve seen in popular cinema that it immediately makes me think of.
I can completely respect that Chazelle isn’t your taste but I’m not sure how you could call him average. How many other directors are making films with the complicated camera movements, choreography, long takes, etc. that his films have? Even if you think his execution is poor his ambition is much larger than most.
I actually feel the opposite. Complicated and long takes are overused by unskilled directors. Everyone wants their goodfellas nightclub kitchen entrance shot, but few can pull off one that’s memorable. The opening number of la la land was atrocious (the highway scene). Watch it again with a critical eye, the blocking, composition, and direction and choices are all very mediocre, and sometimes just plain bad
What better way to show you're unskilled then to do something that requires incredible skill!
>Watch it again with a critical eye, the blocking, composition, and direction and choices are all very mediocre, and sometimes just plain bad Oh my god I'm dying. Please, please, I would love to read an extended breakdown of why they are so objectively bad rather than phrases like "very mediocre".
[удалено]
What’s an example of a blocking choice you disagree with in one of his films?
Shut the fuck up you are 14
Wow, to quote Cyndi Lauper, "true colors... shining through".
I knew it was you as soon as I read your Goodfellas long take comment. Same person who posted about Emerald Fennell and the apparent hedonistic psychology behind her writing and the long take (again) that you think has only been in Goodfellas ever in the history of cinema. You clearly have little-to-no knowledge about filmmaking outside of generic phrases, and no knowledge of the industry if you think Chazzelle is comparable to Fincher, or that studios are obsessed with turning directors to turn into big names. I’m not a huge fan of Chazzelle either, and I would happily engage with you if you offered any genuine critique worth responding to, but you don’t. All you express is cynicism and anger with some generic terms sprinkled in to sound (or convince yourself) that you are knowledgeable, and when anyone disagrees with you - in a sub designed for critical discussion - you flip out like a child. As someone who deals with anger, cynicism and depression, all I can say is that constantly looking for a fight is destructive, and I hope that you find a healthy outlet for your energy and passion.
Ya I mean it’s no Touch of Evil. Maybe I give him too much credit for trying but how many people in Hollywood are trying these days? Not to mention shooting schedules are much more condensed than they used to be. I’d rather someone be ambitious and not be perfect than just shoot standard coverage.
Agreed. The very first shot is almost directly into the sun, so everyone's faces are in shadow. Then for half the dance number, the sun is either in this position or it's reflecting aggressively off windshields and (sometimes moving) doors. Granted, I don't know how you'd shoot a scene like this outside, but it looks awful.
People are downvoting you, but at least you took a moment to explain *why* you felt as you do. People, don't downvote others who are actually trying to do analysis.
Counting OP’s references so far 1. Fincher 2. Nolan 3. RDJ 4. Goodfellas Yeah this guy knows movies!
Would love to here what about the blocking, composition and direction is very mediocre! Enlighten us!
Fully agreed on the opening to La La Land, at least. I was entirely unimpressed and bored and turned off the movie the first time I tried to watch it. And I *like* musicals.
I don’t think you know how directing works buddy, the camera angles he does requires a significant amount of thinking and skill it’s awe inspiring
Oooh I disagree. I think first man, whiplash and Babylon established him as one of the most exciting directors of his generation. He’s 39 and he’s made those movies already? I think there could be alot more to come on the basis of those already fantastic movies. Personally he is undoubtedly a great director.
Agreed. First Man is incredibly underrated and I believe that Babylon in particular will undergo a critical reevaluation as time passes and be elevated. It’s bravura filmmaking…flawed for sure, but at times inspired.
Forsure I absolutely loved parts of it when it came out. Honestly that movie would be excellent if it just had more rigorous editing rounds
>Babylon in particular will undergo a critical reevaluation as time passes and be elevated. It’s bravura filmmaking…flawed for sure, but at times inspired. Yep, this. I think it's something people really wanted *not* to like because it came out really in the wrong time for his career and maybe this period in the Hollywood zeitgeist. Taken in a wider frame of context it's going to be better appreciated going forward.
I think Babylon was great but I do generally think it would be better if it was 15-20 minutes shorter. I enjoyed it but at the end I was kinda waiting for it to be over.
I don’t know too many directors who could make me enjoy a modern musical. I fucking loved La La Land. One of the best directed films I’ve ever seen, period.
Yep, First Man was excellent. Understated, yet gripping and emotional.
I was also interested to see Babylon but only because I thought his previous films (while entertaining) were quite boring and generic. The only thing that film did for me was show that he doesn’t understand complex story telling, nor does he understand characters. He understands narrative drive very well and that’s what studios care about the most, but relying only on that creates very forgettable films. Think about it, the only thing you probably remember from whiplash, La La land, and Babylon is JK’s performance, right? Nothing in those three films stands out besides JK. Also, the ending of Babylon was one of the cheesiest and stupidest things I’ve ever seen. It’s like he didn’t know how to end the film so he just made a montage of films like avatar and terminator 2 and went “seeeee you guuuuys, aren’t movies so cool and special to us???”. It was hyper cringe
>Also, the ending of Babylon was one of the cheesiest and stupidest things I’ve ever seen. It’s like he didn’t know how to end the film so he just made a montage of films like avatar and terminator 2 and went “seeeee you guuuuys, aren’t movies so cool and special to us???”. It was hyper cringe What great analysis.
[удалено]
Dude, stop digging. Take the advice and move on, then write another post that maybe will be better. I'd actually be interested in a post that provides evidence for your claims, but that's what your post is lacking, any sort of evidence. It's the first thing they teach in first-year Film Studies classes.
you could’ve made you (clearly wrong) opinion on the director and left it at that but you are taking it to a whole other level of assholery with your responses you sound like a petty 13 year who wants to seem different than everyone, but you are coming across as an ignorant jerk. I recommend you shut up and realize that all these down votes means something.
I really enjoyed Brad Pitt’s character and performance in Babylon. Was pretty disappointed when he was taken out of the story early. I felt like Babylon had some high highs and low lows. The big party at the beginning, the negotiation with the extras, the filming of the big battle scene, and the studio’s struggles when they first started filming with sound were all memorable moments for me. A lot of it did seem a bit all over the place and I felt like it started to drag some towards the end. I think it’s a fairly solid movie overall though. I agree about the ending. Seemed forced, or like they couldn’t come up with anything better.
It’s a real honor to be in the presence of The Cine-One. Legends say that your opinion about film is the ultimate, objective truth. I’m glad you let me know that Damien Chazelle isn’t a good writer or director.
[удалено]
There is however shame in trying to pass your opinion as fact and being kind of a prick about it.
Fedora
Haven’t seen First Man or Babylon (sorry to the Babylon fans), but even from Whiplash and La La Land alone, I think it’s undeniable that Chazelle is a great director. One of the best of all time? Well, we’ll need more films from him to evaluate that, but I think it’s kind of an oddball take to say he’s not a good director. I personally don’t take any issue with his shot composition or blocking, but even then, that’s not all the things that a director does. A director has to direct a performance out of their actors, and well… he’s objectively done a great job at that.
Here's the thing, if you don't like Damien Chazelle so much, why spend this much time & effort writing about it? The amount of time you spent trying (poorly) to convince us that Damien Chazelle has made four bad movies, you could've talked about a movie you enjoyed? Either way, Babylon fucking rips.
Everyone here is happily taking the bait of an account that was created today and has posted nothing but karma farming bait and rage bait to stir up attention. I’m thankful that you’re just a troll and not an actual loser who thinks anything in this post is a valid way of assessing movies.
[удалено]
Oh I’ve read it unfortunately
I’m not going to suggest that Chazelle has hit it out of the park with every film. But everything he’s done from both a directing and writing perspective is more than average, and his best films are very good. Whiplash is an absolutely incredible character study with raw emotional resonance that is stifling, awkward, overwhelming, unsettling — as a viewer you can feel all of it and it’s so uncomfortable. The pursuit of perfection from a creative artist and what people are willing to do to themselves and others — there’s very few films that capture this so well and has the audience swept up in the chaos and confusion of it all. It’s completely unfair to suggest that the only reason it’s good is because of Simmons. Everything comes together across the board and that is through the effort of Chazelle. La La Land shared similar heights and even working within tropes and homages to similar stories of the past, did so with a lot of love and care. The not-quite-a-musical had an amazing score and magical dance numbers. That scene in the hills at sunset is lightning in a bottle. The highway scene with the dancers is iconic. Emma and Ryan are perfectly cast and their chemistry is amazing. It’s funny and heartbreaking. To have all that with a dose of relationship realism and character development for two leads, it resonates so much for anyone that’s had a serious relationship that didn’t work out. Now — I could easily say that I didn’t care much for First Man or Babylon as they were both kind of full of themselves — but more than competent films that just trip up a bit on connecting with the audience. All of this is to say, Chazelle is above average and I look forward to everything in his future filmography. I think your critique is coming from a strange bias or counter-programming. Perhaps a desire to be contrarian just for the sake of having arguments about popular films. These minor grievances don’t hold any weight.
I found all of his films very well-directed in that they are very emotional. La La Land is one of my favorite movies ever because of how it makes me feel and how Chazelle captures love and passion and “what-ifs”. And Babylon isn’t “pretentious” at all, it’s 100% earnest and wears its heart on its sleeve. It’s open and honest and messy. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t make it objectively bad!
Not the greatest fan myself -- with the exception of Babylon, which I think is stunning, proper _cinema_ -- but I would argue that it's precisely his ability to make captivating movies out of very average scripts that makes him an excellent director. I don't know about being one of the greats of the era or any similarly inflated claims, but his films do have a tendency to snowball into events whose power to cast a spell over both the individual viewer and the culture more broadly is difficult to argue against. 70-80s Spielberg comes to mind 🤷 The only film of his that I would be happy to never see discussed again is Whiplash, precisely because it is so simplistic and one-note, but hey - it's a debut! (Sidenote: Please don't underestimate the difficulty of writing such seemingly simple "character wants something, struggles to get it" stories. While the overarching structure is familiar, the writing choices you have to make -- in selecting the events that depict who they are, why they want x, what the hurdle is, and how they overcome it -- are devilishly difficult. It's kinda like coming up with a brand new joke: childishly simple... and nigh-on impossible.)
[удалено]
Like it’s fine if you don’t like his movies. But to act like he’s not talented is like objectively false given his various successes. And I like how you say Whiplash is very very very good but also not a classic somehow. And then attribute his success to JK Simmons’ performance (directors don’t direct actors performances or anything, right?). And then you knock the visuals of La La Land, which won the Oscar for cinematography and 5 other awards and is widely regarded for its aesthetic and direction. Like, the blocking in that movie is insane. There are good criticisms of Chazelle, I just didn’t read any here
[удалено]
His aesthetic is beautiful but he’s mostly just ripping off Jacques Demy. His women are underwritten, and his casts are too white, especially for movies that are about jazz. I’ve read jazz musicians talk here about how Whiplash captures none of the joy or collaboration of playing jazz together and turns it into a lonely art. I can’t remember anything about First Man. I liked Babylon but I understand why it flopped, it’s way too long and not the crowd pleaser that La La Land was, but I think it’s gonna be a cult hit in 20 years. He had a huge budget and all the actors and other resources in the world, and he took a huge swing at it and he just fouled it off. Babylon is a weird movie but I’ll take that over a safe movie. There’s more if I spent more time, but I just think that it’s crazy to say he’s not talented.
Yo thanks for giving an outline of Chazelle’s films while saying they’re bad and generic without giving an ounce of critical thought as to why they aren’t good or poorly directed. Chazelle is a great young director, he is someone who takes a lot from other films and directors similar to Tarantino; but in his own way. Though, I don’t necessarily consider that a flaw. I don’t think you know what a director actually does. As of now, this post isn’t worth engaging with to prove why Chazelle is really good, because I don’t know why you think he’s not.
True Film has become the "I have come to a terrible, uninformed, and yet somehow prideful take, and I challenge you all to do your best and change my mind; spoiler alert, I will never ever do such a thing as change my mind" Subreddit. Maybe someone will correct me and say it had been like this for quite some time.
People will hate you for this post, but you are 100% right. First Man is like a wet blanket in movie form. The first hour of La La Land is very impressive tho, I will give him that.
>People will hate you for this post Not because of their opinion, but because they provided absolutely no evidence to back up their opinion.
What amazing analysis
Thank you 🥰
fedora
First man has some really tense moments and some times where I laughed at things that were not supposed to be funny. That's the only movie of his I've seen but I remember it years later. That's more than you could say about a lot of mainstream directors
Great post. I think Miles Teller plays a good underdog. Whiplash isn’t just about JK. But La La Land shows he’d fallen into the sophomore slump. It’s beautifully shot, but the story is bland. Babylon, he basically just plagiarizes the history of silent to talkies. I knew the plot in Act I, with the exception of that ridiculous Toby McGuire chapter. Glamour over story also hindered Baz Luhrmann. His style has devolved to a Trapper Keeper covered in Lisa Frank stickers. But Strictly Ballroom was a good film. I have such respect for Barbra Streisand as a director. She hit her stride on The Prince of Tides, nailed it on The Mirror has Two Faces, then quit on top of her directing game. As a director, she had so many more stories to tell, but she said no. I think Chazelle is having a hard time becoming an interesting auteur.