Trouble in t' La La Land

[Serial_Apologist]

Its more biased than the BBC !!!

As it has every bit as much right to be as the Daily Wail, Daily Depress and Torygraph, of course!

But it depends which way, left or right, you happen to think the Guardian biased, and I've been agonising over contributing to this thread ever since reading the above spats between jayne and Bluesnik. As a Left-leaner my instinct is of course to view The Guardian as politically providing at best an ambivalent counter to what the rest of the media including the BBC offer; at the same time, following 40 years' ascendancy of pre-Keynsian political and economic orthodoxy presentation it's hard to feel ungrateful for anything questioning of the status quo, especially when, for all my belief in my own understandings as to what has gone wrong and led to Trump and the rise of so-called alt-right thinking, particularly among the young, when looking for vision and positive change for a just, more equal and sustainable world. The key question remains that of agency -, of who or which layers in society will initiate such change; in other words the same question to which Marx found the makings of an answer, which with automation leading to the geographical specialisation of production, lower wages, smaller incomes and the rise of the "underclass" at home, remains in suspension.

Until we can work out, practically as much as "in our dreams", an ecologically-based socialist equivalent that will need to build a readily mobilisable political base in societies to either change the global capitalist system in favour of the above-outlined objectives as I've nutshelled them for brevity's sake, or get rid of it by other means I lack the imagination to foresee, but we know violence to be one obstacle among many, then I tend to be grateful for anything that keeps the injustices of the world in our attention, and argues for questioning acceptance of the unacceptable and for alternatives.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

As it has every bit as much right to be as the Daily Wail, Daily Depress and Torygraph, of course!

But it depends which way, left or right, you happen to think the Guardian biased, and I've been agonising over contributing to this thread ever since reading the above spats between jayne and Bluesnik. As a Left-leaner my instinct is of course to view The Guardian as politically providing at best an ambivalent counter to what the rest of the media including the BBC offer; at the same time, following 40 years' ascendancy of pre-Keynsian political and economic orthodoxy presentation it's hard to feel ungrateful for anything questioning of the status quo, especially when, for all my belief in my own understandings as to what has gone wrong and led to Trump and the rise of so-called alt-right thinking, particularly among the young, when looking for vision and positive change for a just, more equal and sustainable world. The key question remains that of agency -, of who or which layers in society will initiate such change; in other words the same question to which Marx found the makings of an answer, which with automation leading to the geographical specialisation of production, lower wages, smaller incomes and the rise of the "underclass" at home, remains in suspension.

Until we can work out, practically as much as "in our dreams", an ecologically-based socialist equivalent that will need to build a readily mobilisable political base in societies to either change the global capitalist system in favour of the above-outlined objectives as I've nutshelled them for brevity's sake, or get rid of it by other means I lack the imagination to foresee, but we know violence to be one obstacle among many, then I tend to be grateful for anything that keeps the injustices of the world in our attention, and argues for questioning acceptance of the unacceptable and for alternatives.

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to CHANGE it." - KM.

It is not and will not be changed by angst or sighing contemplation but by action and engagement. In the context of the Guardian as "agency", the eminent British Economic & Human Geographer, Prof Danny Dorling recently contributed a Guardian article on equality and spatial policy in which he made a brief passing nod of approval to Jeremy Corbyn. THREE times, the Guardian asked him to remove it. You can see him discussing this on You tube with Dawn Foster, a Guardian journalist, who conceded the editorial staff are of another (Oxbridge) world/planet, oblivious to lives commonly led...The Guardian gives you your " morning dose of indignation ", FK all else. Its the Hotel Abyss..
BN.

BTW, my last on this as your thread was originally about an absurd self regarding film. La La Land, the Guardian eh? , Join the dots.

[Serial_Apologist]

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to CHANGE it." - KM.

It is not and will not be changed by angst or sighing contemplation but by action and engagement. In the context of the Guardian as "agency", the eminent British Economic & Human Geographer, Prof Danny Dorling recently contributed a Guardian article on equality and spatial policy in which he made a brief passing nod of approval to Jeremy Corbyn. THREE times, the Guardian asked him to remove it. You can see him discussing this on You tube with Dawn Foster, a Guardian journalist, who conceded the editorial staff are of another (Oxbridge) world/planet, oblivious to lives commonly led...The Guardian gives you your " morning dose of indignation ", FK all else. Its the Hotel Abyss..
BN.

Here's that link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMvj5fmd68Q

BTW, my last on this as your thread was originally about an absurd self regarding film. La La Land, the Guardian eh? , Join the dots.

[Ian Thumwood]

There was an article this morning on the BBC website about the critical backlash again "La La Land." One of the people asked to comment told the reporter that they felt "Chicago"
was better and then went on a mention a number of other musical films that had passed me by. The article also failed to mention "les miserable" which was composed by Lloyd Webber, the nemesis of people who like quality music and someone who now has four shows on Broadway which represents a first since about 1953.


http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ent...-arts-38744603


I must confess that I am someone who enjoys all sorts of culture and appreciate things as diverse as Shakespeare, football, museums, classical music and cinema as well as jazz. However, I think musicals, whether on film or on stage, are hugely off-putting even though I recognise that many of these shows produced the standards loved by jazz musicians. It is like a cheesy , commercial version of opera and the high camp element of a lot of these works puts me off. I suppose the only "musicals" that would interest me are by the likes of Kurt Weill whose music intrigues me. Lloyd Webber has earned millions by pandering to popular whims but the whole corniness of his music means it has no appeal. The problem I have with musical films (other than not liking this kind of cinema) is that either the cinema aspect or the musical aspect seems to be sacrificed for the other. It is always going to be a compromise.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The article also failed to mention "les miserable" which was composed by Lloyd Webber, the nemesis of people who like quality music and someone who now has four shows on Broadway which represents a first since about 1953.

Correct assessment of Lloyd Banker's status, Ian - but he didn't write The Glums - it's a French-originating thing, written by Alain Boublil & Jean-Marc Natel (libretto) and score by Claude-Michel Schönberg (Oh! The irony!).

[Jazzrook]

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to CHANGE it." - KM.

It is not and will not be changed by angst or sighing contemplation but by action and engagement. In the context of the Guardian as "agency", the eminent British Economic & Human Geographer, Prof Danny Dorling recently contributed a Guardian article on equality and spatial policy in which he made a brief passing nod of approval to Jeremy Corbyn. THREE times, the Guardian asked him to remove it. You can see him discussing this on You tube with Dawn Foster, a Guardian journalist, who conceded the editorial staff are of another (Oxbridge) world/planet, oblivious to lives commonly led...The Guardian gives you your " morning dose of indignation ", FK all else. Its the Hotel Abyss..
BN.

BTW, my last on this as your thread was originally about an absurd self regarding film. La La Land, the Guardian eh? , Join the dots.

As a matter of interest, Bluesnik, can you recommend a daily alternative to The Grauniad?
Most people seem to think it's a 'left-wing' newspaper but I agree they have an anti-Corbyn bias(apart from one or two writers).

Cheers,
JR

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

As a matter of interest, Bluesnik, can you recommend a daily alternative to The Grauniad?
Most people seem to think it's a 'left-wing' newspaper but I agree they have an anti-Corbyn bias(apart from one or two writers).

Cheers,
JR

Well, they are all corporate (even the Scott Trust now no longer has the status it once did). But I get my news from France 24. Euronews, FT, Private Eye etc. I have no illusions about any of them but then they do not claim to be any other. And its that, and its DNA neo liberalism SDP/Clinton/Blairism paraded as "left" that I really object to with the Guardian. They use their residual good journalism to advance a politics of that. One problem with the British "left", amongst many, is its ingrained sentimentality and lack of rigour. Not least regarding the Guardian.

Orwell's bullshit about Britain being a family, only with the wrong members in charge, lives on.
BN.

[Rcartes]

Rather a dull film, poorly executed

Well, if we can get away from the rather silly attacks on The Guardian for a bit (if the bleaters here don't like it, they don't have to %&*£@$ read it, do they? I'd like to get back to the subject of the thread, La La Land.

I don't think the vast encomiums (encomia?) lavished on it by the media are on the mark, nor did I find it as awful as some here did: I just thought it was rather indifferent. Not very good dancing, pretty poor singing, and zilch in the way of humour; Gosling was, as he often is, good, but Stone was really poor. Of course, one problem was that, in a supposed effort to prepare myself to enjoy it, I watched the DVD of Singin' in the Rain. Now that was a terrible mistake: that film is so filled with wonderful dancing, excellent singing, genuine wit and, above all, a terrific sense of joy (just compare Stone's performance with the wonderfully delightful one by Debbie Reynolds with its innocence and joie de vivre). Furthermore, it was actually about something: the birth of the talkies. What was La La Land about? If anything, and I'm not 100% sure about that, it was about jazz and where it's going/has lost its way. But that's precisely where the film itself lost its way: the jazz in it was mundane to the point of uselessness: the piano bits were the sort of thing that has given cocktail jazz a bad name, and the hard bop session was really very dull.

What summed the whole damned thing up for me was when Gosling explained what was wrong with jazz, in a jazz club. What was wrong, he said, was that no one listens to the music in jazz clubs but just talks over it. And what did he do? He delivered his lecture whilst talking over the music. Not that there was anything there to make anyone want to listen, but you get my point. And that was where the film was at its tin-eared worst.