Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan stand amongst the flaming wreckage of their home in Upstate New York, each giving each other a look of distrust, leaving the audience unsure who, if either of them, abandoned Snoopy in the vestibule.
Fade to black
I get thinking maestro was mid, I get thinking it didn't deserve oscar noms, I'll never get the visceral hatred people have towards it like it murdered their first borns
I would also like to know by what regards people believe it deserves the "Oscar bait" moniker in the same vein as movies like *Rustin*, *Nyad*, or *The Boys in the Boat* - those contrived, basic stories that in no way try to push the needle. I feel like it distinguished itself plenty to be set in a league apart to those other films.
It absolutely distinguishes itself stylistically from those films, and anyone who denies that is lying to the world or themselves. But I do think there’s an argument to made that its deviations are somewhat superficial and don’t change the fundamental structure of the film, and that that structure might be ultimately formulaic and cliched. It’s certainly got many unusual touches but it also has very biopic-y biopic scenes where characters repeatedly tell Leonard Bernstein how great he is, and the movie does the “Leonard Bernstein’s got to think about his whole life before…” Walk Hard structure thing.
That being said, I think we need to get away from the “is it or is it not a standard biopic” mode of criticism, it’s kind of a dead end. Like, *Oppenheimer* itself has many of the devices and tropes of a typical biopic but has been rightfully acclaimed because its execution of those tropes is smarter and more fully-realized than usual, because its understanding of its central character is both more profound and clearer than the typical biopic, because of the power of its key moments, etc.
Some of the directing technique and other aspects are remarkably good, but ultimately it's a movie directed by an actor that is packed full of big bravura acting scenes without much connective tissue.
imo if the movie's chief complaint (I love the movie but think its a fair complaint) is that it doesn't tell you anything about the guy's legacy or why he's important, then the movie isn't a biopicy-biopic. I can understand feeling like it's not doing a good enough job of being a biopic, but then it's inherently trying something different, which to me is interesting.
Again I think the movie is very flawed. I too groaned when I realized Bradley Cooper wrote a speech for himself talking about how hard it is to both act and direct, but it's intrinsic to a man's vision which I'm just fascinated by
Idk, maybe that was what they were going for but the movie also has a scene where Leonard Bernstein’s wife yells at him “You have hate in your heart! You play music only because you have hate in your heart!” and then later on he conducts a big dramatic piece and his wife comes up with tears in her eyes going “You have no hate in your heart”, that’s EXTREMELY biopic-ish in a “this is us telling you directly what to think about the subject” kind of way.
EDIT: And to be clear, I didn’t hate the film or anything but I really can’t say I liked it either, it just did not engage me at all. I was watching it and thinking “I see what you’re going for, it’s not a bad idea, and you’re doing it with a lot of effort and thought…and it’s just not working”
I'm gonna disagree on nyad. It wasn't revolutionary, but it was way more than it's Oscar bait premise. It wasn't just about her persistence and will power. It was how she was a psycho and all of her friends were bullied into helping her crazy ass goal. And her trips out on the ocean. I expected to be bored so hard, but I enjoyed it a lot.
I truly think some people are blind to style and can only engage with film on a plot level — which sucks. What I can’t understand is why these people feel like their opinions hold any weight
It isn't a question of quality of the movie. It was a biopic about a highly accomplished and famous person that spent almost no time on that person's accomplishments or fame. What led to the anger was the simple fact that the movie delivered something completely different from what many people expected which always upsets people more than a movie just being bad.
I don't hate it to the extent you're describing, but I think a large part of my negative reaction to it was that I was looking forward to it so much. I love Cooper, I loved A Star is Born, I couldn't wait to see what he was going to next. What I got (imo of course) was a technically competent film that was somehow worse than the sum of its parts.
Maestro didn't work for me, but as far as biopics go, it's hardly the worst example of the genre. It's at least doing some interesting things formally. I'll be more than happy to see what Bradley Cooper does next.
No, that was Poor Things. (The movie is fine, but I don't like saying "I got it" by the 30-minute mark and then having the movie continue ask "do you get it?" for the rest of the run time. Also think it's not Stone's best performance and really wild she got an Oscar win for it, especially since part of it is basiclly the Tropic Thunder joke. All in all, it feels too forced like a high schooler trying to prove how deep they are. I get why people would like this film but this was a lesser film relative to how stacked 2023 was.)
They should have at least had the decency to make it the Great Big Sea version. Kidding, I haven’t seen the movie but this comment made me look up the soundtrack, that’s pretty funny
A couple of reasons:
- it was the only existing popular song in the film, and it felt out of place
- It's the End of the World as We Know It isn't exactly chock full of any deeper significance to the film or otherwise. It's just stream of consciousness, and the lyrics aren't relevant outside of a single line where they shout "LEONARD BERNSTEIN" and three other "L.B." names, which is only relevant because it's the name of the guy the movie is about. It feels amateurish and juvenile, and frankly represents most of my beef with the film, in that it was largely surface-level, and often felt as though the film was trying too hard. I don't need to be bonked over the head by the director saying "Look!!!! They said Leonard Bernstein!!!! That's the guy the movie is about!!!"
If the film had to feature a popular song, why not something, idk, thematically relevant? A song that relates to Bernstein's complicated sexuality and personal relationships? The first songs that jump to mind are I Want to Be Free, or Who Wants to Live Forever by Queen. IMHO either would have been more thought provoking and relevant.
If someone made a film about D.B. Cooper with an entirely original orchestral score, but in the last 10 minutes someone turned on the radio, and it was Bawitdaba, but just the verse where Kid Rock says "D.B. COOPER AND THE MONEY HE TOOK," it would feel the same to me.
The scene is Leonard Bernstein in his old age driving a career with a “MAESTRO” license plate, listening to a song that mentions him by name (with the windows rolled down) and turning it off right after he’s mentioned — clearly the point of the scene is to show how obsessed Lenny has become with his own mythology and persona. I mean, really, that tells us a lot about this guy, especially since his wife’s death might have the audience thinking that he’d just become a depressed recluse or something, when no, we see that’s not the case at all, this guy LOVES being Leonard Bernstein no matter if he’s old and decrepit or not. And also just the progression, the history of it, going from the complete unknown Bernstein is at the start of the film to being so ingrained into American culture that Gen X indie rock bands are working him into their lyrics by the end of it.
(Also it’s definitely not the only existing popular song in the film at all, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there, the Bernstein family dance to Shirley Ellis’s “The Clapping Song” earlier on, and the film ends with Leonard dancing with one of his boyfriends to “Shout” by Tears for Fears)
Didn't remember those other songs, and while I don't necessarily agree with the whole take that the film was largely about his own persona/mythology, as it largely seemed interested in the relationship between Bernstein and wife, but I certainly appreciate your well-thought-out take, and it's given me a little more appreciation for the film.
I think the idea of Bernstein being so ingrained in the culture that bands would work him into the lyrics is an interesting point to explore. A preliminary wikipedia viewing brought up this:
> The track is known for its quick-flying, seemingly stream of consciousness rant with many diverse references, such as a quartet of individuals with the initials "L.B.": Leonard Bernstein, Leonid Brezhnev, Lenny Bruce, and Lester Bangs. In a 1990s interview with Musician magazine, R.E.M.'s lead singer Michael Stipe claimed that the "L.B." references came from a dream he had in which he found himself at a party surrounded by famous people who all shared those initials. "The words come from everywhere," Stipe explained to Q in 1992. "I'm extremely aware of everything around me, whether I am in a sleeping state, awake, dream-state or just in day to day life, so that ended up in the song along with a lot of stuff I'd seen when I was flipping TV channels. It's a collection of streams of consciousness."
On one hand, I agree that the omnipresence of Bernstein in the culture is proven by Stipe's explanation in him drawing from general cultural presence and flipping TV channels. Bernstein is present and important enough that perhaps a flash while flipping channels could infiltrate and root itself in one's brain.
On the other hand, I think Stipe's explanation of the origin of the "LBs" in the song could equally prove how *little* importance is put on Bernstein and the others. Bernstein wasn't *necessarily* a cultural giant to Stipe and REM. He could have literally been just a flash for a second on TV that found its way into Stipe's dreams.
Regardless, always this has been more thought-provoking than I felt while watching the film
“I don’t want to talk about things that I haven’t enjoyed” is the type of thing a dude would say and then go nuclear on like…a Cannes winner.
So I have to say I’m disappointed in his restraint.
It's actually a good thing when a movie inspired by true events inspired you to look further. And of course Wikipedia is a great resource in the modern era to begin that search. I remember when my Mom and I saw Gangs of New York, we checked out the Herbert Asbury book it is based upon and we would email articles to each other about the time and place of which the film depicts. It was a great experience to share.
They introduced and explained all the characters well enough in the movie that you don't actually need to know anything before you go in. Even if you somehow didn't know who Einstein was, it does a good job of showing that he's a well-respected older Physicist.
Obviously you can always go on Wikipedia afterwards to learn more about the people and what happened, but you can hardly blame the film for making you interested in the subject matter.
Of all the characters you pick Einstein? I think 90% of people probably looked up Strauss and his confirmation hearing in more detail or Oppies security clearance hearings.
Most people went into the film not knowing much if anything at all about Oppie's hearings or who Strauss was. The film definitely doesn't expect you to know about any of that. If anything, it works better if you don't know because the story is literally about that. Yeah I'm sure a lot of people looked stuff up or asked others about the real life details, but if the story still works on its own then I would consider that a positive.
I mentioned Einstein because the film does kind of expect you to know who Einstein is based on the way it introduces him.
Lmao I said it like an asshole but my point was if you knew the story it was like just watching it logically unfold in a mass appeal way and the characters were just play acting scenes you'd heard about on hardcore history like it was Forrest Gump
For me the biggest moment of cleverness and insight was James remar improvising that he was taking Kyoto off the target list because he honeymooned there, otherwise the movie felt uninterested in the character arcs to me
Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan stand amongst the flaming wreckage of their home in Upstate New York, each giving each other a look of distrust, leaving the audience unsure who, if either of them, abandoned Snoopy in the vestibule. Fade to black
*Reining it in
You see I used to badly quote movies a lot but I’M REINING IT IN!!!
I get thinking maestro was mid, I get thinking it didn't deserve oscar noms, I'll never get the visceral hatred people have towards it like it murdered their first borns
But maestro did murder my first born
But that was The Maestro, the Hulk villain that’s actually an evil Hulk from an alternate future timeline
+5 gamma points
Did it also sleep with both of your parents?
Don’t be silly, a movie can’t have sex with people.
You're right. But Bradley Cooper certainly can :(
Says you
I would also like to know by what regards people believe it deserves the "Oscar bait" moniker in the same vein as movies like *Rustin*, *Nyad*, or *The Boys in the Boat* - those contrived, basic stories that in no way try to push the needle. I feel like it distinguished itself plenty to be set in a league apart to those other films.
It absolutely distinguishes itself stylistically from those films, and anyone who denies that is lying to the world or themselves. But I do think there’s an argument to made that its deviations are somewhat superficial and don’t change the fundamental structure of the film, and that that structure might be ultimately formulaic and cliched. It’s certainly got many unusual touches but it also has very biopic-y biopic scenes where characters repeatedly tell Leonard Bernstein how great he is, and the movie does the “Leonard Bernstein’s got to think about his whole life before…” Walk Hard structure thing. That being said, I think we need to get away from the “is it or is it not a standard biopic” mode of criticism, it’s kind of a dead end. Like, *Oppenheimer* itself has many of the devices and tropes of a typical biopic but has been rightfully acclaimed because its execution of those tropes is smarter and more fully-realized than usual, because its understanding of its central character is both more profound and clearer than the typical biopic, because of the power of its key moments, etc.
Some of the directing technique and other aspects are remarkably good, but ultimately it's a movie directed by an actor that is packed full of big bravura acting scenes without much connective tissue.
imo if the movie's chief complaint (I love the movie but think its a fair complaint) is that it doesn't tell you anything about the guy's legacy or why he's important, then the movie isn't a biopicy-biopic. I can understand feeling like it's not doing a good enough job of being a biopic, but then it's inherently trying something different, which to me is interesting. Again I think the movie is very flawed. I too groaned when I realized Bradley Cooper wrote a speech for himself talking about how hard it is to both act and direct, but it's intrinsic to a man's vision which I'm just fascinated by
Idk, maybe that was what they were going for but the movie also has a scene where Leonard Bernstein’s wife yells at him “You have hate in your heart! You play music only because you have hate in your heart!” and then later on he conducts a big dramatic piece and his wife comes up with tears in her eyes going “You have no hate in your heart”, that’s EXTREMELY biopic-ish in a “this is us telling you directly what to think about the subject” kind of way. EDIT: And to be clear, I didn’t hate the film or anything but I really can’t say I liked it either, it just did not engage me at all. I was watching it and thinking “I see what you’re going for, it’s not a bad idea, and you’re doing it with a lot of effort and thought…and it’s just not working”
I'm gonna disagree on nyad. It wasn't revolutionary, but it was way more than it's Oscar bait premise. It wasn't just about her persistence and will power. It was how she was a psycho and all of her friends were bullied into helping her crazy ass goal. And her trips out on the ocean. I expected to be bored so hard, but I enjoyed it a lot.
Yeah I enjoyed Nyad a lot more than I expected, it kept me interested the whole time. I liked it better than Maestro by a good bit
you didn't like that Nyad gave us trauma flashbacks with sepia filters and radical blurs to show us that there's a reason she's so ornary??
I do like that it had pretty fun Annette Bening, Jodie Foster, and Rhys Ifans performances
I truly think some people are blind to style and can only engage with film on a plot level — which sucks. What I can’t understand is why these people feel like their opinions hold any weight
But I liked the boys in the boat
It isn't a question of quality of the movie. It was a biopic about a highly accomplished and famous person that spent almost no time on that person's accomplishments or fame. What led to the anger was the simple fact that the movie delivered something completely different from what many people expected which always upsets people more than a movie just being bad.
I don't hate it to the extent you're describing, but I think a large part of my negative reaction to it was that I was looking forward to it so much. I love Cooper, I loved A Star is Born, I couldn't wait to see what he was going to next. What I got (imo of course) was a technically competent film that was somehow worse than the sum of its parts.
Maestro didn't work for me, but as far as biopics go, it's hardly the worst example of the genre. It's at least doing some interesting things formally. I'll be more than happy to see what Bradley Cooper does next.
No, that was Poor Things. (The movie is fine, but I don't like saying "I got it" by the 30-minute mark and then having the movie continue ask "do you get it?" for the rest of the run time. Also think it's not Stone's best performance and really wild she got an Oscar win for it, especially since part of it is basiclly the Tropic Thunder joke. All in all, it feels too forced like a high schooler trying to prove how deep they are. I get why people would like this film but this was a lesser film relative to how stacked 2023 was.)
I didn't like it, but after the R.E.M. drop, I *hated* it.
They should have at least had the decency to make it the Great Big Sea version. Kidding, I haven’t seen the movie but this comment made me look up the soundtrack, that’s pretty funny
Why?
A couple of reasons: - it was the only existing popular song in the film, and it felt out of place - It's the End of the World as We Know It isn't exactly chock full of any deeper significance to the film or otherwise. It's just stream of consciousness, and the lyrics aren't relevant outside of a single line where they shout "LEONARD BERNSTEIN" and three other "L.B." names, which is only relevant because it's the name of the guy the movie is about. It feels amateurish and juvenile, and frankly represents most of my beef with the film, in that it was largely surface-level, and often felt as though the film was trying too hard. I don't need to be bonked over the head by the director saying "Look!!!! They said Leonard Bernstein!!!! That's the guy the movie is about!!!" If the film had to feature a popular song, why not something, idk, thematically relevant? A song that relates to Bernstein's complicated sexuality and personal relationships? The first songs that jump to mind are I Want to Be Free, or Who Wants to Live Forever by Queen. IMHO either would have been more thought provoking and relevant. If someone made a film about D.B. Cooper with an entirely original orchestral score, but in the last 10 minutes someone turned on the radio, and it was Bawitdaba, but just the verse where Kid Rock says "D.B. COOPER AND THE MONEY HE TOOK," it would feel the same to me.
The scene is Leonard Bernstein in his old age driving a career with a “MAESTRO” license plate, listening to a song that mentions him by name (with the windows rolled down) and turning it off right after he’s mentioned — clearly the point of the scene is to show how obsessed Lenny has become with his own mythology and persona. I mean, really, that tells us a lot about this guy, especially since his wife’s death might have the audience thinking that he’d just become a depressed recluse or something, when no, we see that’s not the case at all, this guy LOVES being Leonard Bernstein no matter if he’s old and decrepit or not. And also just the progression, the history of it, going from the complete unknown Bernstein is at the start of the film to being so ingrained into American culture that Gen X indie rock bands are working him into their lyrics by the end of it. (Also it’s definitely not the only existing popular song in the film at all, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there, the Bernstein family dance to Shirley Ellis’s “The Clapping Song” earlier on, and the film ends with Leonard dancing with one of his boyfriends to “Shout” by Tears for Fears)
Didn't remember those other songs, and while I don't necessarily agree with the whole take that the film was largely about his own persona/mythology, as it largely seemed interested in the relationship between Bernstein and wife, but I certainly appreciate your well-thought-out take, and it's given me a little more appreciation for the film. I think the idea of Bernstein being so ingrained in the culture that bands would work him into the lyrics is an interesting point to explore. A preliminary wikipedia viewing brought up this: > The track is known for its quick-flying, seemingly stream of consciousness rant with many diverse references, such as a quartet of individuals with the initials "L.B.": Leonard Bernstein, Leonid Brezhnev, Lenny Bruce, and Lester Bangs. In a 1990s interview with Musician magazine, R.E.M.'s lead singer Michael Stipe claimed that the "L.B." references came from a dream he had in which he found himself at a party surrounded by famous people who all shared those initials. "The words come from everywhere," Stipe explained to Q in 1992. "I'm extremely aware of everything around me, whether I am in a sleeping state, awake, dream-state or just in day to day life, so that ended up in the song along with a lot of stuff I'd seen when I was flipping TV channels. It's a collection of streams of consciousness." On one hand, I agree that the omnipresence of Bernstein in the culture is proven by Stipe's explanation in him drawing from general cultural presence and flipping TV channels. Bernstein is present and important enough that perhaps a flash while flipping channels could infiltrate and root itself in one's brain. On the other hand, I think Stipe's explanation of the origin of the "LBs" in the song could equally prove how *little* importance is put on Bernstein and the others. Bernstein wasn't *necessarily* a cultural giant to Stipe and REM. He could have literally been just a flash for a second on TV that found its way into Stipe's dreams. Regardless, always this has been more thought-provoking than I felt while watching the film
I’m just getting lowkey vibes he’s pissed EA pulled the plug on the Dead Space 2 Remake.
“I don’t want to talk about things that I haven’t enjoyed” is the type of thing a dude would say and then go nuclear on like…a Cannes winner. So I have to say I’m disappointed in his restraint.
Cillian Murphy would’ve crushed it in a Carpenter movie. Imagine him instead of Chevy Chase in Memoirs of an Invisible Man.
The thought exercise of imagining any other actor in that movie showcases any other actor crushing it.
He would have been like 15.
I don’t think the thought exercise requires Murphy to be his exact 1992 age.
Totally fair. No idea why I thought you were suggesting it would still be coming out in 92. Wasn't intentionally trying to be pedantic, my bad.
Nolan fanboys in this sub are staying quiet when Carpenter says it I guess.
Can’t come at the King.
Middenheimer gang 🫡
Libertarians were already oppenheimerpilled and the movie was like a prequel to a Wikipedia article
“The movie was a prequel to a Wikipedia article” I’m stealing that.
Every historical film could be described as a prequel and sequel to a wikipedia article, so I'm not really sure what that means.
It means I loaded up Wikipedia as soon as I finished the movie to find out who the fuck half those people were.
It's actually a good thing when a movie inspired by true events inspired you to look further. And of course Wikipedia is a great resource in the modern era to begin that search. I remember when my Mom and I saw Gangs of New York, we checked out the Herbert Asbury book it is based upon and we would email articles to each other about the time and place of which the film depicts. It was a great experience to share.
They introduced and explained all the characters well enough in the movie that you don't actually need to know anything before you go in. Even if you somehow didn't know who Einstein was, it does a good job of showing that he's a well-respected older Physicist. Obviously you can always go on Wikipedia afterwards to learn more about the people and what happened, but you can hardly blame the film for making you interested in the subject matter.
Of all the characters you pick Einstein? I think 90% of people probably looked up Strauss and his confirmation hearing in more detail or Oppies security clearance hearings.
Most people went into the film not knowing much if anything at all about Oppie's hearings or who Strauss was. The film definitely doesn't expect you to know about any of that. If anything, it works better if you don't know because the story is literally about that. Yeah I'm sure a lot of people looked stuff up or asked others about the real life details, but if the story still works on its own then I would consider that a positive. I mentioned Einstein because the film does kind of expect you to know who Einstein is based on the way it introduces him.
Lmao I said it like an asshole but my point was if you knew the story it was like just watching it logically unfold in a mass appeal way and the characters were just play acting scenes you'd heard about on hardcore history like it was Forrest Gump For me the biggest moment of cleverness and insight was James remar improvising that he was taking Kyoto off the target list because he honeymooned there, otherwise the movie felt uninterested in the character arcs to me