@joekiddlouischama said:

@mechajutaro said:

@CraigJamesReview said:

I don't think it was a response to the Oscars so white controversy at all. This was a film that spoke volumes about the problems facing black men growing up in these types of areas- the lack of a role model, the only real options being drugs or death, the need to be like everyone else for fear of being singled out as different, the lack of self expression- and this film was done not by a Hollywood elite getting on a soap box but from a director who puts all these things out there without being preachy whatsoever. It's a remarkable accomplishment. Not sure why it is getting such backlash. I did a whole review on youtube on it if anyone is interested-https://youtu.be/mfTEbJWweOk

Sadly, merely reading a synopsis of such a film("The main character is gay, black, and persecuted. And the drama doesn't stop till the credits roll.") and being subsequently overwrought with cynicism has become a matter of muscle memory for several million viewers , viewers who've been bludgeoned with the paternalism masquerading as "advocacy" that's been spewed out across The Silver Screen for several decades now. Not deeming Moonlight to be an example of such myself, mind you, as I've haven't seen the movie. As a filmgoer, I can understand completely the chorus of groans that have accompanied the mere description of the movie nonetheless....

... sure, but that just means that people are lazy. If one is not willing to see the film at least once, then one should not prejudge it and make that presumption.

...which is why I watched it. Groaned during it and groaned afterwards. ;)

It's a bold movie but to me it's just tedious and too much style-over-substance.

@IchiBen! said: It's a bold movie but to me it's just tedious and too much style-over-substance."

For the sake of discussion, that putdown "style-over-substance" is so over-used, it's practically become meaningless. It would be interesting to know how Moonlight demonstrates this apparently negative trait.

I would say that cinematic technique -- camera movement, camera angles, background "noise" and alas musical score -- are used to support or enhance the emotions & drama of the story. But all narrative films do this. Moonlight does this exceptionally well in my opinion without being over-bearing or "over the top."

Take for instance the close-up "portraits" (jenkins' term) quickly injected in crucial moments in the 2nd & 3rd chapters of the film. The actors' expressions in these close-ups are not actually happening on the surface of the scene, but rather they are visual manifestations of what the characters are feeling at that specific moment in the scene. So here the style / cinematic technique subtly supports the underlying emotions of the scene being presented.

@NoVaNY-Cinematico said:

@IchiBen! said: It's a bold movie but to me it's just tedious and too much style-over-substance."

For the sake of discussion, that putdown "style-over-substance" is so over-used, it's practically become meaningless. It would be interesting to know how Moonlight demonstrates this apparently negative trait.

I would say that cinematic technique -- camera movement, camera angles, background "noise" and alas musical score -- are used to support or enhance the emotions & drama of the story. But all narrative films do this. Moonlight does this exceptionally well in my opinion without being over-bearing or "over the top."

Take for instance the close-up "portraits" (jenkins' term) quickly injected in crucial moments in the 2nd & 3rd chapters of the film. The actors' expressions in these close-ups are not actually happening on the surface of the scene, but rather they are visual manifestations of what the characters are feeling at that specific moment in the scene. So here the style / cinematic technique subtly supports the underlying emotions of the scene being presented.

Style over substance means that there is no moral to the story or message. It's just eye candy, nothing more. Turn off your brain type of film where the visuals are more important that the plot of story.

I think that Moonlight does have a lot to say about what influences the black man's sexuality. The message is subtle but there nonetheless.

@LadyGigi said: "Style over substance means that there is no moral to the story or message. It's just eye candy, nothing more. Turn off your brain type of film where the visuals are more important that the plot of story.

I think that Moonlight does have a lot to say about what influences the black man's sexuality. The message is subtle but there nonetheless."

But certainly this definition of style over substance would not apply to Moonlight, because there is a story and the style supports the story.

If there is a message in this film is that humans need help from other humans to help guide them into being their true selves. It's a difficult path since the guide also needs guidance. For instance, one can say that Juan needs Little to unearth Juan's paternalism.

With regards to "influences" of sexuality, the film explores more how macho posturing is used as a shield or weapon to conceal homosexual desire (is Chiron's teenage tormentor also gay?🤔). There are socio-economic influencers to this posturing. So this is Chiron's crux/prison - - no one is "influencing" him to be gay. He knows he's gay, but is too afraid to accept or act upon this desire. But he seeks guidance from his old friend and that friend guides Chiron's acceptance of himself (the last 15 minutes or so of the film is a tug of war of sorts between these two characters). And much of this drama is simply rendered through the actors' performances and quiet cinematic technique.

@NoVaNY-Cinematico said:

@LadyGigi said: "Style over substance means that there is no moral to the story or message. It's just eye candy, nothing more. Turn off your brain type of film where the visuals are more important that the plot of story.

I think that Moonlight does have a lot to say about what influences the black man's sexuality. The message is subtle but there nonetheless."

But certainly this definition of style over substance would not apply to Moonlight, because there is a story and the style supports the story.

If there is a message in this film is that humans need help from other humans to help guide them into being their true selves. It's a difficult path since the guide also needs guidance. For instance, one can say that Juan needs Little to unearth Juan's paternalism.

With regards to "influences" of sexuality, the film explores more how macho posturing is used as a shield or weapon to conceal homosexual desire (is Chiron's teenage tormentor also gay?🤔). There are socio-economic influencers to this posturing. So this is Chiron's crux/prison - - no one is "influencing" him to be gay. He knows he's gay, but is too afraid to accept or act upon this desire. But he seeks guidance from his old friend and that friend guides Chiron's acceptance of himself (the last 15 minutes or so of the film is a tug of war of sorts between these two characters). And much of this drama is simply rendered through the actors' performances and quiet cinematic technique.

Whatever. That's not the message. You're generalizing.

@LadyGigi said: "Whatever. That's not the message. You're generalizing."

@LadyGigi said:

"But I really didn't like the content of the movie. I didn't like the message the movie gives about what homosexuality is."

From your viewpoint, what is the film's "message"?

TBH, Moonlight and La La Land are more works of art than films. And art is very subjective. Moonlight feels more impressionistic, and La La Land is more minimalism, and both breach out to emotional barriers for their complexity and simplicity respectively. They both have importance in a world where true art is cast away.

It's unfair to compare the two, as one is a drama and the other leans toward comedy. The Oscars should split like the Golden Globes, as it also gives more comedic films a chance at taking home gold.

There was a lot of competition this year. Almost all the films nominated for BP this year could have been deserving winners in any other year. I could see Arrival winning if this was a few years ago, same with Hacksaw Ridge, La La Land, Hell or High Water, etc etc. the only one I could not see winning is Hidden Figures. I love it, but it does not feel like a BP winner.

2016, nonetheless, was a great year for cinema. 2017, however, seems short on what may be considered BP material (except for Dunkirk)

@FlamboyantRose said:

TBH, Moonlight and La La Land are more works of art than films. And art is very subjective."

True.

But film, when done right, is "art."

I don't think that a film or a work of art has to have a message or blatant message in order for it to be considered good or worthy (for instance what is the message of Ingmar Bergman's "Persona"? I would argue that any words used to describe any underlying "message" would do an injustice to the film's emotional & formal power).

LaLaLand is an ornately decorated wedding cake (not minimalist in my opinion) -- you greatly enjoy it while you're eating it, but then its eaten, digested and then it passes ...

Manchester was also very good (and funny too), and made bold use of classical music, but didn't have the formal qualities that the other and past BP nominees and winners have.

Moonlight pierces though, not only in the story it tells but moreso in how it utilizes the tools of the trade to tell its story. However, it doesn't need validation from the Oscar Academy to confirm its "greatness."

@NoVaNY-Cinematico said:

@FlamboyantRose said:

TBH, Moonlight and La La Land are more works of art than films. And art is very subjective."

True.

But film, when done right, is "art."

I don't think that a film or a work of art has to have a message or blatant message in order for it to be considered good or worthy (for instance what is the message of Ingmar Bergman's "Persona"? I would argue that any words used to describe any underlying "message" would do an injustice to the film's emotional & formal power).

LaLaLand is an ornately decorated wedding cake (not minimalist in my opinion) -- you greatly enjoy it while you're eating it, but then its eaten, digested and then it passes ...

Manchester was also very good (and funny too), and made bold use of classical music, but didn't have the formal qualities that the other and past BP nominees and winners have.

Moonlight pierces though, not only in the story it tells but moreso in how it utilizes the tools of the trade to tell its story. However, it doesn't need validation from the Oscar Academy to confirm its "greatness."

I was trying to emphasize on LLL's simplicity, in which many people complain about its unoriginal story, although it depends upon the execution of films like LLL rather than the basis for storyline. I still have to see Manchester. What do you think about it? Have you seen all the BP nominees of this year?

@FlamboyantRose said: "I still have to see Manchester. What do you think about it?

I liked Manchester very much. It is novelistic in its scope and often very funny. Kenneth Lonergan has a knack for rendering how people talk in real life. And he refreshingly includes moments that most screenwriters & filmmakers wouldn't even bother including in their films (for instance, the search for the car after the funeral home visit). Lonergan previously made "Marguerite" which is greater in scope and is maddeningly crazy & compelling.

I fail to see what is so awesome about the story of "Moonlight". The cinematography and acting is really good, but the story to me is nothing special. And it feels like most of the interesting scenes have been left out. It also felt a bit heavy-handed to me at times. Don't get it wrong, I don't hate the movie. I have it at 6/10.

My ranking of the best picture nominees would be:

1. Manchester by the Sea
2. La La Land
3. Arrival
4. Fences
5. Lion
6. Hacksaw Ridge
7. Hell or High Water
8. Hidden Figures
9. Moonlight

This was one of those movies that transcends race and sexuality. It tells a very human story of feeling different and out of place while at the same time highlighting those obstacles that that make it so hard. I watch a lot of movies during the year and of the films nominated, this one absolutely deserved it.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. https://youtu.be/mfTEbJWweOk

@virics said:

@SunParakeet said:

I don't think we have the same definition of racism. How can OscarsSoWhite be racist?

Because it leads to people being awarded for their skin color instead of their merit just to satisfy the "diversity goal". And that won't do them any good because the achievement of people of that certain skin color will be tainted by it, just like the case of Moonlight.

Have you ever seen the movie?

@Heisenberg12 said:

@NoVaNY-Cinematico said:

"Cut the B.S. The movie sucked.

Nobody would watch this again unless they were gay. Period. It's political nonsense and pretentious overrated crap ..."

Sorry, but this is such silly, trollish, un-insightful, snd belligerent comment, and curiously coming from someone who praises Hacksaw Ridge, a film (partially) about a deeply religous objector to war & violence ....

You can't handle the truth can you?

The movie wasn't good. It certainly wasn't BP worthy. But the thing I go by is who would even have any desire to watch it again? Answer: Nobody. Nobody but gays. That's it. It's a joke. I wouldn't pay 1 penny to own this on DVD. Same with Manchester by the Sea. That's even worse than this. That's a movie for people who want to kill themselves or something- who like to see the dark side of life. How depressing. Pretentious crap passed off as a good movie and the sheep believe the hype like this POS.

Your handle is 'Heisenberg', the name Walter White, a sociopath drug peddler in a TV Show about meth used as his alias. Unless you are a meth addict or drug peddler, how was that show relatable for you? That show is also depressing and dark in a lot of ways. The guy ruined his family and killed off a lot of people.

You could say that the movie wasn't for you, but to say that it sucked is inaccurate if you saw it. It was beautifully filmed and the story was relatable for anyone who has had issues in their upbringing.