MovieChat Forums > La La Land (2016) Discussion > The missing five years would be the more...

The missing five years would be the more interesting (spoilers)


1. Overall, I like this film but the ending was a little disappointing - and not because the two main characters did not stay together. Rather, their relationship was not really tested before it was over. We know they had different aspirations and that prevented their staying together all the time. But they said they loved each other at the time Mia got the role that required her to be in Paris. So what had happened in the next five years that made them leave each other for good? Simply saying that the film did not have to tell the viewer everything is not really an answer, since knowing what had happened would be crucial in understanding the two characters - both barely developed in the film. Had they never contacted each other at all in five years even by an occasional email, and not even kept track of what the other was doing via the Internet - so that at the end Mia and her husband wandered into that place without even aware that it was Sebastian's club? Also, at the end Mia had a husband and a kid. So what was her husband's occupation, so that Mia's continuous absence from home was not an issue with him, and they had even been able to have a child?

2. I also do not quite like the film's cleansed view of Hollywood - and of the entertainment industry in general. The viewers are supposed to care for the relationship between Sebastian and Mia, while we all know that in real life people in the industry change partners faster than changing clothes - and fairly often just as publicity stunts. In the film, the only problem faced by Mia at the beginning was that her "talent" was not recognized. After the success of the Paris film, her career took off and in five years she became famous. "Talent" was also all that filmmakers looked for in the choice of casting.

Look, I am not suggesting that the film should show Mia sleeping with directors in order to get roles or back-stabbing other actresses to advance her own career. Still, it was remarkable that in a film about Hollywood and the entertainment world, not one single character showed any bad behaviors. For Mia and Sebastian, I can understand that we don't want to make the characters unlikable. But in the film, not a single character in the movie industry or in the bands and clubs where Sebastian participated was shown to use drugs, get arrested for DUI, arrested for assaulting police officers or riotous behavior. There were also no hints of easy sexuality or infidelity of even one character. Apparently, in five years Mia had achieved remarkable success but was totally unaffected by these less savory aspects of the movie industry. This La La Land depicted was not like any entertainment world I know, and that I think might have prevented inclusion of elements that could have been interesting.

reply

It's supposed to be a throwback musical. To remind us of all the incredible musicals from the 40s 50s and 60s. It's supposed to be fantastical and whimsical. Not a gritty drama about making it in LA

reply

So what had happened in the next five years that made them leave each other for good? Simply saying that the film did not have to tell the viewer everything is not really an answer

By the time the couple rendezvous again on the park bench, the main source of their later off-screen separation had already occurred. The movie clearly sets up all we need to know about what happened after Mia left for Paris.

knowing what had happened would be crucial in understanding the two characters - both barely developed in the film

They are developed enough to know what their two highest values are, and what happened to tilt the delicate balance from equilibrium to the fading of one and the ascendance of the other.

Had they never contacted each other at all in five years

Sure, it's likely. At least for a while. And then... not as much. Preoccupying Mia's attention is a newly demanding career, a new relationship, new motherhood. That is all we need to know. Asking for more is too literal; this is a fable, not a documentary. Same goes for the husband's occupation; Mia and Seb knew each other during a tumultuous time, when everything was unsettled. Mia and her husband enjoy another stage, almost literally.

while we all know that in real life people in the industry change partners faster than changing clothes

But the story is about this particular couple, not "people in the industry." They have a short, intense relationship, Spring to Fall. Moreover, by the logic of that criticism you must also apply it to Singin' In The Rain, which centers on the romance between two Hollywood actors.

but was totally totally unaffected by these less savory aspects of the movie industry.

Actually, Mia was totally affected by the movie industry's major unsavoury aspect, which spares no actress. That aspect is the true all-inclusive experience, and that's where the story concentrates. Your list -- drugs, arrests for DUI, for assaulting police officers, riotous behavior, easy sexuality, infidelity -- is all secondary, and some are the exceptions that get all the attention.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

As far as Mia and Sebastian not being in touch after they told each other they'd always love each other, people do that.
I imagine they stayed in touch for a year or two, then contact got sporadic, then non-existent. He might have even known she got married, but seeing it in person was still jarring.

reply

Replying to all the previous responses by posters as a group, I was not suggesting that their breaking up could not have happened or was very unlikely. Rather, my point was that the way it happened in the film lacked plausibility, and the fact that the film simply jumped forward five years with no information on what happened in-between did not help.

First of all, I think it should be fairly clear that even though Sebastian and Mia broke up, they still felt for each other when they met at his club. Otherwise, Mia's fantasy of the "alternative scenario" at the end would be fairly meaningless. Anyone could daydream, but without any remaining true feelings between the two, that scene would have lost its power completely.

After Mia got her film role in Paris, the two still declared their love for each other, and so why did they part? Was it simply because given Mia's work they could not be together much of the time? Yet at the end we see Mia seemingly happily married and even with a kid. Notice that the film didn't even tell us what was the husband's job or position in the film. I guess that part would be too difficult to write and I don't think I could do it either. As examples, could he be an engineer, a surgeon, a university professor, a researcher, a high-level corporate executive, or holding a government job? In which of these jobs would the husband be able to travel with "Mia" round the world even for two weeks in a year? And how would you sustain such a marriage when the social circles of the husband and wife are not even remotely similar? The only case I could imagine is that Mia became some kind of trophy wife to some billionaire who did not have to work at all. However, that did not seem to be the case in the film.

The fact is that most people in the movie industry married others within the industry - especially if you broaden it to the entertainment world. (If you check the bibliographies of some random actors, you would notice how often their spouses also have pages in IMDb). I believe they have come to accept that as the fact of life in the entertainment world. Why did Sebastian and Mia find that such a big issue? Why wasn't Mia aware that being a famous actress would always be at the expense of a normal family life?

I believe this film fast-forward five years with practically no information for the years in-between because it was probably too difficult to tell a convincing story that could resolve the conflicts and contradictions just mentioned. In a way, the film instead evaded them.

reply

with no information on what happened in-between did not help.

Yes, that is what you said originally, and your point wasn't missed. The problem with the point is that it was incorrect, and remains incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it. This is because to say that there is "no information for the years in-between" is to look in the wrong direction. For there is indeed information on why they drifted apart after Mia left for Paris, planted very clearly in the narrative before the point she and Seb met on the park bench to take stock of where they were at.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

I am not interested in semantics here. If you consider describing what happened in five years in several sentences or or even one paragraph to be sufficiently informative, fine. I tend to think, however, that other posters here understand what I was trying to say.

reply

describing what happened in five years

Why keep parroting the same mistake when you've been told that you're looking in the wrong direction? Again, all the information needed to understand what happened in those 5 years was set up before the couple met on the park bench.

This isn't "semantics," but a statement of fact. The source of their distancing happened BEFORE they parted. That is why they are already lukewarm about the relationship when they meet to take stock of things. The source of their drifting apart isn't hidden in any way, but is made completely overt.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

I won't reply further. As I said, I believe other posters are able to understand what I intended to say, and for me that is sufficient.

reply

Okay. Then I'll address this to others who may have more open and curious minds and are not intolerant.

The OP's complaint hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding:

"their relationship was not really tested before it was over... So what had happened in the next five years that made them leave each other for good?
The mistake is that the informatiion "crucial in understanding the two characters" is laid out in no uncertain terms BEFORE they meet for the second time on the park bench to reassess where they stand.

La La Land centers on the challenge of meeting two prime values while in a relationship. Both values are felt intensely, and like tightly strung rope there is little give. The story is about how fragile the balance is, how easily the relationship can be destabilized.

Two different values, or if you like, two different "loves," vie for the characters' attention and dedication. One value takes a big hit, and the other gets a sudden boost (at least for one of the lovers). The delicate balance the couple had enjoyed from Spring to Fall shifts rapidly from equilibrium to the fading of one value and the ascendance of the other.

Mia and Seb's conection was compromised already at the point she left for Paris. Vital threads had been severed. What was needed at that point was re-connection, not simply continued connection. They needed to stitch back those broken threads, which would have required extra commitment and time spent actually together, not low-grade communication like phone, Skype, whathaveyou.

The movie makes very clear that there was a massive breach of trust, and that right afterward, as bad luck would have it, Mia's other value, career dreams, leapt to prominence, demanding her total attention. Suddenly one value is in a weakened state and a competing one is bullish. The incentive is obviously going to be with the latter.

There are only two events that can account for their emotional distancing: the dinner conflict and Seb's subsequent no-show at Mia's performance. Cumulatively, those two events broke faith. After that, things could not be the same. 

At the dinner, Seb drops several bombshells. He point-blank admits to abandoning his dream. He rationalizes this by telling Mia a transparently false, half-hearted, easily punctured claim that he's come to actually like the music. He informs her that he is making the group a more or less permanent job, and will be out of town for at least two years, with only sporadic visits home.

Consider that this doesn't just negatively impact his own dream of opening a jazz club, but it will also negatively impact their relationship, making it very difficult to maintain. Imagine her shock. He made a unilateral decision, kept from Mia, which directly threatened their relationship.

In other words, Seb is prepared to do what many concentrate on Mia doing when she left for Paris: letting the other go. Only in Seb's case it's not for the sake of career, but a way to abandon it.

Then he lays the final and biggest bombshell on her, placing responsibility for his unilateral decisions on Mia. He says it's what she wanted, that she's responsible for both his giving up his dream AND for giving up the relationship since they'd be apart much of the time.

This is a profound betrayal. Not only has he disrespected himself, he's disrespected her. He's willing to throw her under the bus to justify his own hugely significant self-sabotage, in addition to what would amount to sabotaging their relationship. It is a way for him to abandon himself yet frame it as a noble sacrifice.

When Mia calls him on it, and he sees how he's hurt her, he backs down, and mutters "I don't know..." The suppressed truth begins to dawn on him: the abandonment is his doing, not hers.

Mia intuited from this painful experience that Seb is vulnerable to finding excuses to abandon his dream, and that he's also willing to justify it by transfering responsibility onto her, which would inevitably result in his resenting her down the line.

The second event caps it off when he's a no-show at Mia's performance. He's chosen to comply with the group's needs over hers. At that point Mia's change of heart is made totally blatant when she says to Seb "It’s over."

Seb wonders what she means, and she tells him she means her dream of making it as an actress, but obviously it's also about their relationship -- about her emotional distance from him. At this point Mia already moves away from Seb, back to her parents' -- a kind of practice run for the big break (double entendre intended).

His ride-to-the-rescue that leads to her big break recoups his honour, but not broken faith. Repairing the loss of emotional connection would demand time and energy and sacrifice from both of them. That would be one thing if they were both prioritizing the relationship, and if there were no sudden once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for one of them to fulfill a now-competing value that would take her to a different continent for at least seven intense months.

They make a fateful mistake, allowing the exciting but confusing circumstances at the time blind them so that they lose incentive and the sense of how precious their connection is, undervaluing it and letting it slip away. They acknowledge this together in their shared "what if" fantasy five years later, which is why the ending is so bittersweet.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

Rubymar1, you yourself are restating the same rationale over and over. Why the double standard?

Unlike you, however, I have never told other posters to ignore you because of your view or because you restate it.

As for what Henry said, the problem isn't that I didn't understand it, it's that what he said is based on a misunderstanding. That was my point, and I gave reasons for it based on what is shown on-screen.

That is more constructive than what you're doing here, which is merely to support intolerance of a view you don't happen to share.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

What you wrote is this, Rubymar1: "Let's move on from the rationale of one poster's opinion that's beginning to sound like a broken record."

That is supporting intolerance of a view you don't happen to share -- don't address the criticism, just "move on." It is also criticizing me for doing just what you do, restating your view with new posters.

If you don't think his view is based on a misunderstanding -- specifically, the idea that the source of their breakup must be during the 5 yr. span -- then at least have the courtesy to address the reasons given, and not encourage others to ignore them.

You're quite right that this is not a mystery, and I've been treating it as an open book because the reasons for their breakup are made plain.

If you "just don't buy it" that's fine because the question isn't about the believability of evidence, but about its existence. Did the filmmakers actually put it there for us to even judge its believability? That's the issue.

To say you don't buy it isn't the same as refusing to look at evidence planted earlier and insisting that the source of their breakup is later, in the off-screen 5 yr. period. That's not in the spirit of dialogue; it's about wanting to monologue and not have to contend with differing views.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

judging from many other posters' opinions on this board

That is not the best approach to forming a judgment. Look hard for evidence yourself and see how it stands up to scrutiny.

You've been unwilling to consider the evidence presented. You even outright told someone to ignore it. You will only talk about what happens after Mia leaves.

'if the whole class fails it's because of the teacher.'

But evidently "the whole class" is not failing, Rubymar1. There is a minority segment of viewers who loudly complain that the ending is "unrealistic." But in every case they've overlooked the setup earlier in the story and so end up assuming that the source of the couple's emotional detachment happened after she left for Paris.

Whatever was said on the bench were just feelings expressed at the time

Yes, and as I've stated and restated, they made a fateful mistake. "Feelings expressed at the time" are also feelings acted upon. Feelings can blind, and lead to loss. There is nothing more "realistic" than that. In the fullness of time, the mistake, the blindness, is recognized as such. Hence the couple's shared fantasy.

it's unreasonable that a couple so in love wouldn't have any contact whatsoever for a five-year period.

Again, that's beside the point. "Contact" is not the same as intimacy. I've always agreed that they likely had future contact, but as mentioned their relationship was already damaged, which means they'd need extra commitment and intimate time spent together to mend it.

Their long-distance contact would not be made in the context of a strong and healthy bond, out of solidarity, but from the context of a weakened connection. Using distant forms of communication like phone, Skype, texting, it's really hard to maintain an emotional connection when a relationship is not going great. Anyone who has been in this situation knows how "realistic" this is.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

Well, that response is exactly what I described above: "You've been unwilling to consider the evidence presented."

Just attaching an unfavorable label to someone's view is not engaging with it, is not having a dialogue. It's just outright avoidance.

I'm not sure an attitude could be more tunnel-vision than that.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

It's not speculation or opinion that the events outlined were actually in the movie. If you're going to insist that they were not the source of the couple's emotional detachment, it's only reasonable to ask you to explain why. All you've done in answer is to attach negative labels. That's not "dialogue."

When you choose from the beginning to "move on" and avoid actually dealing with what has been said, there is nothing to "rehash." There is only the continual "adios" to meaningful dialogue.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

Rubymar1

Thank you for you input in this thread, which has indeed helped a lot in clarifying certain points. I don't think anyone would (or should) feel offended by the "broken record" remark, if that same person - in what should have been a cordial discussion in IMDb - generously referred to what another poster said as "parroting", which (skipping the "mistake" part) means exactly the same thing.

reply

[deleted]

I took no offence, Henry. We mean exactly the same thing. As for "cordial," I don't think deliberately ignoring the rationale for someone else's view is a cordial attitude. It's the "na-na-na-can't-hear-you" treatment. Hardly conducive to constructive dialogue.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

BRAVO!!!

reply

[deleted]

My experience has been(and I have seen this film way too many times and have spoken with many viewers) that they were negatively emotionally hit(like a blow to the gut) at the turn of events at the conclusion. The fact that the couple did not remain as a couple. However, I did not hear that they were disappointed at WHY they split during those 5 years or that those 5 years were not spelled out but that they DID stop the relationship.

reply

Still agreeing with the same error doesn't make it any more worth agreeing with. The focus on "no information for the years in-between" is misguided because it's the wrong direction: we're given all we need to know before the split.

In the three screenings I've attended I've heard a variety of comments from people afterward. I've heard grumbles, certainly, but nothing as extreme as that.

I think the most interesting reactions have been people expressing mixed feelings about the ending, while appreciating it nonetheless. Those responses tend to lead to huddled analysis as they think about the experience.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

Your insisting on it as an "error" or "mistake", repeated a hundred times, doesn't make it one. Keeping on posting all over the place, replying to every new post (even if not addressed to you) and insisting on getting in the "last post" does not make your "point" any more convincing - only more tedious and annoying.

reply

Henry, you've never actually confronted the evidence presented to support the point. You merely dismissed the point wholesale -- "I am not interested in semantics here" -- and that was that. So far you've been unwilling to risk dealing with what was actually said, and that's not the spirit of debate, but a sign of intolerance for a different view.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

Case in point ....last worditis

reply

I am willing to discuss with anyone who is sensible and knows when to stop - when both sides have presented and clarified their own views and it is clear they are unable to convince each other. You, on the other hand, are prepared to continue hitting the "reply" button until other people get tired and won't reply any further, so that you can delude yourself that you have "won". I do not think stopping discussion with such people is a "sign of intolerance for a different view".

reply

Rather it is a sign of a healthy mind an EQ.

reply

and knows when to stop

Henry, you immedately put a stop to any opportunity for discussion with a wholesale dismissal. I don't think I've won. I think we all lose when that happens.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

You lost the battle of whom is a more reasonable person. You are clearly obsessive compulsive because AGAIN you HAD to have the last word. There is medication for that.

reply

Speaking of who is reasonable, I'm not the one alleging mental illness in another, though you post just as often, showing no small desire for the last word.

It's a good bet that you will succumb to that desire again, after I post this.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

AMEN

reply