..she actually became obnoxiousafter 5 years have past since she got her first break? A bit full of herself.
That was a twist for me. I kinda expected her to stay true to her innocent grounded self even after she bacame famous.
Paul Avery: Someone should write a *beep* book, that's for sure.
Obnoxious, no. A bit full of herself, maybe only in her visit to the studio cafe, which gave her the secret pleasure of literally acting out a dream come true. She was full of her dream self's image, you could say.
That scene with the admiring barrista replays her past dream about the future, the joy in the achievement of this value, the "what-could-and-did-happen." It's then followed by her (shared) dream about the past, the regret in the other value's not being achieved, the "what-could-have been-but-didn't."
Otherwise to me she seemed self-assured and grounded in her world until ambushed by running into Seb at the piano.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Obnoxious ? When ? When she kissed her child ? When she asked the waiter to keep the change ? When she asked her husband to go to town instead of going to the party she were invited to ? Or when she sat down when they were at seb's ?
I really don't understand your post ?
The op hasn't gotten over the break up....which speaks to how powerfully this film and it's ending resonate with viewers both positively and negatively. You can argue that it was brave to select a non traditional, banal, happy ending.
share[deleted]
I think that fleshing out would have been insulting to a lot of viewers' intelligence/imagination. As for laziness, I think viewers who prefer not to apply themselves using those God-given qualities have a pretty weak case.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I mistyped. I loved the ending and didn't think IT was either banal or traditional. It was brave. Sorry.
By way of further answer, I don't believe the open ending was lazy. it leaves the viewer free to speculate and discuss their interpretation. I understand the counter argument that the writer/director owes it to the audience to clearly spell out the back story. I feel that Chazelle put out enough information on which a reasonable attendee can make a plausible theory. It is fiction. BTW, at your suggestion, I joined the website you recommended. Have a nice vacation!
[deleted]