Oscars (In Defence Of La La Land)

It's the Oscars tonight. The Oscars aren't really that important but they provide an opportunity for journalists to pontificate about films and what they supposedly mean for our society. This unbearable piece of self-righteous wank from David Cox is a case in point. It's not enough to enjoy something for what it is. Everything must be analysed from every angle, in minute detail, to meet implausible standards. He comprehensively misses the point of this film*. Cox also uses the terms "jazzsplain" and "mansplain" which is reason enough to dismiss someone as a tedious bore. It's possible to both acknowledge the problems caused by the dominance of heterosexual white male culture and decry the use of these idiotic portmanteaus.

Cox believes it's a film for narcissists. It isn't. It's a musical. With big, brilliant, superbly crafted songs that stand up to repeat listens. It's not perfect. There are plot holes. You need to suspend your disbelief. But it's fun. It's two hours of joyous entertainment, of escapism. In many ways, it's what cinema should be about. I've read a few articles on this topic and Moonlight seems to be the champion of the La La Land naysayers. It's a well constructed, thoughtful, subtle, film that brings an untold story into the spotlight. It's also what cinema should be about. Both of these films have their place in the world.

I accept that it would be a positive move if the Academy acknowledged a film by a black director with a predominantly black cast. But it wouldn't be outrageous if La La Land won nor would it diminish the achievement of Barry Jenkins and his crew. I wouldn't be unhappy if it went to Manchester By The Sea either. Anyway, as I said, not that important. Despite what some people would have you believe.