Reflections on mother! (w/spoilers)

FAITH - MAN-MADE OR GOD-GIVEN?

I think that Darren Aronofsky's most recent film mother! is going to go down in history as his most controversial, most uncomfortable and maybe most misunderstood. It is not a movie I would recommend for most people, if for no other reason than it requires a thinking mind to view it and to engage with it. And, frankly, most people don't go to movies for those reasons and some are even opposed to having to think as they view. 

I did some research before I went to see mother! so I was somewhat ready. Still, I realized that the minute the film started, everything was going to be something else. They said it was an allegory ... and maybe one within another, depending on how you view parts of the Bible. They said it was going to be about religion ... and it was, but you have to be familiar with context and branches of various religious constructs throughout time. And then, there's a possibility that other philosophies and beliefs are part of the movie's narrative/message as well.

See, this is a movie with a message. Everything is designed to promote that message. Or maybe messages. Aronofsky has gone on record saying that the movie is about our earth and how we care for her. I see that as the foundation on which he creates his morality play. Maybe, in a sense, Aronofsky is being used to pass on a message - does he know he's being used thusly? Who knows - the 'yes' or 'no' doesn't really matter, I don't think. The point is - there is a message in here for all of us - those who claim the name 'Christian', those who claim to be naturalists, those who are part of our world today.

What I saw when I viewed the entire film is a presentation on how something starts pure and beautiful and whole but the minute it gets into 'human' hands, and gets passed along, the closer it comes to complete destruction and obliteration, all oblivious to and justified in the mind of the 'human hands'. The adulation and obsessive clawing at anything of 'Him' (aka God) is much like that Christians today who believe they have all the answers, and have missed the message. There's a scene where one of the fans is charging through the house, grabbing, stealing, destroying wherever he can. The mother is shocked and he says something like, "He said what I have is yours." This was like a cold cloth in my face - yes, God has given us this world and all the things in int ... and what have we done? We've 'charged' through the 'house', destroying, killing, turning nature upside down. Whether global change is real or not, nature has a balance and we are throwing that balance off with our destructive, self-centred raping and annihilating of everything we should be loving, nurturing and caring for.

And this goes beyond the environment - in the movie and in our world. At the end, before the complete destruction of the home and everything/everyone in it, the camera starts this circular motion and doesn't let up until the end. It's like a whirlwind, a cyclone and you can't stop it ... it's like the film is shouting - 'This is YOU!  This is what YOU'VE done! YOU have led us here! YOU have created this and done this and claim it is in my name!" And scenes flash by - guns and violent death, people in the house killing each other, all morality is gone, everything is relative and no one is wrong - raping of the mother, killing of the child (yes, a reference to Christ's death and communion, and the concept of transubstantiation is huge at this point), rampant war on life and all things good.  Transubstantiation is a legitimate theological tenet, but maybe Aronofsky is pointing out how truly frightening faith really can be if we take it literally. It is my personal belief that too much of the time we force religion to say things that it was never meant to say when we are adamant on taking things literally.  Any intelligent Christian will share how the Bible is not a science book and each genre of writing needs to be viewed through those lenses, and yet those of faith have turned it into something of their creation, God in their image. That's the difference in taking something literal, forcing something to say something that it was never meant to say to begin with ... and examining the same thing through the genre, context and cultural understanding to truly understand the moment and the message intended.

But here's the thing - this western world we live in is convinced that it's right, regardless of consequence of our actions. We have done away with any form of common truth; everything is relative and no one is wrong. The arrogance of the common man is frightening, the lack of concern, presence of disrespect and near hatred evident in social media, coming from the mouths of leaders, and people I know. There is no problem if we agree; but if we disagree ... what follows is evident that (generally speaking) we can no longer get along if we hold differing opinions. And, taking this into a realm that is supposed to be known by its love, is being known by anything but.

And as the movie spirals out of control, as complete annihilation and destruction becomes imminent, it is almost as if Aronofsky, through his film, is saying - it doesn't matter what you believe, YOU have done this ... and we're all fucked. And ... in the midst of it , as everything is crazy, He comes close to his Creation and, in a way that's loving and tender, whispers, "We need to forgive." We are called ... we are commissioned ... if we are to survive, we need to forgive. From the inside out, not just in word only.

There is so much more the film holds, as each scene and sequence holds food to contemplate on man levels.  This is just the way I reflected on it after seeing it once. If I see it again, I maybe reflect again. It truly holds a library's worth of contemplation! I remember hearing that if you want to prepare for this movie, read Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree. And yes, that is good in preparation ... were it that a children's book could heal the people!

Again, this film is not for everyone ... in fact, it is probably not for many. It is confusing, it is a whirlwind that leaves you more with a feeling than with any cohesive thoughts. Aronofsky said he wanted most for people to react, and they are. Few are positive ... and even fewer understand it as I do. I might not be right, but it did bring me to tears, as it sinks in that I am part of why we are heading in the direction we are. I am in part, to blame, for the death and the hatred around me. Regardless of what others thought or felt, this is a movie that will stay with me a long time. And, ultimately change me in some way. Few movies do that.

Reflections on: Gone With the Wind (w/spoilers)

A CLASSIC REPEATING

There is no doubt that Gone With The Wind is a classic - first colour film to win Best Film in 1939, first black actor to win best supporting actress, winning 10 of the 13 nominated Academy Awards, filmed when racial segregation was alive and well, about a point in history where transition went from one world, gentile and proper and elegant to a world of change and growth, of equality and poverty and loss, where in a matter of days, the world of refinement was gone with the wind.

I had a chance to see this classic on the big screen a bit ago and am very glad I did.  It is a classic, in every sense of the word, but what I found intriguing were the characters and how much they are like people I know today.

As I work my way into the thoughts I had while watching this film, don't ever get me wrong - there is something about this movie that is magnificent. Whether the sets or the costumes, the visuals and cinematography (characters in black relief against the fires of Atlanta), the opulent wealth pushed up against the abject poverty once the Union Army plundered the land they won. From a filming/technical point of view, I could look at stills of this film forever.  I thought I'd have trouble staying awake but no - just over 4 hrs on the edge of my seat. And, yes - it needs to be seen on the big screen. I am captivated by every moment of that film - curious to the historical context, wanting to learn more about the novel it came from and the challenges it took bringing it to the big screen in that day.

But what stood out for me is something that may or may not be intentional, because it was like someone was shining a light on an aspect in the movie that is almost being repeated today. I'm wondering if this is how people where then, or perhaps more apt: what motivated Margaret Mitchell to create her 4 main characters thusly - how 'real' were they at that time because there seems to be something very 'real' about them today.

Let's see if I can explain ...

There are two couples: Scarlett O'Hara (played by Vivian Leigh) and Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gable) and their 'reflection', Ashley Wilkes (played by Leslie Howard) and Melanie Hamilton (played by Olivia de Havilland). You can find ample discussion of various themes online - themes of survival in a time of change, overcoming adversity, gender strength and growth, transformation of the Southern culture, importance of land, female intelligence, even perseverance, among a multitude of others. But what I want to reflect briefly on are the two couples, the characters they have individually as well as together as couples, and reflect on similarities I am seeing in our world today. A link? by chance? who knows ... but I do see a similarity.

This is a story about a woman who wants to live in a lovely world where she is the centre of everyone's attention. Problems looming on the horizon, she refuses to acknowledge and can't be bothered with preparing for them. In her world, she loves the idea of love and is so caught up in her fantasy that when the man of her dreams (Ashley) announces his engagement to another, she can't believe it ... and spends the rest of the movie convinced that he will return to her. In her world, it is all about her; even when things go bad ... it's still all about her. Ironically, the one most suited for her, Rhett Butler, is the same ... it's all about him.  From the first time he sees her, he knows he will have her, he knows what she needs, she is his equal because their priorities are the same - themselves. Even their last famous iconic lines reflect this self obsession on each of their parts: "Oh, Rhett, what will I do?" ... "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." She doesn't care about anyone but herself and what she will do now ... and he doesn't care about her at all because he is done. What could have been an amazing relationship if they had given to each other becomes a catastrophe when it's all about me.

In the reflection, we see what some say is a older way of life, but I think there is something in there about human character that illuminates a beauty that is possible when the character is not so self-absorbed and puts themselves forth for others in a genuine, selfless, giving way. Yes, both Melanie and Leslie are examples of the past - He bravely goes off to fight the battle for his home land, she stays and cares for all around her; beautiful shots of their love for each other as they part; his soldiers speak so highly of him, people speak so highly of her. All these things are never shown for either Rhett or Scarlett - as the battle rages on, Rhett spends time with prostitutes and Scarlett doing what she needs to do to keep a roof (Tara) over her head. These are our 'heroes' and 'heroines' in this movie - people who are so self-absorbed that you can almost hear the familiar mantra: "Make me happy or leave my life because I have no need of you!"

There is so much in the story, but if you look at ever instance, it boils down to this view on life- this hedonistic, self-centred view that my needs need to be met first. Even when she walks through (incredible scene!) the soldier 'graveyard' of dead and almost dead soldiers, going on for miles, she is almost not affected because she is going there for her needs. There is no way she can deliver Melanie's baby and the doctor must leave here to do that. How she even had the audacity to ask is beyond me, but she did. And yes, she went back and delivered the baby ... but I don't think the scene she saw barely affected her, where as to us, it was meant for a powerful gut punch at the cost of this battle and its losses.

Here's the thing, and I'm not quite sure how to say it: we still live in that world. We still live in a world where there are wars and battles (maybe not on our land ... yet) and our lives show not one iota of wanting to help them but rather why am I not happy. We still live in a world where we like the idea of love but those who hunker down and work through their problems with each other are few and far between. Relationships should be about giving, not about what you should be getting ... and sadly, the 'getting' is most important to many. What can I get? What can s/he give me? where is my happiness? Neither Ashley nor Melanie are perfect, but there is a sense that they are meant for each other and that the feelings they have for each other, right to the end, are the 'real deal'.  Ashley will be forever a broken man when Melanie dies because she is gone. When Rhett leaves, will Scarlett forever be a broken woman because he is gone? I don't get that same feeling. I get a feeling of anger, of revenge, of "I'll get you back!" ... as if you are an object taken from me and all I have to do is capture you again.

An incredible film ... take any one character and follow them through and you have an amazing story. Take any one character and hold him/her up to the window of our world, and what do you see? or even more of a challenge, though certainly possible, hold them up to a mirror and can you see yourself in them? Who are you most like? Which relationship is most like yours? Here is a story, from 1935 (or so) that begs for a sequel ... and there have been some done. But none by the woman who first wrote Gone With The Wind.  In Margaret Mitchell's mind, "They got what they deserved", and there's no need to continue.  I like that. We don't always need a sequel or a part 2 to show us 'what next' because sometimes wrestling with that last moment of what is can teach us more than any sequel can. I might be late to the show, but Rhett and Scarlett will long stay with me ... and not for positive reasons, but for good ones.

Reflections on Dunkirk

TIME: LIFE’S ULTIMATE ENEMY

This last week has been a bit of a difficult one for me personally. No need to get into the details here, but the overall theme has had to do with “is this all?” And all the little pieces that make up my day that get in-between me and my day and the more that I dream is still possible. I know the personal part of this reflection might not make sense, but I hope some part of it will resonate with you, Dear Reader. 

Last night, I went to see Dunkirk with my movie-compadre. I remember seeing the trailer a long time ago and somehow have not managed to get out to see it. I think last night was a good night to go, because it provided a place fr me t contemplate that concept - time. Especially since it was a major theme of the film, and seemed to be woven throughout the entire story.

There are directors that you know will make a quality film; there are directors that you know will make a film in a certain way or style … and if you like that, then it doesn’t matter the name of the film, you will go see it. Christopher Nolan is that kind of director for me. I like that his movies are filled with thought-provoking themes, with a ‘look’ that can be gritty without being gratuitous, where he brings quality of solid story-telling to the screen that engages the viewer in more than one way. Dunkirk is all of these, and a little different than previous films. 

I refer to Time as a main theme in this film, and so the film starts … with soldiers running away from the bullets - who is faster? Who can stay out of the line of fire? Can they get away ‘in time’? If you take the survivor and follow his story, it covers. 24 hours from the hopelessness of survival to one of hope as the masses of soldiers miraculously survive. The story is there, in the history books. That is not a spoiler. What Nolan brings to the screen are three separate views of the event - one from the men in the sky (over an hour), one from the men on the sea (over 24 hours), and one from the men on land (the ‘mole’, a dock of sorts that juts far out into the ocean; over the prior week). This reflects Winston Churchill’s famous quote: “We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

It is not random that time has been given a significant part - this provides the film with that uncomfortable ‘push’ to the end; as you know that deadline is looming, what’s going to happen? Time is squeezing in on the moment in history. It’s not about a character - don’t complain that there is no character development because that’s not what this film is about. Don’t complain that it is not a a cohesive plot, because it’s not about that either. It is about multiple snapshots into the many lives on that one day - the young boy trying to live, the cocky kid who thinks he’s invincible, the youth who wants his life to mean something, the pilot who will not give in but gives himself up in the end, the old man who knows what war is, the general who is overwhelmed by the hopelessness of the situation for his thousands of men, the subordinates who are sure it’s just a matter of time until they’re all dead … and then, in the nick of time, a swarm of little local boats coming over the channel. Is Time the enemy? Or the saviour? Does it squeeze its characters until they almost break or does it hold off the Enemy for one more minute until they can be rescued? It certainly is a character; perhaps the only one constant throughout the film. (Interestingly, the Germans are not given a name or a face; this means the story is about them but not, like a McGuffin: required to drive the plot forward but not what the story is about.)

If you want to know the value of an hour, ask lovers waiting to meet. If you want to know the value of a minute, ask the person who just missed the bus. If you want to know the value of one second, ask the person who just escaped death in a car accident. Time is the ultimate Enemy, for none of us can truly escape it. We might, for a minute or an hour or a week, but in the end, we all end up in the same place. The difference is … what happens between now and that moment, can make all the difference in the world. Miracles are possible. Just look at Dunkirk.

(Edited to include:)

90th ACADEMY AWARDS NOMINATED FOR:

Best Sound Mixing (Won)

Best Film Editing (Won)

Best Sound Editing (Won)

Best Original Music Score

Best Cinematography

Best Production Design

Best Director

Best Picture

Reflections on 12 Monkeys (TV Show)

FREE WILL OR PRE-DESTINY?

First, I need to say this is being written at the end of Season 3. Season 4 (the final one) has yet to be completed and shown. Second, though I have written mostly on film, this is my first reflection on a TV show. And one that is not complete, to boot! Though there is a bit of a different way I approach a TV show as compared to a movie, the basics are there. So, since I just finished Season 3, and having been definitely awestruck for many reasons, I figured this would be a good visual to reflect on this evening.

Where do I start?  All I keep thinking is that the writers must have known the end when they started writing Season 1, Episode 1. This must have been a complete vision in their mind, as elements you thought were random and included as filler or red herrings now become something of importance. This is the kind of show where a line is given, and that line either explains the purpose of previous events or sets you up for what is yet to come. And sometimes the line does both.

Time travel can be difficult, especially since it is not part of our real world right now and we don't know the 'rules' by which to  'live'. So, there's nothing to bend, to twist, to loop, to break ... and thus, they must have started with something. This sets up opportunities for questions that need answers for the show to be 'logical' ... what happens when the same item/person is in the same moment place in time? Can the 'future' (or an event in time) be changed? In other words, can one go back in time and change something so that, let's say, a world event doesn't happen? (That's sort of the premise the show begins on, but it doesn't stay there.) Can a person affect history to the point where he no longer exists? and what would happen then if he was not there in the future? .... What the show makes clear is that we view 'time' as a very linear concept - past to present to future. But they put forth a different idea - the 'Primaries' (a specially born person) is capable of seeing all of time simultaneously. Reminds me a bit of the movie Arrival. The example they give in 12 Monkeys - there is a line of ants, one following the other. Pick a random ant, and all he knows is the position behind him (past), his position (present), and the position if front of him (future). But if he steps out of the line, he then can see all the ants in all the positions ... all of time simultaneously.

At the end of S3, threads are being pulled together in ways that the viewer could not imagine. Through the first 2 seasons, we are led to believe the Witness is the person who destroys humanity; yet, when we finally meet the Witness (in S3), he is the Witness ... but more than that, he Witnesses. So, one who revered and followed the Witness realizes his weaknesses and takes on the role of the Witness herself ... or maybe she was the Witness all along? Only if we view time in a linear fashion ...
This is why I say the writing is brilliant. They take you on this linear ride, and just when things are starting to make sense, they shift the perspective and it makes sense in a completely different way. But this new understanding, these new piects to the puzzle they give you, also open up doors to new questions, new plots, to new motives, to new developments ... and you wonder if it was in front of you the entire time. This is a series that bears watching more than once. Especially when S4 is done ... binge watching all 4 seasons back to back.

If asked, 'What is this about?', it would be both easy and difficult to answer. At its heart, it's a love story of a man who goes back in time to kill one man who is to start a pandemic that wipes out humanity. While he is back there, he meets a woman ... and that's what sets it all into motion. The show is about love (brotherly love, familial love, romantic love, self love), it's about family (those we are born into and those we choose), it's about destiny, about having a purpose in life, and it's about change - could we change the course of events, even if we tried? or are certain things always meant to be? All these, and many more, questions are used as the foundation to the show.  Then it becomes difficult - because of the time travel, the looping in on itself, things like The Red Forest, the Witness, the Primaries, the Daughters, the Markham Group, Splinter, the Pallid Man begin to play a role in the plot ... sometimes more than one role, and sometimes what they started out is not what they became.

The characters ... are brilliant. Each one is distinct and the actor brings their person to life in the most brilliant of ways. Without a doubt, the characters of Jennifer Goines and Deacon are the ones that are most 'out there', the most eccentric and likely the most enjoyable to play. Katarina Jones is the Matriarch, the one who drives the plot forward; and Athan, son and Witness, to whom the plot makes the focus. And James Cole and Cassandra Railley - the foundation upon which the entire story rests, the relationship between these two characters. The show is a love story but not ... I'd say it's more about family and community, about purpose woven throughout. It's about - do we truly have free will? If we go back in time, can we change the future outcome? or are all things already predestine to happen?  Regardless of what we do, it will all still roll out as it was meant to be?  What do you think? What do you think the TV show would suggest?

At first, I'll admit, I got a bit confused with all the timelines, the flashing back and returning ... and then the began to incorporate going forward in time. Definitely this series is going to have a binge-watching session when it's all over, but in the meantime, you start to get the grasp. (Certain eras bring definite laughs - the 80s, the 50s, the 30s.) You start to pick up on the changes and the plot lines. And by the time you hit the centre of the last season, it's making sense.  And, what's more, you begin to feel the pressure on the back of your neck, starting to push you forward into what, you don't know. You thought you knew, but you realize now that you don't, And yet, you know the characters, you love them, you invest in them and you want there to be a positive outcome. The thing is that everything you thought you figured out? The brilliance of the writing spun you right around and you're not where you thought you'd be.

But wait - there's still one more season.  They left us on the brink of the final battle. And if this last season is an indicator ... hop on for one long, crazy ride!  I promise you, there are things beyond our imaginations yet to be experienced! Are we heading to the end of world destruction? Will the Witness win? Is she the true Witness or are there things yet to be revealed?  Was the end of the story already predestined or has free will changed it into an ending different than the one we thought would happen when this series first started?  I can hardly wait for 2018 and the final season to come.  All I know right now is ... Jennifer Goines has an alter ego!!

Reflections on Lion

WHO AM I?

The Western World is fond of memes, of pictures and mantras that subscribe to a belief we have. A common one often seen goes something like this: "Family isn't always blood. It's the people in life who want you in theirs; the ones who accept you for who you are. The ones who would do anything to see you smile and love you, no matter what."  Ah ... what a lovely sentiment! And so true, right?

Hmm. The movie Lion, released in November of 2016, would suggest that meme was correct. A little boy from India, Saroo, gets separated from his bio-family, and adopted by a lovely Australian family, who love him dearly. If that was all to the story, then it would would have been perfect and we could back it up with every belief we now have.

The movie is about that, but it's also about something else. Something that is not part of our world, something that we have lost. I believe this movie is about identity - that comes not only from who we choose, but also from our history, our past, our family that is in our essence.

Over the last year, I've had the opportunity to learn about our Indigenous People and the struggle they are going through. This struggle has come in part from their separation to their history, to their ceremony, and people. Canadian history has a dark, black smear through it - the attempted genocide of our First People. How? By 'removing the Indian from them', by separating them from their people and forcing them to stop all 'Indian' things, they believed that they could make them white. Who these First Nations people were needed to be wiped clean so that they could become part of who Canada was becoming. What they didn't realize is what happens when a human being is separated from his culture, his identity, his people.

I think this is a part that is missing from understanding the movie from the meme above. As he becomes an adult, Saroo knows that he has a good life, but also knows something is missing. Something missing in his identity, who he is at his core. And with this missing, he is broken. People ask questions, as people do - where are you from? who are you? ... and Saroo gets to a place where his quick, easy answers no longer hold water. He loves his mother and father, but he is missing his identity. And that becomes the thrust of the film. A search for self.

There are times when I ponder 'who am I?' ... what are my roots? what is my culture? where do I come from? And I don't have an answer. What I know about my history is so small ... what rituals? what ceremonies? what food? what traditions?

I wonder what time will bring - will we connect more to our past or less? And, if less, how will that play out in our people? They say we can pick our own family, it does not have to be genetic. But do we then pick our culture? our history? our rituals? I can practice what I see my Indigenous brothers and sisters practice, but it's not the same ... it's not 'mine'. I can honour them and respect them and value them, but it's not the same. Something broke forth when Saroo learned who he was ... something that only someone who walked a like road would know. Maybe this hole is something more of us have than we realize. Maybe this has more influence in our world than we know.

Do you know who you are? Who are you?

Reflections on La La Land

WHEN IS A MUSICAL NOT A MUSICAL BUT STILL A MUSICAL?

I went to see the highly acclaimed movie La La Land yesterday ... And, I gotta say - it's either a meh musical with a couple of cute numbers, some great cinematography, and average musicality at best, or there's something below the obvious, anchored in the message, that just might be close to genius, which has nothing to do with the musical component of the film (which really is average, at best).  And this is more than just those movie-changing last 15 minutes.

When people read the Bible, they tend to 'cherry-pick' their verses, interpret according to what this verse or that verse says, in its literal form. The thing is that the Bible was not written in verses, nor was it written to be literally interpreted by 21st Century western minds.  It was written as whole books of different genres, pulled together into One form, and to 'understand', it needs to be viewed as a whole, mosaic of integrated genres or parts. And what is the centre of that 'whole'? One word: Love.

So, to, sometimes it's good to look at a film in a similar way, especially if the director is good at his craft. So, if we look at La La Land as a whole, mosaic of integrated parts, what would be that centre? What would be that director's concept on which the entire movie is pulled together? At first, I thought it had to do with the line said by the secondary character: "How are you gonna be a revolutionary if you're such a traditionalist? You hold onto the past, but jazz is about the future," said by the buddy, Keith. This would suggest that the director is presenting a new form of musical to us and if we expect what 'was' musical form, we will not accept what he 'is' presenting to us.  

But, I don't think so. Or, this is a complimentary theme.  I think it has more to do with a small observational comment that Sebastian says, "They worship everything and they value nothing." This, to me, is more of what this movie is about.  Not about musicals, but an almost cautionary warning on what is happening to us as a society. Even the title, "La La Land" - frivolous, superficial, 'la la', a fanciful state or dreamworld. But if that is the meaning of the title, then what's with the story?

For the most part, we are given a story that is exactly like what everyone's dreams are - success, big name, "make-me-happy" mindset. Life is about me and pursuing my goals and doing what I want to do and defining what I believe to be true and right and good. The first part is ego ego ego - all about me. But the ending pulls that rug out from under us - it says we are living in a dream world, we are putting the emphasis on the wrong things ... and 'happiness' is NOT defined by 'me', but by 'us' ... and until we get that, until we shift our thinking, no matter how much we pursue what we think will make us happy, how much we worship the self, it amounts to nothing. We have lost the meaning of life. 

If that is the movie's essence, then the director/writer has done a magnificent job of creating a very cautionary tale, wrapped in exactly what the world believes - this frill and froth - and obviously people who go to it will love it ... because it is exactly what they worship and aspire to. The ending will be puzzling, but secondary to the movie. However, the ending is exactly what puts the movie into perspective, what makes it a 'fairy tale' for today. A 'tale' that is about 'fantastical' characters that pursue their dream, that illustrate traits that hold them back, that gives a message for protection. And La La Land is also a fairy tale - a postmodern one, if you will. We have 'fantastical characters' (people who reflect us and who we have become) that are pursuing their dream, what holds them 'back' is each other and they only achieve their dream when they separate from the other, and the message? Take that and turn it upside down - it's not a happy ending because they got what they wanted, but a very dark and bleak ending because they got what they wanted and sacrificed what they didn't know they had and didn't know they needed - community. The reason, I believe, for which we were created. If we continue to worship the self, we will discover our lives are meaningless and void of value. 

Exactly what Seb said. 

Good stories create an arc of character development. This one does not ... they are the same people they were in the beginning of the movie. Their journey taught them nothing about what has true significance in life. They have not learned from what they went through. 

They worship everything and they value nothing. Exactly what Seb said.