If you liked TAR, would you like this?

Leonard Bernstein is one of my favorite conductors, and so I'm definitely in the target audience for this. I agree, the aging makeup for Cooper is perfect.

(If conductor biopics become a trend, we'd better get von Karajan next. His story would be truly fascinating, but possibly embarrassing to his estate.)

I cannot wait for this

Saw it at a film festival. Excellent, but somewhat depressing. Definitely Oscar material. The very last scene solidified my thought that the real maestro was his long suffering wife.

Tonyperkis said:

---

If you liked TAR, would you like this?

---

Tar is a better movie. This is just okay; Bradley Cooper was carried by Lady Gaga in A Star is Born, which becomes much more clear after watching this.

The guy above is right: Oscar Bait.

Tonyperkis said:

---

If you liked TAR, would you like this?

---

I liked both (again, I liked Tar more, though), but they're two completely different kinds of movies. The only thing they have in common is that the leads are conductors, and that's it. This is big, sweeping, audacious, and feels like old Hollywood, while Tar is almost more of a Kubrick-inspired psychological thriller.

Capybara said:

---

Tonyperkis said:

---

If you liked TAR, would you like this?

---

Tar is a better movie. This is just okay; Bradley Cooper was carried by Lady Gaga in A Star is Born, which becomes much more clear after watching this.

The guy above is right: Oscar Bait.

---

Absolutely not. Is Cooper a little hammy? Sure. But he's also phenomenal in this, and is literally the odds on second favorite for Best Actor right now, just behind Murphy.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This movie seems like pure, unadulterated Oscar bait.

Cooper is a good actor, but he comes off as very pretentious to me, and very desperate for an Oscar. Can't really put my finger on why.

---

It's definitely Oscar bait, and again, is like 85/90% of what I wanted it to be, but neither of those things take away from its more incredible accomplishments.

WP69 said:

---

Saw it at a film festival. Excellent, but somewhat depressing. Definitely Oscar material. The very last scene solidified my thought that the real maestro was his long suffering wife.

---

My thought as well, as it seems to pretty blatantly make this point.

TCTTS said:

---

Capybara said:

---

Tonyperkis said:

---

If you liked TAR, would you like this?

---

Tar is a better movie. This is just okay; Bradley Cooper was carried by Lady Gaga in A Star is Born, which becomes much more clear after watching this.

The guy above is right: Oscar Bait.

---

Absolutely not. Is Cooper a little hammy? Sure. But he's also phenomenal in this, and is literally the odds on second favorite for Best Actor right now, just behind Murphy.

---

Those awards don't reward merit anymore, and you know this. Until there's an awards ceremony that rewards well-done movies like John Wick 4 and the latest Hunger Games alongside things that will be (rightfully) awarded like May December, I (and I'd imagine most on this board) will disregard them.

TCTTS said:

---

Capybara said:

---

Tonyperkis said:

---

If you liked TAR, would you like this?

---

Tar is a better movie. This is just okay; Bradley Cooper was carried by Lady Gaga in A Star is Born, which becomes much more clear after watching this.

The guy above is right: Oscar Bait.

---

Absolutely not. Is Cooper a little hammy? Sure. But he's also phenomenal in this, and is literally the odds on second favorite for Best Actor right now, just behind Murphy.

---

He was great in Star is Born, Burnt, and Silver Linings Playbook

Which is better Tar or Maestro.

I think Maestro should be the story of Bob Cobb.

Capybara said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Capybara said:

---

Tonyperkis said:

---

If you liked TAR, would you like this?

---

Tar is a better movie. This is just okay; Bradley Cooper was carried by Lady Gaga in A Star is Born, which becomes much more clear after watching this.

The guy above is right: Oscar Bait.

---

Absolutely not. Is Cooper a little hammy? Sure. But he's also phenomenal in this, and is literally the odds on second favorite for Best Actor right now, just behind Murphy.

---

Those awards don't reward merit anymore, and you know this. Until there's an awards ceremony that rewards well-done movies like John Wick 4 and the latest Hunger Games alongside things that will be (rightfully) awarded like May December, I (and I'd imagine most on this board) will disregard them.

---

This is a vast overgeneralization, "and you know this." All I'm saying is, someone who was "carried by Lady Gaga" wouldn't be in the hunt/conversation if that were true, or nominated FOUR times prior in the last ten years.

Got it. Def sounds like TAR is more my jam but this seems worth a watch

I think you're smart and have good intentions, but how can you still think the Academy is interested in merit? Even its younger members by and large don't care. It's a museum with lots of debt. That's it.

You're turning this into a different argument, one with a completely different agenda. I don't care how lame or lazy or meritless you think the Academy is, someone who's managed to be nominated four times over the past ten years, and is well on their way to a fifth, isn't someone who is suddenly proved to be "carried" by a pop star, acting-wise.

In that particular movie, he was. Look, I like him a lot as a person, and think overall, he's a good actor. He was better earlier in his career, but has slipped quite a few times in the past five or so years. I don't blame for caring less about live performances either - they mean much less than they used to, especially when he was growing up and undoubtedly dreaming of becoming one professionally.

None of this changes my opinion that she was much better in that movie, and that he phoned it in for this one. I can understand why: nearly any time gay subject matter is dealt with in mainstream American productions, it falls flat, mainly because those pulling the strings are uncomfortable with either realistic or fantastical/dark attitudes/depictions of gay men. This used to not be true. Friedkin's Cruising dealt with this very well, but lame activist groups ensured that movie couldn't be judged on its own merits.

Maybe you or others are unaware, but he's had plenty of gay sex, and maybe even a relationship or two with other men, which is probably why he was so interested in making this. I further empathize with him because it's impossible to be an out gay movie star, and I will say that some of the industry's fears that ensure this are legitimate. You'd think this might change as the industry and other changes in media have badly wounded the idea of a movie star, but even then I'm not sure, but I digress.

Not that this is merely a "gay" movie; it aspired to be more than that. But it conveniently leaves out his superficial support of the Black Panthers too. He, like many talented artists and intellectuals of that era, latched onto New Left movements rather than Old Left ones in the face of rising social strife because new technologies that are now viewed as commonplace ensured that wealth would move along its desired path. Sure, most people of the New Left or loosely aligned with it were much younger than anyone of other movements, but they still needed institutional backing to shift things their way. They got it, and so now we have a "progressive" entertainment industry. This was the genesis of "wokeness", by the way. Curiously that was never explored either.

Admittedly part of this little rant is colored by the separate reality I've been coming to accept, that no piece of American media will ever be as good and mean as much as Mad Men did. Whatever. Plenty of things are still entertaining and/or well-done.

Point me to a more interesting place on this board (or anywhere else on the internet, which is unfortunately where all of this takes place now) to comment, and I'll cut down on the length. Still, this was disappointing. I don't like saying/thinking this because of the glut of them, but this should have been an HBO miniseries instead. They wouldn't have skimped.

I don't care about the length of the post - I make lengthy posts all the time - it's that this started simply as a minor disagreement about Cooper being carried by Lady Gaga, along with his acting in this movie, but then suddenly swerved into a takedown of the Hollywood awards system (which... fine, but is mostly irrelevant to this conversation), and ended with a diatribe about Cooper as a gay man (who, if anything other than straight, is bi), the Black Panthers, the genesis of wokeness in Hollywood, and your critique of all the events you felt this movie should have covered, instead of critiquing the movie that Cooper chose to make (focusing just as much, if not more on Felicia) - all of which you spoke to as if dealing with objective facts, when they're opinions/rumors at best.

Especially the "phoned it in" part, because, personally, I feel that he did the exact opposite. You may not have liked the performance, but as the writer, director, producer, and lead actor, the last thing I questioned was his passion/commitment. If anything, he seemed almost *too* dedicated to the project/role, never mind enduring hours a day in the makeup chair, the physicality and voice work that went into the role, etc. He absolutely transformed like few actors do, and I just don't at all get where the "phoned it in" thing comes from, treating it as fact, and then using it to question his/Hollywood's commitment to the depiction of gay men on screen or whatever.

And this is coming from someone who didn't even fully love the movie/is in agreement that it has flaws.

TCTTS said:

---

I don't care about the length of the post - I make lengthy posts all the time - it's that this started simply as a minor disagreement about Cooper being carried by Lady Gaga, along with his acting in this movie, but then suddenly swerved into a takedown of the Hollywood awards system (which... fine, but is mostly irrelevant to this conversation), and ended with a diatribe about Cooper as a gay man (who, if anything other than straight, is bi), the Black Panthers, the genesis of wokeness in Hollywood, and your critique of all the events you felt this movie should have covered, instead of critiquing the movie that Cooper chose to make (focusing just as much, if not more on Felicia) - all of which you spoke to as if dealing with objective facts, when they're opinions/rumors at best.

Especially the "phoned it in" part, because, personally, I feel that he did the exact opposite. You may not have liked the performance, but as the writer, director, producer, and lead actor, the last thing I questioned was his passion/commitment. If anything, he seemed almost *too* dedicated to the project/role, never mind enduring hours a day in the makeup chair, the physicality and voice work that went into the role, etc. He absolutely transformed like few actors do, and I just don't at all get where the "phoned it in" thing comes from, treating it as fact, and then using it to question his/Hollywood's commitment to the depiction of gay men on screen or whatever.

And this is coming from someone who didn't even fully love the movie/is in agreement that it has flaws.

---

There is no difference between an out gay man and bi man to the majority of Americans, whom Hollywood aims to serve, even as it becomes more difficult to do this with each passing year.

I care much more about what was not included because I simply think all of that - the much more controversial stuff - would be more compelling than the lifeless relationship he wrote, produced, acted, and directed. Bernstein was easily one of the most important American artists/musicians of the 20th century, and I think he ought to be taken as an entire person instead of the uninteresting and limited one Cooper depicted. Again, I understand why this fell flat, which is why I've hammered both the gay and the political aspects to this story and the industry as a whole. Like it or not, this stuff matters.

Ultimately, though he definitely cared about this project, I still maintain that he phoned it in because he was unwilling to tackle the complex and controversial nature of Bernstein. Again, I don't blame him. Why do so when you know you'd be pressured to whittle it down from the get go?

Lastly, you can dismiss my concerns about Hollywood's stifling depictions of gay men, but know that many do care, and ignore things they'd otherwise be interested in because of this lack of realism. We don't want overtly, or even subtly, political depictions. The industry would be stronger - culturally, not just financially - if it actively promoted admittedly flawed movies like King Cobra or made very well-done ones similar to the foreign productions of Stranger by the Lake and Weekend. Sure, there are compelling and contradictory depictions of gay men in tv shows like Looking and The White Lotus, but personally I'm tired of tv with episodes that have runtimes of 50+ minutes or so. I know I'm far from alone in this regard too.

Except the whole point of Cooper "limiting" the depiction of Bernstein was a purposeful decision, not a "phoned in" or lazy one. You're saying Cooper left out certain controversial things about Bernstein because Cooper "was unwilling to tackle the complex and controversial nature of Bernstein," and my issue is you're stating that as a fact. When A) you have no idea, and B) it's fairly obvious that the movie's true focus is actually on Felicia, and what SHE meant to Bernstein. As we see in the final frames of the movie, as the title "Maestro" superimposes over FELICIA'S image, she's the true maestro - the central figure in Bernstein's life whom he finally appreciates in the end, in her death, through his regret and remorse.. In other words, Cooper clearly made a conscious effort to tell HER story not just in addition to Bernstein's, but to use Bernstein as means to prop up her story in equal regard to, if not above, his. Cooper is giving the character of Felicia HER due, choosing to depict the things she endured, and show how much she meant to Bernstein, at the expense of diving deeper into the bi, Black Panther, etc aspects of Bernstein.

In doing so, there simply wasn't the runtime to include everything you're wanting from Bernstein's story, and if everything you're wanting from his story meant making it is a limited series, well, it doesn't get made at all, at least with the likes of Cooper, Spielberg, and Scorsese (who are each credited as producers).

You wanted a different movie, which is totally fine.

But you're saying the reason that you didn't get your movie is because of some deficiency on Cooper's part, when it's clearly not a deficiency, rather it was a conscious choice to focus on another character as well, and the maestro-like effect she had on Bernstein's life.

"If summer doesn't sing in you, then nothing sings in you. And if nothing sings in you, then you can't make music."

This is the theme of the movie, one Felicia, in her wisdom, delivers to Bernstein roughly halfway through. Bernstein then repeats the line in the end, finally having "learned his lesson," so to speak.

Bernstein conducted the orchestra.

And it was Felicia who "conducted"/inspired Bernstein.

Not if the discussion helps others understand Cooper's intentions, once more people start seeing it and weighing in.

C@LAg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Never in my life would I think there would be this much argumentation over a guy who flicked a stick around for a living.

---

he also wrote music and conducted orchestras.

---

Way to take my post seriously before capybara got all riled up.

TCTTS said:

---

Except the whole point of Cooper "limiting" the depiction of Bernstein was a purposeful decision, not a "phoned in" or lazy one. You're saying Cooper left out certain controversial things about Bernstein because Cooper "was unwilling to tackle the complex and controversial nature of Bernstein," and my issue is you're stating that as a fact. When A) you have no idea, and B) it's fairly obvious that the movie's true focus is actually on Felicia, and what SHE meant to Bernstein. As we see in the final frames of the movie, as the title "Maestro" superimposes over FELICIA'S image, she's the true maestro - the central figure in Bernstein's life whom he finally appreciates in the end, in her death, through his regret and remorse.. In other words, Cooper clearly made a conscious effort to tell HER story not just in addition to Bernstein's, but to use Bernstein as means to prop up her story in equal regard to, if not above, his. Cooper is giving the character of Felicia HER due, choosing to depict the things she endured, and show how much she meant to Bernstein, at the expense of diving deeper into the bi, Black Panther, etc aspects of Bernstein.

In doing so, there simply wasn't the runtime to include everything you're wanting from Bernstein's story, and if everything you're wanting from his story meant making it is a limited series, well, it doesn't get made at all, at least with the likes of Cooper, Spielberg, and Scorsese (who are each credited as producers).

You wanted a different movie, which is totally fine.

But you're saying the reason that you didn't get your movie is because of some deficiency on Cooper's part, when it's clearly not a deficiency, rather it was a conscious choice to focus on another character as well, and the maestro-like effect she had on Bernstein's life.

"If summer doesn't sing in you, then nothing sings in you. And if nothing sings in you, then you can't make music."

This is the theme of the movie, one Felicia, in her wisdom, delivers to Bernstein roughly halfway through. Bernstein then repeats the line in the end, finally having "learned his lesson," so to speak.

Bernstein conducted the orchestra.

And it was Felicia who "conducted"/inspired Bernstein.

---

I'm not going to reread this entire conversation, but I stand by everything I've said. Their relationship felt flat, and I think this is because Cooper didn't really want to hone in on it to the precision he did. I remember seeing part of an interview/discussion he did on Tar, with him basically giddy about how much he enjoyed Blanchett playing a narcissist, and this makes sense - he would've enjoyed doing the same in this, but instead made and acted in this whitewashed depiction (thank God Andrew Dominik didn't do the same in the very underrated Blonde from last year).

I'd enjoy the movie as is - Felicia front and center - with better acting (and a bit better writing), but again, we need to ask why he and Mulligan were so off in this.

Also, what do you mean *I* (no idea how to do italics on mobile, whatever) have no idea about any of this? Who actually has any idea besides Cooper himself? It's more fun to just plant the flag instead of deliberate like we're in a courtroom, or wherever. Im far from a critic, but more people (or anyone) would read their pieces if they would do this, but ofc this cannot happen when so much is relegated to YT, with videos 5x as long as they should be (ironic, ik). Post-literacy for most isn't as far away as many would think.

Last point, but I never go into any movie expecting anything suited to my tastes, besides its overall quality. Retrospectively, it's easy to pick out things that would have made a bad/lackluster movie like this one better. Okay, that's all for good.