I do not understand this take (nor why so many seem to agree with it blindly as this is not the first time I’ve heard something along these lines). Simply put, It’s called nuance. Bernstein grew up in time where being queer was not accepted. like at all. It’s not that hard to imagine that during that time, most people in his scenario were not acting flagrantly queer (whether in public or private at that time. So, Perhaps instead of wanting Lenny’s portrayal to be more explicitly queer or whatever, (which honestly seems a bit weird to want- almost as though people are putting this queerness in a box and anything outside that box is othered and judged- ya know, the very thing people in that community have been advocating against, just a thiught) so, maybe, instead, we can accept that it’s very possible he was portrayed that way, not because cooper wanted to ‘use’ his queerness without actually being queer or whatever but because he felt, based on his research, that this was, mostly, how he acted ? That human beings are more complex than to turn off and on some behavioral ‘queer switch’ ? (such a ridiculous notion that a someone would put so much work into a project and subjects and a story which he so clearly loved with such ill intent).

@@RBGRBGRBGRBG You are missing the point. The title of the video is called "Oscar Bait or Masterpiece." The point is, was choosing the character oscar bait, not how he portrayed Lenny.

@@campofficialmusic I’m not commenting on the title, I’m commenting specifically on what was said (what you had quoted) as, again, your initial quote is an idea that’s been proliferated. That said, if we’re talking in those terms, of course it’s Oscar bait and of course he expected to be in contention for an Oscar. That wasn’t the bone I’m picking, it’s that I don’t think that (initial comment) has anything to do with why it is. I think you can make something knowing you’ll be up for an Oscar and still try your best to make something that’s at least attempting to remain true to your characters… and I don’t think Cooper was ‘afraid to put himself into that perspective’ for all the reasons I’ve already insinuated

Except that Amadeus, whilst highly entertaining to be sure, was largely a complete work of fiction and salieri was undoubtedly a great and constant friend.

@@pipash3953 True. but my point is the director gave us so much more information, from the personal side, and the artistic side. Ok, think of "Frida".

Completely agree, I think this video essay makes it so clear where the line is drawn between Oscar Bait and Oscar worthy. I struggled through the movie, and couldn't be immersed; it just seemed like a pretentious display of 'talent' on Bradley's part. I hadn't realised he directed it, so the blame for my feeling falls on his shoulders.

Guys, the Oscars are one hundred percent political. To preface, I'm not going all conspiracy theory here, these are actual rules and guidelines to win an Oscar. Have you noticed how many amazingly great movies have gone unnoticed by the powers that be. You actually have to pay the committee to even consider you as a valid candidate. They don't focus on what the movie is about. They just pick them based on the amount of gifts they receive.

Yes, of course the Oscars are political. I just wish that there was some technology that could help me unsee the scenes looping of Bernstein cheating and Alicia getting annoyed hahaha XD@@rickwilliams967

Seriously! Bradley did a great job of making me hate Bernstein.

im sorry can u explain what u mean by ‘cooper’s reply’, what was the actual situation or contents of the letter, like did he literally just marry felicia becuz Copeland didnt want to be in a public relationship with him

@@GuineaPigEveryday OMG thanks, I edited it. I meant Bernstein replied that he might as well marry Felicia. He had asked Copeland for advice as he hoped he might be able to live as an out gay man. But Copeland knew that just wouldn't work in the industry. I think Copeland was just his friend, not a partner, the bloke he was seeing is in the film, they meet in the park and there's that kind of unsatisfying encounter where you learn very little.

Laughing my ass off, that's such a stretch

Also the picture of him and his very much younger girlfriend sitting outside reading Lolita together. Something about this guy really gives me the ick. He is a pretentious poser.

@@neapealingonsmet I totally agree!! We are the rare few that see through him I believe!

@@MsTriangle it is, but I trust my instincts 🤗

Also even die hard devotees to Leonard Bernstein find the film did him no service, one reviewer said “what’s with the constant smirk on his (Cooper’s) face, Leonard Bernstein was never like that”

Just a short two year break :) I'm back now! Thanks for sticking around ❤

@@marcustranfilm " just a "short" two year break".....You're not taking this seriously my man

It's a travesty to overlook that and nominate Maestro.

AOUS made me cry multiple times. I felt nothing while watching Maestro, couldn't wait for it to be over.

@@ericamacs3875or barely even nominating Past Lives, Maestro got fucking best picture its so shit. Also yes All of Us Strangers barely got any promotion compared to Maestro, typical Netflix bs of pushing some film regardless of qualitt

@@GuineaPigEveryday agreed. Past Lives is beautiful.

@@GuineaPigEveryday past lives is so overrated unrealistic zero dynamics between characters

Same

thank you for this essay! Now I know why I watched the movie and it does not leave me with any emotion. Bradley, Carey and Matt are actors I love, therefore I looked forward to watching it, and .... nothing. Now I know why. thanks again Marcus.

⭐⭐ ⭐⭐ ⭐ (Every now and then I see a comment that perfect sums up a post; this one qualifies!)

Honestly same problem Napoleon had, it showed us nothing of why Napoleon is so famous, so remembered, so iconic, said to be a genius, a tyrant, a liberator etc etc. you just see him acting like a manchild squabbling over his wife and one or two battles that have no tactical genius, just him winning becuz thats what he did, it also doesnt show his passion for command becuz he never fucking commands anything except in this opening battle where he shouts a few things before fighting himself, and the second battle where everyone just magically storms out in one big route. He never talks to any of his generals, its ridiculous, nor his campaigning, we never see a campaign where he must think up what makes him so brilliany, interior lines of defense ffs. Waterloo was a Total War battle, it was a big CGI mosh pit, whereas in real life he was ALMOST WINNING becuz he was just a fucking brilliant dude. Hate that movie, so much, no shred of history there, like its not just inaccurate but madeup from wikipedia, and more than that its boring and very badly written, things are only this or that becuz a character says it is so, show and tell ffs.

It felt like reading a Wikipedia page

Oppenheimer was a masterpiece. Maestro just wasn’t near as amazing and it didn’t have the hype train of Barbie and Oppenheimer

Interesting! Do you know if that's on KZfaq anywhere?

Last year, we had Tar. Although it’s fiction, it’s about a conductor and it was interesting.

I definitely agree with you that this is Bradley Cooper's intention - particularly as the film switches to Felicia's perspective during the affairs - and the whole film ends on that title card 'Maestro' over the image of Felicia, suggesting that she is the 'maestro' of the marriage. However, I didn’t feel this grand closing statement was justified given how little we actually explore of her perspective - the film starts and ends with Bernstein in such a way that Cooper tries to frame Felicia's perspective around Bernstein's perspective, and it becomes muddled. For example, I enjoy having Felicia’s perspective as we switch to it during the affairs - but the idea that she had entered the marriage knowing the affairs would happen is, like with Bernstein’s story as I explain in the video, buried in subtext and not properly revealed until the lunch scene at the end of the whole affair. So we aren’t as emotionally aligned with her as we could be during this storyline. I also think it would have been very possible for us to have had both perspectives during this story - for us to know why Bernstein feels he must act this way and why Felicia continues with the marriage. This could have created increasing dramatic irony and escalating tension as we explore their conflicting motivations. However, we don’t properly explore either perspective, and so we get the same scene over and over again - Bernstein is having affairs and Felicia doesn’t like it - and there is no evolution or interest. In fact, to me, Cooper’s decision to “switch” at the start of the affairs and not explore both perspectives speaks to someone who cares more about imposing a “bait and switch” theme about who controlled the marriage, rather than a genuine interest in the lives of these people and their complex motivations. And if he really wanted to make a story about Felicia, we should have had her perspective from the beginning of the film - why don’t we have Felicia's backstory and meet Bernstein through her eyes, instead of the reverse as is presented in the film? There are lots of interesting ideas and story arcs presented within the marriage - but the audience can never truly emotionally align with either character. To me, the film vacillates between perspectives, sacrificing depth and clarity in both. I’m glad to have put these thoughts into the world in written form - I wouldn’t have had the energy to do so in video! Thank you for your perspective and literary recommendation!

@@marcustranfilm Thank you for your wonderful and engaging response. I can't help but worry that (we?) critics tend to ply a degree of explicitness from our artists that is not necessarily justified. A friend in my MFA program has complained about this, that in workshop many of us ask for aspects of her work to be "louder," the "volume turned up" (a common phrase here at my fiction MFA), while she wants to leave things subtler. Anyway, for one, it seems clear to me that from Felicia's line early in the film, "I know who you are," she knows that Leonard is queer and will pursue relationships with men even as he's involved with her. This is subtext, yes, but it didn't strike me as all that subtle, especially given Leonard's explicit queerness up to that point (eg waking up in bed with a man in the first shot). When they are married she often complains that she "only asked for [him] to be discreet." Of course Leonard is not. As for Felicia's perspective, I noticed an abundance of close-ups on her face throughout the film, many more than those on Leonard's face, particularly reaction shots. Even in the scene you showed, just outside their apartment, the "objective" perspective belongs to Felicia: she sees Leonard and his boy-toy pressed together in the hall from so many feet away, couched against some obscuring archway. I must admit that my main gripe here is not with your reading of Maestro as an unqueer film (I admittedly don't care much about that, gay as I am), but what I perceive as your misreading of it. Here I'll provide an excerpt from my email to an instructor about the film: "I gradually discovered, however, that Felicia is no mere jilt, no mere wronged woman, but, per the Thanksgiving outburst, profoundly invested in Leonard's talent as a composer. She watches, glowering, as he dithers away his talent, never, in her eyes, at least, fully committing himself to his true work, instead using his career to exercise his 'hate,' the full glory of his hatred for how much he understands and appreciates music and how little his audience does. So he's a show-off: 'Look at everything I can do,' he says with each performance, 'and hate yourselves as much as I hate you for your own failure fully to appreciate it.'" Again, this is my reading of the film: the envy of a lesser artist for a greater one, and the greater one as seen through the eyes of the lesser.

He didn't cheat on his wife, the betrayal was she expected him to be discreet, but she knew about his affairs and gave him permission. I think you're wasting your time basing your opinions on this youtube video and a quick Google search.

@@TheCinemaDetective Then his queerness still wasn't the problem, and it shouldn't have been framed as such. That's why I replied to this video at all.

but if you actually watch the film... you might not think his queerness was framed as the problem. You're basing that on Marcus' analysis which I think is flawed because he didn't seem to understand that Bernstein wasn't cheating. It was at times a hard movie to follow, in my own analysis I argued that their relationship deal should have been more openly conveyed by Cooper, but there are still scenes with Felicia saying "I know exactly who you are" for example. Part of the issue comes from the fact that he had a deal with his wife, she knew about the men, but the children didn't know. As the film approaches the end Felicia comes to the realisation that she was the one that hadn't been honest because she'd agreed to a deal that was impossible to uphold. It's much more nuanced than as Marcus argues a subtext that his queerness hurts the family.

Wrong. The humor was completely intentional as all involved have stated.

Oppenheimer had a great script unlike Maestro.

Someone gets it.

Blown away by Carry Mulligan. Cooper was good too...but the character seemed a bit too crazy to really latch onto. I don't know how accurate that is to Bernstein.

Except Oppenheimer had a good script,beautiful acting,a memorable and gorgeous soundtrack and does go in deep to the character thar is Oppenheimer. Blockbuster≠Oscarbait

@@ct6852 i looked up videos of bernstein when i got home after the film, it was incredibly accurate!