The Academy's Snub of "Inside Llewyn Davis" | Off Hours | Anita Felicelli | Mountain View Online |

Local Blogs

Off Hours

By Anita Felicelli

About this blog: I grew up in Palo Alto and now live in Mountain View with my husband, daughter and two corgis. After about a decade grappling with the law, first as a law student at UC Berkeley and then as a litigator around the Bay Area, I left ...  (More)

View all posts from Anita Felicelli

The Academy's Snub of "Inside Llewyn Davis"

Uploaded: Jan 18, 2014
The Oscar nominations were recently announced, and who got snubbed seems to be a bigger deal than who was nominated. In particular, I noticed much disappointment and dismay that the Coen Brother's film about a second-rate folk singer Inside Llewyn Davis was not nominated for Best Picture. I had the exact opposite reaction. I felt nothing but relief that a well-made but not insightful movie failed to be put up for a major award. If that makes me a film Philistine, I'll embrace that title.

Llewyn Davis (Oscar Davis) is a second-rate folk singer whose partner has committed suicide. The film starts with the title character being summoned into a back alley to be kicked by a mysterious man. The rest of the movie tells us what happened in the days leading up to that point. We do learn why the man is kicking him, but the explanation is basically meaningless in the overall arc of the film.

We watch Llewyn crashing on couches, pissing people off, trying to carve out a solo career, learning that he got his friend's partner Jean (Carey Mulligan) pregnant, joining in a recording session for an amusing jingle that has all the makings of a top 100 song though it is not "art," and taking a road trip. There is little plot to speak of, though there are many events, many twists and turns.

Shot in grey and brown tones and featuring a lovely soundtrack of folk songs, Inside Llewyn Davis immediately tells us that we're supposed to interpret it as a "serious" work of art ? a "film," not a "movie." Never mind that it has nothing original to say about art or artists, never mind that its existential overtones are easy and on-the-nose. Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the movie from my perspective is that it uses visual and symbolic shortcuts to claim a meaning that the movie doesn't really earn. For example, down-on-his-luck Llewyn is sitting in a bathroom stall ?the graffiti (or literally "the writing on the wall") asks him something like "What are you doing?" that we are supposed to understand as meaningful.

I never got a sense that Llewyn was actually a working artist who was failing ? I saw instead that he was somebody who perceived himself as a musician, with all that entails. He cared more about performing the behaviors associated with deadbeat musicians, than actually making anything original and new.

Seriousness has become synonymous with bleak, and this film is definitely bleak. To its credit, however, it doesn't quite go all the way. It tantalizes us with other character's perspectives, suggesting a large world beyond Llewyn's limited vision. For example, when Llewyn calls Jean a "careerist," we see his point, but we also see hers. His sister says he should be more responsible even as he's trying (even though she is responsible for derailing his path towards responsibility).

I have been turning the movie over in my mind for a few days now. Not because of its substance, but because of the complaints about the Oscar snub. Most of the complaints seem to be that the movie is original. I have been thinking about whether it's original to make a "loser" the centerpiece of a movie. I suppose it is unusual to make a failure the star of a movie. We're more used to cinematic stories in the vein of A Star is Born.

What the Coen Brothers offer as an alternative, however, is simply the traditional perspective of parents who try to convince their children not to go to art school, become professional musicians or novelists or filmmakers. It's a hard, hard road they tell their kids, who often ignore them, particularly if they've never gone hungry or done embarrassing things for money. As a society, we are inclined to see the successes and avoid the many failures. The film is a dark cautionary tale: there is no hope for the vast majority of working artists. Most of us are mediocre. We can't even afford winter coats. This makes for a film with some truth behind it, but it doesn't make for a "best" film.

Do any adults actually need to be sold on the idea that the life on an artist is unrelentingly and sometimes unbearably hard and that most people don't make it, not because they're bad, but because they're just not good enough? At least the film had a great folk soundtrack and some beautiful visuals. I'm glad I saw it, but more glad I saw it for free.

Any thoughts about Inside Llewyn Davis or the Oscar nominations generally?
What is it worth to you?


Posted by movie lover, a resident of Midtown,
on Jan 18, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Let's see, where to begin.

Surprise for me:
HER and AMERICAN HUSTLE getting the nominations they got--I thought that while both films were good, they were no where near the best of the year. I can see INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS being snubbed--I enjoyed the film a lot, but I can see voters not liking it for it's story and as Anita pointed out the lead character. Actually thought that NEBRASKA may not get the nominations it got, but the voters came through
Was surprised that Robert Redford did not get a nomination. Mildly surprised that Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks did not either.
Was surprised that BLACKFISH was snubbed for best documentary. Was glad that Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill got nominations.
Was disappointed that Brie Larson was overlooked for SHORT TERM 12 (though it was a small indie movie that played earlier this year)
Was surprised that FRUITVALE STATION got completely snubbed. Was mildly surprised that PHILOMeNA and DALLAS BUYERS LUB got best picture nominations--the actors were a forgone conclusion for nominations .
Also of note the first time Cambodian language film was nominated for foreign film. The feature docu category is interesting--3 very strong films cited--ACT of KILLING< CUTIE AND THE BOXER and 20 Feet FROM STARDOM.
Also was glad to see GRANDMASTER nominated in a couple of technical categories. Also happy that BEFORE MIDNIGHT picked up a writing nomination.
Was not shocked that THE BUTLER was snubbed--came out in the summer and voters have short memories. Same for James Gandolfini--movie was an indie, came out in the fall.
Maybe the most surprising nomination for everyone was the best song nomination given to the christian movie, ALONE YET NOT ALONE. I do not think many people even knew that film existed!!

Posted by Niko, a resident of another community,
on Jan 18, 2014 at 3:07 pm

Worse Coen bro film in my opinion. No reason to be interested in the characters, no story arc, bad music direction to this movie. II think if this movie was made by anyone else, we would not be confused as to whether this movie was any good or not. It just isn\\\'t. Its terrible. Well, I did like the cats...and I\\\'m a dog person. I guess that means something. I would be interested in someone else\'s opinion as to why this movie was any good let alone an oscar worthy production. I just dont see it. 2 1/2 stars...and I\'m being nice.

Posted by Movie lover, a resident of another community,
on Jan 18, 2014 at 3:22 pm

[deleted for abuse]

Posted by Mike, a resident of Professorville,
on Jan 18, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Well, if one thing that the history of film has taught us, there is no place for a film that doesn\'t explain the meaning of the universe in a new and exciting way. No place.

Posted by J.A., a resident of Meadow Park,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 1:27 am

The film is much deeper than a starving artist who is just a "loser". Lleywn as an individual hasn't exactly found himself. He's been lost in his dream and goal of success. He believes that it will just happen, but for any person that is the ideal image of success. Lleywn needed to go through a realization. The cat he carries with him symbolizes the idea of Lleywn. He runs all over trying to find this cat and once he has it, it's like he's carrying around an unknown way of life. He doesn't even know the name, pointing to the fact Lleywn doesn't even know himself. He needs this crazy journey through his day(s) to see that music is where he should be. All the failures of trying to be a merchant marine show him that isn't where he needs to go. Even when he is turned down at the Gate of Horn, he goes on. He knows that music, despite being put down, is his calling. A big point to that is when he hits the cat with the car he's driving. The cat is injured and bleeding, but it is seen going on. It doesn't just die, the cat picks himself up and pushes on. This is paralleled by Lleywn when he is beaten in the end of the film. He is the idea that even when you're beaten down, that doesn't mean you give up. BECAUSE when Bob Dylan is show it is a glimpse of the future of folk. He brought the wave of popularity to the genre, thus there is hope for Lleywn. The ending is not some pointless close minded ending. It is a lesson. It shows that no matter what, ya especially for an artist, there are people who will put you down. But there's not reason to give up. This movie is extremely original in that no one else has attempted a tale about a hero, even if we hate/love him, that shows the ups and downs of life for anyone. It's truthful and real. It's raw and if you don't like that then it's just not for you. It's Oscar worthy and honestly should be nominated for best picture. It's a new idea, and the Coens hit it right on the nose. That's all.

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 6:41 am

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Thanks for your comments.

movie Lover - I was surprised about "Blackfish" and "Fruitvale Station," too. I think "Before Midnight" deserved more nominations, actually, though I'm not surprised it only got a writing nom.

Niko - I think my husband can probably write an articulate and sound defense of the movie, because he thought it was very good. I'll ask him to comment below.

Movie Lover - good point re: acquired taste, though I think some of their movies are more obviously and immediately enjoyable like "Fargo" or "O Brother, Where Art Thou."

Mike - [insert sarcastic comment here.

J.A. - Hmmm. There are a number of movies dealing just with the ups and downs of life as "Inside Llewyn Davis" does. - "A Taste of Cherry," "Au Hasard Balthazar," "Woman Under the Influence" or any other Cassavetes. It's true that the Coen Bros. are particularly drawn to telling the stories of 'losers.'

Also I disagree with your analysis about Bob Dylan. He is not a sign of hope, but the exact opposite. The whole point of Dylan's appearance in the movie is to give a brief counterpoint/contrast to Llewyn's fate - Dylan's got magic and luck -- whereas Llewyn (who is based on real-life folk musician Dave Von Ronk who didn't have the luck: despite being in the right place at the right time will languish in anonymity.

Posted by Steven Felicelli, a resident of Rengstorff Park,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 7:32 am

I am the husband of the harsh critic of Llewyn Davis - my only real contention (though we took very different things away from the film - we being ourselves rather than each other) was that she loved the folk soundtrack, but considers Llewyn Davis/ Von Ronk a 'second-rate' musician - much of her criticism seems to be of Llewyn Davis as an uninteresting, slacker wanna-be and I didn't see him that way - as to the originality of the film/story, it's a just criticism (above and beyond the it's-all-been-done truism) - even so, I think it's definitely a worth-see, if not a must-see

as for Coen Bros. movies - see Barton Fink and/or A Serious Man - both are more satirical, almost broadly comic at times, but going for the same sort of stark, dismal Everyman quality - and as testament to the subjectivity of taste (me being myself - with the back story, tastes, and disposition of myself): they are my favorite Coen Bros. movies - Fargo and O Brother are more entertaining (and also good movies), but I'll probably watch Barton Fink a dozen more times in my life

and we all need to see Llewyn Davis again imo - always subtle touches I miss prima facie with serious directors/storytellers

Posted by gsheyner, a resident of another community,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 7:40 am

gsheyner is a registered user.

The Coens have always thrived on building beautiful stories around marginal characters, or, as you say, "failures," ("Raising Arizona," "Big Lebowski," "The Serious Man," "O Brother, Where Art Thou"). "Inside Llewyn Davis" is among the best of that genre. Your concerns about the gray tones and beautiful music notwithstanding, the movie-film split rarely applies to the Coens, whose movies are usually as enjoyable as they are profound (the Dude's fan club is a giant and happy tent where stoners and auteurs down White Russians in harmony). "Llewyn Davis" has all the key Coen incredients: mordant wit, deep characters (in this case, one deep character), sharp dialogue and John Goodman acting Devilish. An unfortunate snub for a movie about art getting unfortunately snubbed. Or, as the Coens might say, "The bums lost."

Posted by Movie lover, a resident of Midtown,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 8:23 am

[deleted for abuse]

Posted by Max Hauser, a resident of Old Mountain View,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 9:32 am

Max Hauser is a registered user.

'I have been thinking about whether it's original to make a "loser" the centerpiece of a movie.'

Well, the British film industry has plenty of experience doing so; maybe that is a culture that celebrates its failures when they tried hard. I'm thinking of classics like "Scott of the Antarctic" (1948) and "Khartoum" (1966) about British historical figures who failed very miserably. Arguably, even some of the David Lean epics are in that category.

Maybe it's just a reflection on the US as a younger culture that it prefers a simpler formula, with happy endings or at least satisfaction, to a wider range of drama.

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 9:52 am

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Hi Max- Thanks for your comment -I hadn't considered it to be function of the age of the culture, but I think that's a great point. In the past, U.S. movies and books have often been structured around "epiphany" and taking away something positive. Other cultures, like British and German cultures, have long been much more comfortable with grim stories.

However, I think we're right now in a period of U.S. culture in which anti-heroes, failures, "losers" etc. are very interesting to artists, especially writers. Emphasizing "failure" in profiles of famous people, especially Silicon Valley entrepreneurs - as well as self-help books, is becoming trendy and that trend has filtered into the arts as well.

I can see how the Coen Brothers' earlier efforts regarding the marginalized of our society were more "original" in this regard because other U.S. filmmakers hadn't yet caught onto this trend. But "Inside Llewyn Davis" seems to me to be just an artistic extension of our current TV culture, which revolves around irresponsibility, failing, etc - Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, etc. I think you're right that that displays a fuller range of human drama, but I prefer the more complex work that Mike Leigh and John Cassavetes did in a similar grim vein. Anyway - I haven't worked out my cultural criticism on that in full yet, which is why I didn't develop that point in the main post.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis,
on Jan 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm

I really liked 'Inside Llewyn Davis' and recommend people go see it. It is easier for those of us more familiar with the Coen Brothers' films to understand, however.
Try watching more of their films and getting to know the character actors they often employ and their various themes and styles.
In terms of award season in Hollywood, I understand there are obvious campaigns and lots of money lavished by some studios to curry favor and gain votes for their films and actors. I think they still put up those huge billboards grabbing attention for votes. So if you don't do that, or do it to a minor degree as you don't have a big budget for that, it is difficult to get attention in the clutter and get votes, even if they are deserved.
A lot of Hollywood disgusts me, I greatly dislike Leonardo DiCaprio, and I prefer independent and creative films instead of the standard formula of blam-blam gun-blasting formulaic violence to appeal to a young male audience, sex (for same), drug use/glamorization (for same), use of good looking and well-styled young men and women who are often poor actors/singers (to appeal to a lower common denominator of young men AND women). Yuck. It's the era of Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus.
There is such potential in film, as in all creative outlets, and I DO recommend the Coen Brothers' offerings as a ray of light in a sea of ignorance and idiocy. There are other rare opportunities to see something of value, but Hollywood is principally focused on money. Surprise, surprise.

Posted by maurice druzin, a resident of Crescent Park,
on Jan 20, 2014 at 10:29 am

I am a die hard Coen Brothers fan, but this movie was flat, and did not have their usual comedic/insightful/ serious combination that makes them stand out as superior film makers.I agree with Anita\'s review

Posted by Maurice Druzin, a resident of Crescent Park,
on Jan 20, 2014 at 10:38 am

American Hustle was a great movie, superb acting, great plot and a great combination of good storytelling with some comedic relief.Bales continues to astound me with his versatility, but Jennifer Lawrence showed us that she can do more than shoot arrows and run around like a caged animal in the Survival games series(total nonsense)
Nebraska was the best of the bunch, with unbelievable acting by Bruce Dern, and a surprisingly strong performance by Will Forte from SNL.Dern's wife(do not remember her name), gave one of the more memorable supporting actress roles in years! She was hilarious, and the dialogue priceless!Add the great lighting and photography, and you have an Oscar worthy movie!!

Posted by Todd Pierce, a resident of Midtown,
on Jan 20, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Dear Anita,

Reading your commentary on the film Inside Llewyn Davis was so refreshing. This film certainly deserves to be nominated for Best Film. On the other hand, the Academy Awards do have a tendency to pass over highly intelligent and sophisticated films. In that sense, the Academy seems to sway much more with public sentiment--rather than with intelligence.

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 20, 2014 at 5:17 pm

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Thanks Maurice and Todd for reading and for your comments. I quite liked American Hustle - just wonderful writing and acting and directing - and was surprised that so many people don't feel it is special enough to deserves its nomination.

Maurice - I wasn't sure that "Nebraska" would be up my alley, but based on your recommendation and the recent CBS Sunday Morning ep about the elderly actress, I'll add it to my to-watch list.

I think the Academy sometimes does pass over very intelligent movies, particularly for Best Picture nominations (my absolute favorites of last year were not "big" movies, but the quieter, smarter ones like The Spectacular Now, Before Midnight, Frances Ha). But oftentimes I agree with the Academy's assessments to the extent I accept that the "best" aren't necessarily my favorites or the best-written or the smartest (my criteria), but the ones that are not only the best-made and best-acted, but also have "big" messages worth repeating to a large number of people. I completely agreed that The Artist, for example, deserved big picture for 2011- I fell in love with it when I saw it at Telluride. I think the real contest is between American Hustle and 12 Years a Slave this year. If The Wolf of Wall Street were made by anyone but Scorsese I'm skeptical it would have received its nomination.

Posted by bruno, a resident of Barron Park,
on Jan 21, 2014 at 8:51 pm

[This comment was removed because it was spam].

Posted by K, a resident of University South,
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:44 am

Loser? Second-rate? A tad harsh don't cha think? Maybe the guy was just grieving the loss of his buddy. Maybe the guy just didn't want to sell out to the man. Inside Llewyn Davis rocks! Can't say the same for the business (as usual) of Hollywood.

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:45 am

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Just an FYI to all the people rushing to criticize Hollywood, the Coen brothers' movies have won numerous Academy Awards. While their early films may have been "indie" in the true sense, their later films have been wholeheartedly embraced by Hollywood. They just won best picture in 2007. This particular film was certainly not snubbed in connection with their relationship to Hollywood. If, as Niko pointed out above, it had been made by a small indie director, nobody would be talking about it to this extent and there would be no comments on this post. My criticism of the movie is not a criticism of the Coen Brothers generally; I consider them far closer to Bob Dylan in terms of recognized genius than to Dave Von Ronk (or Llewyn) who obviously had some talent, but not enough.

Posted by Mark Weiss, a resident of another community,
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:26 pm

11. This probably could go above but Anita Felicelli a columnist in Palo Alto Weekly has an article on Llewyn Davis that has about 2,300 readers ? compare here: 0 so far, LITERALLY ? and her use of the word ?deadbeat? which makes me want to respond in various ways. Condensed version of all above plus link plus Steve Jenkins / Herman Anthony Zen Chunn rif and more: Maybe Llewyn is Dylan or Dylan is a composite like what we were once taught about Shakespeare. And was Van Ronk literally air-brushed out of the album cover or just someone?s metaphor?

from "plastic alto" blog if you don\'t mind me fishing for your readers, which conjures the Picasso image of a cat with fish in mouth which I seem to recall is about fascism: New Beat Casebook. Here\'s the link
Web Link

I am putting the movie like a vitrine outside Hugh Davis\' room in context of a lot of other 1961 stuff: the Beats, Eisenhower\'s "military-industrial-complex" speech, Jerry and Bob forming their first jug band here a few years later, "Howl" no so long before that, -- Palo Alto had a beat named Lew Welch a track star at Paly, but no jazz to speak of until Monk played here in 1968 -- but Joan Baez was of course here -- and this gruesome -- it sounds more like "Miller\'s Crossing" than ILD -- reference to Prof P getting a shotgun blast to face, worse than what befell literally LD.

Also, do you read or know Peninsula Parlour Lisen Stromberg of Palo Alto?

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Hello Mark. I don't know Lisen Stromberg and have never attended Peninsula Parlour, though I am vaguely aware of it and it is the kind of thing I would probably like if I had more time. I had some trouble following all the associations in your blog post so I can't comment substantively on it, but just wanted to remark that I LOVE The Flamethrowers, which you discuss there. It was one of my favorite books of 2013 - simply phenomenal. Thanks for reading this blog.

Posted by K, a resident of University South,
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:07 pm

"Dave Von Ronk (or Llewyn) who obviously had some talent, but not enough"

Excuse me? Who are we to judge. Not enough for what? He had more street cred and grit than Bob Dylan could ever dream of. My two cents is that Bob Dylan was a pop artist. That's just fine. Dave Von Ronk was the real deal.

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:11 pm

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

K - fair enough. But the movie itself makes the claim he wasn't good enough to get ahead in the ways he wanted. It's precisely what you're talking about - the relativity of taste- that was my problem with the movie. I'm a working writer closer in spirit and talent and economic status to Llewyn Davis than Bob Dylan - but that doesn't equate to commercial success. I think you're actually making arguments against the movie when you have an issue with somebody in Llewyn's position being called "second-rate" or a "loser" - that is the Coen Bros. characterization of him. Not mine. If the Coen Bros. intended the interpretation that the commenters here are seeing, they would have used this key fact: Bob Dylan used Dave Von Ronk's musical arrangement of House of the Rising Sun and made the song a hit. He deserved credit, but instead he didn't even get royalties. This is a key piece of biographical information that would entirely change the tone of the movie to one in which the world is unfair and that taste is relative. Instead, in their film, the Coen Bros. emphasized his couch surfing, his abandoning of a cat on the side of the road, his getting his friend's girlfriend pregnant, his failure to hold on to his Merchant Marine paperwork. They never showed him practicing or feeling joy in connection with his music. They never showed that it is worth it - that the individual artist's struggle is still worth it even if there is no financial or public recognition.

Posted by K, a resident of University South,
on Jan 23, 2014 at 4:06 am

Agreed. The Coens mucked up the real story. I grew up in the very rural and agricultural south in one of the poorest parishes in one of the poorest states. I know well the sound of blues, bluegrass and Gospel. When I listen to Von Ronk's voice, he most definitely has that soul. His voice is authentic. I suspect he is actually a much happier person than all of those clever fame gamers.

Thank you and keep writing!

Posted by PS, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:07 am

Films are not journalism, films do not need to be interpreted as having "messages"?otherwise the Coen Bros can go to CNN or post an editorial in a newspaper?they chose to make this case a beautiful slice of life of a second tier folk singer only loosely based on a real guy..whether it is close or not to the real story is irrelevant?I think the movie is super insightful..we feel the emotions Llewyn feels, we empathize with him, we go with him on his failed journey?(I should say "I") I found this character very refreshing and extremely unique and original, as it breaks the mold of the fundamental premise of screenwriting that dictates an emotional arc for the character, Llewyn breaks all rules by not suffering any transformations..we need more "losers" as characters depicting the real struggles of the human condition, and films like this one that capture so well the pathos of an artist..It may very well be a blessing to not be nominated to an Oscar, after all the fact that Captain Philips made it to that list and the fact that All is Lost is not in it brings the standards down several notches ...

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:01 pm

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Hello PS - Thanks for sharing your feelings on this movie and the Oscars. A point of clarification for you and anyone who feels similarly: I'm not a journalist, nor do I claim to be anywhere on the web. I'm a novelist, poet and essayist (and former visual artist), and I'm married to a screenwriter/novelist. This blog engages in film and cultural criticism, among other things - the criticism I do is based on semiotics, close reading and deconstruction in the Continental philosophy sense- the idea that there are messages in everything and that interpretation is valuable as a way to make meaning. I write this blog for people who enjoy thinking, talking and writing about the messages and the meaning of art, film, books, culinary and life experiences outside traditional workplaces. You're right that nobody "needs" to do this, but I like doing it. As an artist myself in multiple mediums as well as a critic, I find the work of critics relevant to the life of any given work of art, including my own, even if the criticism is negative. If you do not like my type of film and cultural criticism or you find it "irrelevant," you will probably be better off sticking to Peter Canavese and Susan Tavernetti's excellent reviews on this site or one of the many other interesting blogs.

Posted by ChrisC, a resident of College Terrace,
on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:25 pm

ChrisC is a registered user.

I saw this film today and loved it. I think mostly because I was part of the folk music fan base in the 60s and remember hanging out in coffee houses in Phoenix, Arizona. Yes, even there. Folk music really thrilled us, which is sort of unbelievable today. Oscar Isaac\'s face and voice are beautiful, and I loved the cat too. I also saw American Hustle today, and although it\'s a beautifully crafted film, I enjoyed Inside LD better.

Posted by Anita Felicelli, a Mountain View Online blogger,
on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:29 pm

Anita Felicelli is a registered user.

Hi ChrisC - awesome - I think most people (besides me) loved the movie and would be interested in your remembrances as a folk music fan from the time period. Please share more!! Any particular performances that stand out? And besides a personal relationship to the music, what made you enjoy Inside LD more than AH? Thanks very much for your comment.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Worried about the cost of climate change? Here is some hope.
By Sherry Listgarten | 23 comments | 3,375 views

Two Hours - 75,000 Meals – Wanna Help?
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,795 views