Thoughts On: “La La Land” (2016)

There really aren’t a ton of movies I’ll see in the theater. Big blockbuster extravaganzas like The Force Awakens or Dr. Strange? Of course! The usual marvelous offering by Pixar? I’m there! An occasional indie might peak my interest, and naturally I’m attracted to any silent or classic film showing like a bee to the can of pop you’re holding. (If only those showings weren’t so few and far between.)

But when I caught wind of a brand-new musical drama set in modern-day L.A. that included–could it be?–subtle homages to Hollywood’s Golden Age, I thought: “Yes, please!

Related image

And what a sincere,  refreshingly impressionistic film it was. Mia (Emma Stone) is a would-be actress struggling to make it in Hollywood, plugging her way through endless auditions while working at a coffee shop on a famous studio lot. Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is a pianist with a passion for classic jazz, hoping to open his own jazz club. Their “meet cute” is far from cute, and when they bump into each other again they trade barbs, but one evening after a party they take a stroll together through Griffith Park. They pause to take in a famous panoramic view of  L.A., and soon, like the Astaire/Rogers pairings of old, they’re dancing together.

Yes, La La Land has that usual boy-meets-girl plot, but somehow it feels right against that familiar, well-worn, but still glittering background of Hollywood. After all, this was the birthplace of a thousand cinematic romances.

Image result for la la land

Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are probably La La Land‘s greatest strengths, both having the charisma and the acting chops to keep us rooting for their characters even through the predictable stretches of “going through misunderstandings.” While they don’t have the benefit of years of song-and-dance experience, they work together smoothly in the musical numbers (choreographed by pro Mandy Moore). Besides, any slight wobbliness in their routines not only fits the 21st-century requirements for “identifiable” young characters, but it’s kind of to be expected: we simply don’t have Gene Kellys or Fred Astaires anymore. The movie seems to know this–and accepts it humbly, I might add.

Folks  who are musicalphobic (alas, my brain cannot comprehend) should know that the musical numbers are incorporated into the story pretty cleanly, with occasional piano solos or jazz band performances filling in for the usual “sudden bursts into song.”

Other things I enjoyed about La La Land: the opening, because what could be more L.A. than a musical number set in bumper to bumper traffic? Recognizing various Hollywood spots from my wide-eyed tourist ramblings in the last couple years. Those lovely bright colors, especially Mia’s well-curated selection of dresses. And Sebastian explaining his passion for jazz, lamenting how it’s dying due to lack of interest, but resolving to help keep it going. Well, I perked right up there. Having a deep love for an exciting, pioneering artform from earlier times that’s obscure and overlooked today? Gee, what does that remind you of!

And, of course, I kept my eye open for the nods to old Hollywood, such as Mia pointing out a window used in Casablanca and the Singin’ in the Rain-inspired backdrop in one number. Take note, silent fans, for our own passion is represented here too (which is a big reason why I decided to review it). We see Mia walking by murals depicting Roscoe Arbuckle and Louise Brooks, and the old movie posters decorating her apartment include a couple starring–no kidding–Corinne Griffith and Norma Talmadge. Norma Talmadge, you guys!! 

Image result for la la land emma stone

That’s not one of them, but it’s the closest I could get.

A perceptive New York Times review commented, “Contemporary American movies could use more s’wonderful, more music and dance, and way, way more surrealism. They’re too dull, too ordinary and too straight, whether they’re mired in superhero clichés or remodeled kitchen-sink realism.” In this respect La La Land represents some hope, hope for more films that are confident enough to be creative and wise enough to avoid self-conscious cynicism (perish the thought).

Image result for la la land 2016

With all that said, La La Land is certainly not free of certain weaknesses that modern films are commonly saddled with. One is a pet peeve of mine that I see over and over and over again. It’s–what would even be a good term for it? The Great Dulled-Down Stretch? This is the point about 2/3 of the way through a movie when the characters Have Misunderstandings, or Get Very Introspective. There’s lots of long, quiet conversations and long, lingering looks and long, lingering shots. There’s shadows and dim lighting, for some reason. Relationships Change. Advice Is Given. The Theater Audience Gets Bored. Every dang director in the universe today seems to feel that it’s perfectly impossible to get a character arc from point A to point B without practically grinding the movie to a halt, and I for one demand that this dreadful practice end. 1920s directors like Harold Lloyd got it right–start off slow, then build to a thrilling climax. What’s changed?

Another peculiarity of the Great Dulled-Down Stretch is that this usually where a film loses its flair–in this case, the nods to old Hollywood. They’re peppered throughout the first half of the film, but once the Dull Stretch begins the film seems to forget about them, until it revives itself in the final quarter. I swear I noticed this in the recent The Great Gatsby, too. “Look! Look, we did our research! See, we put ‘Mae Murray’ on the theater marquee! Lookee!…Okay, that’s enough for now.” I love little homages and references, darn it, and I want them stuffed into as many frames as possible.

Image result for la la land 2016

I might not call La La Land an outright masterpiece, but one of the best films of 2016? Absolutely. And a large part of why it succeeds so well is because it knows its roots, and is happy to honor them. In a time when so many historic Hollywood buildings and landmarks have been torn down, a time when so many cinematic pioneers are neglected, it’s refreshing to see that parts of “the industry” still care. And I for one look forward to La La Land‘s future Oscar wins.

25 thoughts on “Thoughts On: “La La Land” (2016)

  1. I know what you mean about “dulled down.” In The Artist, we’re getting drawn into the silent era aesthetic, then the director has to introduce sound, and then Bernard Hermann’s iconic music for Vertigo just to let you know that the director knows this is a film, not real life–and more specifically a modern film about silents. I wish they wouldn’t do that. Please don’t ruin the dream!

    • Oh I know what you mean, it’s like there’s a fear of being TOO surreal or TOO fantastical, as if a modern audience is going to get up and walk out if there isn’t a proper scientific explanation for everything. 😀 It’s been awhile since I’ve seen The Artist, but I do remember not minding the Vertigo music as much as everyone else. Would have to rewatch it, though!

  2. Great review! I usually stay clear of new films that pay homage to classics just because they always leave a sour taste in my mouth ( I’m not sure why ) but I’m willing to gamble with this one and will definitely check it out.

    • Yes, this one seemed pretty sincere to me and the little references didn’t feel overly forced…more like the film was acknowledging that the idea of people chasing their hopes and dreams in L.A. was due to its history–not that it’s history was something separate that only film geeks would be interested in. If that makes any sense! 😀

    • Emma Stone’s voice did sound kind of thin (it got stronger as the film went on), Gosling’s I didn’t have a problem with. Emma is such a good actress though that the voice didn’t matter much to me–I guess I’d rather have a great actress with a weak voice than the other way around.

  3. Pingback: Thoughts on LA LA Land ! | Hollywood London Magazine

  4. Good write up! Nice to see one that is balanced and not just gushing with unbridled praise.

    I’m taking my mum to see it tomorrow and it is hard to enter this with an open mind after all the hype and “greatest film ever made” reviews, so I’m setting my expectations to low just to be safe… :-/

    • Yes, just expect to enjoy a fun, creative romance and you should like it fine! It’s not perfect, but that doesn’t matter to me–hopefully it will inspire other filmmakers to start getting more creative and less “gritty.”

  5. I’ve just come back from seeing La La Land – the music and dancing were great – never saw the attraction in Ryan Gosling before, now I get it! He’s been added to my fit list. But I completely agree about the dull stretch, the picture fell flat on it’s arse in the middle. Should’ve taken a leaf out of Hitchcock’s book – in Sabotage, the bomb blows up the bus in the middle of the film and the film loses suspense as a result. In La La Land they get together too early! There should’ve been more arguments and banter, screwball style, then get together at the end. Sorted.

    • The way they handled the ending surprised me. It wasn’t cliched, which was refreshing, but I see what you mean. And I can relate to what you said about Ryan Gosling–he’s always been “meh” to me before, but now, hmmm… 😉

  6. Reblogged this on MOSHIMELLO and commented:
    It might seems for most people is just a movie, but for me is a story that I can so relate to in my life.. In the way each of them trying to achieve their dreams, and the sacrificing that they had to make in order to make it to what they want. Its so true that you sometimes have to let go of something that you love so much, just to be in a place that you dreams of. Life is not fair, and sometimes good people can not have it all, despite the fact that they so deserve it! 

  7. Are you going to review Babylon? I’ve been reading the reviews and it seems to be very love or hate it for most people. As for me– I’m not sure I can even get past the anachronistic elements that are very visible in the trailer lol.

    • Oh boy–initially I thought I might give it a try, but apparently there’s a lot of gross out moments (!). No thanks, can’t do that. Stylewise, the director was supposedly trying to get away from “cliches,” but for cripes sake it barely looks anything like the ’20s. When 99% of ’20s themed movies don’t get the fashion right in the first place, at this point being period accurate would probably be the LEAST cliched!

      I could just review the trailer, lol!

    • Btw, the (suspicious amount of) articles stating it was “well-researched” made me snort with derisive laughter, while checking to see if it was April 1st. Yes it’s obviously December, but on the other hand, what else could possibly explain it?!

      • Everything I have read about it sounds awful, from the “oh not everyone had a bob in the 20s so it’s okay to have Margot Robie with 80s beach waves” to the elephant defecation in the opening. Also I’m guessing the title is meant to evoke that charming literary classic Hollywood Babylon, that tome of facts…. yeah, no thanks.

        • “This ain’t your great-grandmother’s 1920s!” was the vibe, I guess. A friend who saw it said the gross parts were completely gratuitous, too. Thanks, I hate it.

        • Ugh, that’s exactly the vibe I get from the trailers. It just looks like an indulgent mess. If I see it, I’ll just wait for my library to get a copy. At least I can turn it off if I get annoyed then.

  8. Pingback: So I Can’t Review “Babylon” (2022) Because It’s Too Disgusting | Silent-ology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s