Week 29 ISP (Yr 1) / Week 1 ISP (Yr 2) Updated version- La La Land critical article Essays
- New York Times article 15.02.17
After La La Land’s release in 2016 it was argued over by critics if they should love or hate this film and whether or not it deserved to win an Oscar over other rival films that year, such as Moonlight.
After the Oscar was accidently awarded to La La Land at the 2017 Oscar by Bonnie and Clyde actors Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, Moonlight finally received the award for best picture. It is a common debate whether La La Land or moonlight deserved to win however looking into the socio-political contexts of both films, it becomes clear why Moonlight won over Damien Chazelle’s film. Moonlight is considered a more modern film, compared to La La Land which appears very traditional, challenging cultural stereotypes of race and sexuality in our current society. It is said that, despite the mix up, both directors were very humble about the situation.
In terms of the critic’s opinions featured in the New York Times article, it is said that ‘La La Land is a visual poem and a timely escape from all the tension and traffic and division in our lives.’ This could be argued for the love of the film as it achieves a ‘vibrant and hummable score’, ‘eyepopping visuals’ and ‘celebrates art of movie making itself and creativity’. This popular response was achieved by Chazelle’s love and passion that went into it was visible in every moment of the film, from his use of unique camera work to the sharp choreography reminiscent of popular musicals, like Singing in the Rain, from his childhood. The reason I believe this film gained so much attention was because of its feel-good soundtrack and constant upbeat energy portrayed through the mise en scene and performance. It can be argued that this takes away from the significant politics at the time, and glosses over the importance of Jazz as a traditional black art form. However, I think Chazelle’s intentions to leaving this history out of the film was to play more towards the idea of ‘escapism’ being an idea which takes the audience away from US politics and focuses on the spectator’s enjoyment of the film.
On the contrary to this opinion, it is claimed by critics that La La Land has ‘good ideas in the right places that lack the poetry, inspiration, rhythm or just pizazz to lift the movie to another plane of fantasy.” This could be suggesting how the film itself was a poor representation of Hollywood and the everyday life of those living in it, explaining how it was an unrealistic, ambiguous and wrong portrayal of LA community and the character’s ultimate goals of success and fame. Supporting this point, the question was asked within the article that ‘Why the vibrant and diverse community I knew when I lived in Los Angeles largely disappears after the first dance number and a few scenes in jazz clubs.” This implies how the film clearly ignores the mix of these cultures which make up LA that disappear after the opening sequence, becoming inaccurate and fantasy-like and making it harder for the spectator to feel immersed or relate the film. As a result this pushes away its audience, leaning into the ‘hate’ argument as it portrays unrealistic expectations LA society and politics in order to appear as if set in an idealised cinematic world, forgetting to mention the significant events in history relating to Jazz, such as the 1992 LA riots and police brutality that Rodney King faced.
When reading the article one of the most common debates that came up was the disagreement over whether La La Land could be seen as a true musical, questioning its song and dance numbers, as well as doubting the casting decisions we see in the film. An argument for La La Land is that it had instantly memorable songs and sharp choreography ‘opening and closing with a bang’. The score and dance also achieved to pay an homage the golden age musicals of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s through 1940’s style film making, consisting of multiple similarities to musicals, for example, Singing in the Rain (1952), On the Town (1949), and ‘Fred and Ginger films’. Linking this to the casting, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are praised for their ‘good chemistry’ presenting them as ‘irresistible leads’ in the film, being able to ‘keep and hold attention’ and achieving ‘real star power’. It is explained that the performance between Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling make the film what it was, having worked on other films together before doing La La Land, proved to strengthen their connection as actors, making the film that much more believable, adding to the emotional connection with the characters that came along with it . On the other hand, critics have said how ‘the film only has attention because they are red carpet stars’ as ‘the talent and content fell short’. In many opinions it is thought that Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling were out of touch with their musical talents, performing better as actors than as singers. Critics have explained how the roles could have been filled better by Broadway performers who have stronger singing and dancing abilities, which would help make the songs be more powerful and less mediocre to watch. As well as this, arguing against La La Land, the songs, however purposefully being reminiscent of past musicals, ‘didn’t feel original’ and ‘not particularly unique’, given that there were really only four full songs. For many musical theatre enthusiasts La La Land is considered not to be a traditional musical, appearing less developed as a traditional Hollywood Fred and Ginger musical should be.
In terms of the themes and ideologies discussed in the New York Times article, La La Land’s cultural relevance is debateable, the fantasy and highly positive narrative drawing critics to feel both love and hate towards the film. In terms of the ways in which this film is loved is because it ‘whisks you away into a dream while also letting you think about what you value in life’, allowing ‘an escape, a dream, a fantasy, giving us a brief flight from this maddening world.’ This contributes to the feeling of escapism, giving its audience a way to deal with ‘rough times and constant negative cycle’, and be transported into a colourful, upbeat and optimistic version of it. This links to current day politics and social issues of society, the film being a ‘response to what’s going on and look at more beautiful things out there’ perhaps suggesting this is what we all need. On the other hand, for this very reason La La Land may viewed as controversial as it is ‘not a serious issue compares to real life’, proving to be ‘not a good thing in the time we’re living in’. This is meant to show how we should be focused on the realities of the modern-day world we live in, instead of getting invested in an unrealistic version of LA. This could also be potentially be referring to Trump, also suggested in Paste Magazine where Geoff Nelson said ‘There lies a profound irony in liberal white folks heading to La La Land to repair after a political season overflowing with nostalgia of white supremacy’, argued to be even more relevant in our current 2020 society (particularly in the US).
- New Yorker article 12.12.16
La La Land is a film highly recognised for having a mixed response in terms of the audience and critic’s opinions, some of them loving it and others not so much. This New Yorker article comments on how La La land is derivative, taking inspirations from musicals throughout the 1930’s to 1960’s, making remarks to specific scenes from films such as ‘Singing in the Rain’ and ‘On the Town’, reminiscent of golden age musicals. It is said in the opening statement, ‘Boy meets girl, stuck in a traffic jam, and honks at her. Girl gives boy the finger. Boy drives on. Boy meets girl again, in a bar, and brushes past. Girl thinks boy is a jerk. Boy meets girl again, at a party, and something clicks. Boy loves girl, at last’. This appears critical towards the film’s narrative, appearing as a typical narrative for a romantic comedy. However, this is soon after contradicted as he continues ‘But what if girl and boy want different things from love? And why make such a song and dance about it?’, showing how the film has a certain originality and realism to it, offering the audience the chance to question what will happen through-out the narrative and make them doubt the typical ‘boy meets girl’ plot. This is further supported as the writer describes it as ‘not an adaptation of a Broadway show, or a coda to ‘Glee’ with a jukebox of pre-existing tunes, but an original creation’, emphasising how the score combined with the unique narrative of the film is what made this stand out from the rest of all the other musicals out there. This could be seen as a reason to refer to La La Land as a more mainstream film because of its references to other mainstream films, LA setting, traditional storyline and A-list actors. On the other hand, many regards La La Land as an independent film, surrounding its narrative around the less-typical music form of Jazz, as well as referencing Jacques Demy films
In this article, the writer stresses how the ‘sequence revives the old-fashioned view of L.A as a breeding ground of reverie and hope’, therefore implying how that is no longer the case in modern day America, further suggesting how it is simply stereo-typical vision of Hollywood. This relates to the opening and enduring image of Los Angeles, presenting it as a city of success yet at the same time questioning the accuracy of this. For example, the purpose of Mia’s luxurious and spacious apartment she shares with her friends yet somehow finds a way to afford this lifestyle from working in a coffee shop. The opening number in particular offers this interpretation showing all the characters seemingly happy to sit and wait in traffic (a concept we would not associate together) contradicted by the fact that they are singing and dancing to ‘another day of sun’ reflecting a happy and joyous atmosphere. The opening number however could reflect Chazelle’s vison of an escapist fantasy world showing nothing but the joys of living in LA and not getting too overwhelmed by the stressful responsibilities of everyday life.
When looking into Mia and Seb’s career ambitions, Mia is portrayed to be ‘an actress who spends her time going to auditions, toiling in a café, and writing a play of her own’- a role we would normally associate with a struggling actress in America. This creating a realistic image of a common LA life choice for many people who strive for a career in the entertainment industry, showing a realistic representation of the American dream and the sacrifice that comes along with achieving it. In Seb’s case, we see him as ‘a musician, whose proudest boast is that he owns a piano stool once sat on by Hoagy Carmichael, and whose dearest wish is to open a jazz joint.’ These are both hold thematic significance as it tells some truth within the story, perhaps romanticising their career ambitions but also presenting what is clearly currently happening in LA. However, it could be argued that the film ‘subsists of fantasies instead of careers, conforming to a chase-your-dream credo that is not so much traditional as antique’, presenting their careers as easy and without struggle, Seb being unemployed for the majority of the film without focusing on eh fact he still has to pay bills and rent. This closely links to the criticism towards gender roles. Seb is presented as a white hyper masculine character, too good and proud to work playing the piano at a small LA restaurant. In terms of what is shown on screen, Seb could be seen as more physically active and more emotionally driven to achieve his gaols, whereas Mia lacks drive and aspiration on screen (opposed to her going to countless auditions off screen). This also plays a part in spectatorship as Mia is mostly seen watching Seb and attending his gigs, prioritising his career over hers. If you look at this in a different light, the film in turn celebrates being a spectator as Mia takes this to motivate her to write he own play and ultimately make a career out of it.
It is said in the article that nostalgia is common theme in La La Land, yet is presented in a peculiar way, being described as ‘gutsy and purposeful rather than moony and limp’. This being the idea that ‘powers La La Land and inspires Sebastian to invite Mia to a screening of Rebel Without a Cause.’ However, the idea of nostalgia is mainly presented through Seb’s high regard for jazz and his refusal to abandon it “They always say, let it die. Not on my watch”, suggesting nostalgia is something more personal and specific to an individual rather than a collective process. This film however received a lot of backlash for this reason, accusing Chazelle’s of ‘ideological snobbery’ surrounding Jazz and nostalgia. Most fans agree with Keith’s character that traditionalism is not the best way to revive the Jazz genre. This begs the question how can you revive Jazz when you’re stuck in the past, thus coming under criticism for the portrayal of Jazz and keeping it alive ad relevant.
The writer of the article explains how ‘the colours, rather than merge into the landscape, seem to burst in your face. Mia and her roommates, on a night out, sashay down the street in dresses of red, yellow, green, and blue—hot primary hues to match the mood. Think of Vincente Minnelli, and of Technicolor in its pomp’, referring to the effect on the spectator achieved by shooting he film on Technicolour film. This agrees with my opinions, finding that the colour pallet acts a significant aspect making the film what it was, using bold and vibrant colours to make it stand out from any other film and add to the high energy positive mood created. The writer later encourages seeing La La Land in a good quality cinema saying ‘catch the film on the largest screen you can find, with a sound system to match, even if that means journeying all’, demonstrating how the score should be appreciated in all its glory in order fill the room with its powerful and catchy songs and recreate/ mirror the excited and feelgood mood in the film.
In my opinion this article seems critical of the singing and dancing as well as the narrative structure. This is a common debate amount people who love and hate the film, however I for one love the film, therefore disagreeing. Within the article the writer claims ‘If the choreography, performed with more zest than unworldly expertise, lacks the chill of the nonpareil, that’s the point. It’s no surprise that Emma Stone, whose manner is grounded in pathos and comedy alike, should carry the film with ease,’ criticising Emma Stone for her lack of experience when compared to a Broadway performer, which seems to be a popular opinion of Emma Stone’s performance. I disagree with this as I believe it make the film more realistic as not everyone can sing or dance like a professional, thus making it earlier for the audience to place themselves in the characters position and become invested in the film. As well as this the article comes across as critical of the narrative saying how ‘there remains a wistful sense of roads not taken, and the final act of the drama, set five years later, is both climactic and indecisive, swaying back and forth between the imagined and the real, unwilling to give up the chase. You may gripe at that, but let’s be honest: it’s a kind of miracle that “La La Land” even exists.’ I disagree with this as I ultimately liked the unexpected ending and flashback montage looking into ‘what could’ve been’ in their lives. This goes against its traditional style it seemed to maintain through the entirety of the film, and managed to pull us back into reality, making the audience reflect on their own decisions in life with a conflicted ending.
- New Statesman 6th February 2017
La La Land is a film loved by many however after its release was both praises and criticises for its representation and ideology of the Hollywood, the people in it and its art.
Firstly, in the film La La Land we see the value in the relationship between making and spectating art. A key example in the film is when we see Mia walk past the street art outside Seb’s bar on the corner of Hollywood boulevard. The mural is made up of iconic and well-known people such as Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Shirly Temple and James Dean. This ‘plays with the idea of spectatorship, inverting roles of artist and audience by seating screen legends in the cinema’. The mural could be seen as a ‘love letter’ to all things Hollywood, including its films, entertainment, musicals and LA itself. This shows the relationship between making art and spectating art as it suggests that those iconic figures are part of the audience, just like us, and are watching Mia and Seb’s lives unfold, pre-empting their successful futures and romance together.
Similarly, in the film we are shown the social, cultural and interpersonal value of art. It is said that in terms of the social value of art, the film ‘necessarily romanticises the experience of being an actor, a musician, a writer, even especially if it involves struggle,’ possibly having a sense of realism to the truths of a Hollywood career, involving lots of rejection and failure along the way. However in terms of art being a personal experience for the spectator, the article claims that La La Land is also an ode to the audience’ as we meet ‘working, low paid, dead-end jobs’ which make up the majority of the audience members, perhaps making the film relatable for the individual audience member on a personal level. An example in the film where we see the value of art being explored is when the careers Mia and Seb go to the Griffiths Observatory (the same one they saw in ‘Rebel Without a Cause’) where we see their romance take off. This shows how ‘theatres, music clubs and sets therefore become significant sites of communion, both culturally and personally by Seb and Mia’. In the film we also see Greg and Mia a dinner discussing the advantages of home cinemas compared to public theatres saying ‘they’re so dirty. And they’re either too hot or too cold. And there’s always people talking.’ This suggests that watching and listening are active activities- ones that we chose to go to for our pleasure and enjoyment as a way to experience an art form personal to us. This relates to the article as the writer says that ‘consuming art can have as much personal and cultural value as making art: both must occur for “culture” to exist.’ This also comes under the idea that spectating art is a part of creating new art, highlighting a problem with tradition whilst commenting on innovation. This is significant due to the fact that in the film, ‘La La Land’s own audience can never fully escape the fact that they are watching a movie’ therefore never becoming fully immersed in its fantasy and escapist world. For example, in the film’s epilogue, places from her memory become movie sets, from the lamppost Seb danced on at the LA hilltop where they first danced, to the motorway where they were stuck in traffic at the movie’s opening. This is undoubtedly engaging for the audience, however, could be argued that it is ‘too referential and self-consciously cinematic to transport its audience out of their seats into another specific place. But the dreamy technicolour panorama of La La Land encourages audiences to revel in the moments when life feels like a movie, and to find the connections between life and art’, thus making the audience appreciate the film as a spectacle whilst not completely being able to relate it to any aspect their own lives.
La La Land is a film that can be interpreted in many different ways personal to the spectator and their reading of the film, however one thing that stands oy is the feminist critique we see in the film. It is said that ‘Critics have raised eyebrows at the gender politics of this film on the back of these scenes – arguing that they present the male lead as the artist, the female lead as mostly observer, contributing to decades of fetishizing male artists while dismissing women as primarily muses or facilitators of male art and ambition’, this being a reason to disagree with the statement. However, in other aspects of the film, this is proven not to be the case. In the film we are continuously shown the world through Mia’s eyes, rather than Seb’s, repeatedly seeing Mia writing, auditioning and performing without Seb present, as well as the fact that the opening and ending sequences of the film are seen through her perspective. This is important as the film lingers on Mia’s personal story and realising her ambitions as the primal significance of the film. It could be argued that ‘all women get to do is listen’. This is apparent in La La Land however contradicted by the way in which the audience see it on screen. For example, we see Mia first meeting Seb in the restaurant Mia requesting ‘I ran’ at a pool part and the huge gig where Seb performs with his new band, making it important to the audience because Mia is watching, making her a respected character and her opinion valued most.
Similarly, in terms of representation, the film criticised for not being culturally diverse in its representation of the characters of LA as a city. In the opening sequence it is said that the film ‘opens with a stunning and visually masterful dance sequence sung by an incredibly diverse group of Los Angeles denizens”, but they “are quickly whisked away so the Caucasian sing-along can begin’, leaving behind the vibrant and diverse community after the opening umber and turning into a more traditional view of what Hollywood society should look like. For example, through the representation of Mia’s character, she ‘seamlessly slots into the role of successful Hollywood actress – as she’s already a rail-thin, white, traditionally beautiful, successful Hollywood actress.’ This links to the idea of the mural on Hollywood boulevard, potentially coming across the audience as behind it’s time. ‘If you squint, you might see a few faces that aren’t white, but they’re few and far between. The vast majority of the stars are white, chiselled young men and women; and so the trick of the mural works better if you fit a similar description,’ showing the lack of growth we see in the industry and how prejudice still exists even in the magical fantasy world of La La Land.
Lastly, in terms of gender ideology in La La Land, the single protagonist in the film is clear to be the character Mia. This is because in the scenes where we see Seb’s performance, the camera doesn’t actually focus on him or deeply explore his career ambitions, but instead draws our focus to Mia’s perspective, becoming more likely for the audience to align with her than any other character. We are initially positioned with Mia in the opening sequence and again aligned with her in the ending sequence, similarly throughout seeing the world through Mia’s eyes in more intimate scenes like her audition. In fact we rarely see Seb perform not through Mia’s point of view, as we are enlightened to her ‘evolving reactions to his music, while the film’s most fantastical scenes are all her projections, her imaginative response to what she hears’, making it obvious who the main protagonist of the film is. Because of this it is suggested that Mia is a character in the narrative of the film whereas Seb acts as a mouthpiece for explaining Chazelle’s ideology. It is also an important question to consider if the Mia’s character is sexualised in this film. Personally, I think La La Land focuses more on her career path than her physical appearance however it could be argued differently looking specifically at the ending sequence of the film. In the ‘5 years later’ prologue the first thing we are shown on screen is an image of Mia’s bare legs wearing a short dress, potentially sexualising her for her fame. As well as this we are shown Mia fulfilling traditional family roles like having an older husband and children, whereas the prologue mainly focuses on how Seb’s career has taken off.
It can also be argued that the ‘visual landscape of La La Land creates a world hovering somewhere between fantasy and reality.’ This could be seen through ‘melodic camera movements, oversaturated colour palettes, dreamlike fabrics, dance and song and references to Old Hollywood’s most iconic scenes, the ordinary becomes fantastical. Bathroom lamps become spotlights, hilltop sunsets become perfect movie sets.’ Making it clear that the film is a manifestation of everything Hollywood rather than looking into the mundane life of a regular person living in LA. The connection between fantasy and reality in the is film is established by the use of dramatics moments being punctured by the mundane, such as phones ringing, smoke alarms going off and records abruptly finishing all of which ‘serve to disrupt and reinforce classic tropes (the interrupted kiss is as familiar as the dramatic, orchestral one), and as a result we’re never sure when we’re in La La Land and when we’re in the real world.’ A specific example of where this is seen in the film is as we see a tacking shot of Mia auditioning, slowly focusing on the emotion in her face, only to be interrupted by the assistant outside the door. Another example in the subtle remarks to the film ‘Casablanca’, drawing particular attention to the windows opposite Mia’s café, ‘which offer a portal from one world into another’, therefore reinforcing the idea of fantasy and reality and how we are watching a Hollywood film while being told about yet another Hollywood film within the character’s world.
Emma Coe Film Studies 