Reply to Topic
I haven't seen La La land. It just feels like a premise that's been done way too many times.
First of all a couple things before I get into a couple of my specific criticisms of La La Land... I rate it as a B+ or A- film. I also didn't watch it until a couple years ago and that was primarily because it was so heralded on MoFo and also because I do like Ryan Gosling in many of his roles... his best being Blue Valentine with his best film being a toss up between Drive and Blade Runner 2049. A third reason I watched it was because I had read it was a throwback to old Hollywood musicals and an ode and homage to that era of filmmaking. Cool.
So on paper I loved the idea and concept of La La Land and I think anyone who is a huge movie buff... especially if you're like me and prefer the Golden Age of Hollywood and the old studio system era over present day films, on the whole that is.
I love the fact that La La Land references some of the greatest musicals like The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and An American in Paris as well as directly having nods of the hat to films like Rebel Without a Cause. But all of this felt empty and superficially treated by the story and the direction.
You are right in the premise of La La Land being done several times, but I would agree on the career vs love aspect. Just as every film that chooses to have the "it was all just a dream" owes a debt to The Wizard of Oz, nearly every film that has the woman choosing between her love and her career owes a debt to The Red Shoes.
Aside from some poor blocking and camera movement. Take the "Another Day of Sun" freeway opening. How more of that wasn't done in long shot or mid shot and how it was coreographed more strongly, I'll never know. Yes the center of attention (coat) of the camera moved from person to person, but everything around it looked so sloppily done and if you were to pause the film at any moment during that sequence... the framing/mise en scene wouldn't be balanced... there would be cars half in and half out of frame, some characters would be standing around more others dancing... some in focus some out... no real attempt to follow any rule of thirds or aesthetic framing of the shot. It was just a complete mess, despite being a very cool and clever idea. And I get that we are in a time of constant camera movement and tracking shots, but Hell Scorsese could do that, Paul Thomas Anderson could do that, and even Vincente Minnelli in his musicals had some wonderful tracking shots. From what I see in La La Land, Damien Chazelle is just not that great of a director.
Another scene where this is apparent is his butchering of what could have been a beautifully shot scene or moment when Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are at the Griffith Park Observatory in their breakup scene... which from a writing, pacing, and editing standpoint is just horribly inserted and pops into the film suddenly out of nowhere. In fact I had to rewatch that scene and the several minutes before and after it several times just to make sure I didn't miss anything because it felt like there was a scene missing or something had gotten cut out of the film.
But yeah, if you're a director and grip USE the area and USE the location to its full potential! The fact that we don't really see the beauty of the background and the Hollywood hills and the colors of sky is criminal. Use a deep focus lens and then also place these two wonderful actors where we can get a mid shot of them both in frame so we see both their faces simultaneously rather than over the shoulder close up of one and then the back of the head of another and rinse and repeat. Use some great mid shots, deep focus lens... capture the beauty of these actors, the beauty of the scene, and the beauty of what should be a great scene. Instead we get out of focus, one actor's face at a time, blurry background that essentially looks like a zoom call. Also if you specifically analyze this scene... who the Hell did the movie rushes or screenings of this because on a handful of shots and frames we have tree branches and trunks in the background coming out of Ryan Gosling's head. Anyone who has taken a high school photography class or has done yearbook knows that this is a huge "no, no." Always position the subject of your shot so that they are not frame with light posts, trees, telephone polls, goalposts, etc sticking straight up out of their head that are located behind them.
This is so strange too because the one sequence where they are dancing in the evening on the balcony overlooking L.A. with the sunset (the sequence that is featured in most pictures and posters of the film) is very well done, despite Gosling and Emma Stone not being able to dance well. Ryan Gosling has danced far better on the Mickey Mouse Club and if Debbie Reynolds could learn steps in Singin' in the Rain, Emma Stone could have perhaps done a bit more and if not, maybe she was a bit miscast.
Another big complaint is with the ending. I love the dream sequence and homage there, but how the film suddenly skips five years and she's a big film star... OK, but since the entire premise of the film leading up to this point is that she really REALLY needs to dedicate herself to following her dreams and that somehow means she can't have a relationship with Goslings character... to only five years later find herself married to some rando with a kid? Honestly. What the Hell? It's just silly and poorly done. So if the film is undermining its own premise that she does the right thing in choosing her career over her love for Ryan Gosling and his dream of having his own night club and playing real jazz... why then do we see her married and with a kid five years later. Is it just that her dreams weren't compatible with Ryan Gosling's dreams, but somehow this other dude she's with... that's OK?
I could go on and continue to do a deep dive with how La La Land is such a deeply flawed and mess of a film, one with a brilliant premise that could have been so amazing in the right hands. Oh well.
I will say, a film in a similar vein, at least in so far as being a send up to the Hollywood of the past that IS perfectly executed and amazing and well done is The Artist. So I get what La La Land was going for and it's a good film, but it's a shame it wasn't so much more and was handled by a more proficient team of filmmakers. If ever there was a case for the assembly line of experts, artists, and craftsmen working together to mold a great piece of art, it would be La La Land.
Also, I was totally and completely wrong about my top five, both of which I had predicted La La Land and The Rocky Horror Picture Show would be in. Not too be a complete contrarian, but I am glad neither of these two landed in the top 10. This actually gives me great hope for my number one pick... possibly, just maybe... just perhaps showing up in the top 10 because it truly is the greatest musical of all time and I'll argue that and debate that and fight for that stance until I'm blue in the face and down to my last drop of blood.
Finally moviewise... a youtuber who is by far, who I find to be, the most in depth and analytical film critic and analyst on the interwebs, has broken down several aspects of La La Land too and demonstrates where is has massive shortcoming and in some spots is very amateurish.
[url="[/URL]
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
