Hello Everybody!
I know you've all been suffering lately. The uncertainty. The frustration. The questioning of what really matters. You probably feel this way because I haven't been posting regularly to my blog- but it's all going to be better now- because I've found a little free time to share some cinematic thoughts. So kick off your shoes, grab a glass of something, and revel in this moment of movie enlightenment!
I hear there's this movie out called
La La Land. Ever since Christmas, people have either been squealing about how I
have to see it, or bitching about how overrated it is. I am always leery of hype. I try to ignore slick ads, talking heads, and social media know-it-alls like me before I go see a movie. I want to make up my own mind- such as it is.
But boy it was hard to not hear about
La La Land- especially after it was nominated for 14 Academy Awards, ultimately winning 7- oops, I mean 6 statuettes. Both pro and anti
La La Land sentiments proliferated Facebook comment sections and friendships were made and wrecked over whether the movie was an enchanting modern take on the movie musical, or a soul-less knock-off.
I finally saw the movie last week- and I can now cast the deciding vote.
I loved it.
Before anyone gets their technicolor panties in a bunch- I realize we all have different tastes- and my personal interest in movies is not necessarily better or worse than anyone else's- BUT I CRIED!!! The Lance Werth Tear Test is unassailable. I don't cry at bad movies. It's impossible. I can laugh at bad movies- but if I'm snatching Kleenex to dab at my peepers, it's not a bad movie.
Granted, the movie does deal with struggling/frustrated artists which is a topic that sits very close to my heart. And I'm always a sucker for a thwarted love story- so maybe that has something to do with my wet reaction. But honestly, I don't know how people can hate this movie.
Here are some of the reasons I've heard:
1.) "It's not original. It rips off its material from old musicals."
No it doesn't. There's nothing in
La la Land that is a direct copy of another musical- unless you consider the image of two people singing and dancing together a rip-off- which means there hasn't been an original movie musical since the first movie musical.
Okay- there might be some visual references to
Singin' in the Rain (1952), An American in Paris (1951), and
Sweet Charity (1969) but I wouldn't say the movie is an homage piece. What director Damien Chazelle does do is use vibrant, emotive colors; movement as a form of emotional communication; iconic locations; and song as character voice to tell his story about two Angelenos struggling to find success through their art.
The opening is an excellent example. "Another Day of Sun" frames our two future lovebirds in the L.A. that is equal parts traffic jam and dream factory.
The easiest example of a scene like this would be
Fame (1980) but even going back to Rouben Mamoulian's
Love Me Tonight (1932), the setting of musical numbers in an environment in such a way as to make the place itself a character is a time-honored musical tradition. Chazelle skillfully uses the classic tools in the movie musical toolbox. He isn't plagiarizing them.
2.) "Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone can't sing or dance."
Who can? The only movie star I'm aware of who is a musical-level trained singer and dancer (and by trained I mean they have been on Broadway- not
America's Got Talent) is Hugh Jackman. And he's busy making Wolverine movies. The world where there are Fred Astaires, Judy Garlands, and Gene Kellys with stars on their doors on the MGM lot are long gone.
The movie industry stopped making musicals (with few exceptions) decades ago. So there has been no need to train and develop actors who sing and dance in movies. It's sad but true. If you don't have Hollywood musicals, you don't have Hollywood musical stars. And let's be clear- even in the Golden Age of musicals not every star sang as well as they danced. That's why Marni Nixon earned a paycheck dubbing the likes of Deborah Kerr, Natalie Wood, and Audrey Hepburn.
Gosling and Stone have voices that are perfectly listenable and both move well enough to cover the uncomplicated steps that were choreographed for them. They don't clomp around like a couple of pitchy Frankensteins who are on the audition reject episodes of
American Idol. They move and sing simply- in ways that accent their performances, not distract from them.
What they do have that elevates their work beyond the realm of music video is a magnetic onscreen chemistry. It crackles and sparkles with a charm not unlike Astaire and Rogers. I was so engaged with these two characters and their relationship that the last thing I was worried about was whether Gosling was watching his feet as he completed a "Step-Ball-Change." I would watch these two just sit and chew grass. That's how good they are.
3.) "I didn't find myself singing any of the songs as I left the theater."
I have to admit- I've used this old chestnut on occasion- but after dating a Sondheim aficionado- I had to re-think that line of criticism. The modern musical is less interested in creating songs that will be turned into sheetmusic or played on the radio- and more interested in weaving the songs together to express a cohesive whole. Blame Sondheim. It's not about the individual songs- it's about how they all fit together. Having expectations that a movie musical will sound like a Rodgers and Hammerstein creation is like the old man shouting at the kids on his lawn with their long hair and their wild music. It's just not an expectation that will be met.
If you listen to the music in
La La Land, I actually think a couple of the songs are very memorable (I'll most likely be lip-synching in the mirror to "Audition (Those Who Dream)" after playing it over and over on my i-pod.) The way the themes play in and out of the action, give the film a fulfilling musical flow-through that episodes of
Glee would kill for.
So go see
La La Land- you'll love it!... Because I said so.
