Skip to main content

What do you mean you don't like jazz?

La La Land
(2016)

(SPOILERS) La La Land is very likeable, which is surely why it has been embraced so rapturously, as if it represents the second coming of Gene Kelly. It isn’t that, but it’s backward-looking take on old-school musicals, with a twist of sobriety, has made it seem fresh and distinctive in an increasingly homogenous (mainstream) landscape. It does make me wonder, though, whether director Damien Chazelle has a one-track mind. He can make a film about anything. As long as it involves jazz.


And additionally, when positioned alongside Whiplash, it’s suggestive of an unsettlingly uncompromising temperament. Whiplash justified its teacher’s extreme methods in its final reel; wanton cruelty maketh the purer artist, we are told, despite having seen all we needed hitherto to convince us that such behaviour is entirely detrimental to the nurturing of talent. I conceded at the time that maybe this was down to lack of judgement on its maker’s part, that Maybe Chazelle intended to leave his audience with more of an open debate than he does”, but in light of La La Land, I’d lean heavily to there being no mistake there. In both movies, the ends justify the means, along as the ends are success. So Mia (Emma Stone) and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) are not destined to live happily ever after, not together at any rate, but in forsaking potential bliss they gain what they have always dreamed of: fame and artistic fulfilment, respectively.


Working backwards from that, within the parameters of the generally uncynical genre of the musical, Chazelle leaves himself some curiously gaping potholes to traverse. Because he’s left with a love story in which the lovers aren’t really, not wholly, not convincingly, that into each other, and so there isn’t really any great disappointment in their eventual not to be-ness. It also means there isn’t any great flight of fantasy during their musical outpourings, certainly between the opening number (of which they aren’t a part, and which I had difficulty making out what Another Day of Sun was even about until the near the end, which isn’t very good form; either that, or speakers in the cinema weren’t doing the business) and the quite dazzling, “what-might-have-been” montage that concludes the movie.


Maybe that’s intentional, though, reflecting Mia and Sebastian’s lack of sincerity? That’s a charitable take, certainly, and I couldn’t help but notice how the choreography of the leads, Gosling in particular, is on the stiff side. The Coen brothers delivered a musical number in Hail, Caesar! that was no more than a side dish, but displayed, deftness, sleight of hand and a vibrant wit lacking even in the best of what’s on offer here. Not that La La Land isn’t funny, but I didn’t find it as spirited or as invested in the genre as, say Woody’s Everybody Says I Love You. The manner in which, for the main body of the piece, the songs shuffle in and out or linger on the side-lines, without much fanfare, reluctant to intrude too overtly on the drama of the relationship, or let things really take off, suggests something else; a quality of “musical realism” (is that a phrase?), perhaps, closer to the kind of approach we see in diegetic musicals like The Commitments than a full-blown fantasy?


It also means that, because they’re restrained, those numbers feel more rehearsed, less free and expansive than in your typical musical (admittedly, I’m no aficionado of the genre, so am happy to stand corrected). The segues too feel a little on the studied side at times, the lights lowering around the subject(s) at the appropriate moment on each occasion. But the songs themselves are extremely catchy, and for all that I’ve noted the choreography being limited, Chazelle is light years ahead of the go-to-guy for musical adaptations, Rob Marshall, in staging, cinematography and editing. Indeed, if La La Land wins the Best Picture Oscar, it will at least do something to displace the stink of the last musical to win, Marshall’s Chicago.


Gosling and Stone have previous movie form of course, flourishing in Crazy, Stupid, Love, less so in Gangster Squad (but then, no one was done any favours there). A number of reviews have noted their singing isn’t up to scratch, but as someone who enjoyed the very variable performances in the aforementioned Everyone Says, I can’t say their timbres really put me off. Mind you, unless someone is actually tone deaf, I’d probably come away nodding, “Yeah, they were fine.” The main thing here is the chemistry, and their natural charisma as performers. 


If there’s a problem, aside from a fizzled romance that is a fait accompli, it’s one of which Stone is the unfortunate bearer. Chazelle may be repeating himself with Sebastian’s all-excluding jazz obsession, but at least it’s a strong through line. He’s a sufficiently proficient pianist, but his dream isn’t of great fame, it’s of a venue where the form can be allowed free expression. And through necessary compromise (to find the funds to achieve that goal) he achieves it. It’s a very specific, heartfelt intent, the expression of an artistic soul.


In contrast, Stone’s character is rather empty-headed. There’s almost a sense that Chazelle, having fixed on what he really wanted for his male character, settled on the most rote, “That’ll do” target for her. So, she’s an aspiring actress in Hollywood, and she wants to be a writer, so she just is a writer; presto, she flourishes a one-woman play in which she acts. And is spotted. And success is asssured. There’s no path or mountain to climb, and her trajectory is entirely generic. That Mia doesn’t completely flounder is entirely down to Stone’s charm and expressive frog eyes. There’s one song (Audition/The Fools Who Dream) arising from Mia being asked to tell a story at an audition, and all she can come up with is her aunt getting wet in Paris and wanting to do it again, the theme of following one’s dream, and I was left thinking, “That, the most moribund of all Hollywood themes, got you the gig?”


All that said, I was frequently most impressed and taken by Chazelle’s confident telling of scenes distinct from the musical life blood; Mia taunting Sebastian as he sacrifices his dignity to an ‘80s cover band is much more surefooted than the subsequent song as they walk to their cars. And then there’s the standout passage in which he comes home from touring and admits he has done what he has done because he thinks that’s what she wants him to do (joining John Legend’s very slightly cheesy, populist band); it’s one of the high points of the picture.


And, of course, Epilogue is near-sublime. If the rest of the movie had the breath-taking flourish of that final number, La La Land would be an instant classic. While, on the one hand, I genuinely appreciated that the picture’s ending chose not to opt for the conventional route, that it was more resonant that way, it also led to the nagging feeling that this was a very calculated conclusion, and that there’s something cumulatively ruthless about Chazelle’s worldview, something showing through the colourful trappings and sympathetic protagonists. But I look forward to his next effort, a science fiction yarn in which Louis Armstrong becomes the first jazz musician to set foot on the Moon.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.