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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.