It aspires to gossamer and moonbeams, to bygone eras of jazz and black-and-white movies, to Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse. It has scenes of people breaking into song and dance in the middle of dialogue. They used to call these musicals.
How can any movie lover, or any civilized person really, be against “La La Land”? Let me try to explain.
The idea of “La La Land” is swell, and the spirited efforts of Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone — neither known primarily for song-and-dance prowess, though both have experience in those departments — are, for sure, spirited.
There are even moments where the musical-drama format (this isn’t exactly musical comedy) slips into blissful gear, especially when a rambling nighttime conversation above the lights of Los Angeles morphs into a pas de deux that feels truly earned, playing out in a single unbroken take that carries us into the old-fashioned movie paradise that the film is aiming for.
In that sequence, you can see why writer-director Damien Chazelle took the gamble of mounting a movie musical in an era that just doesn’t do this kind of film.
Chazelle snagged a “Wow, really?” Oscar nomination for writing the showily syncopated “Whiplash,” but here we should recall his little-seen 2009 film “Guy and Madeleine on a Park Bench,” an ingratiating thesis-project picture that unabashedly took the form of a musical.
The director is 31, and he has that nostalgia for things that were already played out by the time he was born. So “La La Land” happily embraces a stylized world where the palm trees look painted and where an idealistic jazz pianist, Sebastian (Gosling), might strike sparks with an aspiring actress, Mia (Stone), as they climb the ladder of success — but at what price?
The fact that Chazelle thinks this is a fine, fresh question will tell you how cutting-edge this very earnest movie is. A few poignant issues are raised — at what point, for instance, do you give up on your dreams, dreams that look a little frayed at the edges after years of struggle?
“La La Land” also hits some pleasant blue notes in treating its youthful romance with a degree of melancholy distance. (Chazelle and composer Justin Hurwitz seem to have adopted the classic “Umbrellas of Cherbourg” as the model here.)
In handing dance shoes to Gosling and Stone, Chazelle guarantees a strong baseline of skillful banter and emotional range. When Mia wonders whether she really is good enough to make it, Stone shows you the panic and resignation beneath the question. Gosling’s got leading-man stuff to burn, and he’s turned into one of our most gifted comic performers.
They deserve applause, but it would be nice if Chazelle’s affection for musicals extended to the supporting casts that used to frolic in such things; aside from an extended cameo by “Whiplash” Oscar-winner J.K. Simmons and modest turns from John Legend and Rosemarie DeWitt, there’s no interest in anybody else here.
But then this is not a musical — it’s a “musical,” an homage that adds 21st-century attitude to an old genre; the quotation marks help us forgive the game but decidedly non-Astaire-and-Rogers-like leads. This seems to be enough for many people: “La La Land” generated much festival buzz, is getting awards from critics groups, and stands likely to haul in a bunch of Oscar nominations.
I believe people when they say they are moved or enchanted by the film; it just didn’t move or enchant me. The skill on display is undeniable, but the charm feels calculated, or second-hand.
One thing is for certain: This is the kind of movie in which Hollywood loves to see itself. On Oscar night, you’ll hear a lot of self-congratulation about “La La Land” and good ol’ movie magic and “Who says we can’t make this kind of picture anymore?” and how this is the sort of movie that inspires people to try their luck in Hollywood.
Except, of course, that Hollywood doesn’t make this kind of movie at all — it’s a fluke that “La La Land” got produced in between the action behemoths and superhero sequels that are the actual purpose of Hollywood now. The dreams of Sebastian and Mia seem not just unreal in that context but, frankly, kind of dumb.
“La La Land” (2 1/2 stars)
“Whiplash” director Damien Chazelle returns with an old-fashioned musical, as a jazzman (Ryan Gosling) and an aspiring actress (Emma Stone) strike sparks in L.A. The movie’s got some neat moments, although there’s something calculated about the whole homage — and it has no interesting characters beyond its game central duo.
Rating: PG-13, for subject matter
Showing: Pacific Place
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
