LA LA LAND (2017) FILM REVIEW

​**
​​​12A, 128 Mins

​This handsome, but heavily cliched jazzfest will enchant couples, but provides little appeal elsewhere.

In the world of film criticism, it’s become pretty much a flawed, pompous rule that if the universal appeal of a film is either alarmingly positive or alarmingly negative, anyone who dares to cast a strikingly different opinion is something of a pretentious know-nothing. Look at ‘The Godfather: Parts I and II’ (1972-1974), ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ (1994) or ‘Citizen Kane’ (1941)- films that seem to almost universally invite mountains of  praise from pretty much every film-obsessed human being on the face of the planet. Essentially if anyone was to give off even the slightest negative gripe about any of them, they’d be on the receiving end of one aggressive tirade from the impassioned soul of a hyper-sensitive film buff.
​
I say all this as ‘La La Land’ sings, swaggers and saxophones its way into cinemas on the back of knockout five star reviews loudly proclaiming “feel-good film of the year”. Damian Chazelle’s much-anticipated follow-up to his drum-pounding debut ‘Whiplash’ (2014) has already knocked the Golden Globes off their feet and looks set to achieve the same staggering results at the upcoming OSCARS. Undoubtedly it will also take the Box Office by storm as the uber-packed screening of universally aged screaming females most definitely indicated (I had to see three seats back from the front row!). In a film starring two of the most attractive, seasoned faces in the form of Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, what is there not to like?

It is with great displeasure to say that rather than making one skip with whimsical joy, ‘La La Land’ left me with something of an uncomfortable sickly feeling that comes from first tasting a tub full of M & S sticky toffee pudding- combined with something of a bitter aftertaste.

‘La La Land’ takes place in modern-day Los Angeles and comes drenched in sun-draped colours yet has the old-fashioned style of 1940s and 50s black-and-white Hollywood productions. Ryan Gosling stars as Sebastian Wilder - a depressed, failing jazz musician who- despite immense talent- doesn’t seem to get anywhere thanks to a musical genre that seems to be fading into obsecurity. Meanwhile Emma Stone takes on the role of Mia- a rose-faced, natural-looking, aspiring actress trying to make it big in a film industry populated by fake-tanned, superficial leading ladies. Given studios have a tendency to go for “hot” rather than just “pretty”, naturally Mia doesn’t get the role of her dreams and falls into Depression.

Perfect timing then that Seb and Mia should coincidentally and miraculously meet at one of Seb’s dreary bar gigs just as Seb’s blunt boss (J.K Simmons) rather forwardly fires him. With the two both having seemingly nowhere to go, Seb and Mia find company in each other and- through a series of wild song-and-dance routines and heaps of PDA- inspire each other to pursue their wildest Hollywood dreams.

Quite frankly, ‘La La Land’ was never a film written for me. Musicals have regularly made me bury my head in my hands simply due to one’s inability to focus on the drama underneath. Despite sitting through ‘The Wizard of Oz’ (1939), ‘The Sound of Music’ (1939) or ‘Oliver!’ (1969) countless times, there’s something about the addition of musical numbers that somehow robs the classic source materials of narrative depth.
Oddly enough the songs aren’t ‘La La Land’’s biggest misstep. Frankly- if it weren’t for it’s sun-stroked L.A setting and nostalgic shots of the city’s famed film industry- ‘La La Land’ would be little more than a riotous chick flick rather than the nostalgic throwback to early Hollywood and Jazz that it has been widely heralded as.

As a cinematic experience, ‘La La Land’ certainly has its qualities. The film is a gorgeous feast for the eyes in the way of delightfully kinetic editing and swoon-worthy cinematography. Director Chazelle clearly shows passion for the project and for L.A itself in the film’s lovingly warm pallets of gold and dark blue- perfect for a film essentially at the heart of cinema itself. It’s shame then that the film ultimately opts for overused tropes typical of a clichéd and largely dated American love story.

Everything about Seb and Mia’s love affair has been repeated timelessly over cinema history to frankly far better effect. It’s not that I mind sentimental schmaltz when done correctly- in fact I’ll admit to being something of a sucker for feelgood rom-coms. However ‘La La Land’’s attempts to elicit a teary response from audiences verges on saccharine and self-indulgent in the extreme- frankly enough to put off even the most sweet-toothed of viewers.

There’s a distinct lack of meat to ‘La La Land’’s portrayal of the Hollywood dream-  not only in the film’s disappointing “whitewashing” of a music genre considered a hallmark of African American history and culture. Essentially the film’s crucial message that it seems to scream out loud at every turn is that it’s possible to achieve your dream whoever you are. While such a concept would feel perfect for most underdog stories, ‘La La Land’’s ultra-materialist setting somewhat undermines the film’s “you can accomplish anything” vibe.

For a film set amongst the paradise of American wealth, ‘La La Land’ does surprisingly little to highlight the flaws in a film industry known for destroying the hopes and aspirations of those who don’t  fit in with the classic celebrity looks or style. In fact, it all too often over-indulges in the vacuous vanity of the celebrity lifestyle.  Admittedly Director Chazelle shows some signs of thinking outside the box with the casting of Emma Stone- an actress who simply oozes natural beauty and sweet nature. Stone has all the makings of a classic “pretty girl”- pasty white with rosy lips, cheeks and obviously hair. In many ways, she’s the walking poster child of 40s and 50s sensations like ‘Casablanca’ (1942) and ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ (1952). Stone gives her all to the role mixing sassiness and status dissatisfaction with panache. In doing so, she gets to the heart of every young woman fighting passionately to stay true to themselves in a media-dominated society which seems to shove cosmetics and plastic surgery in their faces as if to say they are less womanly without them.

It’s a crushing disappointment that the film doesn’t seem to know what to do with the immense passion Stone brings to the role as it throws her into a series of hackneyed, agonisingly safe seen-it all-before conventions. Neither does Director Chazelle seem to have much in store for that of Ryan Gosling. Gosling is undoubtedly a devastatingly dapper presence - and a supremely talented actor at that – yet his trademark brooding, silent intensity feels distractingly out of sync here. Gosling seems stiff and awkward in the company of Stone and his gloominess often dampens the film’s upbeat sensibility. On top of this, one can’t help, but wonder whether a black actor like Michael B. Jordan would have been better suited given the film’s context. Gosling’s casting seems frustratingly a ploy to lure in swooning female high-school admirers . It certainly won’t help the #OSCARS-so-white row!
​
As clichéd as it sounds, I truly wanted to love ‘La La Land’ . Yet leaving the cinema, I found myself bafflingly bathed in sweetness and indulgence yet strangely empty and rather cold. Yes. This will no doubt be an absolute winner with movie-dating couples and excitable women on a blotto night-out if the gazes of fondness and first love from the chock-a-block cinema crowd are any indication. But is it really the fascinating exploration of the decline of the American film and music industry that so many have claimed it to be? Categorically NO!