Musings on ‘La La Land’, a musical film that leaves us with thoughts about the musical genre.
There’s a stunning stretch in Damien Chazelle’s La La Land – which I caught at the 13th Dubai International Film Festival, on a gorgeous big screen, in a theatre that looked like a la la land itself, with a million tiny golden lights that transformed the ceiling into a constellation– that’s unlike anything I’ve seen in another musical. Without revealing too much, let’s just say it’s the closest a musical has come to sci-fi, an alternate what-if reality, except that the shift in the space-time continuum doesn’t come about due to a time machine. It happens due to the music itself – due to one’s creation of it, one’s submission to it, one’s immersion in it. This stretch made my heart swell, which is what the best musicals do. Had the rest of La La Land matched it, we’d have had an instant modern classic – but this isn’t to say the film is dismissible. If nothing else, La La Land is a genre film that operates within the genre (in terms of its tropes), but also steps out of the velvet-rope boundary and clinically relooks at and refigures these tropes. It’s a musical that makes us think about musicals.
Some of these thoughts come about through explicit references. When Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) – he’s a pianist, she’s a barista who dreams of becoming an actress –break into song and dance after a stroll, we are reminded of You Were Meant For Me (Singin’ In The Rain) and Dancing in the Dark (The Band Wagon). In a later number, when Mia rises in the air, untethered by gravity, we recall Goldie Hawn’s levitation along the banks of the Seine in Everyone Says I Love You.
But the way Chazelle stages these numbers, we also think about technology. The old Hollywood musicals used long takes to showcase the stars’ dancing prowess, but the camera was mostly stationary (i.e. fixed on a tripod) and the scene was mostly static (i.e. the dancers moved but their spatial relation with the backdrop stayed the same). Today’s amazingly mobile cameras pack a lot more into these long takes, so we don’t just see two people dancing continuously, without an editor’s cut, but also zoom in and out of their surroundings, which aren’t controlled and contained studio backlots but the chaos of the whole, wide world. The camera becomes an invisible third dancer, executing its own choreography around the choreography of the stars.
Meanwhile, the old waltzes with the new. As the broad narrative conventions and sunny optimism of the 1940s and 50s gave way to more cynicism, as audiences exposed to foreign art-house cinema got used to a certain rough-grained texture in relationships, filmmakers like Martin Scorsese (with New York, New York) and Peter Bogdanovich (At Long Last Love) attempted to update the studio-backlot musical with the cinematic conventions of a more “realistic”age. That’s what Chazelle does too. On the one hand, he replicates the eye-poppingly bright monochrome costumes of the 1950s Technicolor musical. On the other, his scenes seethe with the psychological realism of the post-Marlon Brando era. A long close-up look at Mia’s audition (Stone is spectacular here)is what an older musical would have staged as a show-stopping number. Here, it is a “scene.” The emotions arise through acting instead of singing,through the tremulousness of speech rather than the brassy belting out of song.
This mix is the most fascinating aspect of La La Land, this fusion of the happy musical (Singin’ In The Rain, The Band Wagon), the wistful musical (Funny Girl, Oliver!), the showbiz musical (Singin’ In the Rain, A Chorus Line), and the sad/dark musical like Chicago and A Star is Born (the title song from the former and The Man That Got Away from the latter are both reincarnated in a marvellously confessional number sung by Mia).And while one part of Chazelle’s filmgenuflects before the rhythms of these older films – big narrative beats and equally big songs – another looks towards the relatively minimalistic French arthouse musicals Jacques Demy made (The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, The Young Girls of Rochefort), where the numbers aren’t premeditated anthems so much as speech that lost its way and is now surprised that it’s become a song. As a result, there is a bit of the dissonance we sensed in those films by Scorsese and Bogdanovich. We sense the strain of trying to transcend and out think the material, as though making a mere musical wasn’t enough, and you also have to make a comment on the musical.
Can a modern filmmaker make a great musical in the traditional sense, without being embarrassed by the inherent directness of the genre? Spike Lee came closest with the spectacular Chi-Raq, which combined overt political statement with overt song and dance. The film exploded in your face like a glitter ball that concealed a bomb. Another example that comes to mind is Everyone Says I Love You. It’s not a great movie, let alone a great musical, but it worked because Woody Allen did not strive for anything more than a comedy that incorporated a string of great songs. It didn’t matter that the cast was made of “actors” rather than singer-dancers.
Yes. There’s a difference. Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire weren’t called on to essay many dramatic roles, and Brando wasn’t asked to star in many musicals. The skill sets are different. Look at Brando perform Luck Be a Lady Tonight in Guys and Dolls or Richard Harris in Camelot and you see an actor first, a singer-dancer only later. Actors can surprise us sometimes, the way Antonio Banderas did in Evita, the way Catherine Zeta-Jones did in Chicago – but there aren’t many who can straddle both worlds, both kinds of acting.Gosling and Stone are dramatic actors thinking out a musical rather than performers instinctively grooving to their inner beats. You sense a holding back, some hesitation. And yes, that is part of the point in La La Land, to show that the musical should not belong only to people who can sing like Liza Minnelli and dance like Fred Astaire. I like the idea. I’m not so sure about the film.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
MANK
December 17, 2016
it was Richard Harris who starred in the movie version of Camelot
And I thought Brando did exceptionally well in guys and Dolls opposite Sinatra
I like both Ryan gosling and Emma Stone . I would be watching this film for them
LikeLike
brangan
December 17, 2016
Yes if course. I was apparently thinking of the stage version, where Burton was Arthur. Will make the change. Thanks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelot_(musical)
LikeLike
boredguys
December 17, 2016
I think the cinematography found a bigger resonance in you coz the movie was shot & projected on film in DIFF which has far richer colours than video.I hope son of saul (shot on 35) will be projected on 35 in CIFF just like they did in cannes.
LikeLike
Ramachandran Venkataraman
December 18, 2016
I saw the clips Fed Astire and Cyd Charisee and Fred with Ginger Rogers. the dances are smooth and delight to the eyes. But when I see the dances in tamil films some how the steps look epileptic (yes I mean epileptic), rough and jerky, Perhaps that is what the current Tamil audience like!
LikeLike
Sifter
December 19, 2016
Cyd Charisee- What an amazing dancer. Loved her with Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire. The dances in those musicals felt as if they are out to romance the heck out of you.
LikeLike
tejas bhatt
December 20, 2016
Emma Stone was a gem (pun may be intentional).
I came away underwhelmed by the film. It doesn’t reach the euphoric heights of a great musical. Technically the film was very strong. I loved the details in sound design when the feet scratch the asphalt. The “holding back” style of dancing did’t appeal much, probably because I went in with expectations of a Gene Kelly performance.
Lastly, I feel some Indian filmmakers who still consider musical as an interesting genre do a better job at it than their contemporaries in the West. Compare “Planetarium” with “Main agar kahoon” and the latter comes out as a much interesting and less tacky take on the “dreamy song sequence” scale.
LikeLike
Madan
December 20, 2016
@ tejas bhatt: I don’t know about La La Land but there’s an authenticity fetish right now in Hollywood which ruins musicals. Well, it ruined La Miserables at any rate. Write a whole new set of songs and don’t remake a classic if you want to adopt an entirely new approach to musicals because listening to a very drab, low key version of I dreamed a dream is quite painful (and listening to Russell Crowe sing, even more so). As of now, Indian cinema still seems to be comfortable with the element of suspension of disbelief that is unavoidable in a musical. Bajirao Mastani had a fabulous soundtrack, for instance.
LikeLike
Ravi K
December 20, 2016
Honestly, I don’t think much of most Indian filmmakers’ use of songs these days. They’re usually either music video speed-breakers or indifferently used background songs. I would like to see more songs that are an extension of the dialogue, in the time and place the characters are occupying, rather than sequestering the singing to some alternate world in which characters sing (often without any particular narrative reason for a song), then returning to the normal, non-singing world. It’s almost like the idea of a world in which characters sing is too audacious for the filmmakers!
“Jaane Kyun Log Pyaar Karte Hai” from Dil Chahta Hai is a wonderful example of a song as dialogue, rather than a bathroom break song. “Woh Ladki Hai Kahan” uses the fantastical elements to show the characters falling in love, and the singing isn’t restricted to the fun recreations of previous eras of Hindi cinema. It continues at the end of the song when Saif and Sonali are sitting in the theater.
LikeLike
Karthik Shankar
December 20, 2016
For me the movie was dismissible. It was the equivalent of a decadently wrapped gift box that is completely empty inside. It claims to be a musical but it’s a movie whose best moments are essentially a throwback/homage/ straight up pilfering of yesteryear’s Hollywood musical .
The reason I think the movie needed intuitive musical performers was because the movie had little to tether it to the dramatic expectations of real life. Mia and Sebastian really don’t have real life problems (she seem to live in a great place for a struggling waitress, the role she wins at the end is going to be written around her, he has to choose between making money being a sellout and opening a jazz club). The producers/Chazelle should have cast actors who are able to sing and dance with ease. What makes it worse is that the movie goes through this with a clinical efficiency that is at odds with the sort of spontaneous charm that it is supposed to evoke. It just made me think how much better the movie would have been if Stone and Gosling could actually dance and sing (although the ‘Audition’ scene is lovely).
It’s also so thin narratively. We know these people are drawn to their art but we don’t see why it drives them (again only the ‘Audition’ scene goes a little way towards that). Not to mention as charismatic as Stone is, she’s playing a cipher not a character.
Again it’s perfectly alright for a musical to be largely a collection of wonderful moments. Swing Time is presposterous but every musical moment with Astaire and Rogers is just delightful. In this case, the movie tried to have both levity and gravity (that ending would have been wonderful for a very different movie) and failed at both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nikhil Clifford
December 21, 2016
Kinda surprised that you didn’t like the film that much. This piece talks more about the genre than the film itself. Could you talk more as to why the film didn’t work for you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
travellingslacker
December 24, 2016
Din’t work for me too… can’t beliive it is receiving such high praise. I guess it is going to rule the award season too…
Strange comparison I know, but I had the same feeling as watching Revenant last year. Too much style, too much hype… but in the end we get a very basic movie with wafer-thin plot. And for a musical it doesn’t have any memorable songs. A good Bolly musical will give you at least 5 decent songs.
LikeLike
Swan
December 28, 2016
Y’all do know Ryan Gosling can sing AND dance right? He was in the same mickey mouse club with Britney and Justin. I expected him to let loose more.
Karthik Shankar, enjoyed your mini review and agree with all of it.
LikeLike
sahiravik
December 30, 2016
I enjoyed this film a lot; I thought it was beautifully made and acted. I had a few reservations, but those were easily overlooked. I wish you’d write about the film itself – it throws up so many interesting points of discussion!
LikeLike
Sazzy
January 1, 2017
Hi Bharadwaj,
I concur with Nikhil and Sahiravik. Would love to know more about your thoughts on film and why it didnt work for you. I am more regular moviegoer who watches a wide range of films , though very less musicals ( my only two hollywood musicals being Chicago and My Fair Lady ). But this La la land did stay on with me once i left the theatre.
LikeLike
SSW
January 1, 2017
I’ve seen the movie twice and I liked it a lot. I sank into the music , I’ve always been a sucker for the big band sound and still think that if Duke Ellington wasn’t black he would be added to the pantheon of the great western composers. There are some lovely musical lines in the film and the lyrics at the begining of the first song “Another day in the sun” gives you a hint of the things to come.
I think about that day
I left him at a Greyhound Station
west of Santa Fe
We were seventeen but he was sweet and it was true
Still I did what I had to do
Cuz I just knew
the summer sunday nights
We’d sink into our seats right as they dimmed out all the lights
The technicolour world made out of music and machine
It called me to be on that screen.
Quite bittersweet though a fast song and lots of complex vocal harmonising , great orchcestration major minor chord dips.
Yes the plot could be another Bollywood movie but with boy doesn’t get girl twist but I found it endearing. My 11 year old thought it was the best thing he had seen, right up with “My Neighbour Totoro” so that is ample praise.
LikeLike
asmamasood
January 29, 2017
My review of the movie, “La La Land: Label for the Next-Gen Musical?” at this link
LikeLike