I'm not a fan of musicals. Obviously there are exceptions, such as "Singing in the Rain", "The Wizard of Oz", and, more recently, the great "Sing Street" (not the regular American musical, where people seem to feel an uncontrollable urge to sing and dance in the middle of the street for no reason at all). However, even going against all my instincts, and because of all the fuzz, I decided to watch "La La Land".
I arrived; I sat down; I settled down; I waited. The movie begins. Suddenly, people singing, reproducing a choreography perfectly rehearsed, almost mechanical, an explosion of colors as if the world was painted in Technicolor in a long take (?) - practically perfect. I could no longer stay put, every position was already bothering me after 3 minutes.
Then we have the first glimpses of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. A bad start. How shocking! At first, we are introduced to Mia (Stone), and later we become familiar with Seb (Gosling). In a third moment, we finally have the two together and, from there, inseparable (but not so much). And here, I must say, the fact that Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are extremely charismatic helped me a lot so I would not go into a catatonic mode and stop paying attention to the screening unfolding in front of me. But not even the enormous charisma of the two was enough to make me enjoy "La La Land".
I like Emma Stone, she's a good actress. She does not have much depth, let's face it, but she manages to do her job in a decent way. I think "Birdman" was her less "Emma Stone moment" of all, because I could see a little beyond the wide eyes and the half-open mouth, her trademarks. Well, neither Emma nor Ryan are singers, much less dancers. However, it seems that all the reviews minimize these details, especially due to the forced exuberance the director displays throughout the film and the chemistry between the protagonists. The harsh reality is that Stone is no Debbie Reynolds, let alone Gosling a Gene Kelly. I could not minimize it. It was strange, it was uncomfortable.
The whole experience was uncomfortable. Chazelle is a good director, who has impressive technical skills. But, for me, he tried to take a step way longer than his legs. Perhaps, he was overconfident because of what he achieved with "Whiplash". I don't know. All I know is that it lacked humbleness. "La La Land" is pretentious and, at the same time, ordinary, it hides behind the right light and a good art direction.
Although the film is "divided" by seasons, it gets a little tricky to realize this when its set is Los Angeles. Apart from the captions on the screen indicating that we have passed from spring to summer and so on, nothing else alludes to what seems to be something important for the narrative: neither the set nor the cinematography. So, be it summer or fall, all that hovers is the love between Mia and Seb in gaudy colors.
Not that the cinematography itself is bad. Quite the opposite. It's too beautiful. As I said, the lighting is right, almost perfect. Do you see the problem? When I watch a movie photographed by Lubezki, for example, I do not need to be constantly reminded by light tricks that he is a master of cinematography. But Linus Sandgren is not a Lubezki. It is not innovative, it is not exceptional.
And this leads us to the script: girl meets boy; girl falls in love with boy; girl and boy live unforgettable moments; problems happen. I have to admit that, here, Chazelle even tried to skip the usual "and lived happily ever after". But it backfired. I'm not going to tell what happens at the end cause it would be unfair to those who have not yet watched it. It is enough to say that, even if he wanted to do something different, it was nothing that we had never seen before. As if it was not enough, he decided to teach us about dreams, expectations, determination and reality. Not necessary. Too unnecessary.
I do not doubt that many people really liked "La La Land". It was made to be liked. I just do not understand how more experienced eyes have been fooled, giving a masterpiece status to such an ordinary movie. The directing is almost convincing; there are some interesting metaphors (Jazz + Hollywood + Golden Age) Even so, "La La Land" is miles behind the great musicals ever made; it's beneath its fuzz and beneath the expectations of someone who wanted, from the bottom of the heart, to have liked this film (myself).
I arrived; I sat down; I settled down; I waited. The movie begins. Suddenly, people singing, reproducing a choreography perfectly rehearsed, almost mechanical, an explosion of colors as if the world was painted in Technicolor in a long take (?) - practically perfect. I could no longer stay put, every position was already bothering me after 3 minutes.
Then we have the first glimpses of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. A bad start. How shocking! At first, we are introduced to Mia (Stone), and later we become familiar with Seb (Gosling). In a third moment, we finally have the two together and, from there, inseparable (but not so much). And here, I must say, the fact that Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are extremely charismatic helped me a lot so I would not go into a catatonic mode and stop paying attention to the screening unfolding in front of me. But not even the enormous charisma of the two was enough to make me enjoy "La La Land".
I like Emma Stone, she's a good actress. She does not have much depth, let's face it, but she manages to do her job in a decent way. I think "Birdman" was her less "Emma Stone moment" of all, because I could see a little beyond the wide eyes and the half-open mouth, her trademarks. Well, neither Emma nor Ryan are singers, much less dancers. However, it seems that all the reviews minimize these details, especially due to the forced exuberance the director displays throughout the film and the chemistry between the protagonists. The harsh reality is that Stone is no Debbie Reynolds, let alone Gosling a Gene Kelly. I could not minimize it. It was strange, it was uncomfortable.
The whole experience was uncomfortable. Chazelle is a good director, who has impressive technical skills. But, for me, he tried to take a step way longer than his legs. Perhaps, he was overconfident because of what he achieved with "Whiplash". I don't know. All I know is that it lacked humbleness. "La La Land" is pretentious and, at the same time, ordinary, it hides behind the right light and a good art direction.
Although the film is "divided" by seasons, it gets a little tricky to realize this when its set is Los Angeles. Apart from the captions on the screen indicating that we have passed from spring to summer and so on, nothing else alludes to what seems to be something important for the narrative: neither the set nor the cinematography. So, be it summer or fall, all that hovers is the love between Mia and Seb in gaudy colors.
Not that the cinematography itself is bad. Quite the opposite. It's too beautiful. As I said, the lighting is right, almost perfect. Do you see the problem? When I watch a movie photographed by Lubezki, for example, I do not need to be constantly reminded by light tricks that he is a master of cinematography. But Linus Sandgren is not a Lubezki. It is not innovative, it is not exceptional.
And this leads us to the script: girl meets boy; girl falls in love with boy; girl and boy live unforgettable moments; problems happen. I have to admit that, here, Chazelle even tried to skip the usual "and lived happily ever after". But it backfired. I'm not going to tell what happens at the end cause it would be unfair to those who have not yet watched it. It is enough to say that, even if he wanted to do something different, it was nothing that we had never seen before. As if it was not enough, he decided to teach us about dreams, expectations, determination and reality. Not necessary. Too unnecessary.
I do not doubt that many people really liked "La La Land". It was made to be liked. I just do not understand how more experienced eyes have been fooled, giving a masterpiece status to such an ordinary movie. The directing is almost convincing; there are some interesting metaphors (Jazz + Hollywood + Golden Age) Even so, "La La Land" is miles behind the great musicals ever made; it's beneath its fuzz and beneath the expectations of someone who wanted, from the bottom of the heart, to have liked this film (myself).
Tell Your Friends