Showing posts with label musical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musical. Show all posts

Thursday, 26 January 2017

Review: La La Land

Year: 2016
Director: Damien Chazelle
Screenplay: Damien Chazelle
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

Synopsis is here:

I write this review of La La Land on the day Donald Trump is sworn into office as the 45th president of the united states. Since November, the world has descended into a kind of mania, due to America’s decision to elect the businessman-cum-reality T.V star. With good reason, too. Strangely the only other thing that’s had as a cult of personality as strong as Trump on my twitter feed, has been Damien Chazelle's Oscar forerunner La La Land.

However, for all my liberal film writers despairing at The Donald’s apparent lack of progressive thought and seemingly regressive desire to shoot America back to a lily white 1950’s that never really truly existed, it’s fascinating to see many of them fawn over a movie which at times feels like it’s doing similar. La La Land is a film that doesn’t so much have one foot in the past, rather than a whole leg and while the film gives everything a lot of gusto, it’s fizziness falls into forgetfulness very soon afterwards. Is it because I’m not a musical fan? No. La La Land does really well with two actors that aren’t particularly known and watched for their musical talents. I feel one of the main issues I hold with La La Land is (that going back to Trump) it appears at a time where real life cynicism is so overwhelming, that the film’s colourful escapism has filled a void in many. Not a problem. We often need the fantasy. But second coming of MGM this is not.

Despite my apparent negativity towards the film, La La Land is actually easy to like. It’s two leads, Stone and Gosling have chemistry in their dancing as well as their acting, with Stone sparkling in her role of Mia, a struggling actress. It’s hard not to smile at the two bouncing off each other. We’ve seen this before in Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011), but in La La Land the two have far more time to fizz off each other and that’s a good thing.

However, this is a film pauses itself to have a little moment about how Jazz is all about conflict and yet decides against having too much of it. It does a lot to hark back to the MGM musicals of old, but never feels as radical or dynamic as the best of those movies. Bizarrely the moments that stuck in my head were not so much the grand song and dance set pieces, it was the smaller quieter moments which struck me. When the singing stopped and we saw two great looking performers give each just the right look into each other’s eyes.

Meanwhile, director  Damien Chazelle shows off his technical prowess with La La Land’s overcomplicated camerawork infiltrating the film’s simple narrative. The film’s visuals are often impressive but also very self-aware. Much like the film’s references, it’s enough to push a person out of the film. The film also lacks the same beautiful use of rhythm that graced Chazelle's Whiplash (2015). Granted we’re not looking for the rat-a-tat tempo of that movie, but at no point does La La Land feel like it’s going with the flow. Again, this stems from the film’s roaming camera, which never feels like it trusts it’s cast. It really should.

While this not meant to be as intense as Whiplash, La La Land has Damien Chazelle again looking into themes of art, jazz and sacrifice, although here the film holds a certain amount of artifice. This is not because of La La Land’s flights of fancy, but down to the suggestion that despite black innovation (John Legend in a small role) and an Afro-American old guard, the real heart of Jazz lies in hip, young, white traditionalist Ryan Gosling and his busy hands. Not so much of an issue in Whiplash in spite its New York Middle class setting. La La Land and its nosedive into the awards pool, shows itself to be a very “white” movie. Amusingly, this highlights why I try not to pay much attention of the Oscars. For all the debate around #OscarsSoWhite, the success of La La Land as we hurtle towards the academy awards is very telling and by no means surprising. Films like La La Land do well because it’s a film of a certain model, in love with its past glories. It just so happens that those glory days weren’t particularly diverse.

As much as film writers have been quick to hail La La Land already as a modern classic to be remembered, at times it’s no more a throwback to relatively easy nostalgia than Transformers or Marvel Cinematic Universe, although it is a classier one. It’s often sparkly, sometimes lavish, but certainly a transparent revert to type. A relatively frothy musical which is quick to remind us of older movies but not as memorable musically as one would hope. Musicals should leave a viewer with a spring in the step. This left my mind with some bright spells amidst a slight cloud of fog.

Saturday, 2 January 2010

Review: Nine

Year: 2009 (2010 U.K Release)
Director: Rob Marshall
Screenplay: Michael Tolkin and Anthony Minghella
Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Penople Cruz, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Sophia Loren

Frederico Fellini's 8 1/2 is a wonderful, abstract film which shows a director at his most playful. Nine is another bland musical from Rob Marshall which is based on a theater show, which liberally borrows (i.e nicks) from Fellini's feature. While I haven't seen the stage musical, if this is anything to go by I'm happy I saw 8 1/2 first.

Fellini's film was sexy without being overtly sexual, stylish without being overly stylized and filled with content that melded dreamscapes with reality in a blink of an eye. It's a film that just washed over me and not only left me entertained but inspired (not that I could write anything as lucid as Fellini). Nine lacks the joy of the film that came before it, in fact the film is merely a pre-meditated attack on the awards season, stuffing the film with statue winners while neglecting everything else.

As a musical, it has no memorable songs. In fact they're not even interesting songs. The tunes are more likely to have aficionados ho-humming than just humming. As a regular film, it lacks the subtly that resided within the original film, with any poignant moments cut short by these musical numbers. These numbers are jarring, state the obvious and desperately try and hide the fact that Nine is trying to make a surreal film more conventional. Marshall's overall direction of the story is mediocre to say the least and the mixture of the unengaged drama and music don't mesh as well as they should. In fact I'm struggling now to remember any worth while scenes, such is the unremarkable telling of story.

It's not all bad I guess, there's some cute references to Fellini and his legacy and the performances by anyone with more than five minutes screen time do their best with the material. In fact, despite only being in the film for about ten minutes, Kate Hudson puts in a turn with more verve than anything she's done in the last ten years.

Unfortunately, it was all at a loss for me. In my opinion Nine lacked the energy as well as the mischievous of it's cinematic origin. Hell, it didn't even have the kinetic flair of Baz Luhrmann's far superior Moulin Rouge whose combination of romance, pop songs and dance number is still a spectacle to behold. Nine asked me to be Italian. Unfortunately for Marshall, the Italians were much better at the questioning.

Note: While I know that the film is based on a stage musical,however, during the credits, I don't remember the film saying anything about Frederico Fellini or 8 1/2. This says a lot about how Hollywood views film history at the best of times, taking imagery and reference from a filmmaker and not even crediting him in the main credits. It your going to mangle a man's film at least state who he is.