La La Land.

Review #1577: La La Land.

Cast:

Ryan Gosling (Sebastian Wilder), Emma Stone (Mia Dolan), John Legend (Keith), J. K. Simmons (Bill), Rosemarie DeWitt (Laura Wilder), Finn Wittrock (Greg), Callie Hernandez (Tracy), Sonoya Mizuno (Caitlin), Jessica Rothe (Alexis), and Tom Everett Scott (David) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man)

Review:

"Now more than ever we need hope and romance on the screen, and I think there’s something about musicals that just get at something that only movies can do. That idea of movies as a dreamland, movies as the language of our dreams and movies as a way of expressing a world in which you break into song, that emotions can violate the rules of reality.” - Damien Chazelle

Maybe the old saying about the youth being the future can work out in film, as one could observe from Damien Chazelle. Born in Rhode Island but raised in Princeton, New Jersey, he had a love of filmmaking from a young age (while doing music with the local studio band), which reflected on his study at Harvard University within Visual and Environmental Studies. As part of his thesis project, he directed his first feature film with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), which received some notice on the festival circuit. He tried his hand in Hollywood with writing assignments for hire (such as The Last Exorcism Part II (2013) and 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)), but he wanted to do his own projects. He and college classmate Justin Hurwitz had envisioned the idea for La La Land in 2010, and there had been plans to do it with a cheap budget that was scrapped, mostly because he was told that the concept and material "seemed brazenly uncommercial" (Focus, for example, wanted to change the focus from jazz to rock and modify the opening number and ending). It was the success of a film near to Chazelle's heart in terms of his experiences as a drummer in high school that led to his breakthrough with Whiplash (2014), a critical darling that also helped get his foot in the door to make this feature with a more suitable budget.

So, how does one make a film about Los Angeles come alive while describing it once as the place that worships everything and value nothing? (which just reminds me of that old joke about it being a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there). By trying to inspire hope within a cynical audience member? In some ways that may prove all they need, although it is clear that others might find their eyes rolling rather than in tears. I guess it depends on where you look upon the film's idea of bringing romance to the screen with the stylings that try to aim for classic musicals of yesteryear with a touch of modern flair that goes for "cute" but, "not that cute" at the same time, with listed inspirations being films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) to Singin' in the Rain (1952) to even Boogie Nights (1997). So here we are, a musical that wants to go on with no cuts for its numbers. Is it as great as those traditional musicals? Better than some of them, perhaps. This may all be subjective, but I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of the aforementioned Singin' in the Rain, or even An American in Paris (1951); technically, this might be comparable to the quality of Gigi (1958) - good, not great, but good in inspiring decent little charm with chemistry. One starts with Stone (freshly established earlier in the decade with films such as Easy A), the best presence in the whole film when it comes to well-delivered grace that obviously proves useful to watch on screen in the balancing act of struggling dreamer alongside time to sing and dance with chemistry that flickers with some worthy energy. Gosling does fine with what he has offered to him, since his pursuits come off a bit more aloof, but at least they make a worthy pair together when they dance (singing is a different edge). The supporting cast is played to short lengths, such as having singer/pianist Legend there for a time to promote charm with inverting classic jazz with fusion (which goes...somewhere?), or a stern one-shot from Simmons. Funny, I remember classic musicals having some sort of memorable third character to pair off the would-be romantic leads. It might seem like I am picking at this film a bit, but let's just list some positive notes too. After all, it is a charming film in execution, with the opening number on the freeway, while the dance between Stone and Gosling in that twilight of sunset is also a dazzler. The songs are fairly well-crafted too, perhaps not inherently catchy, but they resonate with a dream of gloss and fevered ambition that the film goes for without needing to stuff themselves. 

And then of course there is the ending of the film. It was stated by both Chazelle and others that this is the ending they wanted with no changes, grounding the classic musical in "real life". For that, all power to Chazelle, since I doubt the ending shifted audience notices downward at all. It's a shame I just don't like that ending, not merely because it's a bittersweet one, but more so because I just found it to be a ridiculous choice for a film that wants to adhere to old-school musical films but then decide for both a supposed honest ending alongside with an "imagined" sequence as a cheap joke to have it both ways. But hey, life is like a bunch of seasons, and one's dreams will require perhaps sacrificing things to get there. Cool, great, have fun with that attempt at spinning goo into the newest product of hope within cynical times (we've never been cynical like this!, says the history-maker of the now). It is also entirely possible that one can get weary at times even for "good" films, because sometimes expectations are higher for some films than others. As a whole, it is a nice little movie, filled with some useful charm and interest with harkening back to the musicals of yesteryear, which it reaches with mostly successful results. Is is the great return of the classic musical? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it is an interesting experiment from its young director in Chazelle that will surely prove a useful curiosity in discussion over where it sits in time spent with song-and-dance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rachel Getting Married.

Review #1548: Rachel Getting Married.

Cast: 
Anne Hathaway (Kym Buchman), Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Buchman), Bill Irwin (Paul Buchman), Debra Winger (Abby Buchman), Tunde Adebimpe (Sidney Williams), Mather Zickel (Kieran), Anna Deavere Smith (Carol), Anisa George (Emma), and Beau Sia (Wedding Czar) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004) and #1498 - The Silence of the Lambs)

Review: 
"Well, the big challenge and in a way the only challenge that I really felt was the same old challenge, you know, to try to make a good movie, to wind up the movie that worked and kind of delivered on the potential that I perceived in the script to be emotionally strong and also be funny and shed light on different stuff maybe if we got really lucky."

Jonathan Demme liked to take his time with doing films his way. He had a bona fide classic with The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and followed it with the groundbreaking legal drama involving AIDS with Philadelphia (1993)  while also maintaining work in documentary filmmaking and producing films while noting his attempts to shift away from "big moviemaking" that gave him joy and stress equally in size. However, he was approached by his friend Sidney Lumet to read a script his daughter Jenny had written, and he liked the idea of doing an "independent-spirited, low-budget film." Taking the task at hand as star is Anne Hathaway, who rose to breakthrough status with films such as The Princess Diaries (2001), Brokeback Mountain (2005), and The Devil Wears Prada (2006), who is accompanied by DeWitt (star of the short-lived Standoff show and small other roles), Irwin (known for his work as a clown alongside stage and screen work), and Winger (previously featured in another family drama with Terms of Endearment (1983), which also dealt with thorny characters and tragedy).

We are talking about a film that is deliberately shot in a style described by Demme and his cinematographer as "the most beautiful home movie ever made" while including a mix of improvised dialogue and live music, after all. Technically speaking, you could say this is a wedding film for the books, because there is a sense of familiarity and interest in how much surroundings one gets to feel with something like this. On the other hand, it also could prove quite tedious as perhaps the most elaborate attempt at trying to elevate home movies and snipe fights beyond staying right where they belonged: at home or with someone who cares. It probably reflects the nature of the characters we are watching, which is meant to be portrayed as real and complicated folks - which basically comes across as trying to pedal away from being thought of as drawing from the melodrama cliché book. Or maybe it really does pull favor for those who seek its drama with thorns-on-the-side people without clear solutions. If that works into something you favor, all power to you. Besides, I doubt a film where the characters have problems and then get some of them solved is exactly a new thing either. But for me, I find it to be a case of acting over substance, where painful expression is just elusive attempts at leading the audience on by another name, a bitter expression of people fortunate enough in privilege that could very well have come out of a soap opera that happens to look different than the others because it just happens to be in your face in terms of edge and in its camera. One might as well watch group therapy play out instead.

It is the performances that keep it on some sort of path, mostly with Hathaway. She captures a vital figure of vulnerability mixed with spiked edge with a portrait of addiction as one marked with guilt and attempts at moving through the steps to build something away from vices. She cultivates interest with a role meant to be a fair challenge for an actress without succumbing to cloying antics to make it count well. DeWitt does fine in a portrait of lingering nerves and resentment that makes an interesting back-and-forth with Hathaway that makes palpable interest more so than the actual wedding taking place. Irwin and Winger are fine, although neither really are given more than brief moments to really grab drama upon for something that desperately needs more to really drive its alienation - the confrontation between Hathaway and Winger is a nice dramatic scene to chew interest upon, but the film around that needs more cohesion in actual point beyond casual venom that just reminds me of Faces (1968). I like the basic idea of confronting one's demons and also being confronted about one's own antics, with Hathaway generally keeping the film on its toes in scrappiness that could have either been its own film more so than the wedding aspects that make a 114 minute film decent rather than complete. On the whole, it is a competent film with some useful moments in frankness that almost is swept away in the margins by a fragmented story but is rescued by a dynamic Hathaway carrying along an ensemble towards being just fine to sit through, winces and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.