TRANSVERSO

- A culture magazine reaching terminal verbosity -

Oscars

'La La Land' is a Fleetingly Charming But Painfully Dull Ode to Old Hollywood

TV/Film ReviewEthan WilliamsComment

From the incredibly showy opener and opening titles that boldly declare "SHOT IN CINEMASCOPE," it’s almost immediately clear that something feels just slightly off in Damian Chazelle’s sophomore follow-up to the angst-ridden Whiplash. These commuters in downtown L.A. jumping on their parked cars certainly act like they’re in a classic Hollywood musical and the camera certainly follow them as if they’re in one, and yet this number does nothing to charm or entice you into feeling the waves of nostalgia it’s meant to evoke.

This forgettable tune is followed by another, this time sung by star Emma Stone and her girlish cohorts all bathed in technicolor light and garbed in flashy colors meant to evoke memories of superior films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg or An American in Paris but again failing to spark any sort of charm or delight those films are renowned for. Chazelle keeps the camera rolling and spinning to wow the film geeks, but it ultimately feels so performative in a way that’s aping classics rather than evoking them.

And yet by some small miracle, the film begins to click when jazz pianist Sebastian (played by ultra-charmer Ryan Gosling) begins his half of the tale. A scene where Gosliing’s free-jazz roots and sensibilities clash with his employer’s (played by Whiplash villain J.K. Simmons) desire to keep it simple, stupid is one of the movie’s rare moments of real charm and musical fun.

Subsequently when Gosling and Stone meet at an '80s themed party a few scenes later, it feels as if the two stars’ potent chemistry and charm is going to be enough to carry La La Land through the bland songwriting and uninvolving story. Their tap-dance routine against a scenic Hollywood skyline is probably the closest the film can get to actually nearing the grace of a Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire film’s essence.

But this grace quickly becomes short-lived as it becomes imminently clear that the stars’ chemistry simply can’t prop up this two hour-plus exercise in nostalgia-baiting. The romance blossoms pretty quickly, so instead of a familiar boy meets girl tale, the story starts to revolve around two people so hopelessly annoying in their desire to perform their art like in the “good ol' days” that you begin to beg for these characters to break up simply so the film might actually become about something interesting again.

Sebastian’s desire to build a jazz club with real integrity, which initially felt like an innocent jab at how self-serious jazz purists can be, is actually in fact treated as the ultimate stake for this character’s arc. When Sebastian decides to get an actual steady-paying job any musician would kill for, the film treats this as a tacky betrayal of his “pure” art form and inexplicably wants to punish Gosling’s character for daring to step outside his freeform-jazz sensibilities. (And on that note, are we seriously supposed to hate John Legend’s music in this film? He’s meant to be the tacky antithesis to pure jazz but they actually give his band some of the more enjoyable music here.)

Ultimately every bit of aesthetic La La Land appropriates from infinitely superior and more sincere films simply serves as glorified window-dressing to a boring, cold and ultimately joyless reworking of Hollywood tropes without any kind of story to hang them upon. It practically begs the viewer to take it so seriously that it becomes near laughable “Look at these posters from old movies! The long takes! Hey remember CINEMASCOPE?! They shot Rebel Without a Cause in CinemaScope and we even have that in our movie! *wink wink* Are you not entertained??” the movie practically screams at you. The musical setpieces are neither frequent enough nor impressive enough to justify such a bloated runtime and despite its glorious ending and one (count it: ONE) impressive song, this facade is ultimately about as sturdy as a Hollywood backlot: push on it a bit and it topples spectacularly.

I won’t be surprised at all to see La La Land taking its victory lap around awards shows this season, because there’s nothing Hollywood loves more in an awards darling than a bout of self-congratulatory backpatting about its own legacy (see: The Artist), but you can certainly expect it to be forgotten about this time next year.

'Brooklyn' Is a Subtly Sweet Oscar Contender

TV/Film ReviewSean McHughComment

Oscar season is upon us, and so comes the more unique (Anamolisa), unnerving (The Revenant), and unapologetic (The Danish Girl) film releases from studios both large and small, all in hopes of gaining more fiscal and critical glory within Hollywood.

One of the earliest released, small(er) budget Oscar contenders, Brooklyn, is really none of the aforementioned descriptors; if anything it is unassuming – a film that offers no real cultural dissonance, dialogue, or distress – and therein lies the film’s true beauty. It is soft, sweet, thoughtful and tender.   

Brooklyn (adapted from the 2009 Colm Tóibín novel) is a period piece chronicling a young Irish girl, Eilis Lacey (Saoirse Ronan), and her journey emigrating from Ireland to the United States, and assimilating into American society in the early 1950s.

At its core, Brookyln is a coming of age story, in which Eilis is faced with a variety of obstacles, modest in nature, but altogether riveting with their realism. The subtle reality of Ronan’s performance offers much more depth than the average coming of age story:

We witness Eilis learning (the hard way) how to operate on an trans-Atlantic voyage – through a particularly graphic bout of food poisoning mixed with sea sickness, in what will surely be one of the more graphic Oscar-worthy performances in years past.  

Ronan deftly presents courting in 1952 Brooklyn with the same subtle anxiety and palpable emotion not uncommon in today’s dating scene - at a dance put on by the local church, Eilis eventually meets her husband to be, Tony Fiorello (Emory Cohen). Tony, an Italian boy, shows much more interest than Eilis, but chips away at her hardened exterior in hopes of one day winning her heart. They meet every night to walk home from Eilis’ night classes at Brooklyn College, where she studies to become a bookkeeper. Their exchanges become more intimate and earnest, talking about raising their kids to be Brooklyn Dodger fans, as Tony helps Eilis find a sense of belonging in America.

Just when it seems that Eilis has finally carved herself a place in Brooklyn, and life was beginning to look up, there is wretched moment in the film’s third act. Eilis, still working at Bartocci’s Department Store, is informed by Father Flood (Jim Broadbent) and Miss Fortini (Jessica Pare) that her biggest supporter and beloved older sister, Rose (Fiona Glascott), who gave up the chance of a life of her own in order for Eilis to chart a path to America, has died.

Eilis’ sister’s death catalyzes the film’s ultimate dilemma. Being called back to Ireland to put her sister to rest, familiar faces come back with great reverence and regard for the Americanized Eilis, including one Mr. Jim Farrell (continuing an already impressive year for Domhnall Gleeson). For the rest of the film, Eilis is tasked with choosing which life suits her best, framed by delicate moments of painstaking decisions between the familiarity of home or her responsibility for her life lead in America.

More understated in tone than its source material, screenwriter Nick Hornsby and director John Crowley masterfully transport an already charming story to screen in a hyperrealistic manner. Dramatically speaking, the conflict in the film moves at a glacial pace, but therein lies one of the greatest aspects of Brooklyn – the film reflects the subtlety of charting one’s own course in life. An film that is sure to be a career defining moment for Saoirse Ronan, as well as an Academy Awards 2016 darkhorse – Brooklyn reminds us that there is no debt to one’s past, and the greatest moments in life are not owed to others, but rather, shared.