La La Land – Deep Dive

Context:

La La Land is unique in that it relies almost completely on homage and pastiche to present a completely niche topic to the audience – jazz culture. In blending two extremes, Chazelle allows the audience to feel a sense of familiarity and certainty when viewing this film but at the same time, the content feels new and fresh. This produces a surprising sense of harmony and allows for the audience to experience escapism at its finest.

In many regards, Americans had never been as divided as they were in 2016 (the release date of La La Land). Amid a rising terror threat (both domestic and international), the USA was in the process of electing a new President amidst the ending of a generally successful Obama Presidency. Top contenders in the reigning Democratic Party were:

1. Hilary Clinton – former First Lady during the Bill Clinton two term Presidency of 1992-2000. This was not an immensely beneficial period for Hilary Clinton as she became entangled in a very public affair concerning her husband.
   
2. Bernie Sanders – the most left-leaning candidate. Sanders was very much in favour of a socialist reform to the country and had no real allegiance to the Democratic Party.

On the Republican side of things, the primary debates were extremely interesting because there was no real leader in the race. Instead, the following candidates seemed best placed to be the Republican nominee:

1. Donald Trump – nicknamed ‘The Donald’, Trump is a businessman first and politician second. He drew a lot of media attention (both good and bad) for his outspoken views on, well, everything.
   
2. Ted Cruz – the Texan performed well throughout the primaries and drew a lot of support from his home state.
3. Marco Rubio – as one of the younger candidates, Rubio was frequently questioned over his lack of experience in politics.
4. Jeb Bush – the relative of two former Presidents, Bush was initially thought of as the most likely candidate.
   

Alas, Hilary Clinton beat out Bernie Sanders in a hotly fought contest but at what cost? There is a definite argument to be made that Clinton was deemed unlikeable due to the ‘email leaking’ scandal. Many voters also felt that she symbolised too much of a steady Democratic process that wouldn’t bring anything new to the table or seek to innovate. On the other hand, Sanders could’ve been too liberal in his ideas that he risked scaring off the undecided voters with his radical policies. In many respects, the Democrats felt that they chose the candidate most likely to win.

On the other side of things, the Republican contest was much more open. In fact, the number of major contenders was one of the largest ever. Ultimately, Donald Trump beat out Ted Cruz, with the latter supporting Trump in his bid to become President. Nevertheless, throughout the primaries, Trump frequently made headlines for his free speaking attitude. With lines such as “my turn now, be quiet”, Trump was frequently labelled as rude, which many believe would cost him the race. In fact, the extra media attention almost definitely created a world that encouraged undecided voters to vote for Trump.

During the debates between Trump and Clinton, there was a distinct sense of a weakened American democracy, with Trump even refusing to answer whether or not he would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. There were also a fair share of revelations throughout the race, the most shocking one being a video of Trump’s sexist comments towards women.

Interestingly, instead of alienating voters with his derogatory comments, Trump won the election. What seemed to take place, was that many former democrats felt entranced by the change Trump was promising and fell for the lullaby of his ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan. In the end, despite winning the popular vote, Hilary Clinton proved too unlikable and untrustworthy.

Unfortunately, the polarising effect of Trump’s comments severely exacerbated existing tensions within America, with the volume of hate crimes rising exponentially in the immediate aftermath of his triumph. Most vulnerable and attacked, were ethnic monitory groups. Trump’s promise to “build a wall” and make the “Mexicans pay for it”, combined with his “illegal hombres” comments, normalised racism. This was a backwards step for a country that had just elected its first African American President.

Consequently, La La Land was a necessity for many Americans. The target audience, urban millennials, felt the most downtrodden by Trump’s win, with most young city dwellers voting blue. Therefore, Chazelle almost made this film for these sullen citizens, with the aim of providing effective escapism. It is therefore peculiar that he looks to do this through homage. However, I would argue that this is effective because it presents a glamorised world only seen on movies and television. With the negative aspects of the 1950s and 1960’s (sexism and racism) all but removed.

Potentially one of the more complex aspects of La La Land, is how Chazelle was able to popularise such a niche genre – the musical. Very much a mainstay genre of the 1950’s and 1960’s, it is fair to say that many Hollywood studios had hesitations about financially backing La La Land when Chazelle first started pitching his script in 2010. Consequently, it took the success of Whiplash, a film by Chazelle and published in 2014, to turn the tides.

Whiplash also focused on the niche subject of jazz but was financially successful and critically acclaimed. Therefore, Lionsgate (a huge media conglomerate) agreed to finance and distribute La La Land in a very similar way to the studio backed films of Classical Hollywood. Contrastingly to Classical Hollywood, Chazelle was given sole artistic power and was able to produce his film exactly how he had envisaged it whilst writing it in college.

Thankfully, this paid off, with the film making over $10 million at the domestic box office and winning three Oscars. It is clear that whilst the film resonated with many millennials looking to escape an increasingly terrifying world, this would not have been possible if not for the backing of Lionsgate. Which, in turn, would not have been possible without the success of Whiplash. From my point of view, this underlines how important it is for a filmmaker to build up credibility and that great films that are financially successful are rarely, if ever, accomplished without a history of hard work and perseverance.

Aesthetics:

The aesthetic of La La Land is a abrasive concept theoretically but the execution is nothing short of phenomenal. Namely, Chazelle utilises jarring binary oppositions, most noticeably of realism vs expression and of old vs new. This results in a unique tone throughout the film that isn’t characteristic of any film I’ve seen before, even though it pays homage to classics through inter textual references in the film form. I believe that Chazelle took this approach to completely subvert audience expectations of a musical genre. The aspects of the film that exemplify the musical genre features (elaborate dance sequences, sudden singing and beautiful sets) are sometimes immediately positioned next to realistic plot points or narrative devices, such as when Seb is fired from his job at the restaurant. This encourages the viewer to think inwardly about their life and how their youthful dreams might not have played out as expected but that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing (given the generally upbeat ending).

One of my favourite instances of this aesthetic in action, is at the beginning of the film. We are given glimpses of a contemporary urban setting and the audience can most likely conclude that it is LA. Equally: the heavy traffic, variety of cars (suggesting a hierarchy of wealth) and beaming sun indicate that the setting is familiar to many citizens of urban environments. Immediately, Chazelle blends the realism of the setting with expressionism in the mise-en-scene (a mainstay of the entire film). We see an elaborate dance sequence set to the non-diegetic composed score of “Another Day Of Sun” and citizens emerge from their cars, revealing brightly coloured costumes that seem almost fake. This blend of realism and expression immediately sets an uneasy tone of conflict, which is further established in the plot (Mia and Seb at conflict over their career progression). It also enables Chazelle to conform to the musical genre expectations and then immediately subvert them.

The subversion is achieved through the immediate and jarring transition to Seb. Chazelle uses oppositional ideas to signpost the character of Seb as the protagonist. For a start, the interior of his car is brown, suggesting that he has different tastes to the other residents, perhaps older and more sophisticated. The change in sound to the diegetic jazz music on Seb’s radio also signals a change in perspective. However, the tracking shot that comes in from behind Seb’s head allows for Chazelle to build up a sense of mystique around the character and encourages the audience to invest in him from the offset. This juxtaposition between the expressive and the real is emblematic of the character similarity between Seb and Mia, with the two being hyper aware of the hardship they face in the real world. This is set against the backdrop of an almost unreal world that evokes both a sense of pity for the characters and a sense of dramatic irony. In this regard, it can be said that Chazelle uses the jarring aesthetic to propel the character arcs of Seb and Mia forwards and develop a bond between them.

The best example of the use of the aesthetic to present Mia is the transition between her first audition and at her house. In her first audition, the lighting is very dark and Mia wears blue clothing against a blue background. In truth, she doesn’t stand out at all. There is one long take of a close-up of Mia’s face, ironically emphasising how isolated she is amidst a sea of other aspiring actresses. The scene immediately afterwards ensures that the audience acknowledges the significance of Mia’s failing career. The expressive dance that she partakes in with her three friends seems to almost compound the misery that she faces. In a Hollywood world that is so glamorised in the media, she can’t find happiness. Instead, in a group, she feigns interest in order to try and fit in. This allows Chazelle to develop the narrative idea of Seb having something (the ability to stand out with his jazz music) and Mia needing a similar thing (something unique to pride herself on). This aesthetic sets up the entirety of the events in the film and is critical in showing how the protagonists can connect (through realistic hardship) in this very unrealistic world.

Representation:

The representation of particular demographics and groups in La La Land is really interesting because it is a film that relies quite heavily on the nostalgic appeal of the past and, more specifically, Classical Hollywood. It has often been said that nostalgia is the best selling factor and this is certainly a valid point. The notion that people resonate with something they have fond memories over isn’t exactly groundbreaking. However, I believe that when we look back at events or activities retrospectively, we tend to gloss over weaknesses or drawbacks and become somewhat blinkered in our viewpoint. This is especially true when we look back to Classical Hollywood and Classical Cinema in general. It’s deceptively easy to overlook the lack of representation in greats such as: Casablanca or Citizen Kane but unfortunately, these films, as fantastic as they are, are still very much symbolic of their time. That is to say, that even though 21st Century conventions have seen a more balanced and meritocratic view towards equal casting in movies, La La Land almost has an obligation to stay true to the restrictive and diminutive casting of Classical Hollywood, given its reliance on nostalgia.

This is perhaps most evident in the portrayal of ethnic minorities. Even though also Los Angeles is one of the most diverse cities in the world in terms of a varied cohort of ethnicities, minority groups operate very much on the periphery of the film. Some African American actors are seen in the opening of the film but as nothing more than extras and the only major role played by a Black actor is that of John Legend. This in itself has some problems because Legend is almost portrayed as an antagonist, driving a wedge between the relationship of Seb and Mia. It must be said that Chazelle doesn’t portray or represent ethnic minorities in a wholly negative light. Instead, Legend’s somewhat negative character traits encourage the audience to take more of a liking towards Seb and Mia, rather than expressly disliking Legend himself. Equally, I am certain that the lack of roles for ethnic minorities was out of convention and realism, rather than more problematic reasons.

On the other hand, the representations of gender in the film are much more nuanced and clouded in mystery. This is because we explicitly see why Seb is failing, he is too experimental and disobedient so gets fired. It’s also revealed that he made some bad business decisions in the past. It’s therefore easy to appreciate that Seb faces hardship because of his own doing. Contrastingly, we don’t get any insight into why Mia isn’t succeeding, she seems to work hard and tow the line of responsibility. This could suggest that Chazelle is critiquing the Hollywood casting system, that seems to be too discouraging of aspiring actresses. This is a generally positive narrative portrayal because it allows the audience to get some satisfaction at the ending of the film, where Mia achieves success. However, a negative portrayal of women is in line with historically patriarchal views, in that a woman only achieves success because of a man’s actions. In this circumstance, it could be hypothesised that Seb acts as the facilitator in allowing Mia to achieve success (pushing her to write and perform a play). This archaic idea downplays how far society has come in allowing women to achieve individual success and is a severely negative portrayal of women.

Chazelle’s approach to age in the film is certainly interesting and it is clear that he spent a long time thinking about it, through changing casting decisions, for example. Seb and Mia are not old but neither are they young. Consequently, we get a sense of youth running out for the two of them and this goes a long way in explaining why they seem so eager to succeed in their careers. Equally, their sudden change of outlook and drive could be attributed to the common saying of a ‘mid life crisis’, whereby the protagonists seem to relate on a more human level with a large part of the audience. The ageing millennial spectator may too feel unhappy with how their life has panned out and this encourages them to connect with the narrative on a more personal level. On top of this, the nostalgic references to Classical Hollywood suggest to the audience that whilst it’s okay to feel nostalgic, it’s not possible to live successfully in the past. Only when Seb and Mia find their own path built on new ideas (a one woman show and jazz fusion) are they able to find true success and happiness. This is a very positive message to send to the audience because it allows for the escapism that the film offers to be amplified.

Ideology:

One of the more prominent ideas explored in La La Land is the intangible concept of the ‘American Dream’ and the dominant western societal conventions of capitalism and meritocracy. That is to say, Chazelle uses his film to reflect these dominant ideologies back to the audience to show how successful one can become in America. Rather than being an expressly nationalistic and unilateral presentation, we see the trials and tribulations faced by the protagonists before we see any glimpse of success. In many regards, it’s important to see the extent to which Seb and Mia suffer hardship because Chazelle can show the two sides of a developed world, where success isn’t predetermined or easily accessible. Whilst this may be uncomfortable for the audience to realise (that even if they work hard, they might not even be rewarded), it’s a much more accurate depiction of 21st Century life than the almost perfect life shown in many other Hollywood blockbusters and musicals. Whilst the ending of La La Land might seem to conform to this, the fact that Mia and Seb don’t end up together is symbolic of wishful dreams that eventually don’t develop into anything more than that.

Another idea that Chazelle suggests is that no matter how hard you try, you cannot live in the past. The use of nostalgic imagery from past movies, for example the iconic observatory and overtures which are synonymous with Classical Hollywood greats, creates a sense of familiarity and nostalgia. However, the economic struggle faced by Mia and Seb seems like a very contemporary issue, where the wealth divide has never been larger. In this sense, the audience can appreciate a clear divide between this beautiful and enticing past and the supposed suffering of the modern world. This initially makes the audience seem to long for a past that Seb and Mia too wish to be a part of, with the former often commentating on how jazz used to be so much more popular. Nevertheless, Seb’s eventual realisation that jazz has changed subverts the notion that the past is much better than the present. The success that the protagonists achieve is as a result of them moving forwards in their lives. Chazelle offers a comforting message of hope to the audience that everything will work out okay if you focus on living in the present.

La La Land asks more questions when you take a feminist approach towards analysing its content. In many regards, Chazelle’s film conforms to Mulvey’s male gaze, with Mia often featuring as ancillary to the action and Seb’s passion for jazz driving the film forward. After all, Seb is the character whom first achieves success with his band. Equally, there is a negative connotation of regression with regards to Mia’s character. For example, she admits failure in the middle of the film, going to live back with her parents. This could be interpreted as a suggestion that women are weaker minded than men and have less willpower and resilience to succeed. This is because whilst Seb and Mia both face hardship, Seb is the character who consistently fights and makes sacrifices in his pursuit of happiness, whereas Mia chooses to quit. Equally, another interesting approach, is the idea that even though Mia does eventually achieve success, she becomes a mother and the narrative shifts to focus on her child-caring responsibilities and life as a parent. This could be interpreted that the film illustrates the idea that a woman should be a mother first before advancing her career. This recessive idea conforms to patriarchal societal conventions that have all but disappeared in modern society. Nevertheless, it’s important to acknowledge these alternate viewpoints because it encourages analysis that challenges accepted social norms.

It must also be said that positive things can also be said about La La Land from a feminist perspective. In fact, some critics have argued that the film offers a beautifully contemporary look into a modern woman’s life, with the narrative focusing predominantly on Mia, with Seb acting as an ancillary character. This is hypothesised through how much of the on-screen time is spent on Mia, especially at the beginning of the film. It is also made apparent that Mia’s actions directly impact Seb’s life, perhaps more so than the other way around. It is Mia’s short play that encourages Seb to follow his true dream of owning his own jazz club, rather than being content with being in a band. Equally, it is Mia’s move back to her parents’s house that causes Seb to drive over to spur her back on. The idea that Mia is the instigator of action debunks the notion that she is the more passive protagonist. Essentially, Chazelle could be suggesting that the changing roles of women in the 21st Century has also impacted how men live their lives. This suggests that the power dynamic between men and women has been drastically flipped on its head.

Spectatorship:

Undoubtedly my favourite element of La La Land is how Chazelle manipulates his film to effect different age demographics. As a result of some of his techniques, I believe that Chazelle has produced a film that is capable of a variety of different readings, beyond that of the preferred. With that said, it is clear in my view that the preferred reading of La La Land is that a meritocratic society rewards hard work and perseverance, in spite of many failures and setbacks that are almost omnipresent. In this regard, there is a connective line drawn with younger viewers, particularly millennials. In my opinion, Chazelle encourages his target audience to succeed and follow their dreams in spite of the contextual issues continuing to cloud America. In many ways, this is an immensely important message to send because younger people are the future of humanity’s collective success. The success achieved by both Seb and Mia shows that failures and setbacks are almost a prerequisite of success and are nothing to be looked down upon.

Another incredible feature of La La Land is how it rewards viewers for paying eager attention to the film form. For example, the observatory seen on screen is the same location used in such great films as Rebel Without A Cause (Nicholas Ray, 1955), for example. This makes the film seem profound and important because it references such films. A downside of this, is that it subliminally encourages the audience to try and spot as many of these intertextual references as they can, rather than pay direct attention to the preferred reading. As a result of this, a negotiated reading arises, whereby a viewer may believe that the events in the film, as real as they might seem, are completely unrealistic and unrelatable because they exist in the world of cinema. This may be the most common reading as it pertains to more elderly viewers, whom might have grown up with these Classical Hollywood movies. It is also possible that ‘film buffs’ would lean towards this reading and whilst it doesn’t completely ignore the message of the film, it does diminish the efficacy of its message.

I think that it is also fair to propose that many people would not find the expressive elements of the film form at all appealing or enjoyable. From my point of view, I think that Chazelle finds a good balance between pure expression and pure realism and that the strength of the emotive realism allows for things such as dance sequences. On the other hand, I am also aware that this oppositional dynamic may be very different to the linear narratives seen in many other mainstream films and, as such, may be unfamiliar with a large section of the audience. This expression is almost exaggerated from the offset with an extended dance sequence that features countless extras, clad in brightly coloured clothing. Consequently, this may cause an oppositional reading to develop, that seeks to undermine the validity of Chazelle’s moral ending. If anything, an oppositional reading might suggest that due to the elaborate nature of the expression, Seb and Mia are completely fictitious and, as such, there is nothing to learn from their actions. This may be the common reading with baby boomers, whom might be unfamiliar with this style of filmmaking or younger children whom might not be able to comprehend the significance of it.

Naturally, the best feature of La La Land is how Chazelle employs the Camera’s Gaze to subvert the inherent fallacy of the film and, in turn, almost subvert the oppositional reading. This is also achieved through a ‘text within a text’ but this is very minimal and used to a much lesser extent. Nevertheless, this gaze in particular is most evident when the action concerns Mia, after all she is an aspiring actress. Chazelle frequently gives his audience an almost ‘behind the scenes’ view on the inner workings of the film industry. Not only do we see sets being constructed but we also see a film being shot on location and auditions taking place. This is an extremely interesting feature of the film because it reminds the audience that what they are watching isn’t real. Perplexingly, this suggests that a viewer may struggle to find escapism in the film; however, the contrary is true and the meaning and importance of the film is accentuated by this. This is because by consistently reminding the audience that the film is a work of fiction and as such can never truly depict reality, the spectator is encouraged to look around them and think holistically about their life. They are an active spectator to the fullest extent. It is clear that Chazelle is hyper aware of the fiction plaguing modern day society (through social media etc…), so it’s crucial that he reminds his audience of this: one can only judge one’s success individually. Even Mia isn’t sure about how successful Seb’s club will be (she leaves after one song). Equally, Chazelle suggests that whilst your ideas of success might change throughout your life, it is always important to focus on how you want to achieve your idea of success and happiness, even if it means suffering through some trials and tribulations along the way.