A LITTLE LOVE FOR LA LA LAND
On Valentine’s Day, Peter Howell makes the case for belittled Oscar frontrunner,
In the spirit of Valentine’s Day, maybe we could spare a little love for La La Land. People keep beating up on it. I know what you’re thinking: “Is this guy nuts? Hasn’t this movie been showered with love?”
True enough, numerically speaking: La La Land is nominated for a record-matching 14 Oscars for the Feb. 26 Academy Awards, among them Best Picture, Best Director (Damien Chazelle), Best Actress (Emma Stone) and Best Actor (Ryan Gosling).
This musical valentine to Hollywood has two Oscar noms for Best Original Song: “City of Stars” and “Audition (The Fools Who Dream).”
It’s so popular, it’s competing against itself.
The film has been taking home the gold at pre-Oscar events, among them the Golden Globes, the Critics’ Choice Awards and, just this past weekend, the BAFTAs.
The film is also scoring at the box office, with worldwide ticket sales expected to reach or even surpass $300 million (U.S.) by Oscar night.
Anecdotally, however, it’s a different story.
I can’t remember a year where the Oscar front-runner has attracted so much negativity in advance of awards night.
Many people, including friends, family, co-workers and Star readers, have told me they think my four-star review of La La Land was too generous.
They either don’t like the film or they’re just “meh” on it.
A lot of people really don’t seem to like this movie and it’s apparently an act of bravery to admit it — a recent Saturday Night Live sketch riffed on abusing a La La Land naysayer.
(For the record, I love La La Land. But I’m hoping Moonlight, which I love more, wins Best Picture — and also Best Director for Barry Jenkins.)
I hear two main complaints about La La Land: 1. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling can’t dance;
2. Ryan Gosling can’t sing. (Emma’s pipes seem to get a pass.)
These complaints are usually voiced along with the observation that Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers were all better dancers and/or singers than Stone and Gosling.
And the film is constantly being slammed in other media, often by people who aren’t movie critics, such as the acerbic Bill Maher, host of HBO’s political chat show, Real Time.
“La La Land, really?” he said this past weekend. “It’s just so narcissistic. Another movie about movies. About us.”
A writer in the Wall Street Journal, Jeanne Safer, found the love story wanting, stating that “its denouement depends on an utterly improbable plot twist.”
I humbly submit that a lot of people are missing the point about La La Land. It’s not meant to be a slavish copy of Singin’ in the Rain, An American in Paris, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg or all those other classic movie musicals that inspired writer/ director Chazelle and composer Justin Hurwitz.
Yes, Stone and Gosling are great actors and only passable dancers and singers. But they’re charming in the context of La La Land, which is more about the cost of ambition than it is about the pursuit of love.
Their characters, Mia and Sebastian, are bursting with the desire to create something and make their mark. That something may or may not be a lasting romance and that mark may or may not follow Cupid’s arrow.
They sing and dance because the spirit moves them to, not because they’re trying to prove anything. They’re not supposed to be songand-dance professionals: Mia’s a dramatic actress and Sebastian’s a jazz pianist.
Far from being “utterly improbable,” I’d argue that the story of La La Land is highly probable, if you know Hollywood.
Maybe that’s all the more reason why we should show the film some Valentine love, even if it is set to sweep the Oscars later this month. You never know if a Hollywood story will have a Hollywood ending. Peter Howell is the Star’s movie critic.