Rice Nazgum
123 Sesame Street
Springfield, Hungary 528491
To the concerned idiot,
You, my dear compatriot, are critically and objectively wrong. It has come to my attention that last Hallows’ Eve you wrote a most blasphemous article entitled “La La Land Is Not Worth The Hype,” which attempted to fault the film on the basis that it did not meet your haphazard standards of a musical. Pichí caca. First and foremost, La La Land IS a musical. In leaps and bounds, the film leaps and bounds to the musical stylings of Damien Chazelle and Justin Hurwitz. It is vibrant, eloquent and most of all, a damn good time. Popular to contrary belief, it is YOU who is wrong.
To begin with, your faux analysis is predicated on the notion that because the film begins with three grand set-pieces and then transitions into a “narrative lull” it is not a musical, a most absurd opinion if ever I heard one. To be clear, your criticism is actually on the film’s distribution of set-pieces that exude of choreography and song. It seems as if after having been enamored with the first three fantastical set-pieces, you were disappointed by the film’s direction towards smaller musical numbers. Unfortunately for your pompous ass, tis the nature of musicals. As known by everyone except the most ignorant, all good things, even large scale musical set-pieces, come in moderation. Not every musical number is filled with grandeur because not every musical number should be. Smaller, much more personal numbers are necessary in order to provide audiences with an introspective perspective of the film’s characters, i.e. the prototypical balcony scene. Should every musical number have been grandiose in scale, the film’s audience would have lost its ability to connect with the characters amidst the constant spectacle. Moreover, by subduing the film’s intermediary set-pieces, it enables the film’s final grand set-piece to have a much greater impact. And as you correctly state in your pale imitation of an analysis, La La Land’s ending is perfect.
Conversing upon the subject of perfection, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Although I do not know to which GOAT you are referring to, I gather from the contextualization of your plebeian patois that you, too, found the pair’s relationship immaculate. Like any well established pizza restaurant, they deliver, each being infectiously charming and entertaining. However, you do make a valid distinction in that, as individuals, Gosling and Stone are unevenly written. Gosling is given a much more intriguing storyline revolving around his traditionalist approach to the revolutionary medium that is jazz whereas Stone is written as, simply put, a failed actress. In addition, while Gosling has several supporting characters help expand and develop his character, Stone’s character’s aunt, boyfriend and roommates, all of which are meant to serve her development, are never given a strong enough presence in the film. As such, Stone’s character, despite Stone’s brilliant thespianism, comes off as more one-dimensional and, in turn, less interesting. Problems concerning Stone’s character extend to a larger issue within the film, namely that La La Land is a cliché.
As opposed to the aforementioned definition of perfection, La La Land is no Vertigo, or even Citizen Kane for that matter. Suffering from a trite plot, the film is highly conventional and predictable. You write that you wish the film subverted musical conventions in order to comment on the societal differences between the past and the present, but perhaps the purpose of the film is not to present something revolutionary, but rather to revel the past. Having the exclusive privilege of hearing Chazelle speak on the film in the land of la, I could not help but discern his likeness to Gosling’s character. His reminiscence for the days of movie palaces, fully orchestrated overtures and of course, jazz, is key to understanding his motivations for the film. Much was spoken about the need for the film to be cinematic, that it could not, and should not, be seen on the fruit flavor of the week. He necessitates the collective effervescence of the theater, cherishing the complete encapsulation of the spectator by the sights and sounds of a film. As such, Chazelle’s film acts as a grand homage to Old Hollywood, and although it does not innovate narratively, in an era chockfull of regurgitation, it is absolutely refreshing to witness a revival founded on nostalgia rather than a potential profit. As you write, Chazelle shoots for the stars, and in a flourish of flair and imperfection, he lands perfectly.
Utilizing some very crude rationale, you state that La La Land is 2016’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but on the contrary, the antithesis is true. As opposed to the regurgitation of celestial optimism, La La Land excels upon subsequent viewing. My dearest friend Alicia has seen the picture now SEVEN times, and whilst I have only seen it three times myself, I have walked out of the Cinerama each time singing and swinging to a new tune (I am currently enjoying “A Lovely Night”). Regarding your “high expectations” for La La Land, I can only tell you that it is nearly impossible for a film to meet one’s predetermined subjective standards. As such, I must implore you to review and reconsider La La Land for it is a true film darling deserving of the utmost attention and praise.
Until your next act of idiocy,
-Rice
P.S. As I have just finished writing this article of eloquence, I have received via carrier pigeon the news that La La Land has just received the Best Picture award at the Critics Choice Awards, further proving your idiocy.
