Showing posts with label Emma Stone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emma Stone. Show all posts

Sunday, May 7, 2017

On the Racial Controversy of La La Land



It may be controversial, but part of the beauty of storytelling and movies are the various ways to watch and analyze movies - from individual perspectives to various critical lenses. It's inherent to the ideas of art and beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

From that, I'll share my thoughts on why I think the racial controversy surrounding La La Land is overblown, to the point where it's possibly based more on people's projections and missing/ignoring certain key elements the story. That the film was lauded and released around the same time of Moonlight only further services the controversy.

Goes without saying, but SPOILERS are ahead...

To start, while I'll argue the main concern of the "white savior" narrative regarding jazz is both overblown and possibly non-existent, there are certainly a number of racially charged choices in the film that were either laughable or cringe-worthy, but which could also be viewed from a more positive perspective where diverse actors are still cast in those roles:

-Opening musical number: A truck is opened to reveal a group of black guys ready to play music, smiling
-Pretty much everything that happens in the black jazz club both times - Gosling's initial talk about jazz, then him joining the band later, along with...
-Emma Stone's horrible dance sequence where the black patrons watch amazed (it seemed like a parody, it was so bad)
-Gosling returning a black man's hat, dancing with the black wife then being chastised by the husband (going for a cute scene, but being awkward)
-Towards the end, Gosling jokingly saying the future club owner may be the black jazz pianist

To reiterate, I happily agree there are a number of questionable choices with regards to the story and casting. However, for the central complaint of Ryan Gosling being the "white savior" of jazz, I think the argument falls flat as it's missing the core (psychological) story of the film. To explain, here are the character's arc/stories:

1. Mia - Mia is pursuing her passion of acting by playing the game as it's currently set up, struggling to achieve success. Only when she breaks free of the system and creates her own path does she become lucky and achieve success. She pursues this path by fortuitously meeting someone who encourages her to pursue her passions - Seb. However, as both pursue their passions, the relationship becomes strained, forcing them to separate, mature and grow.

2. Sebastian "Seb" - Seb is an insufferable narcissistic hipster who's so adamant he has all the answers and skills that he pushes everyone out. Only by learning to let go and seek help from others does he gain the success and happiness which allows him to achieve his original dream of starting a business (jazz club). He does this by fortuitously meeting Mia where they enter a relationship and support each other, with Mia encouraging Seb to open up, such as when Seb gets lucky with Keith's opportunity. Similar to above, the relationship becomes strained because, as Seb is growing, he becomes confused with what he wants - career (and what kind) or love.

While Mia and Seb end up parting ways, they still have a love for each other, as seen in the bittersweet ending. It's a very well-done story on growth, maturity and how impactful the people who flow in and out of our lives can be.

I'll argue this was the core story director Damien Chazelle wanted to tell, with all of the Hollywood and jazz parts being set dressing.

That said, regarding the arguments and complaints that Seb saves, then may I present:

Seb does not save jazz. 

Saying Seb saves jazz reveals a misunderstanding of the movie. John Legend's character Keith is the one who saves jazz; Seb just happens to take part it in and use the money he earns to open a club (his original dream). While Seb was constantly, stubbornly argues about what "true" jazz is and how he's the one who's going to save it, Keith eventually corrects him by telling Seb what jazz really is - evolution, change and trailblazing. Remember - Seb is an asshole and flawed character with a flawed perspective, when he's telling Mia what jazz is, he's an idiot with the wrong perspective due to his character flaws.

Something else to think about with regards to the characters - Seb is an entitled asshole and one of Mia's flaws is she does't know jazz. She neither likes it nor knows it.

Again, there are a number of racially questionable elements of La La Land, but being outraged by the "white savior" angle is a disservice to the story being told - a story about the growth and maturation of two characters as they pursue their passions, combined with the benefit of how outside perspectives and encouragement can help us. It's almost a twisted advertisement for more platonic friendships.

Note: A quick review of the film, along with a few others, can be found here. The movie certainly has flaws - such as how I didn't enjoy any of the musical numbers and think the film would be better with those cut, along with some of the other nostalgia elements.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Birdman - A Groundbreaking Narrative of Required Viewing

To put it simply, it's a work of art that requires processing.

Upon leaving the theater, I thought it was more good than bad, but always interesting. After digesting it for some time, that still holds true. I'm not sure if I'd put it in my Top 5, Top 10 or even Top 50, but it's a very special movie. It's special because it manages to successfully walk the line between two worlds - it simultaneously celebrates and takes down both theater and cinema.

Director and writer (and team) Alejandro González Iñárritu made a completely unique piece of film that takes storytelling to a whole new level. There really is nothing quite like it and probably won't be for some time. Its legacy for the general public will more than likely end up as a cult independent movie primarily for film lovers, but its achievements will hopefully transcend its status.

Strangely, the only thing I may be able to compare it to is Scott Pilgrim as to how much the directors just own their story, narrative and experience; self-contained stories with their own language. It's incredibly meta and beautifully so.

The layered acting is also fantastic and one of the most noteworthy achievements of the film, due in part to its long takes. While Emma Stone and Edward Norton are the standouts (Norton's debut scene being one of the best of the experience), Michael Keaton obviously is the one to carry the movie. He's equal parts over-the-top and honest/vulnerable. I'd love to see him do a third Batman movie after this.

Not only do I highly recommend Birdman, I'll go so far as to say it's required viewing for fans of cinema, theater and/or narrative in general. Even if you don't fall in love with it, this is an important movie.