There are certain types of movies that make you think and there are those that make the movie theater a place to escape the realities of today and allow you to daydream a little. La La Land belongs to the latter. It is not a film I am interested in having a conversation about, but rather the type I might watch on a Sunday afternoon to unwind from the chore of going about routine.

I have been taking a course on cinematography this semester, and I admit that I have a newfound appreciation for what it takes to achieve certain images (lighting design and camera movement) as the Director of Photography as well as how one’s role on set plays out with the dynamic between the entire cast and crew. The camera movement in La La Land achieves that state of dreaminess through swooping crane motions that add to the fluid transitions from one scene to another. From the opening scene, where a continuous take is interjected by dancing bodies and opening car doors to the pool party scene where the camera dives in with the actors, there is a constant sense of grandeur that renders characters always on a stage: life as a performance.

La La Land received so much acclaim because it revived a long history and tradition of American musicals on film. However, I find that it lacks the maturity and complexity of Damien Chazalle’s first film from two years ago, Whiplash. There is something funny in La La Land’s approach to diversity: the opening scene is the only one that includes people of color. It then narrows down to follow the whimsical struggles of two rising white LA artists whose dreams simultaneously bring them together and pull them apart. Overall, I found La La Land a poorly-performed musical (both the acting and the singing were lousy). The film is spectacle: it’s interested in itself and the constructed image. In that respect, it is very much like theater. It wants to be watched for the visuals and nothing more.