Los Angeles Plays Itself

I’ve never been to Los Angeles.  I’ve been to San Francisco, I’ve been to San Diego, but my only time in Los Angeles was a brief stop at the airport on the way to Mexico.  My impression of the city is all second-hand and primarily informed by popular culture… including at least 90 of the movies whose clips are featured in this documentary (yes, I counted… so what?).  The film’s visuals are composed almost entirely of scenes from other movies.  The narration is Thom Andersen’s sprawling essay on the relationship between Los Angeles (don’t call it “L.A.”, ooh boy does he hate that) and the movies.  Nearly three hours long, Andersen tackles “The City as Background”, “The City as Character” and “The City as Subject” (with some tangents along the way).

For the most part, the material is really fascinating stuff, with well-examined analysis of its topics.  Although there is voluminous detail about the city’s geography and history, it never tries to appeal to insiders only.  Surely some of it will resonate more with Los Angelinos than with a stranger like me, but I didn’t feel excluded.  There is no “You wouldn’t understand if you’re not from here” attitude to it.  Andersen’s analysis of the films is often very astute and gives a whole new perspective… some of these movies may never look quite the same to me.  It also got me excited to check out at least three I haven’t seen yet and wasn’t considering before: The Exiles, Bless Their Little Hearts and perversely, Xanadu (whoa, Gene Kelly’s in it?). 

I did have a few minor problems.  Being a rather lengthy film, some of the segments seemed to go on uncomfortably long.  Why so much on supermarkets, for instance?  The narrator drones in a very sleepy voice, he sounds rather bored.  But I think the biggest turn-off is Andersen’s bitterness.  He really has a chip on his shoulder about certain things.  Like the whole “L.A.” business, or the fact that — GASP! — sometimes movies don’t accurately portray the layout of the city.  If he gets as worked up about it as his writing indicates, maybe it’s better that he didn’t do the narration himself.  On the other hand, maybe there’s a tongue-in-cheekness that isn’t being conveyed properly.  The bitterness is mostly confined to the first section of the documentary, however, and becomes less of an issue as he gets into other subjects.  As I said, my complaints are minor.  In general, I was entertained, stimulated and enlightened by the film.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb