A fantastic film covering all of the bases of the way in which Los Angeles is seen through the eyes of Hollywood. Full of wonderful insights, this film is an in depth study more than it is a crowd-pleaser. Also a great source of information for film-buffs...a plethora of little-known facts and behind-the-scenes information. Some of the movies are blockbusters, others you may not have ever heard of, but each film that Thom Anderson studies and quotes proves to be a unique take on the subject. If you love DVD special features, you will love this movie. If you love Los Angeles, you will love this movie. If you HATE Los Angeles, you will love this movie. If you don't know yet, or know nothing about LA, get your hands on a copy of this movie. It will make it easier to decide.
42 Reviews
Fascinating
tezby27 June 2004
You may have noticed other comments here saying that the film is long, boring and has a droning voice over. While it is 3 hours long and has a narrator with a voice like a sedated Billy Bob Thornton, Los Angeles Plays Itself is one of the most fascinating film-crit documentaries ever made.
The director assumes that the viewer has a certain level of understanding of film theory, and that would probably help when the narrator starts citing David Thomson, Pauline Kael, Dziga Veryov and Ozu, but it's not entirely necessary to enoy the film either. All you really need is an understanding that a real place - the city of Los Angeles - is also a fictional place - the LA of the movies. The documentary is like an extended home movie made up of clips from films and interspersed with sections created by the director.
What holds it all together is an examination of Los Angeles as a place in films (locations, buildings), as a stand in for other places (Africa, Switzerland), as a record of places lost (buildings, neighborhoods, people, cultures), as focus for nightmares and dreams (SF like Blade Runner and Independence Day) and more.
While the voice over could have been paced a little better and be bit more "up", this film really rewards viewers who are willing to accept the documentary on its own terms. I found I just couldn't stop thinking about it and now, when watching movies shot in LA, I keep remembering moments from Los Angeles Plays Itself.
The director assumes that the viewer has a certain level of understanding of film theory, and that would probably help when the narrator starts citing David Thomson, Pauline Kael, Dziga Veryov and Ozu, but it's not entirely necessary to enoy the film either. All you really need is an understanding that a real place - the city of Los Angeles - is also a fictional place - the LA of the movies. The documentary is like an extended home movie made up of clips from films and interspersed with sections created by the director.
What holds it all together is an examination of Los Angeles as a place in films (locations, buildings), as a stand in for other places (Africa, Switzerland), as a record of places lost (buildings, neighborhoods, people, cultures), as focus for nightmares and dreams (SF like Blade Runner and Independence Day) and more.
While the voice over could have been paced a little better and be bit more "up", this film really rewards viewers who are willing to accept the documentary on its own terms. I found I just couldn't stop thinking about it and now, when watching movies shot in LA, I keep remembering moments from Los Angeles Plays Itself.
Don't Call It L.A.
mjcfoxx12 July 2013
For a three hour documentary about a town that houses 10 million and looks dusty and dirty even when it's at its pristine and pretentious best, this is some compelling stuff. The droll voice of the narrator (Encke King- please tell me that's a pseudonym for the documentary's creator, Thom Anderson) expounds the essay like a cynical alcoholic history professor might talk about the Arapahoe during a Friday night session in which you were hoping to deal with no more important topics than whose breasts look best on GoT or what's up with Jets QB situation. And you'll listen to him because what he says makes sense. Yes, Hollywood is full of overprivileged white guys who pretend the city they live in doesn't exist outside of their fortress-like movie studios and bougie Bel-Air penthouses. I myself lived in Los Angeles for a year, and Hollywood is more of an odor than a thing. You get a faint whiff of it from time to time, but for the most part, Los Angeles is a place where underprivileged multi-ethnic people scrape out a living and pay too much for it. Every single Asian country is represented there (China, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, the Phillipines, all of 'em), and of course a good 1/3 of it is Mexican (and you can't forget how many black people live there...). It's a melting pot.
Anderson includes a history of Los Angeles by showing how the filmed history got everything wrong and he expounds on the cops and how they're portrayed. His essay sounds like what it is: a tenured film professor being overly critical and at times pseudo-intelligent about an industry borne of immigrants when at its best... which is hilarious given how kind he is to anyone obviously not born in America, as though their portrayal of Los Angeles is more honest because they don't pretend to know anything about it (or probably care all that much-- I lived there, and I never found a reason to care about it. It was a just a place with a lot of people and not a particularly inviting one). This would probably be labeled communist propaganda if it came out during the 50s with how much it seems to disdain anyone who isn't working class or below. Which would be more admirable if the filmmaker was just some guy who watched a lot of movies while he scraped out a living repairing motorcycles in Simi Valley and not some coddled condescending liberal who's been sucking at the film school teat since the 60s.
And yet, I give it an 8. The guy does know his stuff.
Anderson includes a history of Los Angeles by showing how the filmed history got everything wrong and he expounds on the cops and how they're portrayed. His essay sounds like what it is: a tenured film professor being overly critical and at times pseudo-intelligent about an industry borne of immigrants when at its best... which is hilarious given how kind he is to anyone obviously not born in America, as though their portrayal of Los Angeles is more honest because they don't pretend to know anything about it (or probably care all that much-- I lived there, and I never found a reason to care about it. It was a just a place with a lot of people and not a particularly inviting one). This would probably be labeled communist propaganda if it came out during the 50s with how much it seems to disdain anyone who isn't working class or below. Which would be more admirable if the filmmaker was just some guy who watched a lot of movies while he scraped out a living repairing motorcycles in Simi Valley and not some coddled condescending liberal who's been sucking at the film school teat since the 60s.
And yet, I give it an 8. The guy does know his stuff.
Long, but worth watching if you have any interest in the history of Los Angeles and how it was portrayed in film.
rex66810 September 2004
Thom Andersen uses hundreds of scenes from a multitude of movies throughout the past century, to express his opinions about the true Los Angeles in this cinematic essay. He takes the common opinion that Los Angeles has no discernible culture, and presents two basic reasons why this opinion is so prevalent.
1. Los Angeles used to be a culture rich city until the richer, more affluent, citizens decided that it's more profitable to have apartment complexes, high rises, and strip malls.
2. There is quite a bit of culture remaining in Los Angeles, but because everyone is too busy driving themselves from point A to point B as fast as possible, they don't see it.
Whether you agree with his opinions or not, the film is worth a look (although nearly three hours long) to see all of the footage of Los Angeles over the years, and how it portrayed LA at the time.
1. Los Angeles used to be a culture rich city until the richer, more affluent, citizens decided that it's more profitable to have apartment complexes, high rises, and strip malls.
2. There is quite a bit of culture remaining in Los Angeles, but because everyone is too busy driving themselves from point A to point B as fast as possible, they don't see it.
Whether you agree with his opinions or not, the film is worth a look (although nearly three hours long) to see all of the footage of Los Angeles over the years, and how it portrayed LA at the time.
Fascinating Los Angeles
Popey-61 November 2004
Most people are going to say 'whoa!' at the running time for this lengthy (3 and a bit hours) documentary but it is one of the most fascinating films you can see on the subject of Los Angeles (certainly not L.A.). Andersen's monotone voice does not grate or bore and is scripted well not to tell too much or too little about the city. The running time, as any film or LA aficionado will appreciate, is not nearly enough time to fit in all that could be said, or shown, about the city, people, buildings, spaces, representations but he does very well with condensing what he has gathered.
Many critics have argued that the poor quality (it is entirely on video) of a lot (even the most recent) footage lets the piece down slightly which is true if the viewer is to appreciate the wide landscapes but matters not where he is simply trying to illustrate an oft-repeated point. People will say 'what about 'The Couch Trip' or 'where's 'Beverley Hills Cop' but this is just nit-picking a fine achievement and a labour of love that Andersen has fortunately been able to share with the world. Even if you haven't been to Los Angeles you'll love this trip through the movies.
Many critics have argued that the poor quality (it is entirely on video) of a lot (even the most recent) footage lets the piece down slightly which is true if the viewer is to appreciate the wide landscapes but matters not where he is simply trying to illustrate an oft-repeated point. People will say 'what about 'The Couch Trip' or 'where's 'Beverley Hills Cop' but this is just nit-picking a fine achievement and a labour of love that Andersen has fortunately been able to share with the world. Even if you haven't been to Los Angeles you'll love this trip through the movies.
You have to love Los Angeles
dennis-whelan4 May 2005
Criticisms are valid, but this film is not entertainment...in the popular sense of movies today. That said, I was riveted for three hours, without an intermission. I just couldn't leave, and risk missing something! I've been secretly admiring Los Angeles for years. I love driving its main boulevards for miles and experiencing the pan-cultural ethic a single street. Western, Sepulveda, Slausen, Sunset, Van Owen. Here is a film that I always wanted to see, and encourages me to see more films about Los Angeles. I've always felt that Los Angeles was a city in its late adolescence/teen age years: pimples, raging hormones, lack of history and eternally looking to the future. Andersons take on the city, it's image in film as a personality, place and thing are very juicy indeed. Best seen at multiple sessions! Can't wait for the DVD.
You will never look at films in quite the same way again
howard.schumann20 June 2005
Los Angeles Plays Itself asks the question - should we expect films to represent the truth or is anything acceptable in the name of entertainment? Director Thom Andersen is mostly concerned about how his city, the City of Los Angeles, has been represented in the movies. In an abrasive and brilliant three-hour cinematic essay, he wants us to know that the history, locations, and social makeup of Los Angeles bears little resemblance to how it has been depicted on screen over the years. According to Andersen, "Los Angeles is where reality and representation get muddled," he says. The public conception of Los Angeles (he despises calling it LA) he says is of discontinuity, nonexistent addresses, phony telephone numbers, rich and corrupt individuals who live in modernist houses in the hills, and ethnic minorities who live next to oil refineries if they live at all.
Containing clips from literally hundreds of films, Los Angeles Plays Itself is divided into three parts plus a very welcome intermission. Encke King narrates but the text is from Andersen, a Professor of Film Studies at the California Institute of the Arts and a resident of Los Angeles since age seven. The first part, The City as Background, looks at how real sites have been misleadingly portrayed in a cinematic history of buildings and houses turned into something far from their intended purpose. Using clips from such diverse films as The White Cliffs of Dover and DOA, he shows how the massive sky-lit Bradbury Building was turned into a British hospital, a Burmese hotel, and a police headquarters. In The City as Character, he shows the deterioration of the residential downtown area known as Bunker Hill that went from an upscale neighborhood to one of seedy rooming houses until it was finally leveled for redevelopment and commercial high rises.
Accessible by a railcar known as Angel's Flight, Bunker Hill in the movies became a setting for adultery and murder in film noirs such as Kiss me Deadly and Double Indemnity and eventually a futuristic dreamscape in Blade Runner. These are contrasted with the documentary The Exiles by Kent Mackenzie that shows the reality of the cultural dislocation of a subculture of Arizona Indians living in loneliness on the hill. Andersen discusses landmarks that no longer exist such as the Pan Pacific Auditorium and laments the passing of the drive-in restaurant and drive-in movies. He has little good to say about films such as Altman's Short Cuts, Steve Martin's L.A. Story, and Woody Allen's Annie Hall that, he says, repeat tired clichés about his city. He also takes umbrage at films like War of the Worlds, Predator 2, and Independence Daythat blow his city to smithereens to satisfy the audience's need for destruction.
The final part is called The City as Subject and here Andersen exposes the lies of films such as Chinatown and L.A. Confidential that tell only part of history, delving into the real scandals in L.A. history that reached far deeper than that shown in the movies. He even dissects good old Joe Friday in Dragnet, showing it as a TV series that mirrored the LAPDs contempt for the ordinary citizen. The essay ends with a look at some rare independent films that portray a part of ethnic Los Angeles overlooked in big studio productions. These are Bush Mama, Killer of Sheep, and Bless Their Little Hearts, a film about the tribulations of an aging unemployed black man in South Central Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Plays Itself is a fascinating excursion into the history of cinema and Andersen's commentary is hard hitting, insightful, and revealing. He invites us to reawaken our senses and view movies consciously, not simply accept uncritically what is presented on the screen. Whether you agree or disagree with his point of view, I guarantee you will never look at films in quite the same way again.
Containing clips from literally hundreds of films, Los Angeles Plays Itself is divided into three parts plus a very welcome intermission. Encke King narrates but the text is from Andersen, a Professor of Film Studies at the California Institute of the Arts and a resident of Los Angeles since age seven. The first part, The City as Background, looks at how real sites have been misleadingly portrayed in a cinematic history of buildings and houses turned into something far from their intended purpose. Using clips from such diverse films as The White Cliffs of Dover and DOA, he shows how the massive sky-lit Bradbury Building was turned into a British hospital, a Burmese hotel, and a police headquarters. In The City as Character, he shows the deterioration of the residential downtown area known as Bunker Hill that went from an upscale neighborhood to one of seedy rooming houses until it was finally leveled for redevelopment and commercial high rises.
Accessible by a railcar known as Angel's Flight, Bunker Hill in the movies became a setting for adultery and murder in film noirs such as Kiss me Deadly and Double Indemnity and eventually a futuristic dreamscape in Blade Runner. These are contrasted with the documentary The Exiles by Kent Mackenzie that shows the reality of the cultural dislocation of a subculture of Arizona Indians living in loneliness on the hill. Andersen discusses landmarks that no longer exist such as the Pan Pacific Auditorium and laments the passing of the drive-in restaurant and drive-in movies. He has little good to say about films such as Altman's Short Cuts, Steve Martin's L.A. Story, and Woody Allen's Annie Hall that, he says, repeat tired clichés about his city. He also takes umbrage at films like War of the Worlds, Predator 2, and Independence Daythat blow his city to smithereens to satisfy the audience's need for destruction.
The final part is called The City as Subject and here Andersen exposes the lies of films such as Chinatown and L.A. Confidential that tell only part of history, delving into the real scandals in L.A. history that reached far deeper than that shown in the movies. He even dissects good old Joe Friday in Dragnet, showing it as a TV series that mirrored the LAPDs contempt for the ordinary citizen. The essay ends with a look at some rare independent films that portray a part of ethnic Los Angeles overlooked in big studio productions. These are Bush Mama, Killer of Sheep, and Bless Their Little Hearts, a film about the tribulations of an aging unemployed black man in South Central Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Plays Itself is a fascinating excursion into the history of cinema and Andersen's commentary is hard hitting, insightful, and revealing. He invites us to reawaken our senses and view movies consciously, not simply accept uncritically what is presented on the screen. Whether you agree or disagree with his point of view, I guarantee you will never look at films in quite the same way again.
"L.A." = ineffable
Eye-on-the-pie-in-the-sky4 April 2005
Trenchant and epic in size is Thom Andersen's "Los Angeles Plays Itself" a doc that analyzes representation as much as it analyzes representation of Los Angeles itself.
How I adored the narrator's (Encke King) voice! It was at once sardonic and annoyed a reflection of Andersen's emotional regard toward the whole matter, no doubt. What we hear are critical observations of the film clips that we see there are quite literally dozens and dozens of clips here. This may seem disorienting and exhausting (to the interest level) but it's not. So struck with the compelling argument that Andersen presents to us do the hours fly by like minutes (not vice versa as Addison DeWitt said in "All About Eve").
Funny/interesting it is how this doc is set up like a conventional narrative film that Hollywood is guilty of routinely (and cloyingly) pushing on to the consumer - first we laugh and then we cry. The only difference here (and it's a big one) is that we're looking at actual subjects that existed or still exist. We cry for Los Angeles, you ask? Well, I'm not at liberty to discuss the poignancy that's present it must be experienced firsthand in order to attain those surprise tears that are greatly missing in our movies.
How I adored the narrator's (Encke King) voice! It was at once sardonic and annoyed a reflection of Andersen's emotional regard toward the whole matter, no doubt. What we hear are critical observations of the film clips that we see there are quite literally dozens and dozens of clips here. This may seem disorienting and exhausting (to the interest level) but it's not. So struck with the compelling argument that Andersen presents to us do the hours fly by like minutes (not vice versa as Addison DeWitt said in "All About Eve").
Funny/interesting it is how this doc is set up like a conventional narrative film that Hollywood is guilty of routinely (and cloyingly) pushing on to the consumer - first we laugh and then we cry. The only difference here (and it's a big one) is that we're looking at actual subjects that existed or still exist. We cry for Los Angeles, you ask? Well, I'm not at liberty to discuss the poignancy that's present it must be experienced firsthand in order to attain those surprise tears that are greatly missing in our movies.
It could have been great.
astrofan12 December 2014
What should be a fun documentary, the history of movie shooting locations, turns into an almost three hour slog. The film is dragged down by a script full of banalities (did you know when a film's actors exit one location they don't always enter the real next location?) and the most monotonous monotoned (sic) difficult to listen to narrator since "The Story of Film: An Odyssey."
Another flaw is the repeated scenes of B and even C level films. Occasionally this is works, but how many times can you watch something Messiah of Evil?
Best watched in short bursts.
Another flaw is the repeated scenes of B and even C level films. Occasionally this is works, but how many times can you watch something Messiah of Evil?
Best watched in short bursts.
Mordant, funny and pointed
grcomm11 January 2008
Okay, it's not "entertainment" as someone else complained. And I bet Thom Anderson is damned proud of that! On the other hand, if you are interested in film and American society, this is an endlessly absorbing piece of work, sort of a U.S. version of Chris Marker's provocative and witty dissection of the European left released here as "Grin Without a Cat." This is essay film-making at a very high level of intelligence. Anderson's thesis, wildly over simplified, has to do with the way that American filmmakers use the depiction of L.A. to promote a certain vision of urban society, of architectural modernism and of late capitalism. He draws on such a wide range of film clips -- everything from Samuel Fuller and Robert Aldrich to Michael Mann and Roman Polanski to obscure indie films of the 50s and 60s -- that this film will probably never be released on DVD simply because the rights clearances will take forever. I was particularly struck by his remarks on the cynicism of films like "Chinatown" as fueling a sense of social and political powerlessness among audiences and the comparison to some of the terrific Black indie films of the 60s and 70s, particularly Killer of Sheep.
My only real quibble with the film, and it is not inconsiderable, is that it wasn't clear to me -- admittedly on one viewing -- how the two halves fit together either visually or in terms of the ideas.
But what a pleasure it is to see a movie that HAS ideas, and expresses them with wit and savvy.
My only real quibble with the film, and it is not inconsiderable, is that it wasn't clear to me -- admittedly on one viewing -- how the two halves fit together either visually or in terms of the ideas.
But what a pleasure it is to see a movie that HAS ideas, and expresses them with wit and savvy.
Great and Awful in (almost) Equal Parts
GRMacE27 May 2005
Much like the city under analysis, this film school project is without equal in many respects. However, just like Los Angeles, the warts make for less than a perfect experience.
My posting is thoroughly biased since I am, like so many of the posters to IMDb, a Los Angeleno who loves this city. We get the joke about Los Angeles. We live it every day. Someone told me that you have to live here for seven years before you begin to peel back the image of the city and actually find there are people living here. Whether seven is the correct number, I can tell you that viewing this movie will speed up the process considerably.
With the director's guidance, viewing various movie clips over the years is an enlightening experience. The emphasis is placed on the background of the shot, not the foreground actors. This proves to be liberating and an unexpected pleasure. The insightful voice over convinced me that they had done their homework. Even if you think you know a lot about this city, you will learn more in two hours than you would pouring over history books for a month.
Then there is the third hour. Ouch. Feel safe to leave the theater after the intermission. All semblance of historical detachment is thrown out the window and it becomes a personal diatribe against perceived slights and his take on racial politics. I happen to agree with with many of his sentiments, but his language is equal parts preachy, treacle, and bombastic. Also, unfortunately, in many places just plain wrong. Statements are made as fact (without attribution) that are mere opinion. No voice is given to reasonable voices from any other source. It is, of course, the director's right to make a personal film and take any side he wants. Watching it is another thing all together.
The other major problem is the video transfer. Many of the clips are clearly lifted from VHS tapes that have been in a library or video store just a little too long. Even the best of the film has a washed out look would probably not be as noticeable on a TV, but on a big screen, the effect will take you back a bit. Oh, did you notice the running time? Obviously one of the filmmakers heroes is Michael Cimino.
In the end, the entire experience is well worth your time if you have any interest at all in Los Angeels/Urban America/Big City politics.
Just somebody get him an editor. While you are at it, how about a fact checker.
My posting is thoroughly biased since I am, like so many of the posters to IMDb, a Los Angeleno who loves this city. We get the joke about Los Angeles. We live it every day. Someone told me that you have to live here for seven years before you begin to peel back the image of the city and actually find there are people living here. Whether seven is the correct number, I can tell you that viewing this movie will speed up the process considerably.
With the director's guidance, viewing various movie clips over the years is an enlightening experience. The emphasis is placed on the background of the shot, not the foreground actors. This proves to be liberating and an unexpected pleasure. The insightful voice over convinced me that they had done their homework. Even if you think you know a lot about this city, you will learn more in two hours than you would pouring over history books for a month.
Then there is the third hour. Ouch. Feel safe to leave the theater after the intermission. All semblance of historical detachment is thrown out the window and it becomes a personal diatribe against perceived slights and his take on racial politics. I happen to agree with with many of his sentiments, but his language is equal parts preachy, treacle, and bombastic. Also, unfortunately, in many places just plain wrong. Statements are made as fact (without attribution) that are mere opinion. No voice is given to reasonable voices from any other source. It is, of course, the director's right to make a personal film and take any side he wants. Watching it is another thing all together.
The other major problem is the video transfer. Many of the clips are clearly lifted from VHS tapes that have been in a library or video store just a little too long. Even the best of the film has a washed out look would probably not be as noticeable on a TV, but on a big screen, the effect will take you back a bit. Oh, did you notice the running time? Obviously one of the filmmakers heroes is Michael Cimino.
In the end, the entire experience is well worth your time if you have any interest at all in Los Angeels/Urban America/Big City politics.
Just somebody get him an editor. While you are at it, how about a fact checker.
A must for every tourist - high and low
dcbdramaturg12 February 2004
This documentary changed - oh no, not my live, but my looking: at Los Angeles and at movies in general. The City of Angels will never be the same - L.A.. And from now on I will classify the films I see into high and low tourist: Through which stranger's eyes do they present the city they pretend to live in???
Less Political Commentary Would Have Made For a Better Film
isihire30 December 2014
Interesting documentary and well worth the viewing. For movie fanatics it gives the audience a nice connection between the city of Los Angeles and many of the movies filmed in and around the city. The movie could have steered clear of the social commentary and just let the viewer see the comparisons and contrasting perspectives of life versus movies coming out of Hollywood. In the end it isn't any different from any political documentary. It simply gets too heavy and deep when it could be a more light hearted look at films and the connection to Los Angeles. It is a cynical and sadly dark look at the film industry and how it doesn't sync with the writer's view of his city.
Nice idea, but rendered nearly unwatchable by obnoxious narration
210west3 July 2016
The filmmakers clearly went to a lot of trouble to assemble all these clips of Los Angeles past and present, but the peevish and pretentious narrator, droning nonstop in my ear, soon got in the way.
Worse, the focus of his grumpy soliloquizing was often at odds with what was on the screen. For example, while we saw a wild (and obviously painstakingly worked-out) scene from a Buster Keaton comedy in which a cart releases a cascade of beer barrels onto a steeply sloping road, the narrator continued yammering on as if completely oblivious to what was taking place on screen. He was busy pontificating about how (if memory serves) some images can be characteristic of one particular urban locale while others are more generic. Duh.
Watching the movie, or trying to, is like sitting in a theater with a depressed grad student seated behind you, muttering a sour, self-referential monologue to himself, without a pause, while you're attempting to concentrate on the film. After a while, you want to turn around and yell SHUT THE F#%& UP ALREADY!!
Worse, the focus of his grumpy soliloquizing was often at odds with what was on the screen. For example, while we saw a wild (and obviously painstakingly worked-out) scene from a Buster Keaton comedy in which a cart releases a cascade of beer barrels onto a steeply sloping road, the narrator continued yammering on as if completely oblivious to what was taking place on screen. He was busy pontificating about how (if memory serves) some images can be characteristic of one particular urban locale while others are more generic. Duh.
Watching the movie, or trying to, is like sitting in a theater with a depressed grad student seated behind you, muttering a sour, self-referential monologue to himself, without a pause, while you're attempting to concentrate on the film. After a while, you want to turn around and yell SHUT THE F#%& UP ALREADY!!
A most personal view of Los Angeles viewed through the Movies
gortx11 May 2005
In much the same spirit as Martin Scorsese's "Mio viaggio in Italia" (1999), Thom Andersen's "visual lecture" on his native Los Angeles is a very personal journey. Because of rights issues involved in procuring clips from dozens and dozens of films, this project is unlikely to ever be seen outside of Museums, Cinemateques, and 'academic' settings, so you will have to actively seek it out if you want to see it. It is worth doing so - with reservations.
Because it is such a personal odyssey, nobody is likely to agree with all of it, and that would suit Director Andersen just fine. I guess I could be categorized as a "tourist who stayed" in the vernacular of Andersen's thesis. I grew up in Boston, and moved to Los Angeles in my early 20's. Therefore, MY LOS ANGELES is different from Andersen's. I don't get my back up when the city is referred to as "L.A.", but Andersen pointedly does. He finds it a derogatory and dismissive term that is used as a weapon by outsiders and tourists. As local film critic Andy Klein points out, Americans don't seem to have the same issue when it comes to the abbreviation "U.S.A.", so why is "L.A." so offensive? And, though many locals DO object, "Frisco", "D.C.","NYC", "SLC"and other similar abbreviations are becoming more and more common in our less literal society.
Some of the clips which Andersen employs last only a few seconds - acting as veritable Still Photos of certain views of the city (representing a variety of eras as well). Andersen is laudably conscientious in identifying ALL the clips used (sometimes this is a distraction; especially in those briefest of shots). Oddly, the brevity of those shots actually spurred me to wish the film were EVEN LONGER (the most common criticism of the film is that it is too long as is). Still, by the end, a remarkable portrait of a city does emerge. But, being the home of "Hollywood" (a term which also rankles Andersen - especially when it is used interchangeably with the main city itself), Los Angeles doesn't seem to exist in the world's eyes as separate from the Film Industry.
The biggest problem with the film is the narration (not Andersen's voice as others have often mentioned). Andersen is given to make sharp declarative sentences, that are too often contradicted not only by reality - but by the clips in his own movie! For instance, he makes a point about the haze over the city and declares that films ALWAYS have a gauzy look when showing Los Angeles - then provides clips which show the sharp sunny vistas (think BAYWATCH) that attract hordes of visitors and tourists. More problematically, Andersen is a 'neighborhood' guy who not only derides Hollywood, but seemingly anywhere west of Vine. For someone who is declaring love for his native city, it is odd that he dismisses vast swatches of it! Curious too, is that Andersen knowingly adopts the view of "outsiders" to the city (and the film industry) as he levies specious arguments to why "Hollywood" is so phony in its depiction of the city. Andersen certainly is better informed, but feigns ignorance to make his point.
The final portion of the movie brings Andersen's agitprop view into focus. To Andersen, racism is the dark underside of Los Angeles. As a so-called 'liberal Westsider', I have sympathy with much of what Andersen espouses (especially his parsing of the term "Nobody walks in L.A."), but it changes the focus of the film (not to mention the explosive and divisive use of a term like "genocide" to define public policy).
Again, one wishes the film were longer in order to explore some of these issues touched upon. Also, Andersen should have done another pass in the editing room. Not in terms of length, but in terms of some of the obvious contradictions in his narration vs. reality/movie clips. And , a cheap shot at George Kennedy (obviously an attempt to inject humor in the dry commentary) is not worthy of such a high-minded project (curiously, Andersen misses an opportunity to needle Kennedy again in a later BLUE KNIGHT clip). On a technical note, I must say I was disappointed that it is a Video Production (as many of the most extraordinary pieces of Cinematography are marred by a fuzzy video-dupe look) -- all the while understanding the financial and logistical reasons it is so.
Because it is such a personal odyssey, nobody is likely to agree with all of it, and that would suit Director Andersen just fine. I guess I could be categorized as a "tourist who stayed" in the vernacular of Andersen's thesis. I grew up in Boston, and moved to Los Angeles in my early 20's. Therefore, MY LOS ANGELES is different from Andersen's. I don't get my back up when the city is referred to as "L.A.", but Andersen pointedly does. He finds it a derogatory and dismissive term that is used as a weapon by outsiders and tourists. As local film critic Andy Klein points out, Americans don't seem to have the same issue when it comes to the abbreviation "U.S.A.", so why is "L.A." so offensive? And, though many locals DO object, "Frisco", "D.C.","NYC", "SLC"and other similar abbreviations are becoming more and more common in our less literal society.
Some of the clips which Andersen employs last only a few seconds - acting as veritable Still Photos of certain views of the city (representing a variety of eras as well). Andersen is laudably conscientious in identifying ALL the clips used (sometimes this is a distraction; especially in those briefest of shots). Oddly, the brevity of those shots actually spurred me to wish the film were EVEN LONGER (the most common criticism of the film is that it is too long as is). Still, by the end, a remarkable portrait of a city does emerge. But, being the home of "Hollywood" (a term which also rankles Andersen - especially when it is used interchangeably with the main city itself), Los Angeles doesn't seem to exist in the world's eyes as separate from the Film Industry.
The biggest problem with the film is the narration (not Andersen's voice as others have often mentioned). Andersen is given to make sharp declarative sentences, that are too often contradicted not only by reality - but by the clips in his own movie! For instance, he makes a point about the haze over the city and declares that films ALWAYS have a gauzy look when showing Los Angeles - then provides clips which show the sharp sunny vistas (think BAYWATCH) that attract hordes of visitors and tourists. More problematically, Andersen is a 'neighborhood' guy who not only derides Hollywood, but seemingly anywhere west of Vine. For someone who is declaring love for his native city, it is odd that he dismisses vast swatches of it! Curious too, is that Andersen knowingly adopts the view of "outsiders" to the city (and the film industry) as he levies specious arguments to why "Hollywood" is so phony in its depiction of the city. Andersen certainly is better informed, but feigns ignorance to make his point.
The final portion of the movie brings Andersen's agitprop view into focus. To Andersen, racism is the dark underside of Los Angeles. As a so-called 'liberal Westsider', I have sympathy with much of what Andersen espouses (especially his parsing of the term "Nobody walks in L.A."), but it changes the focus of the film (not to mention the explosive and divisive use of a term like "genocide" to define public policy).
Again, one wishes the film were longer in order to explore some of these issues touched upon. Also, Andersen should have done another pass in the editing room. Not in terms of length, but in terms of some of the obvious contradictions in his narration vs. reality/movie clips. And , a cheap shot at George Kennedy (obviously an attempt to inject humor in the dry commentary) is not worthy of such a high-minded project (curiously, Andersen misses an opportunity to needle Kennedy again in a later BLUE KNIGHT clip). On a technical note, I must say I was disappointed that it is a Video Production (as many of the most extraordinary pieces of Cinematography are marred by a fuzzy video-dupe look) -- all the while understanding the financial and logistical reasons it is so.
A brilliant invocation of the pretend and real Los Angeles
koolpopoki11 May 2005
I almost left this film after its first two hours. I expected the final hour would be more of what had gone before - a succession of brief clips, mostly from little-known fifties and sixties movies, with a somewhat flat voice-over narrative explaining how little relationship the "L.A." scenes in the movies have to the realities of Los Angeles and American life. For a while, seeing all the old images was fun and the narration was intelligent, but, I thought, enough was enough.
I'm really glad I stayed 'til the end. The final hour pulled it all together and made me understand why the initial two hours were needed. The second part began with the "low tourism" of Annie Hall (still using the city as a backdrop), went on to the "high tourism" of Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (dealing with real historical events involving water and transportation but in a fictional context), and ended with with films by independent black directors, including Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep, that show the lives of real people in a hard, difficult, vibrant city in which not everyone owns a car.
Los Angeles Plays Itself is an intensely political documentary for which the primary influence may ultimately be Bertolt Brecht. It doesn't seek to make the viewer identify with any of the characters, even the sympathetic characters, in its movie extracts. Rather, it uses the extracts to argue for a radical view of a potentially beautiful city, one in which economic and social decency come to the fore and public transportation is readily available.
I write this a week before a Los Angeles mayoral election in which Antonio Villaraigosa is the likely winner. I hope he has a chance to see Los Angeles Plays Itself.
I'm really glad I stayed 'til the end. The final hour pulled it all together and made me understand why the initial two hours were needed. The second part began with the "low tourism" of Annie Hall (still using the city as a backdrop), went on to the "high tourism" of Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (dealing with real historical events involving water and transportation but in a fictional context), and ended with with films by independent black directors, including Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep, that show the lives of real people in a hard, difficult, vibrant city in which not everyone owns a car.
Los Angeles Plays Itself is an intensely political documentary for which the primary influence may ultimately be Bertolt Brecht. It doesn't seek to make the viewer identify with any of the characters, even the sympathetic characters, in its movie extracts. Rather, it uses the extracts to argue for a radical view of a potentially beautiful city, one in which economic and social decency come to the fore and public transportation is readily available.
I write this a week before a Los Angeles mayoral election in which Antonio Villaraigosa is the likely winner. I hope he has a chance to see Los Angeles Plays Itself.
One of the Great Cinematic Essays
wavecat1315 July 2020
This is one of the great cinematic essays. Filmmaker Thom Andersen takes a big stack of clips from a wide range of films set in LA and uses them to illuminate the city's architecture, neighborhoods, and history. Some of the scenes are key moments, and others appear to be chosen randomly, but all of them reveal something interesting about Los Angeles. You may disagree with some of it--I did--but any serious fan of cinema or the city will appreciate what Andersen has put together here. I would like to see more cinematic explorations like this: how about New York? Paris? London? Tokyo?
A unique, funny, insightful documentary about movies and Los Angeles
runamokprods7 October 2010
Remarkable documentary, charting the history of how Los Angeles is portrayed in the movies, using hundreds of clips from dozens of movies. In the process it reveals much about the city's real history, its politics, how movies distort and even create reality, etc, etc.
Smart, and never for a second boring despite it's 2:49 running time, often funny, with Anderson's well written dead pan voice over constantly making you see both films and the city of Los Angeles in new ways.
As noted in other reviews, this will probably never be commercially released due to the enormous expense and legal complexity of licensing all the clips involved. But very worth keeping your eye open for at museums, University showings, 'grey market' sales, etc.
Smart, and never for a second boring despite it's 2:49 running time, often funny, with Anderson's well written dead pan voice over constantly making you see both films and the city of Los Angeles in new ways.
As noted in other reviews, this will probably never be commercially released due to the enormous expense and legal complexity of licensing all the clips involved. But very worth keeping your eye open for at museums, University showings, 'grey market' sales, etc.
My LA is no better than, but is definitely different from his LA
name99-92-5453897 July 2015
What I found most interesting about this movie is how starkly it showed that we all live in different worlds. I loved the movie, the way it was structured, what it focused on. But at the end of the day, the director's LA is not my LA (starting from trivial things like his assertion that the term LA is an insult).
For example: his LA says nothing about trees, whereas one of the things I try to point out to visitors is how many trees we have, all over the city, vastly more than you'd expect, of great variety. My LA extends eastward almost to Palmdale, his runs from the coast to about highway 110. My LA is fascinated by man's accomplishments, from the cluster of antennas (and the observatory) on Mount Wilson, to the traps in the San Gabriel mountains preventing landslides, to the fact that the freeways work as well as they do, to the massive water projects keeping us all going. His LA is uninterested in the control of nature. My LA loves the fact that material items are so cheap, whether you're looking at any of the masses of malls, or buying second hand in any of the masses of Goodwill stores. He doesn't see the cheap material items, rather the expensive no-materials (rent, medical, education, etc). My LA is interested in how many educational establishments we have, of such variety; his LA does not even mention these institutions.
This is not to criticize him or the movie --- the world is huge and none of us can know more than a tiny part of it. It is simply to point out that LA is likewise huge, and the perspectives he gives, while part of the story are far from the whole story, from the whole undiscussed issue of teenager movies and the portrayal of LA high schools, to the complete lack of reference to the LA Arboretum or Huntington Gardens (both locations used in so many movies).
(Yeah yeah, you can argue that he is talking about Los Angeles city, not LA metro, but come on. That's like snobbish New Yorkers insisting that Manhattan is the whole of NYC. It's a blinkered, empty way to live your life.)
If you're not a local, come visit and see for yourself. The good things he says about it are true --- there is so much beauty in the whole metro --- and many of the bad things from police to racism have (touch wood) been resolved or at least improved and are improving.
For example: his LA says nothing about trees, whereas one of the things I try to point out to visitors is how many trees we have, all over the city, vastly more than you'd expect, of great variety. My LA extends eastward almost to Palmdale, his runs from the coast to about highway 110. My LA is fascinated by man's accomplishments, from the cluster of antennas (and the observatory) on Mount Wilson, to the traps in the San Gabriel mountains preventing landslides, to the fact that the freeways work as well as they do, to the massive water projects keeping us all going. His LA is uninterested in the control of nature. My LA loves the fact that material items are so cheap, whether you're looking at any of the masses of malls, or buying second hand in any of the masses of Goodwill stores. He doesn't see the cheap material items, rather the expensive no-materials (rent, medical, education, etc). My LA is interested in how many educational establishments we have, of such variety; his LA does not even mention these institutions.
This is not to criticize him or the movie --- the world is huge and none of us can know more than a tiny part of it. It is simply to point out that LA is likewise huge, and the perspectives he gives, while part of the story are far from the whole story, from the whole undiscussed issue of teenager movies and the portrayal of LA high schools, to the complete lack of reference to the LA Arboretum or Huntington Gardens (both locations used in so many movies).
(Yeah yeah, you can argue that he is talking about Los Angeles city, not LA metro, but come on. That's like snobbish New Yorkers insisting that Manhattan is the whole of NYC. It's a blinkered, empty way to live your life.)
If you're not a local, come visit and see for yourself. The good things he says about it are true --- there is so much beauty in the whole metro --- and many of the bad things from police to racism have (touch wood) been resolved or at least improved and are improving.
Los Angeles the City vs. Los Angeles the Movie Location
moonspinner5515 March 2015
Lengthy (2 hours and 50 minutes) though absorbing and intelligent documentary on Los Angeles and how the city has been reflected in the movies (its scandals, its crimes, its mob connections, its architecture, etc.). Written and directed by Thom Andersen, with dry, non-showy narration by Encke King, this was a massive undertaking, yet the film and TV clips selected are enjoyable, giving us a past and present view of the city's streets and skyline, the seedy decay and the glamor of the privileged. The third act gets perhaps a touch heavy, when delineating the poverty-stricken by focusing on a trio of black dramas (1978's "Killer of Sheep", 1979's "Bush Mama" and 1983's "Bless Their Little Hearts"), but even then Andersen's text shows both grit and heart, sentimentality and cynicism. *** from ****
I was delighted
bob99822 January 2016
I have never been to Los Angeles--let's get that out of the way first. I have been watching movies set in the city for most of my life. It was great to see excerpts from Kiss Me Deadly, Sunset Boulevard, Rebel Without a Cause, Double Indemnity and many other films both great and terrible shown here. If some films are missing from the compilation (I missed Boogie Nights and Shampoo) many are there and testify most eloquently to the power of the city.
I've had Reyner Banham's book LOS ANGELES THE ARCHITECTURE OF FOUR ECOLOGIES for forty years and have been waiting for the documentarist who would give me the Bradbury building on film, who knows the importance of these buildings to architectural tradition. Richard Neutra and John Lautner must be pleased, if the film is playing in Heaven, to see their work so lovingly presented.
I've had Reyner Banham's book LOS ANGELES THE ARCHITECTURE OF FOUR ECOLOGIES for forty years and have been waiting for the documentarist who would give me the Bradbury building on film, who knows the importance of these buildings to architectural tradition. Richard Neutra and John Lautner must be pleased, if the film is playing in Heaven, to see their work so lovingly presented.
Uneven but very nostalgic for older Angelenos
djinnich114 April 2015
As a film, this one is very uneven. It definitely deserved better writing and structure. More actual facts, less subjective opinion presented as fact, and better balance and clarity between fact and fiction also would have benefited it.
That being said, as a native Angeleno who grew up in L.A. in the '50s-mid '70s, I looked past the industry vs. "great unwashed" residents comments (spurious at best), and focused on enjoying the locations and sights of my younger days, most of which are long gone. I'm also a fan of '30s-'70s movies, laughably considered too obscure by several short-attention-span reviewers, and those films showed many important L.A. locations that are historical treasures to older Angelenos, and that have fallen before the bulldozers of L.A. developers, often for good reasons I might add. But why an extended segment on Roger Rabbit (for one) instead of, well, any number of more relevant clips? Weird.
The segment that attempted to portray the ethnic and cultural diversity of Los Angeles was also out of whack. Too little mention of L.A.'s thriving Mexican-American population, virtually no mention of its Asian-Americans, and though at least attempted, an highly over-simplified overview of the Watts riots. Not one mayor (Sam Yorty? Tom Bradley?) was mentioned; no natural catastrophe or criminal activity, either. Not even Olvera Street or the early history of Los Angeles. As a history, this film deserves not just an "Incomplete," but a "D" grade because too many relevant facts about people, politics, local culture, steps of progress, etc. were either missing, inaccurate or made more or less important than they actually were.
Still, as a visual record of L.A. in years gone by, this was great fun. I enjoyed the accurate and salient comments that were made, and especially the many nostalgic images and the memories they brought to mind.
That being said, as a native Angeleno who grew up in L.A. in the '50s-mid '70s, I looked past the industry vs. "great unwashed" residents comments (spurious at best), and focused on enjoying the locations and sights of my younger days, most of which are long gone. I'm also a fan of '30s-'70s movies, laughably considered too obscure by several short-attention-span reviewers, and those films showed many important L.A. locations that are historical treasures to older Angelenos, and that have fallen before the bulldozers of L.A. developers, often for good reasons I might add. But why an extended segment on Roger Rabbit (for one) instead of, well, any number of more relevant clips? Weird.
The segment that attempted to portray the ethnic and cultural diversity of Los Angeles was also out of whack. Too little mention of L.A.'s thriving Mexican-American population, virtually no mention of its Asian-Americans, and though at least attempted, an highly over-simplified overview of the Watts riots. Not one mayor (Sam Yorty? Tom Bradley?) was mentioned; no natural catastrophe or criminal activity, either. Not even Olvera Street or the early history of Los Angeles. As a history, this film deserves not just an "Incomplete," but a "D" grade because too many relevant facts about people, politics, local culture, steps of progress, etc. were either missing, inaccurate or made more or less important than they actually were.
Still, as a visual record of L.A. in years gone by, this was great fun. I enjoyed the accurate and salient comments that were made, and especially the many nostalgic images and the memories they brought to mind.
A Very Good Film in Spite of Itself!
jjrous9 January 2018
This movie is almost three hours long. It is narrated in a dull,flat voice. It uses hundreds of film clips, some for as little time as 5-10 seconds. It ends abruptly, without any sort of wrap-up.
Yet..it works beautifully. A good example of how breaking all the rules can sometimes pay off handsomely.
Yet..it works beautifully. A good example of how breaking all the rules can sometimes pay off handsomely.
Some keen film observations, TONS of hyperbolic baloney
weeklygreenplanet8 April 2012
More than a few keen counter-intuitive film critical observations that playoff and against assumptions.
But FILLED with hyperbolic, fatuous nonsense -- lots of Mike Davis' Ciy Of Quartz bombast w/o the factual and historical under-girding, the worst Andersen's own. And a reliance on, let's call it, queer theory (formal reversals that 'queer' theory -- a queering that suggests a profound 'subverting' of the 'socially constructed' meanings but is b.s., a spin on a received idea that vanishes if reflected upon.) The commentary on CHINATOWN and L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (pathetically qualified) 'exposing' their ultimate "cynicism" is the most egregious: a superficial, sophomoric 'insight' presented as if volumes of serious thought about narrative had never been written and labored to death.
While there are hints of self-lampoon, this doc is not LAND WITHOUT BREAD.
It's way too long given its visual poverty (endless GLIMMER MAN clips), 3 hours of blurred, butchered video transfers much of it supported by pseudo-contrarian huff-and-puffery.
While THE CLOCK needs no narration, LA PLAYS ITSELF is unwatchable without (and, in parts, with) it.
Where's the Reyner Banham? for example.
It is a film that at this point, 2012, stands as a heroic botch-job, not fixable, not re-doable, a sinkhole/roadblock that stands in the way of doing a true clip epic of LA / Film.
But FILLED with hyperbolic, fatuous nonsense -- lots of Mike Davis' Ciy Of Quartz bombast w/o the factual and historical under-girding, the worst Andersen's own. And a reliance on, let's call it, queer theory (formal reversals that 'queer' theory -- a queering that suggests a profound 'subverting' of the 'socially constructed' meanings but is b.s., a spin on a received idea that vanishes if reflected upon.) The commentary on CHINATOWN and L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (pathetically qualified) 'exposing' their ultimate "cynicism" is the most egregious: a superficial, sophomoric 'insight' presented as if volumes of serious thought about narrative had never been written and labored to death.
While there are hints of self-lampoon, this doc is not LAND WITHOUT BREAD.
It's way too long given its visual poverty (endless GLIMMER MAN clips), 3 hours of blurred, butchered video transfers much of it supported by pseudo-contrarian huff-and-puffery.
While THE CLOCK needs no narration, LA PLAYS ITSELF is unwatchable without (and, in parts, with) it.
Where's the Reyner Banham? for example.
It is a film that at this point, 2012, stands as a heroic botch-job, not fixable, not re-doable, a sinkhole/roadblock that stands in the way of doing a true clip epic of LA / Film.
Interesting footage of city ruined by filmmaker's agenda
gnome-512 September 2008
Where do people get the idea that movies are supposed to represent some kind of objective truth? That seems to be Andersen's main bug. He faults Hollywood for fictionalizing Los Angeles history. He says that rich white people can't make films about L.A. because they only know the rich white part of the city, and because they might offend their rich white friends. It seems in his view that only people who walk the streets and ride the buses are qualified to depict life in this city, but the clips he shows from a few "neo-realist" films don't feature the city very much, except for a long shot of a guy driving past a closed tire factory.
But all movies (even documentaries and those by poor black filmmakers) are constructs. By their nature (meaning meddling by cinematographers, editors, directors, etc.) they can only present a subjective view of the city. So why not embrace that? Things like "creative geography" are inherent to the art form, so why discount them? Ultimately, Andersen has a bug up his hinder about what he considers to be proper film-making, and it flies in the face of a hundred years of cinema history. And this guy is a professor of film studies!
But all movies (even documentaries and those by poor black filmmakers) are constructs. By their nature (meaning meddling by cinematographers, editors, directors, etc.) they can only present a subjective view of the city. So why not embrace that? Things like "creative geography" are inherent to the art form, so why discount them? Ultimately, Andersen has a bug up his hinder about what he considers to be proper film-making, and it flies in the face of a hundred years of cinema history. And this guy is a professor of film studies!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
