Skip to main content

The Renaissance of the Struggling Artist Film


          Something very interesting stands out to me about two of my favourite films from 2016. Though very different in tone and story, both La La Land and Don’t Think Twice have one significant thing in common: they’re both about struggling artists.
          This isn’t new. Movies about rising, talented, artistic people have been around since the medium began. As far back as The Jazz Singer, the first motion picture with sound, Hollywood’s been interested in stories about about people trying to achieve fame for their art. Films about the creative process like 8 ½, Barton Fink, and Adaptation are often critically acclaimed for their surreal take on the early development of a film. But in recent years, movies focussed on the struggle of aspiring artists have been if not more prevalent, more noticeably well done. Movies like Birdman, Frances Ha, Whiplash, Chico and Rita, Limitless, and Inside Llewyn Davis have come out in the last few years, all depicting the struggle creative people have to find success. And what separates those and the films of this year from what came before is that they do so with a bleak honesty not often touched upon. That is, that failure is par for the course, and that dreams of fame or even sustainability may not or more accurately, will probably not come true.
          Classic Hollywood films did the struggling artist story a lot; but the main difference was films like All About Eve, A Star is Born, and Singin’ in the Rain always portrayed talented people as being rewarded. As good as those films were there was never much of a struggle, and it was always clear that by the end, the plucky protagonist be she Judy Garland, Debbie Reynolds, or whoever else, will have achieved their dream. This trope has even made its way into more recent films like The Artist in homage to that classic cinema. But that plot isn’t usually truthful. We see in La La Land that Emma Stone’s Mia and Ryan Gosling’s Sebastian are very talented, but on the road to success they have to take a lot of rejection.
          The opening number of La La Land features a hundred aspiring artists to give a sense of the quantity of people vying for the same dream; and follows it up throughout the film with Mia going to countless auditions, giving good auditions, but just not good enough. At one, she barely gets through a sentence of her script when she’s dismissed. 
          In Don’t Think Twice, the cast of the Commune are competing against dozens of other comedy troupes and performers in New York for a performing or writing job on the Saturday Night Live stand-in. The film even shows that many of these people don’t even like the show, but it’s their only option to catch a big break or even earn respectable money for doing what they love.
          La La Land director Damian Chazelle’s previous film Whiplash is about a young jazz musician enduring verbal, psychological, and even physical abuse from his teacher, so determined is he to achieve fame for his music. The Coen Brothers’ Inside Llewyn Davis, though arguably more about a musician’s resistance to compromise rather than his inability to be successful, shows a long journey in vain to meet a manager for a big break. Frances Ha details a young woman re-evaluating her dancing career among other things in light of an inability to get by on her own with merely that for work. Though these movies have very different directions, atmospheres, and characters, they all drive home a similar almost pessimistic theme. Either you won’t make it big as an artist or you’ll lose something along the way. It would seem that these are anti-creative messages. Why strive for artistic success if it looks like only a faint hope?
          I think these struggling artist films are being made to reiterate something I heavily emphasized in my La La Land review: passion; that you’ve got to have passion for your art in order to succeed in it. All artistic disciplines look easier to succeed in than they are. It’s a hard road making a living in a creative field. In fact many really creative people never manage to achieve their ambitions. But it’s that passion that’s important, and the films that pinpoint that are better for it. Does Llewyn Davis give up on folk music after F. Murray Abraham rejects his audition? No, he goes back to Greenwich Village and continues performing gigs when he can get them. When she doesn’t make it in the dance ensemble, Frances Ha doesn’t apply for a more secure job; she finds contentment as close to that world as she can as a choreographer and dance instructor. You’ll find the same kind of messages in La La Land and Don’t Think Twice and no doubt in movies yet to come; that is that you shouldn’t chase such dreams for fame and fortune unless you’d be happy making that art without.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...