Los Angeles Plays Itself

Part travelogue, part corrective to fictional portrayal of L.A. (sorry, Los Angeles) public spaces and geography, part screed against the self-mythologizing nature of Hollywood and the injustice of its portrayals of minorities and marginalia, and ultimately a beautiful love letter to an incredibly vibrant, diverse and vital city, warts and all. King's Andersen-penned narration is a great blend of sarcasm, cynicism, passion and humor. A must-see for any fan of film, but so much more as well.

The conceit of the film and its thoroughness are marvelous. The contrasts between film and reality and the transformation of Los Angeles through the distorted lens of film is enough to make the 2 plus hours of the film easy to take. On the flip side the narration is pretty terrible, partly because of the pointed remarks that aren't expanded upon and sometimes contradict themselves, but mostly because of the incessant monotone narration. Unique and intriguing vision with lackluster execution.

Sardonic and sarcastic narrator inadvertently falls in love with what a dump Los Angeles is.

Seminal video essay and required viewing for anyone (like myself) who considers this glitzed- and fucked-up megalopolis a facsimile of home. Andersen's snarky yet precise dissection of public transit is when his perspective really shines. But I could not help but feel towards the coda that his hopeless portrayal of South Los Angeles unwittingly falls prey to the same bourgeoisie elitism he laments. I feel like it misses the point of these film texts, for me: their resilience, fortitude, & grace.

There is little reverence here. This is an incisive essay concerned with geography, architecture, origin, chronology, and socioeconomic status, and how these things are routinely subverted and misrepresented, but occasionally done justice in the movies. The utter cynicism is a little disagreeable, but it is articulate and detailed. It's a deep well of interesting and sometimes obscure film clips. I laughed when the narrator contends that Dragnet belongs in the same pantheon as Bresson and Ozu.

Well worth a watch for a great selection of clips, many of which are taken from excellent films, famous as well as obscure. Don't let the 169 minutes scare you off; they brush by.

A film essay needs a hell of a narration to be tolerable for a feature, to say nothing of a three-hour one, but this one does the trick. Early on Thom Anderson mentions how a film experience is altered significantly when you recognize where it's shot, a point not only familiar to me but important as well, and the proof is here. The fantasy of Los Angeles that blares across the global mediascape, the one I know because I've only been there once when I was a teenager, is brilliantly dissected here

Wonderfully detailed and thought-provoking, even if it's narrated by Mr Plinkett from Red Letter Media.

If there's any better explanation on how movies are defined by the where as much as the who, how, what and when, I haven't heard it. The use of clips is perfect, synchronizing entertainment, insight and purpose. The first two hours are perfect, but it loses steam in the last half hour, jumping back and forth between scattered subjects before simply ending.

Considering the subject this could've been way better. It's amazing how many movies Anderson decides to spoil. Thankfully I've seen most of them but I haven't gotten around to LA Confidential yet

Brilliantly curated film about films (and design and architecture). Pitch-perfect tone.

Explores the epicentre of hyper reality.

Insightful, provocative, and learned, this is so much more than just a compilation of Los Angeles movie scenes.

Sounds interesting but it serves as an outlet for our essayist to complain that - gasp! - the things we see in movies aren't real! His bitterness towards filmic depictions of his hometown overshadows many of the cool points he makes - how versatile the architechture is, how small parts of the city's history become focal points for fiction, or how films routinely ignore minority voices. On top of this, the movie could easily have been 2 hours with *slightly* faster narration/less visual filler.

Pithy documentary. Over three hours long, with an intermission, but with sufficient content to justify that length

Interesting view of how Los Angeles has been portrayed over the years, but the narration is scatter shot (and sometimes very whiny) and often disappears for long stretches of clips that don't serve to do anything other than pad out the already long running time.

Really deep and insightful look at the relationship between LA and its depiction in the movies it creates. I found it thoroughly interesting, but I also live in LA. I'm not convinced it would be as interesting to those who are unfamiliar or unconcerned with the city itself. Also, it does examine a huge number of films in a way that spoils them if you haven't seen them

A huge pile of great footage.

3 hours is a long running time, but it stays interesting. The narration seems boring at first, but the tone is just right for the things he explains. Many scenes of different films, informative and sometimes funny

Andersen brings some interesting things to light, like how film can warp the intended meanings of architecture or how crucial setting really is. But he brings a sneer to movies based on location alone that makes some of it hard to swallow.

Every now and then gets sidetracked, but for the most part paints a convincing picture of how L.A.--ahem, Los Angeles--has been misportrayed in movies.

If Los Angeles is about nostalgia then I am going.

I could watch at least three more hours of this easily. It made want to rewatch Demy's Model Shop (among a lot of other things), and now i'm half convinced that Dragnet was actually Bressonian genius. Still i have to wonder why he never got around to mentioning Magnolia (and i wish there was a sequel just so he could talk about Drive and Greenberg...)

An engaging and engrossing essay film on the presentation and identity of Los Angeles. Long a staple in movies, the city has served as a background, a setting, and even as a character. However, Anderson's film shows us that this often obscures the true nature of the city. The montage of film clips is both impressive and informative, while the narration brings context and a dry wit to the proceedings. Truly a magnificent film.

Informative and incredibly dull for a topic that embraces sensationalism as its M.O. Lots of good film recommendations throughout too.

"So many men unneeded, unwanted in a world where there is so much to be done."

I love documentaries that basically stich together film clips and commentary (e.g., That's Entertainment movies). This film does something original--namely, examine the way Hollywood films perceive and portray the city of L.A., and in the process in reveal truths and misconceptions about the city, touching on its architecture, history, social class and politics. Terrific film! ps 73