By Thomas H Cullen (UK)


Is it logical, if change is something which lasts forever, and is it logical if eternity itself is something which has a measure? And the divide between the two ideas is important as well. Nature suggests that at least one of the two scenarios is dependent on the other, so the other question is if the dependency has a right to be mutual.

To experience eternity, it would make sense for a force to have experienced change. The eternal therefore doesn’t rely on anything. When it comes to the reverse, the ensuing logic would have to be that for the very same force to experience change the condition would require that the eternal is just an illusion, and that the illusion is dependent.

Relative to the parameter that just one force is being subject to eternity and change, the fallout is that an illusion has to be free to be experienced and that reality has to be unfree to be experienced. La La Land fits this description.

Mia and Sebastian are a journey of freedom to consequence. The consequence is the substance, and the unreal is the unimportant. The consequence follows the unimportant, and the obvious paradox to this is the immorality of it: why should consequence be consequence, if the source of the consequence wasn’t important?

If an experience is just an illusion, and innocent, it stands to reason that the recipient of the illusion shouldn’t feel the need to atone for the illusion. The climax of La La Land communicates this sense. Mia feels outrage, Sebastian feels outrage. A valid and sensible analysis of this outcome is that since the privilege of freedom and the slavery of reality have been subject to not one but “two” forces, that’s the logic for why the journey isn’t what it’s supposed to be.

The outcome of illusion being the beneficiary of reality ought to play out, but, the condition of not just one but two force sharing the experience is what upsets the process, and effectively places the process into reverse.

La La Land is a product which didn’t have to be consequence. Mia and Sebastian could have been the outcome of illusion, and the illusion wouldn’t have felt wrong. However, even for the product’s debatable misjudgment the end result is nevertheless inspiring. The allegory of consequence is just another illusion, and yet it possesses the power to act as a rejection of illusion. This makes the opposite end of the story – the first hour – into something which is a physical matter which has the power to overcome real life magic.

Magic must be real. And the consequence of La La Land is that real magic now has a responsibility to step up to the task of revealing itself. Mia and Sebastian are worthy sources of this destiny, regardless of the objective quality of their story

Rating: 4/5



Page   <<     1   2   3   4   5   6   7


Return to Movie Reviews

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This