“Los Angeles Plays Itself” (2003)

Blowhard, Esq. writes:


It was recently announced that LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF, the previously difficult to find film essay written and directed by Thom Andersen, is finally being released on video. Although completed in 2003, the documentary about Los Angeles’ portrayal in Hollywood movies was only screened at film festivals and special events because it was thought too expensive to legally clear the 200+ movie clips in the film. The IP issues seem to have been addressed, though, so the documentary will be available commercially this September.

Via an illegal YouTube download completely legal means, I finally caught up with the almost three-hour long film that some have called the best documentary about Los Angeles ever made.

Thom Andersen

It’s an impressive work, the documentary equivalent of a lushly illustrated coffee table book with an academic text that’s by turns enlightening and aggravating. A graduate of Berkeley in the early 60s and a film professor at CalArts, the wry and laconic narration written by Andersen is delivered by Encke King. Andersen divides the film into three sections — City as Background, City as Character, and City as Subject.

The first section, City as Background, allows Andersen to air a number of peculiar complaints.


For example, he thinks the nickname “L.A.” is offensive. The documentary’s title is based on the “gay porn masterpiece” L.A. PLAYS ITSELF (1972) but spelled out because he believes only a city with an “inferiority complex” would permit the diminutive. One could just as easily say only a person with an inferiority complex would find the use of “L.A.” to be the sign of an inferiority complex. Someone should tell the citizens of Frisco and NOLA about this too.


More significantly, Andersen objects to “geographic license,” cinematic depictions in which interiors are spatially unrelated to exteriors or anytime when filmmakers play fast and loose with locations. Even fake addresses and phone numbers earn his scorn. Andersen admits that “it’s hard to make a theoretical case against it” but “like dramatic license, geographic license is usually an alibi for laziness. Silly geography makes for silly movies.” Two examples he gives of such silly movies are COBRA (1986) and DEATH WISH 4 (1987).

I’ve seen neither of those films so perhaps they are silly, but it’s hard for me to believe that geographic laxity has anything to do with it. Why should anyone care if a character exits a building and appears in a public square fifteen miles away, as happens in DEATH WISH 4, so long as the internal logic of the movie world is maintained? Would the film really be more palatable to Andersen if the filmmakers were able to maintain geographic realism? Given the movie’s neo-fascism and Andersen’s progressive politics, I highly doubt it. It’s odd to expect a vigilante fantasy to conform to any kind of naturalistic standard.


But Andersen’s gripe with geographic license is nothing compared to his disdain for Hollywood’s treatment of L.A.’s modernist architecture. “Some lies are malignant. They cheapen or trivialize the city,” the narrator intones. “Hollywood movies have almost systematically denigrated this heritage.” Indeed, Andersen was inspired to make this documentary after being disgusted by the treatment of Richard Neutra’s Lovell House in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (1997) where it was used as the residence of a powerful pimp and pornographer. Andersen patiently explains how Neutra’s design was influenced by Le Corbusier’s dictum that homes are “machines for living” and that the residence hosted meetings of political radicals in the 1930s.

He also objects to Hollywood’s alleged negative attitude toward architect John Lautner, particularly his Chemosphere and Garcia Residencethe latter’s destruction in LETHAL WEAPON (1989) being “the ultimate insult”. And, horror of horrors, postmodern architecture is “trashed” in DIE HARD (1988).


Even if many modernist houses double for villain lairs, it’s difficult to argue that such use denigrates the buildings or builders in any meaningful way. It’s not as if the supposed sustained Hollywood campaign against brutalism and its cousins has resulted in a groundswell of support against concrete or glass-clad structures. Quite the contrary. Benedikt Taschen lives in the Chemosphere, his publishing company and others produce handsome volumes honoring Neutra and Lautner, while for decades modernism and postmodernism have stubbornly retained their place at the apex of architectural prestige.

Besides — what’s so wrong with hating modernist buildings?

Perhaps Andersen was heartened that Marvel’s Iron Man franchise seems to have a soft spot for chic contemporary buildings. In IRON MAN (2008), Frank Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall is the setting for a glamorous charity event thrown by hero Tony Stark. In IRON MAN 3 (2013) the filmmakers created a Lautner-inspired concrete compound for the hero on Malibu’s Point Dume. (Yes, Stark’s home was destroyed but it is a comic book movie after all — massive CGI destruction is a genre requirement. Half of Manhattan was reduced to rubble in THE AVENGERS.) Indeed, as Steve Sailer pointed out, given how often his buildings have been used it’s just as accurate to say Hollywood has love affair with Lautner.


In the second section of the movie, City as Character, Andersen does a fantastic job of assembling films both famous and obscure to outline the evolution of the city. Old movies have a number of charms and one of the greatest is the documentary aspect that lets us peek into the past. I particularly liked the section on Bunker Hill, an area of downtown L.A. that once housed Arturo Bandini but now hosts pomo baubles. It’s startling to watch it transform from a middle-class enclave in CRISS CROSS and SHOCKPROOF (both from 1949) to a neighborhood of sketchy Victorian boardinghouses in KISS ME DEADLY (1955) to a downbeat but still thriving district in THE EXILES (filmed in 1958, completed in 1961) before ending up as a desolate wasteland in THE OMEGA MAN (1971).

Andersen also notes films that preserve photographic evidence of demolished L.A. landmarks like Ships and Tiny Naylor’s. Googie coffee shops have been a staple movie location since the style was pioneered in the late 40s by — wait for it! — John Lautner. Quentin Tarantino used a Googie-style coffee shop (the Hawthorne Grill, now gone) memorably in PULP FICTION (1994). The Norms on La Cienga in West Hollywood was featured in the Coen Brothers’ INTOLERABLE CRUELTY (2003) and as a respite of male bonding in the recent TV series MEN OF A CERTAIN AGE (2009). It’s telling that Andersen, a committed leftist, chooses to focus on Lautner’s elitist, patrician residential commissions as opposed to the architect’s more democratic, plebeian, and influential commercial projects.


ZABRISKIE POINT (1970) provides one of the few film records of the dearly departed Atlantic Richfield Building, a black and gold art deco gem captured by Antonioni shortly before it was razed in 1969. Andersen states the Richfield was replaced by “taller, uglier” buildings but omits showing them. The frame below from Michael Mann’s THIEF (1981) shows the Richfield’s successors, then named the ARCO Towers, looming ominously. As for them being “ugly” — why, doesn’t the mathematical simplicity and rational austerity appeal to Andersen’s modernist eye? How dare he denigrate L.A.’s architectural heritage!


Incidentally, Mann really likes this stretch of Figueroa Ave and those awful towers. He returned to them fourteen years later for the bank robbery scene in HEAT (1995).



In the final section of the film, City as Subject, Andersen shows how L.A.’s real history parallels and deviates from its filmic one. There’s a section on water in CHINATOWN (1974), transportation in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? (1988), the LAPD and decline of Mexican-Anglo relations in AMERICAN ME (1992), and the defeat of public housing in the early 50s due to opposition from suburban developers.

It’s here that Andersen’s political convictions ring through the most clearly. He rejects what he sees as the easy, hip cynicism of CHINATOWN, BLADE RUNNER (1982), and L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. He quotes from Pauline Kael’s BLADE RUNNER in which she criticizes Ridley Scott for taking the futuristic hellscape for granted but never asking “How did this happen?” “The picture treated this grimy, retrograde future as a given — a foregone conclusion, which we’re not meant to question,” wrote Kael. Instead, Andersen lauds KILLER OF SHEEP (1979) and BUSH MAMA (1979), neorealist works that focus on the “incremental genocide against [L.A.’s] expendable ex-slave population” as it struggled against racism, the LAPD, and economic decline.


I’ve never cared for SHEEP but instead of ending on a note of discord I’ll finish by enthusiastically agreeing with Andersen’s assessment of THE OUTSIDE MAN (1972), which he calls perhaps the most “precise portrait of the city.” Directed by Jacques Deray and co-written by Deray and frequent Buñuel collaborator Jean-Claude Carrière, Jean-Louis Trintignant is a French assassin summoned to L.A. to kill a crime boss but soon finds himself the target. Trintignant, playing a cross between Lee Marvin’s Walker and Alain Delon’s Costello, cooly deals with housewives, bratty children, bikers, Jesus freaks, hookers, and other gangsters while only being slightly bewildered by early 70s L.A. grubbiness in the form of Beverly Hills, the Sunset Strip, downtown, and Venice Beach. Available for rental on Amazon, it’s a wonderfully low-key yet engaging crime thriller and valentine to the city.



About Blowhard, Esq.

Amateur, dilettante, wannabe.
This entry was posted in Architecture, Movies and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to “Los Angeles Plays Itself” (2003)

  1. Fabrizio del Wrongo says:

    People doing things like turning a corner and emerging onto a street at a different location strikes me as being an essential part of movies. I was shocked when I heard Andersen treating it as some kind of sin against geography.

    Why doesn’t he just come out against editing?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Tex says:

    Great review. I’m not sure if I want to watch it or not. Guy sound like a prize wanker.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: "Los Angeles Plays Itself" (2003) | Tinseltown Times

  4. LemmusLemmus says:

    Thank you for this review.

    Indeed, and especially concerning modernist architecture, the narration is marred by Anderson’s far-left politics combined with a strong tendency to overthink stuff. Having said that, I don’t really mind these bits that much. It’s more important that Anderson clearly is an expert on both Los Angeles and the movies, and shares his knowledge. And I just find it extremely pleasing to see, say, clips of the Bradbury Building, as used in the movies throughout the decades. I wouldn’t mind if the film were twice as long.

    One thing that should probably be mentioned is that Encke King’s delivery of the narration won’t be to everyone’s liking. I loved his monotone, deep-voiced monologue that makes you think King’s on valium, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it drives some people nuts.

    On geographic license, I’m in a bit of two minds. On a theoretical level, you can always justify it by saying it’s a *fiction* film. On a more practical level, I mostly watch American movies, but have never been to America, so I won’t even notice. However, once I saw it used in a film set in a city I know (Hamburg), I found it wildly irritating, despite the fact that it made narrative sense (They had to get from one character’s home to a wide staircase quickly, in order to commence the parody of/nod to the Potemkin staircase scene.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • >>And I just find it extremely pleasing to see, say, clips of the Bradbury Building, as used in the movies throughout the decades. I wouldn’t mind if the film were twice as long.

      I agree. I wonder if Andersen has considered using the web and crowdsourcing to collect clips. No doubt there are movies he’s missed, and it’d be great to have scenes of a certain buildings or area all in one place. But I assume even a project like that would run into IP issues.

      >>One thing that should probably be mentioned is that Encke King’s delivery of the narration won’t be to everyone’s liking.

      That’s a good point. It didn’t bother me at all, but I could definitely see how it might irritate others.

      >>However, once I saw it used in a film set in a city I know (Hamburg), I found it wildly irritating, despite the fact that it made narrative sense

      I remember a New Yorker telling me a long time ago how natives love to point out misrepresentations of the subway — characters taking the wrong line to certain neighborhoods, stops that are nowhere near each others, etc. It’s fun to notice those things. I guess it’s like a plot hole in a story. For some people, plot holes can absolutely ruin a film. In general (exceptions always), I think people make way too big a deal about them.


      • Tex says:

        This is an interesting topic to me. I remember when Mission Impossible 2 came out. First time I’d seen a big-ass movie set in a city I’d actually been to. The geographical errors were absolute howlers. Then I wondered if people who lived in the perpetual movie backdrops of LA and NYC saw the same things, and simply stopped caring about them.

        (My first time in LA I did get a huge juvenile kick out of seeing street signs in person of places constantly referred to in films.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • >>My first time in LA I did get a huge juvenile kick out of seeing street signs in person of places constantly referred to in films.

        Yeah, that’s a lot of fun, isn’t it? It’s like you’re walking onto a movie set, which, basically, you are. I had the same feeling the first time I went to NYC.

        >>Then I wondered if people who lived in the perpetual movie backdrops of LA and NYC saw the same things, and simply stopped caring about them.

        We definitely notice the weirdo geographic jumps but I don’t think too many people get hung up on them. If someone told me their enjoyment of movies was affected by stuff like that, I’d think they were pretty strange.


    • I had that reaction to Thelma and Louise. The highway they get pulled over on is a dead end road in Arches National Park. You have to pay $10 to get on it!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Now Streaming on Netflix | Uncouth Reflections

  6. Pingback: The Best of UR 2014 | Uncouth Reflections

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s