This is a video essay by a chap named Thom Andersen about how Los Angeles gets a raw deal when it is portrayed in Hollywood films.
At 2 hours and 49 minutes it is quite a slog, I actually watched it in two parts over two days. It uses a lot of clips from films that were filmed in L.A., some of them go way back to the thirties.
Thom talks in a monotone, and sounds like a real sad-sack as he laments how Los Angeles is depicted in films. He doesn’t like films like L.A. Confidential because of the buildings used in the film, he claims their designs are…actually I didn’t really understand what in heck he was going on about, I guess I need to go to film school as well as get a degree in post-modern gothic art-deco modernist cubism or something.
He did like Chinatown though, which was a relief. He also likes the Hollywood sign.
He showed us parts of Los Angeles that he thinks are the real city, as well as parts of the city shown in old films which have long since disappeared, and gave his thoughts on the Bradbury Building which you will recognise from Bladerunner.
There was also some very interesting history of the city including the Watts riots, the building of the waterway system, the trams, and about the freeways. The story of the waterways depicted in Chinatown was largely fictional even though some people think it is true, the real story is different and not quite as corrupt. The story of the disappearance of the trams was interesting too.
Another interesting fact I learned is that Culver City, in Los Angeles County actually makes more films than Hollywood itself.
So, it is a bit mixed. How Los Angeles (Thom does not like it to be shortened to L.A.) is portrayed in films doesn’t bother me at all, and what buildings are used just doesn’t matter either, but Thom got pretty wound-up about it. But then again, I can kind of see his point in some ways. Then again, it is Hollywood, where nothing matters except having perfectly white teeth, and making the next billion bucks.
Film count 2018: 38