‘Los Angeles 1991’. Relevant as ever
I love a short film that dares to adopt the characteristics of a feature. Los Angeles 1991 uses handheld footage, as if we’re staking them out. This, in combination with omniscient narration, plants a stylistic flag immediately for us all to see. This is going to be tragic. And, despite a preverse storyline, it goes down smooth as hell. So put your binoculars on and recline your seats for director Miguel de Olaso’s Los Angeles 1991 - but don’t get too comfortable.
The film teases the story’s outcome in its voiceover, adding intensity to the scenic tracking shots. The footage seems to be washed in a vintage yellow. There are no accidents in set design, and the aesthetic of this film makes for a strong current, pulling us back in time. Store shelves stocked with whole milk, a brief shot of President George H. W. Bush on the television. Los Angeles 1991 is minimalistic in its design; there is almost no dialogue. Often it is better to show things happen in short films, instead of showing people talking about them happening. Generally, 10 minutes is not enough time to forge an emotional connection between a character and their audience, given that their story needs to unfold simultaneously. Long-winded monologues and even dramatic back-and-forth’s can be a tough sell, because the ‘who gives a s***’ quotient is too high. We cannot be asked to lend a line of empathetic credit to a fictional character without having been through anything with them. Los Angeles 1991 doesn’t ask us to. Miguel de Olaso earns your time, scene by scene.
This is a story about racism and the destruction that it yields. The script examines this destruction, and the stakes are as high as they can get. Olaso appropriately prioritizes the story, and abstains from polluting it with overtly dramatic music. The script is more than capable of eliciting emotion, anything on top would feel redundant. The director was right to assume an intelligent audience that didn’t need to be instructed about how to feel. The very last shot of the film is emblematic, and beautifully hard-coats the events that preceded it.
The handheld nature Matt Garrett and MacGregor’s camerawork makes for some ‘camera-shake’ in the cinematography, which creates a subjective experience for the viewer. When the subject matter is as malicious and corrosive as it is in Los Angeles 1991, it needs to be made intimate in order to invoke its full effect. Introduce some camera shake, and it’s as if the narrative transpires in real time, and things are liable to go wrong. Think City of God (2002) or Saving Private Ryan (1998) - both of which heavily leveraged this technique.
The narration is a fine touch as well. It makes stories feel legendary, centuries old and passed down. Olaso intended this effect, no doubt; the tale is told as if fate was simply unraveling, as it always had. Lines like “he never would get that candy bar” force the audience to confront the issues that the film showcases on a larger scale, beyond the context of these characters. The outcome isn’t coincidental. It is actually literally predicted.
If we put down the binoculars and remember that its a short film we’re looking at, I believe it’s exculpatory of criticism about its literality, regarding the last frame specifically. It’s emblematic of the piece as a whole, beautifully hard-coating the events that preceded it; the blood of four foes, pitted together by an indifferent society, joining into one puddle and slipping through the same floor drain. Trivializing their hatred and bigoted motivations. This is another great selection from the widest-reaching premier short film platform Omleto.