38 user 54 critic

Los Angeles Plays Itself (2003)

1:22 | Trailer

On Disc

at Amazon

A documentary on how Los Angeles has been used and depicted in the movies.


Thom Andersen


Thom Andersen (text)
3 wins & 1 nomination. See more awards »



Add Image Add an image

Do you have any images for this title?

Learn more

More Like This 

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.3/10 X  
Director: Thom Andersen
Documentary | Short
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.7/10 X  

From Thom Andersen comes a miniature city symphony exposing Los Angeles' gentrification and neglect through a cheeky montage of static images set against the region's musical history. The ... See full summary »

Director: Thom Andersen
Red Hollywood (Video 1996)
Documentary | History
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7/10 X  

A documentary that examines the films made by the victims of the Hollywood Blacklist and offers a radically difference perspective on a key period in the history of American cinema.

Directors: Thom Andersen, Noël Burch
Stars: Paul Jarrico, Eric Johnston, Ring Lardner Jr.
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.7/10 X  

This movie shows us one day in Berlin, the rhythm of that time, starting at the earliest morning and ends in the deepest night.

Director: Walter Ruttmann
Stars: Paul von Hindenburg
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.8/10 X  

A curious and lost Eleonore looks for something everywhere, even in the bags of strangers who find themselves sadly smiling only well after she's left their lives. They owe her their thanks.

Director: Josh Safdie
Stars: Bat 'Batman' Baxter, Alex Billig, Wayne Chin
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.3/10 X  

From 1960 to 1966, a space project was undertaken in Lebanon. Several rockets, which became larger and more powerful with time, were launched from the hills surrounding Beirut by a group of... See full summary »

Directors: Joana Hadjithomas, Khalil Joreige
Stars: Hampar Karageozian, Harry Koundakjian, Manoug Manougian


Credited cast:
Encke King Encke King ... Narrator (voice)


Of the cities in the world, few are depicted in and mythologized more in film and television than the city of Los Angeles. In this documentary, Thom Andersen examines in detail the ways the city has been depicted, both when it is meant to be anonymous and when itself is the focus. Along the way, he illustrates his concerns of how the real city and its people are misrepresented and distorted through the prism of popular film culture. Furthermore, he also chronicles the real stories of the city's modern history behind the notorious accounts of the great conspiracies that ravaged his city that reveal a more open and yet darker past than the casual viewer would suspect. Written by Kenneth Chisholm (kchishol@rogers.com)

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis


Not Rated | See all certifications »






Release Date:

January 2004 (USA) See more »

Also Known As:

Los Angeles Por Ela Mesma See more »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Thom Andersen Productions See more »
Show more on IMDbPro »

Technical Specs


See full technical specs »

Did You Know?


The narration describes architect John Lautner's famous Chemosphere house as "a hexagon of wood, steel, and glass." The Chemosphere is octagonal. See more »


Features Vertigo (1958) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

A most personal view of Los Angeles viewed through the Movies
11 May 2005 | by gortxSee all my reviews

In much the same spirit as Martin Scorsese's "Mio viaggio in Italia" (1999), Thom Andersen's "visual lecture" on his native Los Angeles is a very personal journey. Because of rights issues involved in procuring clips from dozens and dozens of films, this project is unlikely to ever be seen outside of Museums, Cinemateques, and 'academic' settings, so you will have to actively seek it out if you want to see it. It is worth doing so - with reservations.

Because it is such a personal odyssey, nobody is likely to agree with all of it, and that would suit Director Andersen just fine. I guess I could be categorized as a "tourist who stayed" in the vernacular of Andersen's thesis. I grew up in Boston, and moved to Los Angeles in my early 20's. Therefore, MY LOS ANGELES is different from Andersen's. I don't get my back up when the city is referred to as "L.A.", but Andersen pointedly does. He finds it a derogatory and dismissive term that is used as a weapon by outsiders and tourists. As local film critic Andy Klein points out, Americans don't seem to have the same issue when it comes to the abbreviation "U.S.A.", so why is "L.A." so offensive? And, though many locals DO object, "Frisco", "D.C.","NYC", "SLC"and other similar abbreviations are becoming more and more common in our less literal society.

Some of the clips which Andersen employs last only a few seconds - acting as veritable Still Photos of certain views of the city (representing a variety of eras as well). Andersen is laudably conscientious in identifying ALL the clips used (sometimes this is a distraction; especially in those briefest of shots). Oddly, the brevity of those shots actually spurred me to wish the film were EVEN LONGER (the most common criticism of the film is that it is too long as is). Still, by the end, a remarkable portrait of a city does emerge. But, being the home of "Hollywood" (a term which also rankles Andersen - especially when it is used interchangeably with the main city itself), Los Angeles doesn't seem to exist in the world's eyes as separate from the Film Industry.

The biggest problem with the film is the narration (not Andersen's voice as others have often mentioned). Andersen is given to make sharp declarative sentences, that are too often contradicted not only by reality - but by the clips in his own movie! For instance, he makes a point about the haze over the city and declares that films ALWAYS have a gauzy look when showing Los Angeles - then provides clips which show the sharp sunny vistas (think BAYWATCH) that attract hordes of visitors and tourists. More problematically, Andersen is a 'neighborhood' guy who not only derides Hollywood, but seemingly anywhere west of Vine. For someone who is declaring love for his native city, it is odd that he dismisses vast swatches of it! Curious too, is that Andersen knowingly adopts the view of "outsiders" to the city (and the film industry) as he levies specious arguments to why "Hollywood" is so phony in its depiction of the city. Andersen certainly is better informed, but feigns ignorance to make his point.

The final portion of the movie brings Andersen's agitprop view into focus. To Andersen, racism is the dark underside of Los Angeles. As a so-called 'liberal Westsider', I have sympathy with much of what Andersen espouses (especially his parsing of the term "Nobody walks in L.A."), but it changes the focus of the film (not to mention the explosive and divisive use of a term like "genocide" to define public policy).

Again, one wishes the film were longer in order to explore some of these issues touched upon. Also, Andersen should have done another pass in the editing room. Not in terms of length, but in terms of some of the obvious contradictions in his narration vs. reality/movie clips. And , a cheap shot at George Kennedy (obviously an attempt to inject humor in the dry commentary) is not worthy of such a high-minded project (curiously, Andersen misses an opportunity to needle Kennedy again in a later BLUE KNIGHT clip). On a technical note, I must say I was disappointed that it is a Video Production (as many of the most extraordinary pieces of Cinematography are marred by a fuzzy video-dupe look) -- all the while understanding the financial and logistical reasons it is so.

7 of 9 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you? | Report this
Review this title | See all 38 user reviews »

Contribute to This Page

Stream Comedy Titles With Prime Video

Explore popular comedy titles available to stream with Prime Video.

Start your free trial

Recently Viewed