There will always be Hollywood movies about Hollywood and I'll always find them to be navel-gazing, but those of the present era feel like they're motivated by film makers panicking over streaming taking over from theaters. I feel it in Damien Chazelle's Babylon, which is essentially a tribute to, and partly a remake of, Singing in the Rain, but set in a more realistic, debased, decadent Hollywood, as the silent era gives way to sound. Stars of one format have trouble staying relevant in the other, and so the end of THAT era must also stand in for other endings - from black and white to color, from practical effects to digital, from 2D to 3D, and yes, from theaters to streaming if it must come to that (so is Chazelle writing a defense or a eulogy?). I could have done without all the bodily fluids, but his Hollywood is a dark, disgusting, immoral place that nevertheless holds a fascination and is bathed in a golden light. And so the epilogue answers the question: What was all this terrible stuff FOR? Which begs another question: Was it worth it? We know Chazelle's answer, but what's ours? The story hangs on four people whose stars flare and wane with the times, none so captivating as Margot Robbie's actress against whom the Hayes Code could have been specifically written. Diego Calva's character, on the crew side of things, is the heart of the film. Both Brad Pitt (the big star) and Jovan Adepo (the jazz musician) have good-to-great moments, as does Li Jun Li (a multi-talented performer), but the movie's big speech goes to Jean Smart's gossip journalist/critic, always lurking in the background, in a dangerously exalted position to comment. I didn't really feel the 3-hour length because there's so much happening, lots of memorable scenes, and definitely a crazy energy (it's told like a gangster epic). As usual, Chazelle brings it all in at the end, but Babylon is perhaps too messy - by design - for his grace note to work as well as it did in previous films.
A fascinating mess. For the first time in Chazelle's filmography it feels like the style is overwhelming the substance, both because the style is so much but because the substance is incredibly tame. There is no heart to the film - Manny is ostensibly the lead, but what does he represent? He dreams of working in the film business, a dreamer who gets his wish, & it turns out he had nothing to say. There was a vague idea but no vision, no purpose (cough, Mr Chazelle). When Manny becomes "part of something bigger", all it does is corrupt and degrade him. Is this the films idea of Hollywood, a place that is shiny on the surface, and corrupting underneath? Nellie the starlet is a muddled character who *I think* we're supposed to sympathise with, but its hard to tell. Other than one scene of her displaying some talent, she gorges in the city's excess without remorse and squanders her talent, without a real reason as to why. Her scene berating the hoity toity is, frankly, dreadful as it's purpose appears to be a takedown of the fatcats but she's so artistically empty that it comes off as petulance. Conrad is the closest to a rounded character, perhaps because of Pitts personal baggage and charisma ("I've had a good run" carries some weight for an actor on the cusp of cancellation). Each of these characters are chewed up & spat out by an uncaring and cruel Tinseltown, ending with a literal descent into the city's bowels, rat eating and murder. 3 hrs of Hollywood's excess and cruelty and destruction of mind & soul is capped by - a montage of cinema at its finest. What's the message?! It was all worth the pain because we got Tron? The film's structure is that of a Scorsese crime flick, Goodfellas or WoWS - 1st half cool and indulgent, 2nd half sad and bloody, the good times coming at a cost - but then why have a "aren't films great" montage, and other nodding references to classics like Gone with the Wind and The Terminator? Its a damp squib of a criticism, never fully daring for excoriation of the industry (of which its a part, of course), choosing instead a slap on the wrist and an agreement we all loved seeing Avatar on the big screen. To further highlight the films fear of true criticism, it broaches the darker aspects of this time - sexism, racism etc - by touching on them but not in a truly authentic way, such as depicting blackface, but by a reluctant black man (as opposed to a willing white man as was the reality). What we are left with, then, is an indulgent bloated film that is mildly critical of the system that bore it, but still mildly in awe of it - sixty-feet high white capital letters hoisted into the Hollywood Hills for all to see, only they read "the film industry was crazy, but hey, Singin' in the Rain is good too". We knew this without the shit and piss and vomit and blood. We already have Singin' in the Rain.
Does High Art, greatness, Hollywood, stardom, beauty, love and creativity require not only hard work, but chaos and luck [It means King in French!], sacrifice and trauma [Jazzzz!]? That seems to be the question this film poses to us and wants to resolve.
I mostly agree with the argument, but the closing statement was too underwhelming and the overall theme too dark for me to believe anything other than a hard "no". Within the context of the movie at least. Maybe that was the point Chazelle wanted to make. Not sure, though.
Presented are some very real and concerning elements that to this day still plague Unholywood and the entertainment industry, like pretty much any other industry. Shit happened, shit happens, shit will always happen, might as well enjoy the process and the products.
There's also no point in taking historical phenomena, events and characters out of their historical context. It's like blaming your great-grandparents for inadequacies that you have and are aware of. Why not just work on improving and or compensating for those? We can try to build a better world today. Anyway, despite the movie's shortcomings (it could have used a bit more time in the editing room) and misgivings, there's a wonderful score, great characters and acting, a dynamism that matches the theme and a dreamlike quality to the whole thing that made it all really engaging and worthwhile.
Brad plays Brad (Fury, Once Upon a time in Hollywood, Oceans trilogy), it's quaint but tiresome
Nice homage moment with some over the top obscene bits (especially when most people eat at the start of a film and then witness what they do). Bad taste
Not terrible but missable, albeit some true to life scenes of the industry
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 11 of 11
Siskoid
There will always be Hollywood movies about Hollywood and I'll always find them to be navel-gazing, but those of the present era feel like they're motivated by film makers panicking over streaming taking over from theaters. I feel it in Damien Chazelle's Babylon, which is essentially a tribute to, and partly a remake of, Singing in the Rain, but set in a more realistic, debased, decadent Hollywood, as the silent era gives way to sound. Stars of one format have trouble staying relevant in the other, and so the end of THAT era must also stand in for other endings - from black and white to color, from practical effects to digital, from 2D to 3D, and yes, from theaters to streaming if it must come to that (so is Chazelle writing a defense or a eulogy?). I could have done without all the bodily fluids, but his Hollywood is a dark, disgusting, immoral place that nevertheless holds a fascination and is bathed in a golden light. And so the epilogue answers the question: What was all this terrible stuff FOR? Which begs another question: Was it worth it? We know Chazelle's answer, but what's ours? The story hangs on four people whose stars flare and wane with the times, none so captivating as Margot Robbie's actress against whom the Hayes Code could have been specifically written. Diego Calva's character, on the crew side of things, is the heart of the film. Both Brad Pitt (the big star) and Jovan Adepo (the jazz musician) have good-to-great moments, as does Li Jun Li (a multi-talented performer), but the movie's big speech goes to Jean Smart's gossip journalist/critic, always lurking in the background, in a dangerously exalted position to comment. I didn't really feel the 3-hour length because there's so much happening, lots of memorable scenes, and definitely a crazy energy (it's told like a gangster epic). As usual, Chazelle brings it all in at the end, but Babylon is perhaps too messy - by design - for his grace note to work as well as it did in previous films.peterskb45
A chaotic mess. Well-directed, well-acted, and mostly entertaining, but still a mess.Toastinator
There are parts that are fucking excellent and parts that are downright awful. A real mixed bag of a movie but probably worth a watch.CakeofSugar
A fascinating mess. For the first time in Chazelle's filmography it feels like the style is overwhelming the substance, both because the style is so much but because the substance is incredibly tame. There is no heart to the film - Manny is ostensibly the lead, but what does he represent? He dreams of working in the film business, a dreamer who gets his wish, & it turns out he had nothing to say. There was a vague idea but no vision, no purpose (cough, Mr Chazelle). When Manny becomes "part of something bigger", all it does is corrupt and degrade him. Is this the films idea of Hollywood, a place that is shiny on the surface, and corrupting underneath? Nellie the starlet is a muddled character who *I think* we're supposed to sympathise with, but its hard to tell. Other than one scene of her displaying some talent, she gorges in the city's excess without remorse and squanders her talent, without a real reason as to why. Her scene berating the hoity toity is, frankly, dreadful as it's purpose appears to be a takedown of the fatcats but she's so artistically empty that it comes off as petulance. Conrad is the closest to a rounded character, perhaps because of Pitts personal baggage and charisma ("I've had a good run" carries some weight for an actor on the cusp of cancellation). Each of these characters are chewed up & spat out by an uncaring and cruel Tinseltown, ending with a literal descent into the city's bowels, rat eating and murder. 3 hrs of Hollywood's excess and cruelty and destruction of mind & soul is capped by - a montage of cinema at its finest. What's the message?! It was all worth the pain because we got Tron? The film's structure is that of a Scorsese crime flick, Goodfellas or WoWS - 1st half cool and indulgent, 2nd half sad and bloody, the good times coming at a cost - but then why have a "aren't films great" montage, and other nodding references to classics like Gone with the Wind and The Terminator? Its a damp squib of a criticism, never fully daring for excoriation of the industry (of which its a part, of course), choosing instead a slap on the wrist and an agreement we all loved seeing Avatar on the big screen. To further highlight the films fear of true criticism, it broaches the darker aspects of this time - sexism, racism etc - by touching on them but not in a truly authentic way, such as depicting blackface, but by a reluctant black man (as opposed to a willing white man as was the reality). What we are left with, then, is an indulgent bloated film that is mildly critical of the system that bore it, but still mildly in awe of it - sixty-feet high white capital letters hoisted into the Hollywood Hills for all to see, only they read "the film industry was crazy, but hey, Singin' in the Rain is good too". We knew this without the shit and piss and vomit and blood. We already have Singin' in the Rain.252
Does High Art, greatness, Hollywood, stardom, beauty, love and creativity require not only hard work, but chaos and luck [It means King in French!], sacrifice and trauma [Jazzzz!]? That seems to be the question this film poses to us and wants to resolve.I mostly agree with the argument, but the closing statement was too underwhelming and the overall theme too dark for me to believe anything other than a hard "no". Within the context of the movie at least. Maybe that was the point Chazelle wanted to make. Not sure, though.
Presented are some very real and concerning elements that to this day still plague Unholywood and the entertainment industry, like pretty much any other industry. Shit happened, shit happens, shit will always happen, might as well enjoy the process and the products.
There's also no point in taking historical phenomena, events and characters out of their historical context. It's like blaming your great-grandparents for inadequacies that you have and are aware of. Why not just work on improving and or compensating for those? We can try to build a better world today. Anyway, despite the movie's shortcomings (it could have used a bit more time in the editing room) and misgivings, there's a wonderful score, great characters and acting, a dynamism that matches the theme and a dreamlike quality to the whole thing that made it all really engaging and worthwhile.
The Tramp
It has it's flaws, don't care, thoroughly enjoyed the ride.BLJNBrouwer
"I had a good run, didn't I?"boulderman
Brad plays Brad (Fury, Once Upon a time in Hollywood, Oceans trilogy), it's quaint but tiresomeNice homage moment with some over the top obscene bits (especially when most people eat at the start of a film and then witness what they do). Bad taste
Not terrible but missable, albeit some true to life scenes of the industry
Margot overacts (again)
Great to see Red Dust in the pic!
There's no story just the story of Hollywood
pouleto17
Film incroyable, fascinant et magnifique.Earring72
Great looking, what a cast, setdecoration and costumes.....wow.....but 3hours of excess with not a real story. too much. One time watch and thats itTorgo
Upvote my comment if you liked the final sequence, downvote if you hated it (brb just going to dislike myself)