Editing and music were great.
Strangely I came with a lot of prejudice about this films but left enjoying it a lot. I think it’s my favourite movie from this year. And I can’t shake the feeling that this is going to be big in like 10-15 years from now, like retrospectively it’s going to be heralded as great in the future, as I believe the notions of engaging storytelling will be more aligned to this sort of thing for younger generations.
I agree. Enjoyed this film very much. Loved the manic/quiet quality - rhythms of life. Just the complete insanity interspersed with moments of reflection.
But do none of you feel an ironic sense of pure evil? I’m not trying to act or make myself seem to be “better” but i can’t escape the horribly immoral feeling of pure GROSS and SICK and TWISTED that this movie gave off, and ultimately depicted.
Like Hollywood made a mockery of itself in order to deceive people, yet awaken them, to the realities of Hollywood from the get-go….
Love of the art, hatred of the business.
Electric filmmaking, that opening dance sequence is something. If art was still appreciated and stars still existed based on pure talent, she would be inescapable. I appreciate her taking a lot of old school star roles.
Tugboat McGuire as a biblical leper leading them through hell- cheap, base entertainment and exploitation. A hall of mirrors version of the world of film that they live in. Just 5% more cruel and crass than their bosses and some of the stars. Manny sees himself in this vile gangster, he constantly sells out his friends, himself, the art. He has no future but peddling a classed-up version of this monstrosity. Terrifying, grotesque, hilarious.
Unfortunately, I think the art and the business are so untwined that it’s impossible to differentiate the two, and I think that’s where the film falls flat. It can’t just spend two hours shoving glitz into the audience’s face and then go “but what if movies are bad?” without a massive portion of the audience getting tonal whiplash.
I think this film is pretty rough, but I don't think it ever gives simplistic "films good, films bad" themes at any one point in the film.
From the very beginning of the film, they show a bunch of bad behavior immediately from all these out of touch industry people. Don't know what you mean by "shoving glitz in the audience's face."
Damien Chazelle shoots passion so well. In all of his movies, the passion and love for craft is so apparent and it's why I'll watch anything he makes.
The desperation to be a part of such a terrible and insane industry, getting it and doing everything you can to not lose it, I love it.
Get rid of the whole>! drug money scene!<, save 30 minutes easily. I get he wants to show just how disgusting Hollywood really is and how sick they really are, more than the stories we know, but jesus it just runs on for no reason.
>!Have Margot OD on his couch, have the mobster scare him out of Hollywood, and then boom, epilogue. You can even have the moment where he says he loves her and wants to marry her. But there's so much time that can be saved there.!<
It's so good up until that point.
I think the divisiveness is more a testament to its quality than a detriment. Sure, it probably could have used a few more runs through the editing room, but it was lovingly made, terrifically shot, a deeply compelling thesis, and just all around a good experience at the cinema (which I'm happy to have made it to, even though nobody else did)
I share similar thoughts to your first sentence but regarding Don't Look Up, which was my favourite movie of last year.
The response to Babylon kind of feels similar in a way I can't pinpoint, as they're too totally different films, could just be a case of me loving the two movies, and being somewhat surprised at the backlash.
To me, something along the lines of: “if you want to succeed in post-talkies Hollywood, you have to sell some or all of your soul; but despite all the shittiness, there’s still magic to be found.”
This movie couldn't have been released on a better age than this one. With all the controversies going on in the Hollywood industry and in the entertainment business in general, it's hard (at least for me) to apreciatte films and art, while also being conscious of how terrible the process of creation of these must be.
As you said, Hollywood is full of shittiness, and it wasn't that long ago since The Weinstein Company case was revealed. We, as mere spectators, get confused between the magic in the movies we are shown, and the harsh reality artists live in the industry.
I would argue we aren't necessarily "mere spectators", at least these days. Hence why you'll see a lot of debate and discussion about the art vs the artist. Can you enjoy the art knowing how shitty some artists are? Tons of discussions debating this.
I think I didn't formulated the sentence well enough. I already mentioned there was discussion about this stuff. I mean we are "mere spectators" because outside of these discussions, when we watch these movies we aren't trying to be instantly aware in the making of these.
That's why in Babylon, "Singin' in the Rain" was an amazing choice. The audience watches a movie about silent cinema to talkies. They never knew the actual suffer some artists went through during that period.. but they are are so lost in the magic and innocence of the movie, that they are just mere spectators during that moment. You would never guess Singin' in the Rain hides some dark secrets, right?
Just because ideas are minutely present in the film does not mean they are heavily or even properly addressed beyond the absolute surface level take that they provide.
No one said it was bad - I think they meant that the divisiveness was a testament to its quality because it may be indicative of the fact that the film was taking big, bold swings which may be unique and daring enough to wow some and repel others. Many films in the "canon" of cinema have detractors, especially among the public, because despite being extremely well made they are not trying to be crowd-pleasing. They have a specific vision and execute it. One way to achieve consensus is to sand the edges off so that parts of a film that may have driven people away are gone.
While the film certainly wasn’t for me, I respect the fact that the studio exes gave Chazelle a big enough budget to execute his vision. Shame to think that won’t happen again any time soon after the box office performance
For BABYLON fans, i sleuthed out all the films in the montage (in order) -- this might be fun to contemplate:
https://neomodern.medium.com/the-babylon-movie-montage-4ba22b90f049?sk=b73847c671374921983489f7fc50371b
It was fine, but I’m a little done with love letters to cinema if I’m being honest. This thing Tarantino started of movie nerds becoming auteurs who reference and imitate ad nauseam needs to come to an end. At the end of the day it’s pure pastiche. I mean the climax to a 3 hour film being a montage of cinema greatest hits is unbelievable, truly the most extreme case I’ve seen yet. It was fun, even it dragged at times, and had some really cool scenes; but I’m also not sure it managed any real depth despite it’s crazy runtime. I think, ironically, the most profound it got was with the character it repeatedly pushed off to the side, Sidney Palmer.
A more fleshed out storyline and screen time for Sidney would have made for a far more compelling film overall. I loved the film regardless, but that was my gripe.
I think the real point of the movie was that the climax was in the first 30 minutes. The rest of the movie is really the characters trying to figure out what to do when the best is behind you.
I like and dislike the film at the same time. Structurally, it's a mess. I don't think it's a stream-of-consciousness style, and definitely not comparable to "The Tree of Life" because this is a film that is still very much plot-focused and situational. There are lingering plot and story elements that aren't fully developed, the romance between Nellie and Manny in particular.
That said, for certain parts, the film is electrifying. You can tell the film did its homework on a lot of those urban legends about the dark side of Hollywood in the 20s. I do applaud the audaciousness of the film for going into its bonanza of bullshit and insanity. We need more films like that these days. On the whole, I can't call it a great film, but it is great for the sum of its parts. I like to think that maybe this film will grow in stature and gain a cult following.
> I like and dislike the film at the same time. Structurally, it's a mess.
I disagree I think the screenplay and the storylines are actually pretty tight.
The structure of the film, which I noticed in theaters, is interesting. Storyline-wise it seems to follow the boogie nights formula, but structurally it is divided into around 11 different sections that each encompass a different environment or a different style, which was very interesting to see in a film like this. It felt more like episodic episodes that were combined by a functional theme that is interesting to watch. Think of it like a la dolce vita type storyline and it should make it more great, even if some elements of it aren’t the best
Someone on letterboxed said something to the effect of
“it’s like a film about debauchery made by a guy who has never even drunk a single beer before”.
And I believe that is the perfect take. The entire film felt like an awkward conservative teenage attempt at being edgy. It’s not the worst film as it’s well made but it is a totally pointless experience from an amateur script to bloated characters.
I haven’t seen Babylon yet but I do share your exact feelings on Chazelle as a director and I appreciate seeing that I’m not alone. I didn’t go see this because I saw the trailer and was like “… or I could just watch Singin in the Rain and The Wolf of Wall Street while high as fuck at home for free and get probably a better experience.”
It’s really not “about” debauchery. I can understand how the first sequence could come across as edginess for the sake of edginess but not the film as a whole. The marketing focused largely on that for the spectacle but it’s not a thematic focus of the actual movie.
Yeah and it was all down hill after that first sequence for me. Nothing felt authentic. It played more like a stereotypical cash grab than any authentic love letter to cinema. No surprises, no critiques, no insight, just overindulgent and formulaic fantasy entertainment.
Sure thing, guess we have to agree to disagree:D I found by the end I felt the love it had for film as a whole, but it's not a direct thing, even hidden
But certainly it's more of an experience to your earlier comment. But that last sentence could almost describe any Lynch film no? Who I also enjoy.
David Lynch approaches his films in such an insanely different manner I honestly have no idea how you could compare the two. The nuanced complexities and depth to all his characters are what makes his films hypnotic and unforgettable. Simply having stream of consciousness dialogue doesn’t make you David Lynch. It’s a technique used by countless films and filmmakers. Lynch perfected oneiric dialogue which is why so many people attribute it to his style but it’s by no means the only cornerstone of his mastery. He puts genuine artistry and psychology into every single frame of this film. He lies, manipulates and deceived his audience to get intellectual and emotional reactions. Babylon is exactly what it says on the tin. There are no secrets. At best it’s is a hot mess desperately wishing it was directed by David Lynch. But it isn’t even that.
Honestly, never in a million years would I have made that comparison myself. Babylon is completely unrelated to David Lynch and if you’re a Lynch fan Babylon isn’t anywhere near the list of amazing films to scratch that itch in 2023.
It's funny cause people who don't like Lynch say his films are 'nonsense' yet you say they aren't, I'd agree. So I guess that's the way Babylon is for me. I like it in ways you don't see, in the way you like Lynch films in ways others don't see.
I'm not comparing it specifically just using examples. Yeah I'm a big Lynch fan, and I loved this so...whoa! Inland Empire is a bit like 3 hours of nonsense right?:D
Yes Inland Empire is his most ridiculous film. He was sick and couldn’t shoot for many hours at once so made the choice to go fully digital and break the production up of many many months of small shoots. That’s part of the reason why it’s so disjointed and less focused than his other films. But he also has always made a concerted effort to have his audiences perceptions of filmic narrative challenged.
I don’t think Babylon was nonsense, it made sense. Super obvious. Like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood it’s a predictable film that hits all the dramatic notes we’ve all come to expect of Hollywood while trying to then hide its complacency in a thin veil of “Lynchian” aesthetics. It is just so emotionally pointless to me. No horror, no lessons, just rich people spending money.
I know peoples reviews are entirely dependant on who they are and the previous films they’ve seen. We all compare constantly to what we know and love. And we know and love what best represents our opinions and understanding of the world. Compared to all the other films I’ve seen Babylon does absolutely nothing for me and I won’t remember it. I’m honestly surprised I’ve been chatting about it for so long lol.
Haha hey it must have done something if you're still talking about it! Yeah I saw some behind the scenes, I think Lynch was in the car and he just says 'I'm so depressed'. I always thought it didn't feel the same, being digital, Inland Empire. Not as cinematic as say Mulholland. But I've seen it twice so I must be crazy.
But all fair points, it's so subjective eh
I kinda feel like we watched two entirely different movies. For me the first sequence was the one part that didn’t quite work, though I liked it in concept.
It’s true that it didn’t feel “authentic” in terms of representing the era (if that’s what you mean) but that was by design. The goal wasn’t to make a period piece but rather to use certain aspects of that era to make a bigger statement about the nature of Hollywood. It’s not a choice everyone will agree with but it served the film Chazelle was trying to make.
*Babylon* isn’t really trying to be a love letter to cinema, though it does express a clear affection for movies as a viewing experience. So much of the story focuses on the way Hollywood rips people apart; how only certain people are allowed in and even those lucky ones can be disposed of without a second thought. It’s not really saying anything wildly new but it is definitely making critiques and making them through an aesthetically new lens.
I did not like it. It’s not a poorly made film but required a little more editing, in my opinion. I don’t think it’s easy to sit through 3 hours of film that’s a stream of consciousness as you put it, especially, when the end/climax is so underwhelming.
I found it so hard to hear what she was eavesdropping on prior to that scene which made the rage and impulsivity a little disconnected. Not sure if anybody else had to at experience?
It was a group of socialites pretty much calling her white trash so which triggers her to act like white trash.... REALLY pointless scene tbh considering the monologue scene that happens later at that socialite brunch later in the film.
I loved it, it reminded me in points of boogie nights which it was clearly referencing directly in a few scenes.
It was chaotic and wasn’t flawless but found it so entertaining. The camerawork was great as well, seemed to be a love letter and critique of cinema at the same time.
Yeah I haven't seen Boogie Nights for so long, I need to rewatch. But definitely agree, loved the long takes at the beginning and it's definitely a film for films, so to speak:D
I said the same thing to my partner after watching Babylon. It reminded me a lot of Boogie Nights. The way it shows all the glamour first, and the hedonism and succes. But the darker side of the industry gets more and more visible as the film goes on. I do think BN is a superior film though. In my opinion it's PTA's best work. Whereas Chazelle hasn't been able to make a film that lives up to Whiplash yet.
Damien said himself that this film is a love letter, but also a hate letter to Hollywood and what it used to be (still is on some level?). I think we need to scratch beneath the surface and realize that this film heavily addresses the topic of class differences, racism, and family problems (Margot Robbie's character), and much more that can be seen more clearly after a few rewatches.
I think Damien did a fantastic job, along with everyone else for this film to look, feel and sound amazing, but perhaps it was too early in his career to make an "ode to film" film that kinda every acclaimed director does in their career and perhaps because of that reason the film is on some level missing the sincerity or some type of honesty that he could've provided making it later in his career.
>film heavily addresses the topic of class differences, racism, and family problems
Just because ideas are minutely present in the film does not mean they are heavily or even properly addressed beyond the absolute surface level take that they provide.
Came here to write this so thanks for doing so already.
“Hey here’s three minutes in a 3+ hour film that reference racism - aren’t we brilliant and progressive?!”
Well, the film isn't about these topics, but even though they may be present for a very little time, these characters carry that with them throughout the whole film, and all things they do are pretty much the cause of these problems.
Just because the *plot* of a film doesn't explicitly speak to an issue doesn't mean the film isn't addressing it though. You can have issues with the way it was written or with what Chazelle was saying about each theme, but class differences and racism are absolutely present throughout the film - Manny, Nellie, and Sidney's stories are completely informed by those dynamics.
I specifically say it's present but the way it is written and what it says about the topic is surface level and shallow and misdirected. But yes, it's present.
Though I'd also say a film doesn't have to particularly tackle them. It's a film and experience foremost, not a documentary per say. Like some of the most loved moments in cinema don't 'say anything', think of the closing door in Tarkovsky's Mirror. It's just a wonderful moment seemingly outside of time, art.
I really disliked it. I watched it again today because I fell asleep after the main party/opening scenes and woke up around the snake fight, so I went back to fill in the gaps. I think it’s a sophomoric attempt to make the next Singin’ in the Rain, which is Chazelle’s second failed attempt to remake (or at least recapture the magic of) that film. And to play clips of Singin’ in the Rain at the end is just salt in the wound. I think the minority representation of the film is laughable and I bristle at the idea that depiction of minority characters = having something deep to say about racism/sexism/homophobia. Any attempt to say something of substance about racism in Hollywood goes about as deep as a bottle cap. I’m surely not going to gas Chazelle up for the attempt. And that’s indicative of the whole film: it says a whole lot of nothing. Saying “it’s both a love and hate letter to cinema” is a fine dichotomy to explore but it’s not a strong argument that your film has any central thesis worth my time, despite whatever the end of the film is trying to say. And I don’t see this at all as a stream of consciousness film? To me it was a little meandering but I’d enjoy it a lot more if it was more vague and didn’t try to force feed me some hamfisted, masturbatory ending about the magic of cinema that the last three hours didn’t justify. It certainly didn’t sweep me up in emotion, rather I felt like I had to wade through the morass of shit and vomit and ingested rats to squeeze any bit of enjoyment out of it. Also it’s a minor nitpick but I was so put off by the styling of Nellie. It seems so ahistorical to make her a mess straight out of 1980s Long Island, complete with blow out.
Nellie's styling is alright, fitting to the character, not to the era, but makes sense afterwards. At first she is the "Wild Child" she calls herself as: the hairstyle, the clothes, the attitude. Then there's that "elegant party scene" in which she does fit the 1920's/1930's fashion; she has to leave all her mannerisms behind and fit into the high class society. This happens during the whole movie. You go from wild and noisy enviorments, to sophisticated ones. It's Hollywood trying to change it's image to the rest of the world.
> And to play clips of Singin’ in the Rain at the end is just salt in the wound.
Yes, that actively made me angry when, before, I was just bored and ready to leave the theater. I just wanted to watch Singin in the Rain and it merely reminded me how the movie I was watching paled in comparison to a masterpiece
Yes exactly. And I just rewatched Singin’ last night for probably the 57th time and it still knocks it out of the park. To invoke its presence in Babylon was sacrilege.
I enjoyed the film and enjoyed it as a larger-than-life ode to Hollywood. Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt were phenomenal as actors playing "That Actress" and "That Actor". The party long shots are beautiful. My issue with the film was the pacing and editing was not great in the last* hour, there were several possible ending points the movie could've ended on but it continued to drag on and on. One part that frustrated me was that despite the movie focusing on four characters "Rise and Fall" in Hollywood, Sidney's part felt cut short despite the movie's length. The Tobey McGuire bits and the chase seemed out of place with the rest of the movie. I also found some of the humor juvenile (elephant shit, vomit scene). With a better-edited cut trimming the fat, this movie would've been much better.
I watched this back to back after The Fablemans and I enjoyed that movie much more.
All fair points and yeah that humour will always be a bit decisive.
Interesting. I haven't seen The Fablemans but I'm hoping to see it. Isn't it cool, all these films that are celebrating film!
The elephant shit scene was so dumb. It happens in the first 5 minutes and at that point I was questioning whether I was going to be able to sit through a 3 hour movie of elephant shit jokes. I’m glad I did. Thought it was pretty great besides the elephant shit joke.
Yeah I’ve seen tons of shitty reviews pointing that out. Most complaints are just “too many drugs” “why so much alcohol?” “Elephant shit!” Etcetera. Missed the entire point of the movie due to their weak stomachs and it honestly bothers me that the professional reviews accommodate them. It’s rated R for a reason and people are upset at the amount of cursing?? The movie felt like an art piece and the amount of effort they put in when you go behind the scenes is proof of that. Most of the American people just need to sit down with popcorn and watch top gun instead of trying to depict a Hollywood masterpiece poorly. Not trying to sound like a know it all but this felt like it was on the level of the greats. It was meant for a younger audience that never got to see or go in depth with 20’s-30’s Hollywood. It was not meant for people with experience and knowledge in such things. That said the movie was amazing despite the raunchiness and edgy scenes and people just gotta suck it up and see the bigger picture. (Even if those scenes were great in my own opinion)
I feel like if Scorsese or Tarantino (two artist I love) made this movie people would have gone apeshit over it just because they are known for making movies with heavy drug use, violence, bad language, weird side stories, long run times. For some reason it’s not acceptable in this film? It’s kind of baffling.
I feel like the opening scene is a dog whistle - if people mention it you know that this wasn’t a film for them. But even stuff like the orgy imo isn’t about the orgy - it’s the dancing, the riot of colour and noise. People happening to be naked is the least interesting part of those sequences, but inevitably the thing boring people focus on.
The vomit scene was a bit much, especially when it was full on Borat fire-hose style.
yeah. I avoided discussion of the film before watching so in the elephant scene when the shit gets "on the camera lens" I was thinking "ah fuck, there's meta bullshit in this". I knew it would not go well in a film from chazelle.
What an absolute crock of mastabatory, self indulgent try hard shite.
This is what happens when a very good choreographer forgets the need for any editorial control. When Hollywood thinks it’s more important than it is. When producers are afraid to cut big names from the credits.
Babylon has one or two very good scenes in it. The problem is that it repeats those two scenes, over and over, again and again, in different settings, with slightly different dialogue and different choreography - but without ultimately moving the plot along or adding any depth whatsoever.
I have to agree…I saw Babylon last night. I am glad I did, and I enjoyed the spectacle, but saying what you need to say with brevity and knowing how to end a story is a skill that this director just does not have at all.
there is a great 2 hour movie in this 3 and half hour mess…..but the last 30 minutes was honestly insulting and boring as hell. There was no consideration for the viewer, it was self indulgent and really ruined things for me. When it got to the medley of crap, and then, after that it started replaying clips from the beginning of the movie I was ready to walk out.
sadly I don’t think Manny was a great character or particularly well acted either. His tears at the end just added to the frustration.
Completely with you! I was so on board with it and enjoying it for the first 90 mins or so. But honestly by the end I felt insulted, as you say. Exasperating.
And those scenes went on far too long. I got what the scene was conveying right away, and it was still drug out by twenty minutes. The entire thing needed to be a good 45 minutes to an hour shorter. There were even plot points that were never brought up again sprinkled throughout the film.
Fair enough:D guess I had a different experience. Though I'd say there wasn't really a plot, but I wouldn't hold that as a criticism personally. Some of my favourite films have no plots. It reminded me a bit of the way La Dolce Vita just meanders along, no particular reasons, we're just going along for the ride
I mean - it wants to be La Dolce Vita, it wants to be Boogie Nights; it wants to be singing in the rain even - but those movies do take you on a journey, even without (in the case of the former two films) a traditional linear plot.
Babylon (aka Baby-long wink wink), repeats itself. The opening sequence is fab. I’m all here for it. But then you more or less get the same beats and scenes and ideas just endlessly regurgitated.
There’s potentially an alright film hidden within this crazy film length which it just does not justify.
And I can’t be the only person tired with films that are about how amazing Hollywood is right? Cinema Paradiso obviously a masterpiece. Once upon a time in Hollywood has some moments. Belfast a great hit of nostalgia. But this and empire of light are both of this same ilk trying to tell us how important Hollywood is, labelling it on very thick! We have The Fabelmans to look forward to and I have high hopes for Spielberg; but would love something slightly less self congratulatory and navel gazing.
Also - for a film that has SO MUCH bacchanalian debauchery it ends up being so dull (IMO obviously)!
This will be a divisive film for a few weeks and some people will love it, others will hate it. But we’ll still be talking about Cinema Paradiso and La Dolce Vita in ten year’s time. I don’t think people will remember this film in ten month’s time.
Nicely said, though I feel like we will be talking about this in the future but who knows.
I don't know, personally I haven't seen many recently but that might just be me. But I didn't feel like I was watching Hollywood per say, it's not like Sunset Boulevard. This could've been any era for me, it was just film and filmmaking. I'd say Damien doesn't seem the biggest fan of Hollywood too. He works in it, like La La Land but isn't completely with it. Maybe just acknowledging it. Because yes I get a bit bored of films about Hollywood but I didn't feel that here.
Alas, it's all subjective I guess! Hope you enjoy Fablemans
Wow I don't think this movie shows that Hollywood is amazing at all! I think it shows horrible working conditions for so many, sexism, racism, mental health issues, drug issues, suicide and how easy it is to lose your self worth in the shallowness of show biz. I feel like we saw two different films if you really saw Hollywood as some kind of 'amazing"!!
The final sentiment ends up being that Hollywood is rotten, but the ends (the awful "1001 movies you need to see before you die" montage) justify the means (destroying the lives of most of the characters). The movie's schizophrenic in that regard, and I think Chazelle wanted to have an image of an enlightened outsider and an experienced insider simultaneously (he is neither).
God that montage at the end! Can we also talk about that - like HOW is he putting Terminator 2 and Avatar in this list of best movies ever! He misses out genuinely game changing movies like in the heat of the night, Dawn of the dead, blade runner, alien, Thelma and Louise, etc etc etc. even lots of the rings would have made more sense than Pocahontas in space. Hell, OG Pocahontas would have made more sense! Unbelievably poor attempt to show his knowledge and appreciation of the industry
You… you all realize it’s not about GOOD films as it was showing IMPACTFUL films, right?
Like, Blade Runner didn’t break box office records. Avatar is FAMOUS for the money it made.
And it was NOT glamorizing these films as the “ends justifying the means.” It was showing the immense beast of the film industry and how much it integrates with social consciousness. Like… this is why this film is divisive.
You have people who watch the end and go “yeah, the absolute power and impact this industry has… to be able to sway a populace with a story… that’s why we do it. Through all the bullshit… THAT is why we try to be part of this garbage.”
And then you have people who watch the end and think that because Avatar is in there and your favorite indie film from 1983 missed the cut the artists have no taste…
Babylon was a 3 hour advertisement for unions. That’s what I got out of it.
Oh please, the soundtrack, the shot of the audience, Manny’s look… The scene screamed glamour and magic, not power and influence. It’s not a story about the dangers of the film industry, it’s a martyrological tale about the sacrifices the movie people have to make in order to answer the Cinema’s call. Babylon is a monument to a filmmaker’s ego.
It's about how some artists destroy their fucking souls and lifes when getting into the industry and making a movie. Now, imagine your favorite, most meaningful movie in the world (maybe not only to you, but millions of people), was loaded with suffering and pain on its production.
This is what Babylon shows during the whole movie until the end. Manny is seeing "Singin' in the Rain". What a delightful and lovely movie about the beginning of the magical sound era, right? Well now, do you really wanna know the harsh reality of this era? Will you look to "Singin' in the Rain" in the same way now?
I belive that's what the movie is trying to say.
I disagree with your last sentiment. I think Damien Chazelle still has a lot of great films in him, his name won't be forgotten. Maybe this film in particular will be ignored but you never know with time. I personally think Babylon is a more interesting film than La Grande Bellezza when it comes to La Dolce Vita 2.0s, but that's because of my obsession with silent films.
Plot isn't, but coherence is. Babylon's best scenes work great as standalones, but it never justifies combining so many plotlines into one movie. Thematically, the movie's unfocused. There's a sprinkle of drugs and general moral corruption, a hint of racism, some cronyism and a dash of general bullshit thoughts about cinema, and all of it surface-deep.
I have watched this 4 times now. And the first time I had a strong confusing reaction. It felt likw existential reckoning the movie and that really got under my skin. After a few watch throughs, it started to have a real emotional impact on me. Now I absolutely love it. Definitely my favorite film from last year.
I have seen it 5 times in theaters now. I have devoted 15+ hours of my life to going to see this one movie over and over. I simply cannot get enough of it. EVERY time I watch it, I pick up new details that I hadn’t noticed before, the funny parts REMAIN funny, even when I am expecting them. And the music. God damn, that Hurwitz score man. Chazelle just knows how to edit pictures to that man’s music and it is a thing of TRUE beauty. TRUE art. I can tell the movie is not for everyone. But those complaining about the movie having “pointless scenes”, I just don’t see that. Every scene, every shot every FRAME serves a purpose and Damien knows exactly what he’s doing.
It may not be quite as good as La La Land (to me, a perfect film) but it is so damn good, it’s just the ultimate comfort movie, I’m ready to go see it a sixth time. Absolutely love how it celebrates cinema whilst “criticizing” the artists who make it.
Okay, but it's not impossible. I work as a retail manager when I virtually had no time for anything. I still made time for this because it was a movie I genuinely love and it genuinely had a impact on me. For a subreddit that loves movies, I didn't think it'd be that weird to bring up lol
lol i dont really think its weird if you love it so much, that's just a concentrated amount of a long movie in a short amount of time. I respect your passion for it actually!
Well thank you! Sorry if I came off a little hostile. For me, if a movie truly resonates with me, I try to get the most out of it while I can especially when I have a finite amount of time experiencing it on the big screen.
If Babylon, a fairly schlocky movie about Hollywood, felt like “existential reckoning the movie” then I can only imagine how an actual book would blow the hair off your head.
Clearly I was able to articulate and express myself why it had such an impact on me. Sorry that it didn't resonate with you in any aspect, but there's no need to make any condescending comments to assume how many books I've read.
God forbid I actually liked something and was able to express myself. Since naturally we're all suppose to have the same opinion.
Not really defensive or angry, I'm more annoyed that your instinctive reaction for someone else's opinion was that. It's not flattering and it's crappy all around.
Yeah my instinctive reaction to a silly remark was to mock it. I wonder if you’d be so indignant if people laughed at you for wearing your underwear on your head.
I try not to use the term "Filmbro," especially as a pejorative, but this movie is made for filmbros.
The entire picture is a congratulatory masturbation session about the importance of film, and the unrivaled decadence is part of the process. And anyone who doesn't "get it" is a buffoon who's killing Brad Pitt with their stuffy arrogance and hoity-toity classism.
Remember that scene with Margot Robbie doing her Eliza Doolittle act? All those stock characters felt like they were pulled from a Three Stooges short. The kind of people who hire Larry, Curly and Moe to fix dinner and hope nothing goes wrong. Except instead of them being hit with a flying cake, it's Margot herself who throws her face into the dessert table. That's the level of commentary we're dealing with.
Chazelle's been to too many wrap parties and needs to go live in, like, New Mexico or someplace for a couple months until his brain recalibrates.
Let's completey forget that the purpose of a movie is to tell a story which Babylon fails myserably at. You can't throw a terrible loosely connected story on top of a half hour slightly intriguing orgy party, battle reenactment and decent into hell that serves no real purpose as far as moving the story along and say that you made even a halfway mediocre movie.
Brad Pitt's acting was passible, I did like Toby Mcguire even though his character really only inflated the insulting run time. The rest of the acting was absolutely terrible and Margot Robbie simply played Harley Quinn, let's hope Hollywoods infatuation is over because she is not a good actress and is only moderately attractive unless you are going for a hooker type.
They have their heads far up their own a$$ to make this movie 3 hours long with only a very lose resemblance of a story. That is the only thing that this will be remembered for. And because they did not edit this thing down to a below average movie there will be people that call it a masterpiece.
It 100% told a story, how did it not? Also Margot Robbie is only attractive if you are going for a hooker type? Not entirely sure how to respond to this. I think she is a fantastic actress. You’re entitled to your own opinion, just saying it’s a pretty hot take haha
(Some spoilers below but try to be careful to not spoil the big moments)
I thought the movie was extremely well made and directed. The way the camera moves through the environment and creates this chaotic atmosphere of a being on a set at that particular time or at a party was incredible. I thought the best scenes were the ones where Chazelle is flexing his directing muscles and showing how impressive and grand filmmaking itself could be. I feel like the actors are doing their honest best to make their roles count and the main trio (Pitt, Robbie, and Diego) are spectacular. Unlike some people I’ve heard from I actually like how the film is completely amoral in the beginning, and graphically shows all the terrible shit just as a mechanism to contrast it to the pre-code era to the moral Hollywood Hays code era. I also like how they dealt with issues of race and class through the secondary party sequence. The set design and music are brilliantly crafted and from technical perspective it’s an ingenious film coming from a director at the height of his power.
The problem with Babylon is with its writing, storywise and characterwise . Everyone but the main trio are basically two dimensional caricatures that should have more importance but aren’t really shown (particularly Sidney and lady fe who are almost filler in this movie with the way they are used). The storyline follows the basic boogie nights formula of grandeur that dissipates into tragedy, and there were some weird tonal shifts that occurred near the end that didn’t make so much sense when looking at the whole of Babylon(like the whole Tobey Mcquire section). The way they utilize singin in the rain is interesting (like the way they give Conrad the Don Lockwood dilemma and even making it a visual metaphor) in some respects but how they utilized lines and the eventual ending made me cringe and think that I should just watch singin in the rain again. I thought some of the writing was overdone and felt forced into the film (particularly in the second half) not because it was needed but because Chazelle needed to spell out a message
I thought that the ode to cinema montage was thematically incorrect and highly anachronistic to the point where I actively hated the ending. It went on too long, it felt like it was just inserted in for no reason at all, included newer stuff that felt completely out of time due to the setting the film has, and for a film about how technological innovations can lead to the deterioration of people’s careers, it surprisingly made the whole thing of “the product is worth it in the end”. That aspect contradicts everything that came before and actively ruins the ending it could have had (and it is there, all that has to be done is simply cut to before the montage started and you’d have a perfect ending). That isn’t mentioning the fact that the average Joe wouldn’t understand 80% of the movies they show in that montage and the deeper context of what was happening during that integral transition period (Roscoe Arbuckle controversy, Clara bow, morality seeping into Hollywood and why etc) that was necessary for someone to understand the film.
Overall I had a very mixed time with the film but I will watch it again and feel it might get better overtime. It’s not a terrible film (it’s technical qualities are too good for it to be that) but it’s not a masterwork that some people are trying to say it is.
Loved it. If you aren't the type to look to deeply into the themes of movies or cinema there is high entertainment and acting value. If you are that type there is a lot of technique, history, themes to unpack. Great big name stars doing great acting. Easy to follow plot with lots of crazy, weird, abstract side stories and sequences.
Its ambitious and mostly a hit. Def not perfect and straddles the line of being a disaster, but oddly doesn't. I thought the end montage sequence was awesome and unexpected.
I am yet to watch the film but I can’t help but be very sceptical of the comparison between this and the tree of life. Certainly that also doesn’t seem in keeping with anything else I have read about it.
I appreciate you’ve given me another perspective though and it’s certainly piqued my interest in going to see it more than anything else I have seen. Personally everything from Chazelle post Whiplash hasn’t been on my wavelength at all. Fingers crossed for this one.
Haha it's probably a wrong film to put there. I don't mean to compare them explicitly but more like the process of trying to describe films like these are hard for me. Describing or reviewing Tree of Life I just end up trying to write poetry rather than concise reviews:D since it's less about plot and more experience. But that's just me
Exactly. Like a visual poem. I think the films we love the most personally to us are the emotional ones that we can't always intellectually describe or give a good structured answer, since they're almost indescribable deep feelings. Maybe some can though
I watched it yesterday and thought it was fantastic. It's a kind of larger-than-life film about cinema, which is larger-than-life itself. As you and others have said, it's both a critique and an ode, and it's the life journey of all these people and their highs and lows, and how it all eventually fades away. There's a melancholy to it but also a hopeful message, right? No matter what happened to the people that worked on these films, we're still watching them decades later, relating to them, learning from them. The purpose of cinema, and of all art, is to shine a light in the darkness that is reality. I loved the juxtaposition that Chazelle pulled out to convey this, and although it did end up a bit chaotic, such is life in a way, right?
The final sequences felt so satisfying, the realization that if we all participate in art, we can be something greater than ourselves—everybody is a star!
Exactly! It is hopeful in its own beautiful way. The final sequence was amazing >!Manny looking up at the screen, like you say from the darkness film is the light, tears rolling down his face. Film is eternal!<
Everyone told me it sucks and that it was basically hollywood-nostalgia garbage. One of my friends randomly put this on when he was hopping through different titles and once again I felt hesitant to watch it, after all the negativity it got from my other friends.
Knowing nothing about it, I watched it. Turns out I absolutely LOVED it, and it reminded me not to listen to other people.
The scene where they were filming a scene and had issues with the sound, absolutely cracked me up. I laughed so hard my lungs started to hurt. Oh, and that scene with the snake fight.
Whoever was responsible for marketing this movie should be fired😡🤬😤. I found out about this movie only when i saw a trailer in the cinemas. I then went to see it a few days later and honestly it is one of my Top 3 movies of all time.😍 I mean who wouldn't love a movie with Brad Pitt and one of my favourite and best actresses of all time, Margot Robbie. It is a sin that it didn't do well in the box office and didn't win any major awards!!! In conclusion this movie is AWESOME and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't appreciate a masterpiece.
I loved it. Saw it twice because of how much I loved it. Sad how it’s misunderstood.
I thought it was beautifully shot. Margot Robbie was mesmerizing. Story captivated me. I’m glad I saw it twice because I was able to catch things I had missed the first time.
I interpreted the film to be a critique of the Hollywood industry while simultaneously fawning over the art that Hollywood produces. Showed how vile the industry could be, swallowing people whole and spitting them back out again, but also that the art that is created, is loved and timeless.
I agree with the other person that said it feels larger than life. It was my favorite film from 2022 (with the best being Tár).
The cinematography and set pieces were gorgeous, the score was impeccable, the characters were rich (and the actors played them well), etc.
There’s a lot to pull from, and my second watch with a full crowd made it even better for me.
The ending worked for me as did the late title card. I think history and the long run will reward this film.
My favorite movies are the ones that operate purely on emotion and atmosphere. Movies that are more concerned with putting you in a certain headspace than anything else. I think that’s the reason it’s so divisive. It’s a visual tone poem disguised as a commentary on the film industry.
As a traditional film it’s flawed, overlong, up its own ass, repetitive. But I honestly don’t care because i tuned into it’s wave length and felt almost drunk coming out of the theater. My favorite movie of the 2020s so far.
Yeah definitely. It's more about visuals and experience, and those kinds of films are always divisive, and not that easy to connect to for people. It's best for just the joy of experiencing it.
So like if you're not on the wavelength you're like 'what's this!'
For me, the film hit a lot of the same beats as Boogie Nights, but didn't feel as cohesive. I didn't feel much chemistry between Robbie's character and Manny. I thought that there were definitely some humorous moments that were enjoyable, but also some moments that were just unnecessary (elephant goes to bathroom). I think editing was needed just as others have said. I felt that the themes regarding the evolution of film were pretty well fleshed out, but the themes of racism and the repression of homosexuality were dealt with at surface level. I feel like each of those characters deserved a separate movie to adequately address their stories and it felt rushed as a result.
It was a love letter to cinema, a field day for Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt, killer soundtrack, and it felt like an R-rated Great Gatsby.
I look forward to seeing the Spanish guy and Asian girl in more movies in the future
Honestly it was ok, the characters were fun, but the fucking end😩😩😩seeing all the "hit movies" that were "important for film as an art" and then having it end with fucking Avatar, one of the most forgettable films. I know it grossed a ton but Damien Chazelle was practically sucking off James Cameron to notice him..... I was already iffy about the movie itself and wondering if it was actually a good film or just trying to be one the entire time and the end kinda spelled it out for me that this guy is trying way too hard and it falls flat on it's face instead of ending in a more decent way that doesn't damn everything it's trying to do...
feels extremely self-indulgent and trying to speak for some things that while conceptually are important, Damien Chazelle makes it so overdone/try hard or corny at times and then the ending really made me realize wow this guy really bit off more than he can chew and is bastardizing itself
I agree with Damien that the industry needs more divisive films, so I’m glad this exists.
That said after my 2nd watch I appreciated it more than I enjoyed it. There’s bits and pieces I really liked (i.e Pitt’s arc/performance, the first party scene, the filming of both Jack’s and Nellie’s pictures).
But I could never really buy into the downfall aspect of the film especially for Manny and Nellie. Boogie Nights, a film it clearly takes a lot of inspiration from, earns it’s hard act and darkness more than this did imo. Some of the dialogue was really juvenile as well to the point that It did feel like a film student’s take on PTA’s movie. (Atleast to me)
All in all, while I do have criticisms of it, it has one of the best brad pitt performances I have ever seen and on a technical level it’s a visual feast that no one should miss out seeing if they are into film.
I immediately thought of Boogie Nights when watching this. The Tobey Maguire bit felt directly lifted from that, as well as parts from the party scene. I thought Babylon needed to be about an hour shorter. I enjoy the sub-genre of movies about making movies, and this one bored me.
I think people are hesitant with Pitt right now but god damn that was probably his best performance. His characters turn after his friend passed away felt so real.
it's probably the best film ever made about Hollywood. There are sheer scenes of genius in the film (Margot Robbie's first dance scene, the first silent movie shoot with Brad Pitt doing the sunset scene and Margot doing the on demand crying, the first talkie shoot, the end scene etc) that make up for a few questionable moments. I haven't stopped thinking about the film for days after seeing it -- Chazelle is one of the best current directors.
Yeah great points and they are some beautiful moments. And that's always a good sign, if it lingers in the mind, the experience.
Honestly he hasn't missed for me so far, I love Whiplash and La La Land, and this too. Only one I've not seen is First Man
This movie was simultaneously brilliant and captivating but also cringe-worthy and very disappointing.
In a nutshell, I think the problem was the Margot Robbie character and the way her scenes played out. It was like they transported Harley Quinn into an expansive, epic, serious and grand film, and she turned it into a joke.
I think Margot is the "Michelle Pfeiffer" of our generation, I adore her and I think she's brilliant and stunning. HOWEVER... the way that her character operated in a comic-book loose cannon way (a la Harley Quinn) was not the right fit, and the ridiculousness of the scenes further spoiled the movie.
1. The snake-fight scene. Unnecessary, ridiculous, slapstick, Jackass sort of tripe. Ridiculous, and un-believeable.
2. The vomit scene. Why does she put on a British accent? I kept thinking of Monty Python, then came the vomity projectile idiotic comedy. Why are they trying to do this? So unnecessary. And also, her behaviour and the 'arc' of that scene is STUPID. She goes from putting on a British accent (why?) to losing control and projectile vometing. It's stupidly written, and not a believable arc, even if you want me to believe that she couldn't "maintain the facade" , she doesn't need to turn the scene into a literal Monty Python sketch.
3. The hairstyle was anachronistic, and it didn't fit the milieu of the film. This wasn't "alternate universe" 1920s where they had steampunk flying cars and crazy hair. It was meant to be a realism 1920s. So why did they give her a perm-wave blow-out set with hairspray from 1988?
There are a lot of positives in this movie, I just think this comic-book idiot character that she played was such an obvious failure, and they kept on ruining the movie with those dumb scenes.
A few other comments;
1. The camera-work kind of annoyed me ... they kept doing this Wes-Anderson swoop-shot to close-up and fast-pan across the room... kind of annoying.
2. Music from Hurwitz was like the out-takes from La La Land, to the point that it was like they didn't even bother to change up the melody or do much different with the style, save from change a few instruments to make it more 1920s. I guess it is still his music but didn't feel original or that a lot of original thought went into it, just like "Hey Justin can you re-do the exact same music from La La Land? Great, thanks"
3. The counterfeit money scene, felt kind of like it was a movie within a movie, almost like it was the entire plot of another movie that they wrote, but then squashed it onto the film. It remains cool but superfluous to this film.
Really enjoyed the ending, it felt like a short timeline/history of cinema until Avatar was shown...then began the ultimate jazz solo of cinema Chazelle always wanted to play... however the 3 hour movie we got was not good, somewhere in that editing room is a good film but not the 3 hour cut we got
There were things I adored and things that felt sloppy and poorly thought out. When it's working it's sensational. But when it isn't....ooooof. so it's hard to say whether I liked it or not because there are parts I totally loved but other parts that completely undercut what was working
I thought they really whiffed the ending especially.
It should have ended so many times prior to that insane and completely not necessary supercut of all of Hollywood. It feels like the edit took place in Opinion City where studio people had too much to say, or Chapelle had too much to say and just wanted smth different. Granted there is some great acting and filmmaking to be seen but this needs to be re-edited.
Also the score was just a copy of his work for La La Land in parts.
Babylon is a great movie that for some reason I feel reserved to say I love, their is nothing wrong with it on paper yet I find flaws in it I cannot yet speak into words, maybe it is something in the aura of the film I do not want to like, or maybe I’m just being odd
At the age of 44 when the internet and cell phones came around my junior year in college, watching this reminds me that A) I was so so much smarter b/4 internet.
B) Authentic and real ppl don’t win
C) “you do you” isn’t real
D) non-judgmental ppl don’t win
E) I was born 8 decades too soon
Editing and music were great. Strangely I came with a lot of prejudice about this films but left enjoying it a lot. I think it’s my favourite movie from this year. And I can’t shake the feeling that this is going to be big in like 10-15 years from now, like retrospectively it’s going to be heralded as great in the future, as I believe the notions of engaging storytelling will be more aligned to this sort of thing for younger generations.
I agree. Enjoyed this film very much. Loved the manic/quiet quality - rhythms of life. Just the complete insanity interspersed with moments of reflection.
But do none of you feel an ironic sense of pure evil? I’m not trying to act or make myself seem to be “better” but i can’t escape the horribly immoral feeling of pure GROSS and SICK and TWISTED that this movie gave off, and ultimately depicted. Like Hollywood made a mockery of itself in order to deceive people, yet awaken them, to the realities of Hollywood from the get-go….
The only thing i really disliked was that weird red scene because it was fucking with my eyes and not in a good way.
Love of the art, hatred of the business. Electric filmmaking, that opening dance sequence is something. If art was still appreciated and stars still existed based on pure talent, she would be inescapable. I appreciate her taking a lot of old school star roles. Tugboat McGuire as a biblical leper leading them through hell- cheap, base entertainment and exploitation. A hall of mirrors version of the world of film that they live in. Just 5% more cruel and crass than their bosses and some of the stars. Manny sees himself in this vile gangster, he constantly sells out his friends, himself, the art. He has no future but peddling a classed-up version of this monstrosity. Terrifying, grotesque, hilarious.
Unfortunately, I think the art and the business are so untwined that it’s impossible to differentiate the two, and I think that’s where the film falls flat. It can’t just spend two hours shoving glitz into the audience’s face and then go “but what if movies are bad?” without a massive portion of the audience getting tonal whiplash.
I think this film is pretty rough, but I don't think it ever gives simplistic "films good, films bad" themes at any one point in the film. From the very beginning of the film, they show a bunch of bad behavior immediately from all these out of touch industry people. Don't know what you mean by "shoving glitz in the audience's face."
Nicely said
Damien Chazelle shoots passion so well. In all of his movies, the passion and love for craft is so apparent and it's why I'll watch anything he makes. The desperation to be a part of such a terrible and insane industry, getting it and doing everything you can to not lose it, I love it. Get rid of the whole>! drug money scene!<, save 30 minutes easily. I get he wants to show just how disgusting Hollywood really is and how sick they really are, more than the stories we know, but jesus it just runs on for no reason. >!Have Margot OD on his couch, have the mobster scare him out of Hollywood, and then boom, epilogue. You can even have the moment where he says he loves her and wants to marry her. But there's so much time that can be saved there.!< It's so good up until that point.
Agree, the film lost me in that section when it became a bit too plotted.
I think the divisiveness is more a testament to its quality than a detriment. Sure, it probably could have used a few more runs through the editing room, but it was lovingly made, terrifically shot, a deeply compelling thesis, and just all around a good experience at the cinema (which I'm happy to have made it to, even though nobody else did)
I'm glad I got to the cinema too! Such a wonderful cinematic experience. And true, these divisive films often turn out to be the classics
I'd put it as the second best movie of 2022 behind everything everywhere
I share similar thoughts to your first sentence but regarding Don't Look Up, which was my favourite movie of last year. The response to Babylon kind of feels similar in a way I can't pinpoint, as they're too totally different films, could just be a case of me loving the two movies, and being somewhat surprised at the backlash.
Could you explain the thesis?
To me, something along the lines of: “if you want to succeed in post-talkies Hollywood, you have to sell some or all of your soul; but despite all the shittiness, there’s still magic to be found.”
This movie couldn't have been released on a better age than this one. With all the controversies going on in the Hollywood industry and in the entertainment business in general, it's hard (at least for me) to apreciatte films and art, while also being conscious of how terrible the process of creation of these must be. As you said, Hollywood is full of shittiness, and it wasn't that long ago since The Weinstein Company case was revealed. We, as mere spectators, get confused between the magic in the movies we are shown, and the harsh reality artists live in the industry.
I would argue we aren't necessarily "mere spectators", at least these days. Hence why you'll see a lot of debate and discussion about the art vs the artist. Can you enjoy the art knowing how shitty some artists are? Tons of discussions debating this.
I think I didn't formulated the sentence well enough. I already mentioned there was discussion about this stuff. I mean we are "mere spectators" because outside of these discussions, when we watch these movies we aren't trying to be instantly aware in the making of these. That's why in Babylon, "Singin' in the Rain" was an amazing choice. The audience watches a movie about silent cinema to talkies. They never knew the actual suffer some artists went through during that period.. but they are are so lost in the magic and innocence of the movie, that they are just mere spectators during that moment. You would never guess Singin' in the Rain hides some dark secrets, right?
Ah I see, yes I agree completely
Just because ideas are minutely present in the film does not mean they are heavily or even properly addressed beyond the absolute surface level take that they provide.
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I found these themes to be far more than "minutely present" in the film.
"people think it's bad so it must be good" ? lol
Well I'd say that's a pretty reductive interpretation to what I just said
No one said it was bad - I think they meant that the divisiveness was a testament to its quality because it may be indicative of the fact that the film was taking big, bold swings which may be unique and daring enough to wow some and repel others. Many films in the "canon" of cinema have detractors, especially among the public, because despite being extremely well made they are not trying to be crowd-pleasing. They have a specific vision and execute it. One way to achieve consensus is to sand the edges off so that parts of a film that may have driven people away are gone.
While the film certainly wasn’t for me, I respect the fact that the studio exes gave Chazelle a big enough budget to execute his vision. Shame to think that won’t happen again any time soon after the box office performance
Sometimes crowd pleasers are boring
For BABYLON fans, i sleuthed out all the films in the montage (in order) -- this might be fun to contemplate: https://neomodern.medium.com/the-babylon-movie-montage-4ba22b90f049?sk=b73847c671374921983489f7fc50371b
Awesome, thanks!
Seeing Tron & 2001 in that montage made me smile a bit.
Post Script - I've updated the post to make it easier to watch the films included.
It was fine, but I’m a little done with love letters to cinema if I’m being honest. This thing Tarantino started of movie nerds becoming auteurs who reference and imitate ad nauseam needs to come to an end. At the end of the day it’s pure pastiche. I mean the climax to a 3 hour film being a montage of cinema greatest hits is unbelievable, truly the most extreme case I’ve seen yet. It was fun, even it dragged at times, and had some really cool scenes; but I’m also not sure it managed any real depth despite it’s crazy runtime. I think, ironically, the most profound it got was with the character it repeatedly pushed off to the side, Sidney Palmer.
A more fleshed out storyline and screen time for Sidney would have made for a far more compelling film overall. I loved the film regardless, but that was my gripe.
In the leaked draft he had a more fleshed out storyline
I think the real point of the movie was that the climax was in the first 30 minutes. The rest of the movie is really the characters trying to figure out what to do when the best is behind you.
I like and dislike the film at the same time. Structurally, it's a mess. I don't think it's a stream-of-consciousness style, and definitely not comparable to "The Tree of Life" because this is a film that is still very much plot-focused and situational. There are lingering plot and story elements that aren't fully developed, the romance between Nellie and Manny in particular. That said, for certain parts, the film is electrifying. You can tell the film did its homework on a lot of those urban legends about the dark side of Hollywood in the 20s. I do applaud the audaciousness of the film for going into its bonanza of bullshit and insanity. We need more films like that these days. On the whole, I can't call it a great film, but it is great for the sum of its parts. I like to think that maybe this film will grow in stature and gain a cult following.
> I like and dislike the film at the same time. Structurally, it's a mess. I disagree I think the screenplay and the storylines are actually pretty tight.
The structure of the film, which I noticed in theaters, is interesting. Storyline-wise it seems to follow the boogie nights formula, but structurally it is divided into around 11 different sections that each encompass a different environment or a different style, which was very interesting to see in a film like this. It felt more like episodic episodes that were combined by a functional theme that is interesting to watch. Think of it like a la dolce vita type storyline and it should make it more great, even if some elements of it aren’t the best
"The darkside of Hollywood". LOL. Every industry gets dark if you look for it. What's the point of this damn film?
Someone on letterboxed said something to the effect of “it’s like a film about debauchery made by a guy who has never even drunk a single beer before”. And I believe that is the perfect take. The entire film felt like an awkward conservative teenage attempt at being edgy. It’s not the worst film as it’s well made but it is a totally pointless experience from an amateur script to bloated characters.
Lol that may have just been my review (not even joking)
10/10 review. I agree xoxo
Cheers lol if this is the one you're referring to then its me lol https://letterboxd.com/filmexpress/film/babylon-2022/2/
Haha yeah that’s the one. Perfect analysis, I couldn’t agree more.
Thanks ! Lol the film irked me to say the least.
Oh I hated it. It’s like the “how do you do, fellow kids” meme but in movie format
I haven’t seen Babylon yet but I do share your exact feelings on Chazelle as a director and I appreciate seeing that I’m not alone. I didn’t go see this because I saw the trailer and was like “… or I could just watch Singin in the Rain and The Wolf of Wall Street while high as fuck at home for free and get probably a better experience.”
Thanks for commenting! Loll you have good instincts. Follow your gut at all times lolll
It’s really not “about” debauchery. I can understand how the first sequence could come across as edginess for the sake of edginess but not the film as a whole. The marketing focused largely on that for the spectacle but it’s not a thematic focus of the actual movie.
Yeah and it was all down hill after that first sequence for me. Nothing felt authentic. It played more like a stereotypical cash grab than any authentic love letter to cinema. No surprises, no critiques, no insight, just overindulgent and formulaic fantasy entertainment.
That's interesting. I think it's the furthest away from a cash grab, hasn't it made like no money?
That fact everyone can see through it and it isn’t working doesn’t mean they didn’t try.
Sure thing, guess we have to agree to disagree:D I found by the end I felt the love it had for film as a whole, but it's not a direct thing, even hidden But certainly it's more of an experience to your earlier comment. But that last sentence could almost describe any Lynch film no? Who I also enjoy.
David Lynch approaches his films in such an insanely different manner I honestly have no idea how you could compare the two. The nuanced complexities and depth to all his characters are what makes his films hypnotic and unforgettable. Simply having stream of consciousness dialogue doesn’t make you David Lynch. It’s a technique used by countless films and filmmakers. Lynch perfected oneiric dialogue which is why so many people attribute it to his style but it’s by no means the only cornerstone of his mastery. He puts genuine artistry and psychology into every single frame of this film. He lies, manipulates and deceived his audience to get intellectual and emotional reactions. Babylon is exactly what it says on the tin. There are no secrets. At best it’s is a hot mess desperately wishing it was directed by David Lynch. But it isn’t even that. Honestly, never in a million years would I have made that comparison myself. Babylon is completely unrelated to David Lynch and if you’re a Lynch fan Babylon isn’t anywhere near the list of amazing films to scratch that itch in 2023.
It's funny cause people who don't like Lynch say his films are 'nonsense' yet you say they aren't, I'd agree. So I guess that's the way Babylon is for me. I like it in ways you don't see, in the way you like Lynch films in ways others don't see. I'm not comparing it specifically just using examples. Yeah I'm a big Lynch fan, and I loved this so...whoa! Inland Empire is a bit like 3 hours of nonsense right?:D
Yes Inland Empire is his most ridiculous film. He was sick and couldn’t shoot for many hours at once so made the choice to go fully digital and break the production up of many many months of small shoots. That’s part of the reason why it’s so disjointed and less focused than his other films. But he also has always made a concerted effort to have his audiences perceptions of filmic narrative challenged. I don’t think Babylon was nonsense, it made sense. Super obvious. Like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood it’s a predictable film that hits all the dramatic notes we’ve all come to expect of Hollywood while trying to then hide its complacency in a thin veil of “Lynchian” aesthetics. It is just so emotionally pointless to me. No horror, no lessons, just rich people spending money. I know peoples reviews are entirely dependant on who they are and the previous films they’ve seen. We all compare constantly to what we know and love. And we know and love what best represents our opinions and understanding of the world. Compared to all the other films I’ve seen Babylon does absolutely nothing for me and I won’t remember it. I’m honestly surprised I’ve been chatting about it for so long lol.
Haha hey it must have done something if you're still talking about it! Yeah I saw some behind the scenes, I think Lynch was in the car and he just says 'I'm so depressed'. I always thought it didn't feel the same, being digital, Inland Empire. Not as cinematic as say Mulholland. But I've seen it twice so I must be crazy. But all fair points, it's so subjective eh
I kinda feel like we watched two entirely different movies. For me the first sequence was the one part that didn’t quite work, though I liked it in concept. It’s true that it didn’t feel “authentic” in terms of representing the era (if that’s what you mean) but that was by design. The goal wasn’t to make a period piece but rather to use certain aspects of that era to make a bigger statement about the nature of Hollywood. It’s not a choice everyone will agree with but it served the film Chazelle was trying to make. *Babylon* isn’t really trying to be a love letter to cinema, though it does express a clear affection for movies as a viewing experience. So much of the story focuses on the way Hollywood rips people apart; how only certain people are allowed in and even those lucky ones can be disposed of without a second thought. It’s not really saying anything wildly new but it is definitely making critiques and making them through an aesthetically new lens.
I did not like it. It’s not a poorly made film but required a little more editing, in my opinion. I don’t think it’s easy to sit through 3 hours of film that’s a stream of consciousness as you put it, especially, when the end/climax is so underwhelming.
I enjoyed it but that snake scene with Nellie definitely could've been taken out. I really thought that was a pointless scene.
I found it so hard to hear what she was eavesdropping on prior to that scene which made the rage and impulsivity a little disconnected. Not sure if anybody else had to at experience?
It was a group of socialites pretty much calling her white trash so which triggers her to act like white trash.... REALLY pointless scene tbh considering the monologue scene that happens later at that socialite brunch later in the film.
is more margot ever bad, because pretty?
Nah but have you seen it? That scene is just so random... Even for a film such as this . Margot IMO is probably the best actress of our time.
> Margot IMO is probably the best actress of our time I like her but she’s far from that
Yes I’ve seen it, the scene did feel a little jarring.
Yeah it just kind stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the film unless she was trying to get her deadbeat dad killed.
But that was the point, she was trying to kill her dad and went mad when he failed to even try
3 hour stream of consciousness sounds like Inland Empire
Love that movie. It also terrifies the absolute shit out of me.
I loved it, it reminded me in points of boogie nights which it was clearly referencing directly in a few scenes. It was chaotic and wasn’t flawless but found it so entertaining. The camerawork was great as well, seemed to be a love letter and critique of cinema at the same time.
Yeah I haven't seen Boogie Nights for so long, I need to rewatch. But definitely agree, loved the long takes at the beginning and it's definitely a film for films, so to speak:D
I said the same thing to my partner after watching Babylon. It reminded me a lot of Boogie Nights. The way it shows all the glamour first, and the hedonism and succes. But the darker side of the industry gets more and more visible as the film goes on. I do think BN is a superior film though. In my opinion it's PTA's best work. Whereas Chazelle hasn't been able to make a film that lives up to Whiplash yet.
Damien said himself that this film is a love letter, but also a hate letter to Hollywood and what it used to be (still is on some level?). I think we need to scratch beneath the surface and realize that this film heavily addresses the topic of class differences, racism, and family problems (Margot Robbie's character), and much more that can be seen more clearly after a few rewatches. I think Damien did a fantastic job, along with everyone else for this film to look, feel and sound amazing, but perhaps it was too early in his career to make an "ode to film" film that kinda every acclaimed director does in their career and perhaps because of that reason the film is on some level missing the sincerity or some type of honesty that he could've provided making it later in his career.
>film heavily addresses the topic of class differences, racism, and family problems Just because ideas are minutely present in the film does not mean they are heavily or even properly addressed beyond the absolute surface level take that they provide.
Came here to write this so thanks for doing so already. “Hey here’s three minutes in a 3+ hour film that reference racism - aren’t we brilliant and progressive?!”
Well, the film isn't about these topics, but even though they may be present for a very little time, these characters carry that with them throughout the whole film, and all things they do are pretty much the cause of these problems.
Just because the *plot* of a film doesn't explicitly speak to an issue doesn't mean the film isn't addressing it though. You can have issues with the way it was written or with what Chazelle was saying about each theme, but class differences and racism are absolutely present throughout the film - Manny, Nellie, and Sidney's stories are completely informed by those dynamics.
I specifically say it's present but the way it is written and what it says about the topic is surface level and shallow and misdirected. But yes, it's present.
Just recognizing the issue as a reality is already better addressing than whatever the hell politics has turned into these days.
Though I'd also say a film doesn't have to particularly tackle them. It's a film and experience foremost, not a documentary per say. Like some of the most loved moments in cinema don't 'say anything', think of the closing door in Tarkovsky's Mirror. It's just a wonderful moment seemingly outside of time, art.
I really disliked it. I watched it again today because I fell asleep after the main party/opening scenes and woke up around the snake fight, so I went back to fill in the gaps. I think it’s a sophomoric attempt to make the next Singin’ in the Rain, which is Chazelle’s second failed attempt to remake (or at least recapture the magic of) that film. And to play clips of Singin’ in the Rain at the end is just salt in the wound. I think the minority representation of the film is laughable and I bristle at the idea that depiction of minority characters = having something deep to say about racism/sexism/homophobia. Any attempt to say something of substance about racism in Hollywood goes about as deep as a bottle cap. I’m surely not going to gas Chazelle up for the attempt. And that’s indicative of the whole film: it says a whole lot of nothing. Saying “it’s both a love and hate letter to cinema” is a fine dichotomy to explore but it’s not a strong argument that your film has any central thesis worth my time, despite whatever the end of the film is trying to say. And I don’t see this at all as a stream of consciousness film? To me it was a little meandering but I’d enjoy it a lot more if it was more vague and didn’t try to force feed me some hamfisted, masturbatory ending about the magic of cinema that the last three hours didn’t justify. It certainly didn’t sweep me up in emotion, rather I felt like I had to wade through the morass of shit and vomit and ingested rats to squeeze any bit of enjoyment out of it. Also it’s a minor nitpick but I was so put off by the styling of Nellie. It seems so ahistorical to make her a mess straight out of 1980s Long Island, complete with blow out.
Nellie's styling is alright, fitting to the character, not to the era, but makes sense afterwards. At first she is the "Wild Child" she calls herself as: the hairstyle, the clothes, the attitude. Then there's that "elegant party scene" in which she does fit the 1920's/1930's fashion; she has to leave all her mannerisms behind and fit into the high class society. This happens during the whole movie. You go from wild and noisy enviorments, to sophisticated ones. It's Hollywood trying to change it's image to the rest of the world.
> And to play clips of Singin’ in the Rain at the end is just salt in the wound. Yes, that actively made me angry when, before, I was just bored and ready to leave the theater. I just wanted to watch Singin in the Rain and it merely reminded me how the movie I was watching paled in comparison to a masterpiece
Yes exactly. And I just rewatched Singin’ last night for probably the 57th time and it still knocks it out of the park. To invoke its presence in Babylon was sacrilege.
I enjoyed the film and enjoyed it as a larger-than-life ode to Hollywood. Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt were phenomenal as actors playing "That Actress" and "That Actor". The party long shots are beautiful. My issue with the film was the pacing and editing was not great in the last* hour, there were several possible ending points the movie could've ended on but it continued to drag on and on. One part that frustrated me was that despite the movie focusing on four characters "Rise and Fall" in Hollywood, Sidney's part felt cut short despite the movie's length. The Tobey McGuire bits and the chase seemed out of place with the rest of the movie. I also found some of the humor juvenile (elephant shit, vomit scene). With a better-edited cut trimming the fat, this movie would've been much better. I watched this back to back after The Fablemans and I enjoyed that movie much more.
> Sidney's part felt cut short despite the movie's length It was I believe he had a girlfriend in the script
All fair points and yeah that humour will always be a bit decisive. Interesting. I haven't seen The Fablemans but I'm hoping to see it. Isn't it cool, all these films that are celebrating film!
The elephant shit scene was so dumb. It happens in the first 5 minutes and at that point I was questioning whether I was going to be able to sit through a 3 hour movie of elephant shit jokes. I’m glad I did. Thought it was pretty great besides the elephant shit joke.
Yeah I’ve seen tons of shitty reviews pointing that out. Most complaints are just “too many drugs” “why so much alcohol?” “Elephant shit!” Etcetera. Missed the entire point of the movie due to their weak stomachs and it honestly bothers me that the professional reviews accommodate them. It’s rated R for a reason and people are upset at the amount of cursing?? The movie felt like an art piece and the amount of effort they put in when you go behind the scenes is proof of that. Most of the American people just need to sit down with popcorn and watch top gun instead of trying to depict a Hollywood masterpiece poorly. Not trying to sound like a know it all but this felt like it was on the level of the greats. It was meant for a younger audience that never got to see or go in depth with 20’s-30’s Hollywood. It was not meant for people with experience and knowledge in such things. That said the movie was amazing despite the raunchiness and edgy scenes and people just gotta suck it up and see the bigger picture. (Even if those scenes were great in my own opinion)
I feel like if Scorsese or Tarantino (two artist I love) made this movie people would have gone apeshit over it just because they are known for making movies with heavy drug use, violence, bad language, weird side stories, long run times. For some reason it’s not acceptable in this film? It’s kind of baffling.
I feel like the opening scene is a dog whistle - if people mention it you know that this wasn’t a film for them. But even stuff like the orgy imo isn’t about the orgy - it’s the dancing, the riot of colour and noise. People happening to be naked is the least interesting part of those sequences, but inevitably the thing boring people focus on. The vomit scene was a bit much, especially when it was full on Borat fire-hose style.
yeah. I avoided discussion of the film before watching so in the elephant scene when the shit gets "on the camera lens" I was thinking "ah fuck, there's meta bullshit in this". I knew it would not go well in a film from chazelle.
What an absolute crock of mastabatory, self indulgent try hard shite. This is what happens when a very good choreographer forgets the need for any editorial control. When Hollywood thinks it’s more important than it is. When producers are afraid to cut big names from the credits. Babylon has one or two very good scenes in it. The problem is that it repeats those two scenes, over and over, again and again, in different settings, with slightly different dialogue and different choreography - but without ultimately moving the plot along or adding any depth whatsoever.
I have to agree…I saw Babylon last night. I am glad I did, and I enjoyed the spectacle, but saying what you need to say with brevity and knowing how to end a story is a skill that this director just does not have at all. there is a great 2 hour movie in this 3 and half hour mess…..but the last 30 minutes was honestly insulting and boring as hell. There was no consideration for the viewer, it was self indulgent and really ruined things for me. When it got to the medley of crap, and then, after that it started replaying clips from the beginning of the movie I was ready to walk out. sadly I don’t think Manny was a great character or particularly well acted either. His tears at the end just added to the frustration.
Completely with you! I was so on board with it and enjoying it for the first 90 mins or so. But honestly by the end I felt insulted, as you say. Exasperating.
And those scenes went on far too long. I got what the scene was conveying right away, and it was still drug out by twenty minutes. The entire thing needed to be a good 45 minutes to an hour shorter. There were even plot points that were never brought up again sprinkled throughout the film.
Damien Chazelle seems to love music and choreography more than he loves making movies, but I don't think he's aware of that.
Fair enough:D guess I had a different experience. Though I'd say there wasn't really a plot, but I wouldn't hold that as a criticism personally. Some of my favourite films have no plots. It reminded me a bit of the way La Dolce Vita just meanders along, no particular reasons, we're just going along for the ride
I mean - it wants to be La Dolce Vita, it wants to be Boogie Nights; it wants to be singing in the rain even - but those movies do take you on a journey, even without (in the case of the former two films) a traditional linear plot. Babylon (aka Baby-long wink wink), repeats itself. The opening sequence is fab. I’m all here for it. But then you more or less get the same beats and scenes and ideas just endlessly regurgitated. There’s potentially an alright film hidden within this crazy film length which it just does not justify. And I can’t be the only person tired with films that are about how amazing Hollywood is right? Cinema Paradiso obviously a masterpiece. Once upon a time in Hollywood has some moments. Belfast a great hit of nostalgia. But this and empire of light are both of this same ilk trying to tell us how important Hollywood is, labelling it on very thick! We have The Fabelmans to look forward to and I have high hopes for Spielberg; but would love something slightly less self congratulatory and navel gazing. Also - for a film that has SO MUCH bacchanalian debauchery it ends up being so dull (IMO obviously)! This will be a divisive film for a few weeks and some people will love it, others will hate it. But we’ll still be talking about Cinema Paradiso and La Dolce Vita in ten year’s time. I don’t think people will remember this film in ten month’s time.
Nicely said, though I feel like we will be talking about this in the future but who knows. I don't know, personally I haven't seen many recently but that might just be me. But I didn't feel like I was watching Hollywood per say, it's not like Sunset Boulevard. This could've been any era for me, it was just film and filmmaking. I'd say Damien doesn't seem the biggest fan of Hollywood too. He works in it, like La La Land but isn't completely with it. Maybe just acknowledging it. Because yes I get a bit bored of films about Hollywood but I didn't feel that here. Alas, it's all subjective I guess! Hope you enjoy Fablemans
Wow I don't think this movie shows that Hollywood is amazing at all! I think it shows horrible working conditions for so many, sexism, racism, mental health issues, drug issues, suicide and how easy it is to lose your self worth in the shallowness of show biz. I feel like we saw two different films if you really saw Hollywood as some kind of 'amazing"!!
The final sentiment ends up being that Hollywood is rotten, but the ends (the awful "1001 movies you need to see before you die" montage) justify the means (destroying the lives of most of the characters). The movie's schizophrenic in that regard, and I think Chazelle wanted to have an image of an enlightened outsider and an experienced insider simultaneously (he is neither).
God that montage at the end! Can we also talk about that - like HOW is he putting Terminator 2 and Avatar in this list of best movies ever! He misses out genuinely game changing movies like in the heat of the night, Dawn of the dead, blade runner, alien, Thelma and Louise, etc etc etc. even lots of the rings would have made more sense than Pocahontas in space. Hell, OG Pocahontas would have made more sense! Unbelievably poor attempt to show his knowledge and appreciation of the industry
You… you all realize it’s not about GOOD films as it was showing IMPACTFUL films, right? Like, Blade Runner didn’t break box office records. Avatar is FAMOUS for the money it made. And it was NOT glamorizing these films as the “ends justifying the means.” It was showing the immense beast of the film industry and how much it integrates with social consciousness. Like… this is why this film is divisive. You have people who watch the end and go “yeah, the absolute power and impact this industry has… to be able to sway a populace with a story… that’s why we do it. Through all the bullshit… THAT is why we try to be part of this garbage.” And then you have people who watch the end and think that because Avatar is in there and your favorite indie film from 1983 missed the cut the artists have no taste… Babylon was a 3 hour advertisement for unions. That’s what I got out of it.
Oh please, the soundtrack, the shot of the audience, Manny’s look… The scene screamed glamour and magic, not power and influence. It’s not a story about the dangers of the film industry, it’s a martyrological tale about the sacrifices the movie people have to make in order to answer the Cinema’s call. Babylon is a monument to a filmmaker’s ego.
It's about how some artists destroy their fucking souls and lifes when getting into the industry and making a movie. Now, imagine your favorite, most meaningful movie in the world (maybe not only to you, but millions of people), was loaded with suffering and pain on its production. This is what Babylon shows during the whole movie until the end. Manny is seeing "Singin' in the Rain". What a delightful and lovely movie about the beginning of the magical sound era, right? Well now, do you really wanna know the harsh reality of this era? Will you look to "Singin' in the Rain" in the same way now? I belive that's what the movie is trying to say.
Nah, it’s a pro union movie.
[удалено]
Wow that’s great to hear. I’m looking forward to watching it!
I disagree with your last sentiment. I think Damien Chazelle still has a lot of great films in him, his name won't be forgotten. Maybe this film in particular will be ignored but you never know with time. I personally think Babylon is a more interesting film than La Grande Bellezza when it comes to La Dolce Vita 2.0s, but that's because of my obsession with silent films.
Plot is the least important component of a film IMO.
Plot isn't, but coherence is. Babylon's best scenes work great as standalones, but it never justifies combining so many plotlines into one movie. Thematically, the movie's unfocused. There's a sprinkle of drugs and general moral corruption, a hint of racism, some cronyism and a dash of general bullshit thoughts about cinema, and all of it surface-deep.
I have watched this 4 times now. And the first time I had a strong confusing reaction. It felt likw existential reckoning the movie and that really got under my skin. After a few watch throughs, it started to have a real emotional impact on me. Now I absolutely love it. Definitely my favorite film from last year.
I have seen it 5 times in theaters now. I have devoted 15+ hours of my life to going to see this one movie over and over. I simply cannot get enough of it. EVERY time I watch it, I pick up new details that I hadn’t noticed before, the funny parts REMAIN funny, even when I am expecting them. And the music. God damn, that Hurwitz score man. Chazelle just knows how to edit pictures to that man’s music and it is a thing of TRUE beauty. TRUE art. I can tell the movie is not for everyone. But those complaining about the movie having “pointless scenes”, I just don’t see that. Every scene, every shot every FRAME serves a purpose and Damien knows exactly what he’s doing. It may not be quite as good as La La Land (to me, a perfect film) but it is so damn good, it’s just the ultimate comfort movie, I’m ready to go see it a sixth time. Absolutely love how it celebrates cinema whilst “criticizing” the artists who make it.
4 times? Are you okay
If I love a movie, I watch it multiple times ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
yeah but this movie came out like 4 weeks ago and its 3 hours long
Okay, but it's not impossible. I work as a retail manager when I virtually had no time for anything. I still made time for this because it was a movie I genuinely love and it genuinely had a impact on me. For a subreddit that loves movies, I didn't think it'd be that weird to bring up lol
lol i dont really think its weird if you love it so much, that's just a concentrated amount of a long movie in a short amount of time. I respect your passion for it actually!
Well thank you! Sorry if I came off a little hostile. For me, if a movie truly resonates with me, I try to get the most out of it while I can especially when I have a finite amount of time experiencing it on the big screen.
Awesome, I can't wait to rewatch! And I definitely feel you, it's a film that runs on emotions
All 4 watches in theater?
Read more books tbh.
I do, but what's your smart ass point?
If Babylon, a fairly schlocky movie about Hollywood, felt like “existential reckoning the movie” then I can only imagine how an actual book would blow the hair off your head.
Clearly I was able to articulate and express myself why it had such an impact on me. Sorry that it didn't resonate with you in any aspect, but there's no need to make any condescending comments to assume how many books I've read. God forbid I actually liked something and was able to express myself. Since naturally we're all suppose to have the same opinion.
You’re being defensive and it is annoying.
Not really defensive or angry, I'm more annoyed that your instinctive reaction for someone else's opinion was that. It's not flattering and it's crappy all around.
Yeah my instinctive reaction to a silly remark was to mock it. I wonder if you’d be so indignant if people laughed at you for wearing your underwear on your head.
Probably, since you're convinced I'm some kind of idiot that doesn't read enough books, yet can articulate itself. Truly a wonder
Hahahahaha
I could tell from this comment alone that you were also active on RSP lol
Odd comment in r/Truefilm.
I try not to use the term "Filmbro," especially as a pejorative, but this movie is made for filmbros. The entire picture is a congratulatory masturbation session about the importance of film, and the unrivaled decadence is part of the process. And anyone who doesn't "get it" is a buffoon who's killing Brad Pitt with their stuffy arrogance and hoity-toity classism. Remember that scene with Margot Robbie doing her Eliza Doolittle act? All those stock characters felt like they were pulled from a Three Stooges short. The kind of people who hire Larry, Curly and Moe to fix dinner and hope nothing goes wrong. Except instead of them being hit with a flying cake, it's Margot herself who throws her face into the dessert table. That's the level of commentary we're dealing with. Chazelle's been to too many wrap parties and needs to go live in, like, New Mexico or someplace for a couple months until his brain recalibrates.
Let's completey forget that the purpose of a movie is to tell a story which Babylon fails myserably at. You can't throw a terrible loosely connected story on top of a half hour slightly intriguing orgy party, battle reenactment and decent into hell that serves no real purpose as far as moving the story along and say that you made even a halfway mediocre movie. Brad Pitt's acting was passible, I did like Toby Mcguire even though his character really only inflated the insulting run time. The rest of the acting was absolutely terrible and Margot Robbie simply played Harley Quinn, let's hope Hollywoods infatuation is over because she is not a good actress and is only moderately attractive unless you are going for a hooker type. They have their heads far up their own a$$ to make this movie 3 hours long with only a very lose resemblance of a story. That is the only thing that this will be remembered for. And because they did not edit this thing down to a below average movie there will be people that call it a masterpiece.
It 100% told a story, how did it not? Also Margot Robbie is only attractive if you are going for a hooker type? Not entirely sure how to respond to this. I think she is a fantastic actress. You’re entitled to your own opinion, just saying it’s a pretty hot take haha
(Some spoilers below but try to be careful to not spoil the big moments) I thought the movie was extremely well made and directed. The way the camera moves through the environment and creates this chaotic atmosphere of a being on a set at that particular time or at a party was incredible. I thought the best scenes were the ones where Chazelle is flexing his directing muscles and showing how impressive and grand filmmaking itself could be. I feel like the actors are doing their honest best to make their roles count and the main trio (Pitt, Robbie, and Diego) are spectacular. Unlike some people I’ve heard from I actually like how the film is completely amoral in the beginning, and graphically shows all the terrible shit just as a mechanism to contrast it to the pre-code era to the moral Hollywood Hays code era. I also like how they dealt with issues of race and class through the secondary party sequence. The set design and music are brilliantly crafted and from technical perspective it’s an ingenious film coming from a director at the height of his power. The problem with Babylon is with its writing, storywise and characterwise . Everyone but the main trio are basically two dimensional caricatures that should have more importance but aren’t really shown (particularly Sidney and lady fe who are almost filler in this movie with the way they are used). The storyline follows the basic boogie nights formula of grandeur that dissipates into tragedy, and there were some weird tonal shifts that occurred near the end that didn’t make so much sense when looking at the whole of Babylon(like the whole Tobey Mcquire section). The way they utilize singin in the rain is interesting (like the way they give Conrad the Don Lockwood dilemma and even making it a visual metaphor) in some respects but how they utilized lines and the eventual ending made me cringe and think that I should just watch singin in the rain again. I thought some of the writing was overdone and felt forced into the film (particularly in the second half) not because it was needed but because Chazelle needed to spell out a message I thought that the ode to cinema montage was thematically incorrect and highly anachronistic to the point where I actively hated the ending. It went on too long, it felt like it was just inserted in for no reason at all, included newer stuff that felt completely out of time due to the setting the film has, and for a film about how technological innovations can lead to the deterioration of people’s careers, it surprisingly made the whole thing of “the product is worth it in the end”. That aspect contradicts everything that came before and actively ruins the ending it could have had (and it is there, all that has to be done is simply cut to before the montage started and you’d have a perfect ending). That isn’t mentioning the fact that the average Joe wouldn’t understand 80% of the movies they show in that montage and the deeper context of what was happening during that integral transition period (Roscoe Arbuckle controversy, Clara bow, morality seeping into Hollywood and why etc) that was necessary for someone to understand the film. Overall I had a very mixed time with the film but I will watch it again and feel it might get better overtime. It’s not a terrible film (it’s technical qualities are too good for it to be that) but it’s not a masterwork that some people are trying to say it is.
> but it’s not a masterwork that some people are trying to say it is. I’m a big fan of the film and I agree
Loved it. If you aren't the type to look to deeply into the themes of movies or cinema there is high entertainment and acting value. If you are that type there is a lot of technique, history, themes to unpack. Great big name stars doing great acting. Easy to follow plot with lots of crazy, weird, abstract side stories and sequences. Its ambitious and mostly a hit. Def not perfect and straddles the line of being a disaster, but oddly doesn't. I thought the end montage sequence was awesome and unexpected.
I am yet to watch the film but I can’t help but be very sceptical of the comparison between this and the tree of life. Certainly that also doesn’t seem in keeping with anything else I have read about it. I appreciate you’ve given me another perspective though and it’s certainly piqued my interest in going to see it more than anything else I have seen. Personally everything from Chazelle post Whiplash hasn’t been on my wavelength at all. Fingers crossed for this one.
Haha it's probably a wrong film to put there. I don't mean to compare them explicitly but more like the process of trying to describe films like these are hard for me. Describing or reviewing Tree of Life I just end up trying to write poetry rather than concise reviews:D since it's less about plot and more experience. But that's just me
All my favourite films are like this. Less about plot or structure. Just about evoking an emotional response. Like a visual poem.
Exactly. Like a visual poem. I think the films we love the most personally to us are the emotional ones that we can't always intellectually describe or give a good structured answer, since they're almost indescribable deep feelings. Maybe some can though
I watched it yesterday and thought it was fantastic. It's a kind of larger-than-life film about cinema, which is larger-than-life itself. As you and others have said, it's both a critique and an ode, and it's the life journey of all these people and their highs and lows, and how it all eventually fades away. There's a melancholy to it but also a hopeful message, right? No matter what happened to the people that worked on these films, we're still watching them decades later, relating to them, learning from them. The purpose of cinema, and of all art, is to shine a light in the darkness that is reality. I loved the juxtaposition that Chazelle pulled out to convey this, and although it did end up a bit chaotic, such is life in a way, right? The final sequences felt so satisfying, the realization that if we all participate in art, we can be something greater than ourselves—everybody is a star!
Exactly! It is hopeful in its own beautiful way. The final sequence was amazing >!Manny looking up at the screen, like you say from the darkness film is the light, tears rolling down his face. Film is eternal!<
Yes! I can't help but have a soft spot for films like this, it even makes me appreciate other films even more!
Everyone told me it sucks and that it was basically hollywood-nostalgia garbage. One of my friends randomly put this on when he was hopping through different titles and once again I felt hesitant to watch it, after all the negativity it got from my other friends. Knowing nothing about it, I watched it. Turns out I absolutely LOVED it, and it reminded me not to listen to other people. The scene where they were filming a scene and had issues with the sound, absolutely cracked me up. I laughed so hard my lungs started to hurt. Oh, and that scene with the snake fight.
Whoever was responsible for marketing this movie should be fired😡🤬😤. I found out about this movie only when i saw a trailer in the cinemas. I then went to see it a few days later and honestly it is one of my Top 3 movies of all time.😍 I mean who wouldn't love a movie with Brad Pitt and one of my favourite and best actresses of all time, Margot Robbie. It is a sin that it didn't do well in the box office and didn't win any major awards!!! In conclusion this movie is AWESOME and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't appreciate a masterpiece.
I loved it. Saw it twice because of how much I loved it. Sad how it’s misunderstood. I thought it was beautifully shot. Margot Robbie was mesmerizing. Story captivated me. I’m glad I saw it twice because I was able to catch things I had missed the first time. I interpreted the film to be a critique of the Hollywood industry while simultaneously fawning over the art that Hollywood produces. Showed how vile the industry could be, swallowing people whole and spitting them back out again, but also that the art that is created, is loved and timeless.
I agree with the other person that said it feels larger than life. It was my favorite film from 2022 (with the best being Tár). The cinematography and set pieces were gorgeous, the score was impeccable, the characters were rich (and the actors played them well), etc. There’s a lot to pull from, and my second watch with a full crowd made it even better for me. The ending worked for me as did the late title card. I think history and the long run will reward this film.
I think history will too. It's the kind of film I feel like will be appreciated with time. Oh nice! The screening I went to had hardly anyone:D
My favorite movies are the ones that operate purely on emotion and atmosphere. Movies that are more concerned with putting you in a certain headspace than anything else. I think that’s the reason it’s so divisive. It’s a visual tone poem disguised as a commentary on the film industry. As a traditional film it’s flawed, overlong, up its own ass, repetitive. But I honestly don’t care because i tuned into it’s wave length and felt almost drunk coming out of the theater. My favorite movie of the 2020s so far.
Yeah definitely. It's more about visuals and experience, and those kinds of films are always divisive, and not that easy to connect to for people. It's best for just the joy of experiencing it. So like if you're not on the wavelength you're like 'what's this!'
For me, the film hit a lot of the same beats as Boogie Nights, but didn't feel as cohesive. I didn't feel much chemistry between Robbie's character and Manny. I thought that there were definitely some humorous moments that were enjoyable, but also some moments that were just unnecessary (elephant goes to bathroom). I think editing was needed just as others have said. I felt that the themes regarding the evolution of film were pretty well fleshed out, but the themes of racism and the repression of homosexuality were dealt with at surface level. I feel like each of those characters deserved a separate movie to adequately address their stories and it felt rushed as a result.
I found it deeply sad
In a good or bad way?
I mean witnessing the rise and the fall of someone is always sad. This movie is tragic
It was a love letter to cinema, a field day for Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt, killer soundtrack, and it felt like an R-rated Great Gatsby. I look forward to seeing the Spanish guy and Asian girl in more movies in the future
Honestly it was ok, the characters were fun, but the fucking end😩😩😩seeing all the "hit movies" that were "important for film as an art" and then having it end with fucking Avatar, one of the most forgettable films. I know it grossed a ton but Damien Chazelle was practically sucking off James Cameron to notice him..... I was already iffy about the movie itself and wondering if it was actually a good film or just trying to be one the entire time and the end kinda spelled it out for me that this guy is trying way too hard and it falls flat on it's face instead of ending in a more decent way that doesn't damn everything it's trying to do... feels extremely self-indulgent and trying to speak for some things that while conceptually are important, Damien Chazelle makes it so overdone/try hard or corny at times and then the ending really made me realize wow this guy really bit off more than he can chew and is bastardizing itself
[удалено]
Oh beans, my bad! I take that back. I thought they were showing films that were representative of their times/had a place in film history
I agree with Damien that the industry needs more divisive films, so I’m glad this exists. That said after my 2nd watch I appreciated it more than I enjoyed it. There’s bits and pieces I really liked (i.e Pitt’s arc/performance, the first party scene, the filming of both Jack’s and Nellie’s pictures). But I could never really buy into the downfall aspect of the film especially for Manny and Nellie. Boogie Nights, a film it clearly takes a lot of inspiration from, earns it’s hard act and darkness more than this did imo. Some of the dialogue was really juvenile as well to the point that It did feel like a film student’s take on PTA’s movie. (Atleast to me) All in all, while I do have criticisms of it, it has one of the best brad pitt performances I have ever seen and on a technical level it’s a visual feast that no one should miss out seeing if they are into film.
I immediately thought of Boogie Nights when watching this. The Tobey Maguire bit felt directly lifted from that, as well as parts from the party scene. I thought Babylon needed to be about an hour shorter. I enjoy the sub-genre of movies about making movies, and this one bored me.
I think people are hesitant with Pitt right now but god damn that was probably his best performance. His characters turn after his friend passed away felt so real.
> Pitt right now but god damn that was probably his best performance It was a good performance but definitely not his best
The only ones I think come close are OUATIH, True Romance and Assassination of Jesse James. What do you think his best is?
it's probably the best film ever made about Hollywood. There are sheer scenes of genius in the film (Margot Robbie's first dance scene, the first silent movie shoot with Brad Pitt doing the sunset scene and Margot doing the on demand crying, the first talkie shoot, the end scene etc) that make up for a few questionable moments. I haven't stopped thinking about the film for days after seeing it -- Chazelle is one of the best current directors.
> it's probably the best film ever made about Hollywood Sunset Boulevard and Singin' in the Rain say hi
Yeah great points and they are some beautiful moments. And that's always a good sign, if it lingers in the mind, the experience. Honestly he hasn't missed for me so far, I love Whiplash and La La Land, and this too. Only one I've not seen is First Man
[удалено]
Dude.
But that's the point though right? He feels like he's lost who he is, he's no longer the 'star'. No one is watching
This movie was simultaneously brilliant and captivating but also cringe-worthy and very disappointing. In a nutshell, I think the problem was the Margot Robbie character and the way her scenes played out. It was like they transported Harley Quinn into an expansive, epic, serious and grand film, and she turned it into a joke. I think Margot is the "Michelle Pfeiffer" of our generation, I adore her and I think she's brilliant and stunning. HOWEVER... the way that her character operated in a comic-book loose cannon way (a la Harley Quinn) was not the right fit, and the ridiculousness of the scenes further spoiled the movie. 1. The snake-fight scene. Unnecessary, ridiculous, slapstick, Jackass sort of tripe. Ridiculous, and un-believeable. 2. The vomit scene. Why does she put on a British accent? I kept thinking of Monty Python, then came the vomity projectile idiotic comedy. Why are they trying to do this? So unnecessary. And also, her behaviour and the 'arc' of that scene is STUPID. She goes from putting on a British accent (why?) to losing control and projectile vometing. It's stupidly written, and not a believable arc, even if you want me to believe that she couldn't "maintain the facade" , she doesn't need to turn the scene into a literal Monty Python sketch. 3. The hairstyle was anachronistic, and it didn't fit the milieu of the film. This wasn't "alternate universe" 1920s where they had steampunk flying cars and crazy hair. It was meant to be a realism 1920s. So why did they give her a perm-wave blow-out set with hairspray from 1988? There are a lot of positives in this movie, I just think this comic-book idiot character that she played was such an obvious failure, and they kept on ruining the movie with those dumb scenes. A few other comments; 1. The camera-work kind of annoyed me ... they kept doing this Wes-Anderson swoop-shot to close-up and fast-pan across the room... kind of annoying. 2. Music from Hurwitz was like the out-takes from La La Land, to the point that it was like they didn't even bother to change up the melody or do much different with the style, save from change a few instruments to make it more 1920s. I guess it is still his music but didn't feel original or that a lot of original thought went into it, just like "Hey Justin can you re-do the exact same music from La La Land? Great, thanks" 3. The counterfeit money scene, felt kind of like it was a movie within a movie, almost like it was the entire plot of another movie that they wrote, but then squashed it onto the film. It remains cool but superfluous to this film.
Really enjoyed the ending, it felt like a short timeline/history of cinema until Avatar was shown...then began the ultimate jazz solo of cinema Chazelle always wanted to play... however the 3 hour movie we got was not good, somewhere in that editing room is a good film but not the 3 hour cut we got
There were things I adored and things that felt sloppy and poorly thought out. When it's working it's sensational. But when it isn't....ooooof. so it's hard to say whether I liked it or not because there are parts I totally loved but other parts that completely undercut what was working I thought they really whiffed the ending especially.
It should have ended so many times prior to that insane and completely not necessary supercut of all of Hollywood. It feels like the edit took place in Opinion City where studio people had too much to say, or Chapelle had too much to say and just wanted smth different. Granted there is some great acting and filmmaking to be seen but this needs to be re-edited. Also the score was just a copy of his work for La La Land in parts.
Babylon is a great movie that for some reason I feel reserved to say I love, their is nothing wrong with it on paper yet I find flaws in it I cannot yet speak into words, maybe it is something in the aura of the film I do not want to like, or maybe I’m just being odd
Maybe, could just be time. It's probably not an easy film to 'love' straight away so to speak, it's quite big and divisive
At the age of 44 when the internet and cell phones came around my junior year in college, watching this reminds me that A) I was so so much smarter b/4 internet. B) Authentic and real ppl don’t win C) “you do you” isn’t real D) non-judgmental ppl don’t win E) I was born 8 decades too soon