Babylon (2022) (1 Viewer)

[benbess]

After the positive reviews from some members here, I changed my mind and saw Babylon today. Turned out I liked it a lot overall, even though the gross-out factor was a too high for me a few times. About half of the movie was not what I was expecting. I was moved by the long poignant ending, more or less the last forty minutes of the movie. Some of Babylon might be seen as a prequel to 1952's Singin' in the Rain. Anyway, I think the movie probably does make it somewhere into my top ten for the year, because of that ending.

 

[benbess]

On the one hand, this 3-hour movie is quite long, but on the other hand I still felt like there's probably an even longer director's cut that was lost somewhere in the editing room. I noticed that at least two scenes from the trailer aren't even in the movie. I was kind of looking forward to those scenes, and started guessing that there were several other scenes that were cut out of the movie as well. Anyway, I wonder if the blu-ray might have a longer cut? Or given what a box office bomb this movie has been, maybe the studio isn't going to invest the money to do an extra cut.

PS Did anyone else notice....

Spoiler

what seemed to be an homage to Sunset Blvd., when Brad Pitt's character is floating in the pool?

 

[Alex...]

There is a 2 Hour cut...

A Two-Hour Version of ‘Babylon’ Shot on Damien Chazelle’s iPhone Exists: ‘It Was a Very Uncommon Situation’

Damien Chazelle's Hollywood epic "Babylon" runs three hours and 9 minutes, but a far shorter version exists on the director's iPhone.

www.google.com

 

[TJPC]

It was not the length that was the problem for us. It was the ugly pornographic x rated s & m sections. I think my wife only saw about 1/2 of the movie as she looked away.

 

[Tino]

It was the ugly pornographic x rated s & m sections.

Clearly there was no “x” rated footage in the film. Full frontal nudity and simulated sex and s&m yes but no graphic sexual shots.

 

[Jason_V]

After seeing Babylon last night, something hit me. We've had three "major" movies about the movies hit screens in the last six to eight weeks. There was The Fabelmans, an ode to the power of movies. Then there was Empire of Light, a movie about white enlightenment masquerading as a movie about the movies. And then there's Babylon, a movie about the end of the silent era. There's something rather self-serving in this, I think, to make movies about movies. Maybe in a different year when the movies don't play such a big part in the story this wouldn't be noticeable; it sticks out like a sore thumb to me this year.

As for Babylon, there are four stories here: Brad Pitt's Jack Conrad, a silent star at the end of his career; Margot Robbie's Nellie LaRoy, a silent star who ascended quickly and burned brightly for a short amount of time; Diego Calva's Manny Torres, a man who shows the best case of "right place, right time" on the planet; and Jovan Adepo's Sidney Palmer, a musician with a storyline like Manny, but with far less screen time.

Each of these stories could have taken place in its own, confined movie or television series. Rises and falls and redemptions and twists and turns...but they're all thrown together here for in 45 minutes of debauchery and 2 hours 15 minutes of human drama. Everyone is talking about the sex and drugs and the alcohol: fine, it's all here. There is some full-frontal nudity, but it's not filmed with a leering, voyeuristic gaze; it simply exists in this world like a set of kitchen chairs would exist in any of our homes. Babylon does require a strong stomach with two scenes of what I would call "gross out action," but I would argue these two scenes aren't what should be making the film hard to watch for some people.

No, keeping in mind this is a fictional account of the end of the silent era but what Conrad, LaRoy, Torres and Palmer go through is likely very real to what happened in the world should be the hard part to watch. Real people having their world's thrown into chaos when their livelihoods are suddenly pulled away from them is the hard thing to watch. Manny, upstanding and kind and honest, getting roped into LaRoy's spiral of destruction is the hard thing to watch. Watching Manny have to tell Sidney he's not black enough for a movie is painful, depressing and uncomfortable to watch. These are the moments which should be hard to watch.

If I had to give a thumbs up or down to Babylon, I would give it a thumbs up. A qualified thumbs up, to be sure. A thumbs up for certain audiences and sensibilities. That's not to say it's perfect. I was not into the under-under-underground party with Tobey Maguire, though this sets up the end of Manny and Nellie's stories. That five- or ten-minute sequence made me squirm in my seat and wasn't enjoyable. (Though, again, what we know is happening in those scenes is filmed with a certain amount of discretion and a seeming understanding it would be a tough thing for the audience to watch.) But that's really the only piece of the movie I'm down on. Great performances by everyone involved (special shout out to Jean Smart...she has a scene with Pitt late in the movie and she just NAILS it), a bombastic score, great set design and a usually compelling story. Babylon may just be in need of some slight editing around an elephant and a dinner party.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I saw Babylon and my quick reaction is that I enjoyed the exuberance of the first two hours but found the last hour to be a predicable, dull slog. The first two hours were amusing and entertaining to watch, while the last hour was obvious and joyless, with Chazelle making choice after choice that just broke my suspension of disbelief and made me hyper aware that I was watching a movie. A couple well written title cards could have replaced that entire section for me. It quickly burned through all the good will the first two hours built up for me. I went from being really into it to being really ready for it to be over.

It was insane for them to spend nearly $100 million on this movie. At no point was I watching it thinking, “oh sure, this could be a hit.” It should have been obvious to everyone involved that there’s no way this gets to $250 million in its current form or perhaps in any form.

 

[benbess]

I liked the movie better than you did, but I agree that it was reckless to spend so much money on Babylon. The challenge is that when some directors have success they sometimes get overly ambitious, and people are less likely to say to them: "hey, maybe this doesn't make sense in terms of the art of this movie, or the money that this movie might make." The excess is a lot what makes this movie, but it is also what breaks it.

I'm glad Spielberg was able to make West Side Story on a big scale and with such artistry, but that was another $100 million dollar movie that will be in the red for as far as the eye can see. Ditto with the $40 million Fabelmans. I happen to like Spielberg's movies a lot more than Babylon, but the reality in terms of the finances seem somewhat similar.

What's unfortunate is that I'd like movies that aren't comic book movies, or Star Wars, or other IP like that to have more success at the box office, but lately that hasn't been happening often.

 

[Keith Cobby]

La La Land was a huge success (one of my all time favourite movies) and subsequent big budgets was his reward, I expect the studio will now curb their enthusiam somewhat. I posted during covid that only good family films will do good box office now. Obviously Babylon isn't a family film and as I didn't like the trailer, will stream it in due course (the very long running time also puts me off), for no additional cost.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I liked the movie better than you did, but I agree that it was reckless to spend so much money on Babylon. The challenge is that when some directors have success they sometimes get overly ambitious, and people are less likely to say to them: "hey, maybe this doesn't make sense in terms of the art of this movie, or the money that this movie might make." The excess is a lot what makes this movie, but it is also what breaks it.

I'm glad Spielberg was able to make West Side Story on a big scale and with such artistry, but that was another $100 million dollar movie that will be in the red for as far as the eye can see. Ditto with the $40 million Fabelmans. I happen to like Spielberg's movies a lot more than Babylon, but the reality in terms of the finances seem somewhat similar.

What's unfortunate is that I'd like movies that aren't comic book movies, or Star Wars, or other IP like that to have more success at the box office, but lately that hasn't been happening often.

Well, the thing is that you don't really know until you take the risk. I realize that making big budget films now is all based upon the minimization of risk but that makes for a lot of boring films.

William Friedkin named Chazelle the best filmmaker of his generation when asked about present day filmmakers. I think if he is seen in this category then it is worthwhile to give him a budget to make a big epic film that he really wants to make. Art has been heavily removed from filmmaking these days. Mostly because audience seem not particularly interested in art anymore when it comes to pictures. They prefer commercial, assembly line filmmaking. Getting off that path, even a little tends to make your picture a 50/50 proposition. This is not what financial backers tend to want.

Sure, there is nothing hidden in that a 3 hour, original picture, that contains a lot of sex/nudity, and things that offend people that is obviously made for adults is not the kind of thing that is selling tickets at the box office now. So, in that regard is it a good financial bet that you will make money with this? No. Is it a good bet that you might get a really memorable film from one of the day's best filmmakers? Yes.

Which has more value?

 

[MartinP.]

I saw Babylon and my quick reaction is that I enjoyed the exuberance of the first two hours but found the last hour to be a predicable, dull slog.

Interesting; a couple people here have indicated this, but others here, me included, have the opposite take, that the ending is what made the whole movie work.

I was not into the under-under-underground party with Tobey Maguire,

This is the one thing I thought might've been cut, though, as you said, it "sets up the end of Manny and Nellie's stories."

I was dubious about this big budgeted film being a hit from the get go for the fact that a lot of films with this subject matter, dramatic films about the beginnings of or early days of Hollywood especially, have not been successful at the box office. The mid-70's alone had Hollywood looking back at it's history with The Day of the Locust, The Wild Party, W.C. Fields and Me, Gable & Lombard, Valentino, The World's Greatest Lover and Won Ton Ton the Dog That Saved Hollywood (It didn't).

 

[Jason_V]

This is the one thing I thought might've been cut, though, as you said, it "sets up the end of Manny and Nellie's stories."

I think there was another way to get to their ending without this sequence, but it fits with the rest of the movie and the picture of wild excess we've seen from the very beginning.

 

[MartinP.]

^^^

Plus, Tobey Maguire has an executive producer credit on the film. He's not going to cut himself out, LOL!

 

[MartinP.]

I noticed that at least two scenes from the trailer aren't even in the movie.

Whether or not they were scenes or not, I did notice some footage in the trailers not in the film. That happens a lot. There's a scene in the trailer for Titanic that's not in the film.

One way to sell out showings of Babylon: I was looking up times for movies yesterday at the AMC 15 Theatre in Century City, for yesterday and today, and I noticed that both of these days have sold out showings of Babylon at around 4pm and upon a further look I noticed the reason why. Each of those screenings is having a Q&A afterwards with Damien Chazelle.

 

[Tim Gerdes]

It was insane for them to spend nearly $100 million on this movie. At no point was I watching it thinking, “oh sure, this could be a hit.” It should have been obvious to everyone involved that there’s no way this gets to $250 million in its current form or perhaps in any form.

Part of my personal calculus on what makes a great movie is a sense that the filmmakers got away with something. I find it worth celebrating, particularly in this age of IP driven franchise entertainment, when a filmmaker manages to make a film that by all accounts had no business being made.

As someone who adored every single frame of this audacious, epic, sad, funny, sweet, disgusting, beautiful, kinetic, cruel, and shocking valentine to cinema, I am grateful this masterpiece was made. Films like Babylon are why I love the movies. And this was the most gratifying movie-going experience I have had in as long as I can recall.

Not since Pulp Fiction in 1994 and Boogie Nights in 1997 have I seen a new work from a rising talent that was so self-assured, and made with so much bravado, that it demanded our attention and, in my opinion, praise.

I appreciate that this film is divisive but were I in charge of a studio I would gladly spend myself into bankruptcy producing art like this.

 

[Tim Gerdes]

For anyone else as obsessed with this film as I am, I was curious about the scene in the film where George Munn (Haas) has persuaded Jack Conrad (Pitt) to appear in an all-star musical and perform Singin' in the Rain only to discover it was a real MGM film, Hollywood Revue of 1929.
I found a clip of the Singin' in the Rain number from that film, complete with Noah's Ark backdrop and Buster Keaton, whose participation George cites in his conversation with Jack. In Babylon the filming is depicted as somewhat absurd, and I appreciated the depiction even more after watching the source material.

Singin' in the Rain from Hollywood Revue of 1929.

 

[cinerama10]

La La Land was a huge success (one of my all time favourite movies) and subsequent big budgets was his reward, I expect the studio will now curb their enthusiam somewhat. I posted during covid that only good family films will do good box office now. Obviously Babylon isn't a family film and as I didn't like the trailer, will stream it in due course (the very long running time also puts me off), for no additional cost.

Rarely that I hated a film as much as I did with LA LA LAND.

 

[JoeStemme]

Now available on VOD and In Theaters.

Nominated for 3 Oscars (Score, Costumes, Production Design).
Taking it's title from Kenneth Anger's seminal muckraking book (Hollywood Babylon) Writer-Director Damien Chazelle's film certainly takes the legend of Tinseltown excess to heart in it's rousing opening sequence - A debauched bacchanalia party in which stars, starlets and wannabees dance, cavort and engage in just about every sexual variation with freaks, geeks and animals as entertainment. One of the gate-crashers is Nellie LaRoy (Margot Robbie) who, in intentionally cliched fashion, gets “discovered” that night.

Morning breaks and LaRoy must stumble to a film set to get her big break. Also on location is another of the previous night's revelers, major film star Jack Conrad (Brad Pitt), chauffeured by one of the lowly workers at that gathering, Manny Torres (Diego Calva). Whisked to the set, Nellie knocks the socks off the filmmakers - and, Voila! Instant starlet!

This first hour is energetically orchestrated by Chazelle showing all the gusto his talent, cast and millions of dollars can pull off. Unfortunately, once that initial surge winds down, so does his script's imagination. Set during the transition from the silents to talking pictures, Chazelle's movie ends up being a fairly simple and straightforward rise & fall narrative, using the coming of Sound as the main reason for Nellie and Jack's career and personal downfalls. Chazelle tries to weave in a couple of major supporting characters in Sidney Palmer (Jovan Adepo) and Fay Zhu (a very sharp Li Jun Li), but never gives either enough screen time to flesh out their characters. Sidney is a black musician who becomes a featured player in 'race films', while Fay is an Asian starlet who writes inter-titles for silent films - although we only truly see her 'at work' for a couple of minutes. Instead, the focus is on her flamboyant bi-sexuality. Inadvertently, Chazelle turns the character into the same thing that Fay's real life model (Anna May Wong) was in Hollywood: The Exotic. It's symbolic of Chazelle's lack of a strong point of view to his screenplay, which he has said was researched over years and years. The spark seems to have all gone into the physical production - but not it's soul. The Art Direction, Costumes and Justin Hurwitz' score all energetic if not always period accurate.

Stylistically, Chazelle relies almost exclusively on excess with BOOGIE NIGHTS and WOLF OF WALL STREET being clear influences. The emphasis on bodily functions, out-sized gestures and proclamations of how important Hollywood is becomes wearying. There are a few sporadically interesting moments in the overlong last couple of hours, in particular a heart to heart between Jack and a gossip columnist, Elinor St. John (Jean Smart). It's a rare moment when the film slows down and has an actual discussion. Pitt is quite good when the script gives him a chance. Robbie is a ball of energy and carries the movie on her shoulders when it flags, but, her character is constantly short-changed and just ends up disappearing off-camera. Calva is, in some ways, the central role here, and he carries it off well, benefiting from an actual story arc.

The epilogue begins as a nice, if bittersweet, grace note. It takes place in a movie theater - of course (certainly seems to have been a common theme of several auteurs in 2022). Chazelle tries to link his film with those that inspired him, but as it continues on and on and on, he seems to be equating his own work here with not only a specific motion picture classic, but with the full continuum of cinema. Ambition or Vanity?

 

[Tino]

Streaming February 21 on Paramount +

 

[Alex...]

The ADG has awarded Babylon for

Period Feature Film