If you feel like I skipped out the following film of Damien Chazelle, don’t worry since I covered that one many years ago. While Whiplash was my first exposure to the guy, First Man was the first film that I covered of the director. While I would do a re-review of that film. I feel that I should at least cover the recent film of Chazelle just to keep some consistency. I think that this is the rare time that I covered a directors entire directorial library. I know it doesn’t make up for my look into David Lynch, but to me it’s fun marathoning a director’s work and see the ebbs and flows. And this one ebbed to the point of mediocrity.
1. Hollywood Decay
So color me shocked to realize that this is Chazelle’s first critical bomb in his filmography. At first it seems standard to have a director riding high and then meet the point of humbleness. One can sustain a good run but inevitably that level of creativity can go so far where it’s just either mundane or stupid. Whiplash and La La Land are one of the greats as far as independent films and for a generally accepted love story. First Man is where he tried to branch out, I’d say that it’s underrated in comparison to the prior two entries. This one, oh boy, where do I even begin to describe this one.
It’s kind of hard to talk about the overall plot since the story is very character driven. Meaning that the characters decide by their actions where the whole movie goes and we’re just as seemingly active of what’s at play. We follow three characters: Manny, Nellie and Jack as they navigate the state of Hollywood where the silent generation is slowly being phased out as the “talkies” take over filmmaking. One would think that it would be a very impactful to have one or two characters navigate the era as they go through the twists and turns that either change them for good or worse. I’ll get to that in a bit.
I’ll at least highlight the level of depravity that is on display. I feel that in most of his movies, the opening minutes practically set up what kind of film we’ll be watching. From a conductor being brutally demanding, a basic traffic turns into a musical number, to an elephant defecating on its handler on the way to a party. That one moment practically gets us prepared that this is going to either be a raunchy good time or a piece of crap. And it’s not just by design where the level of explicit moments is risqué for the sake of it. Far from it, the film presents it to show just how shotty making a film in Hollywood was during the 1920s.
With the three characters that we see, they’re witnesses to it and one of them is the personification of it when she’s trying to make it into show business. In one part, I think as a historical film it’s important to show just how bad it was in the context that most of the people weren’t aware of how seemingly dangerous and annoying shooting a film was at the time. Another is that it sort of takes away from something where you’re trying to process a moment emotionally but then take you to another moment where it’s extremely contrasting. One moment is where we follow Brad Pitt’s character as he’s shooting a film.
One scene takes place in a ranch area where there’s multiple films being shot simultaneously. Pitt is shooting an epic where there’s problems. After a moment where the extras are charging at one another, an extra is impaled and dies. Like, I feel that when something like that happens its glossed over and there’s never a moment to process it, but just treat it as a “well that happened”. To me, it sort of makes the graphic scenes tacked on like, it’s supposed to be shocking but I’m not feeling or caring about what’s happening. I might as well talk about the problem since I’m knee deep into it.
While I’ll talk about the characters in a bit, I feel that the movie is very bloated. Clocking in at 3 hours, the runtime is not justified in the least bit. And I can understand having multiple stories overlap and then having it weave together in the end. With this one, it’s just whiplash having to juggle three main characters where there’s nothing interesting about them where the run time is earned. It reminds me in some ways like Martin Scorsese’s Casino, where you have two characters reminisce about a “golden” time in Las Vegas and how it all went wrong. What separates that one is that we have characters that are interesting and that they’re own personal pride directly causes the fall of an institution.
2. Character Multiplication Effect
I don’t know if it was by design where Chazelle thought to multiply the main characters in his films. With his debut it was just one guy, La La Land with two since they’re the ones we follow. It contracts with just Ryan Gosling in First Man. Then we have three with Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie and newcomer Diego Calva as they navigate the changing landscape of Hollywood. When you have a movie like this in terms of the massive cast and range location-wise, it’s usually referred to as an epic. One of the greats that have been epics are mostly classics such as Lawrence of Arabia and The Ten Commandments to name a few.
What makes them work is that it’s centralized with one guy or a couple as the story is very big in terms of scope. With this one is just too much as far as juggling with three casts as they go through the motions of the story. One would think that Diego Calva’s Manny would be the main character since he’s an outsider that wants to work in Hollywood. Him meeting with Pitt’s James and Robbie’s Nellie would’ve worked as he’s shown the highs and lows of Hollywood and have him be a part of the system. Then have a point where the excess consumes him where he chooses to leave on his terms.
None of that happens since Manny feels very passive and that stuff just happens where he gets a position in one of the studios. In some way, Pitt and Robbie practically steal the movie away from them since their story gets interesting as we see two sides of acting. The up-and-coming actor and the one where time has already passed one by. I can imagine that Chazelle was drafting the story and felt that it had to be bigger than James and Nellie, having an audience representation that sees it all and have it be us where it’s shocking. What makes it worse is that the characters have no depth and they’re just tokens.
I might as well talk about the other characters aside from Manny. With Robbie's Nellie, she's a very eccentric actress who's the party girl. Everything about her screams manic since she's very active where she's a huge drug user and is independent. To the point where when the studio tries to tamp it down, she mocks the other Hollywood elite. Pitt's James Conrad is a respectable actor who had his time. It's shown that he takes Manny under his wing, but soon he becomes dejected as the projects aren't good enough for him. One can make the argument that juggling the characters works, but it feels contrasting since we don't have the time to understand when things get quiet.
And I feel that it’s worse when there’s nothing about them that’s interesting as far as what they are in the context of the story. Yes, we know that one’s an actor and another is attempting to be one, albeit her background is questionable and it’s enough to get her employed. We never have a moment to at least reflect on their journey. Just one with Pitt’s character where he states some empty platitudes on movie making, to the point where it’s just words being stated. More so that he could’ve been the only guy to follow and the others are just side characters.
3. Damien Chazelle
First Man is the first one where I wrote about the guy in the context of the film. Having watched three more, I feel that I can talk about him a bit better. It’s quite clear that he is talented as a filmmaker. His movies are quick and the editing is constant since most of his characters are constantly on the move. One of his main motifs is that he has an appreciation for jazz, and it’s imbued in a good chunk of his movies. You have one the characters play it and is very passionate about the music genre.
If there’s another thing that I noticed is that the main motifs in his films is that the characters go through a creative struggle. With Andrew, he wants to be the best drummer but deals with a demanding conductor. Mia and Sebastian are struggling actress and jazz player who want to make an impact on their mediums. With this one, it’s jumbled where the characters are in the position whereas another is slowly fading away and can’t deal with it. I feel that the motif would’ve worked had it just been one. I know I’m a broken record but the film could’ve worked had it just been centralized and all the time could’ve been on one singular or duo characters.
It’s clear that Chazelle has a taste for films. There’s a moment in mostly his movies where the main characters go to the theaters and watch a movie on the big screen. Interesting that Chazelle researched on the history of Hollywood to prepare for the shoot on this one. Somehow he made it too conflicting where the grotesqueness and the prestige clash where it’s too much. Nothing is earned or learned as there’s not enough depth or caring with what’s going on. I think the worst thing that is egregious is the final montage.
With how his movies end is either a tragic ending or a what if scenario being played out. Since we got a movie that shows how bad Hollywood was, we get a montage of the celebration of the medium after the fact. Watching it for the first time three years ago was like a slap in the face. Just a tribute of the medium that didn’t need to be there and is a dictionary example of visual self-gratification. In the context of the movie, Manny goes to the theater to see a film and is emotionally moved that it reminded him of what he went through. Like, it didn’t need to be there to end the movie since him being teary eyed could’ve been enough to cut to the credits.
If there’s anything left to be said about the guy is that it’s unfortunate that he’s in director’s jail right now. It’s understandable that he had to hits under his belt and it felt that he couldn’t do anything wrong. Only for a studio to give him the money and let him go hog wild with what he wanted to direct. With what’s presented, it’s a mess that tries to pay tribute of a by gone era but is just a dumpster fire of a by gone era with uninteresting characters. Nothing is earned and the payoff is just an ending that tries to pay tribute to a medium after seemingly scorching the past process of making movies.
4. Overall
Babylon is one of the most disappointing movies I’ve seen of this decade.











.jpg)



















.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)



.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)











