Tuesday, March 26, 2024

3 Short Paragraphs (Definitely Not): Babylon

2022, Damien Chazelle (La La Land) -- Netflix

I am only done the first "act" of this movie, but I already feel a need to write about it. I knew very little about the movie but that Margot Robbie was hot in the trailer (that's her whole schtick so far) and that it kind of got panned as a train wreck. In watching the break-neck pace of this movie about the opening days of Hollywood, during the silent era, I kind of think the train-wreck metaphor is apt and entirely intentional.

But holey fuck, a LOT is going on in this movie in just under an hour, like three or four other movies worth. And I have... two more to go?

Chazelle made the brilliant movies Whiplash and La La Land. They are unbelievably precise movies, no better word than evocative -- meant to evoke emotions. This is the same, from the first five minutes when we see an elephant defecate all over a man. Repulsion is a pretty strong emotion, almost as Chazelle was saying, "Hey you guys in the audience, this is going to be a wild ride, you might not be up for it."

Wait, did Kent not write about "La La Land" ? Please tell me he at least saw it. 

OK, two more hours later and... wow. Just wow.

If you could say the first "act" of the movie is being embedded with the silent movie era of Hollywood, and the characters' immersion in a completely decadent, self-indulgent, amoral time of movie making (does it ever become not that?) then Act 2 is their transition into "talkies".

The characters? 

Nelly LaRoy (Margot Robbie, Barbie) comes from New Jersey with one intent -- become a big movie star. Its not like she has a plan but she cons her way into the mansion party in the movie's opening sequence, with the goals of enjoying the uber-decadence of a producer's party, and to be noticed. She is noticed. Manny (Diego Calva,  Los hermosos vencidos) starts as a gopher at the party, having procured the previously mentioned shitting elephant, and instantly becomes enamoured with Nelly. They share a love of movies and he just wants to become a part of something bigger. He does. Jack Conrad (Brad Pitt, Babel) is the biggest name at MGM, knows everyone, knows the business and has revolving door marriages. Little does he know what is about to change.

They are the Big Three. But we also have a vast cast of lesser main characters, and an even more vast supporting cast. Sidney Palmer (Jovan Adepo, Watchmen), a trumpet player at the opening party, and eventually a star of his own films. Elinor St John (Jean Smart, Legion), the gossip columnist who knows Hollywood at its core. Lady Fay Zhu (Li Jun Li, Quantico) who makes the title cards for the silent films, but is also famous for being sexy and gay. 

These are the characters whose lives we follow, whom we are supposed to care about. Caring may be a bit more of a misnomer though. But we follow them through the opening silent era, as careers are made, but change awaits on the next dawn. The transition into talkies is tumultuous for some, grander for others, but the coming of morality in Hollywood is devastating to them all.

This is a movie about sequences. 

The opening sequence, the party in the mansion, is designed to be a shock on the senses, to elicit a reaction of the viewer. I experienced revulsion and fascination and the allure of excess. There is music & dancing, and drugs & sex, and wealth galore. Its all on display here, nothing is shameful, all is accepted. SO MUCH is happening on the screen and the camera races from element to element to element, as if coked up itself.

Bowls of coke and a man getting peed on.

The next morning is the movie set that Nelly has worked her magic to get onto. Manny is there as well, because he proved himself the night before, and not just with the elephant. Jack has woken up quite soon after passing out, as he has a starring role, as well as a dozen other tasks that he handles, just in order to keep the filming going. There are a half dozen movies all shot in this open field, some small single sets and one, a Roman / period battle with hundreds of extras. The actors, the extras, the directors and the supporting staff are all rushing about at break-neck speed trying to get it all done without too many people getting killed. Key words: "too many".

Extra speared on the end of a pole, injured horses, injured extras, all like the battlefield they are recreating. A set on fire which people ignore. The director (Spike Jonze!) demanding another camera as all his others have been smashed.

These sequences establish the movie, establish what Chazelle wants us to experience along with the characters: a love and fascination of the movie making industry. Its unbelievably successful and entertaining and full of wow factor.

Its not surprising the movie cannot maintain this pace. There are just not enough sequences that can be this big, this brash, this so full of happenings and characters and life, without causing the viewer's mind to stumble and lose focus. And thus the movie moves through the rest of the stories via mostly smaller sequences.

As mentioned above the story is basically the transition from Silent Films, to Talkies and then through further tumultuous years in Hollywood. Nelly LaRoy becomes the biggest name, but falters when her decadent, low-brow mannerisms become more of a detriment to her career than even she can/will navigate. Manny rises quickly in the ranks of "studio executive" as he puts his fixer skills to the ultimate tests, but eventually, has to run away from Hollywood when he runs afoul of the literal criminal underground. Jack cannot navigate the transition into talkies as successfully and eventually cannot handle his fall from heaven. He's too big to be anything but the biggest star on the MGM lot. He doesn't take it well.

The rest come and go, but mostly go. Hollywood is not gracious to them. 

This is a movie that must have had rooms of movie critics and podcasters arguing with each at top volumes. That was great, that was shit, there should have been more of X, why did I have to see any of Y ? This character was incredible, why couldn't I see more of that character? Its Chazelle's woeful tale of what I can only feel is his own opinion of Hollywood: he loves movies but hates the industry. He knows his films up to now have been the dear of the industry, but a downfall is only to be expected. And maybe he wanted to engineer his own fall, like Nelly had her hand on the rudder of her own sinking ship? 

In the end I loved this movie, in that it reminded me of being That Guy, the guy who loves movies, and loves the mechanism by which movies are made. But also loathes the whole thing, especially the Purple Suits who just ruin it all for everyone, both the viewers and the movie creators.

A final note, as the movie comes to a close, an older, wiser Manny is watching Singin' in the Rain and sees so much of his past wrapped up there on the big screen. He was part of something bigger than himself, and there is the evidence. Part of me wonders whether Chazelle watched the movie, which in 1952 was fondly recalling the transition from silent to talkie, and postulated, "I wonder what it was really like, going through all that, what HER story was, what HIS story was...." And then he told us.

1 comment:

  1. I went back to your La La Land post today and commented there ;)
    Saw some of it, wasn't interested.

    Babylon sounds like A LOT. and if we had a podcast I'm sure we would probably be on opposing ends of the "that was great/that was shit" argument. I am assuming. Because I've not watched it.
    And probably won't.

    I was morbidly intrigued at the start of your review, and utterly repulsed by the thought of watching it before you were done.

    I am not enamoured with old Hollywood. Next to Italian Mafia, it's probably my least favourite subject in cinema. The only film that delves into that machine and comes out rather rosy, for me, is Hail Cesar! And I can tell this is nothing like Hail Cesar!

    It's probably why La La Land did nothing for me. Romanticizing a Hollywood of yore just has me rolling my eyes. This bloated epic seems like it simultaneously lionizes and demonizes a Hollywood of yore. If I roll my eyes any harder, they're gonna break something inside my head. Just... meh. Even in doing the Fincher cycle, I've still not seen Mank, for that very reason. And The Player can just fuck right off. Films about Hollywood by Hollywood guys just seems so up its own ass. And I admit I could be wrong about these films and their filmmakers. I just don't even care enough to find out.

    I do, however, greatly appreciate it bringing *That Guy* back to us, if temporarily.

    ReplyDelete