Babylon (mixed feelings, help needed)

Submitted by Ealiom t3_10pcwe1 in movies

I'm a little late to the show. I could use a little help navigating the movie.

I really enjoyed Whiplash and La La Land resonated with me. They both spoke to me clear and loud and I adored them and Chazelle for making them. So Babylon, a movie about making movies. I couldnt wait.

Here i need some help though I have a head full of disjointed thoughts on the movie. I'll keep this as brief as I can.

I feel that the movie was very disjointed with its messages and goal. Whiplash and la last land felt very precise in the message they wanted to convey. Babylon in contrast felt scattershot. The love of cinema. I thought that snappy edited sequence of movies near the end was beautiful. The final scene where Manny recconects with his love of cinema was beautiful. However the movie was filled with oddness that never seemed to fit well with the overarching love of cinema.

Toby Maguires creepy gangster man was just weird. Did it add anything to the movie? Its served to send Manny away so that he could return at the end for that scene I mentioned above. But surely there were better, more proactive ways that we could have seen that happen. Manny leaving cos he was threatened by some scary/not scary gamgster is not as powerful as Manny deciding to leave because 'who it made him

Which brings me to the next point. Manny asks Sidney to wear charcoal in the most super awkward scene. And god damn the actor (i forget his name) man that shot of him playing with his face covered was ferocious. That man absolutely fucking crushed that scene. But the issue i have is that Chazelle doesn't use the scene to further (anything) Sidney quits in the next scene and he's not seen again till the end. Manny is not seen learning or changing in anyway due to this scene and hell when the camera pans around a 1950s American cinema we are show all race, age and sex enjoying movies equally in a very ham fisted way. So its not like the scene itself said anything in of itself. I found this really odd. The actor smashes the scene the director doesn't do anything with it.

That for me was a lot of the movie there were so many subtle moments of beauty and cleverly acted moments thrown about a movie that tried to tie them together. I can almost hear someone reply with "thats the point something something movie making" I dont buy it.

I am having a really hard time enjoying or disliking the movie it keep flicking from o e aspect to the other. Which I guess in of itself is a strong indicator of a movie doing something right. But damn does this movie feel unfinished or unedited in some way.

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RitoRvolto t1_j6jouwk wrote

>But damn does this movie feel unfinished or unedited in some way.

I enjoyed the movie but yes that seems like the general consensus. I t's a bit of a mess.

7

WeDriftEternal t1_j6jrsdv wrote

'A bit' is an English style sarcastic take like "its just a flesh wound". Its a disaster.

People soon enough need to just get to the acceptance phase, that this movie was really bad.

−4

RitoRvolto t1_j6k0aom wrote

I'll gladly watch it again tomorrow actually.

1

HEHEHO2022 t1_j6jux1i wrote

i enjoyed it to an extent however i do feel like its a highlight reel of a 6 episode tv show. some characters are really underwritten

2

RiffRafe2 t1_j6jxxrr wrote

I felt Tobey Maguire's entire storyline could have been streamlined or jettisoned completely and I wonder if Chazelle personally felt that too.

But as Maguire was an executive producer on the film (and it likely wasn't just a vanity title as he probably got his fellow Pxssy Posse members Lukas Haas and Supee cast in it) it would be hard to argue that his role should be decimated. That part of the film was my only complaint in what is otherwise, IMO, a masterpiece.

​

/Sidney quits in the next scene and he's not seen again till the end.

/A lot of people walked away from the industry due to slights. I had no problem with that. We saw that he was still doing what he loved. I don't think it was necessary to follow him after he quit.

​

Same with Lady Fay. We don't see her after Manny fires her until the end. It was adequate enough to know that she too was still following her own path.

​

/Manny is not seen learning or changing in anyway due to this scene

​

/Why does he need to learn anything? There are people who go through their entire lives not learning a "lesson".

​

We see how Manny who turned his back on his family to ensconce himself on the periphery of the film industry, soared to the top, and then had to retreat where he finally became a devoted family man.

​

/and hell when the camera pans around a 1950s American cinema we are show all race, age and sex enjoying movies equally in a very ham fisted way. So its not like the scene itself said anything in of itself. I found this really odd. The actor smashes the scene the director doesn't do anything with it./

​

To me it's enough that Manny had enough distance to once again be a spectator to the spectacle of film and to find that beauty and appreciation he had for it which made him want to be in the industry in the first place. There he was surrounded by the audience -a disparate group of people - just as he was surrounded by a disparate group of people in the film industry. Much like then, they were all there at once basking in the joy of cinema.

2

Ealiom OP t1_j6kro39 wrote

"But as Maguire was an executive producer on the film (and it likely wasn't just a vanity title as he probably got his fellow Pxssy Posse members Lukas Haas and Supee cast in it) it would be hard to argue that his role should be decimated. That part of the film was my only complaint in what is otherwise, IMO, a masterpiece."

This has made me dislike this part of the film far more. Hmmm.

"A lot of people walked away from the industry due to slights. I had no problem with that. We saw that he was still doing what he loved. I don't think it was necessary to follow him after he quit."

Copied from a response above, but in regards to Sidney. I take the point of Sidney leaving and thats it and I agree with it. But, maybe its a personal thing. I found that scene alongside other scenes where 'racism isn't a thing' to be a little jarring. It makes me ask why the scene was put in in the first place. Sidney morals could have been challenged other ways. The same thing would have played out.

My main issue isn't that he gets up and leaves its that the scene starts bordering on shock for shocks sake. Thats a personal taste angle. I just think if that is going to be shown in all its ugly power it needs to do more than be for him quitting. Imo.

"Why does he need to learn anything? There are people who go through their entire lives not learning a "lesson".

We see how Manny who turned his back on his family to ensconce himself on the periphery of the film industry, soared to the top, and then had to retreat where he finally became a devoted family man."

You kinda answered your own question here. I like your point about his family it does go full circle and attention was drawn to the fact he did neglect his family while in the industry. I did miss this but I remember the scene. But, Why do they need to learn anything? Cos its one of the many things that make stories work. A characters journey for journeys sake feels flat. I think Manny's journey would have hit waaay harder if he quit Hollywood under his own steam for something he realised. Not because bully maguire was after him. It would have made his return and appreciation 'more' powerful.

"To me it's enough that Manny had enough distance to once again be a spectator to the spectacle of film and to find that beauty and appreciation he had for it which made him want to be in the industry in the first place. There he was surrounded by the audience -a disparate group of people - just as he was surrounded by a disparate group of people in the film industry. Much like then, they were all there at once basking in the joy of cinema."

Yes I like this and your response has helped tons. However I still feel that pan across the audience was extremely ham fisted. No matter who you are and where you came from the power of movies can bring us together in appreciation of the art. Yes. 100% agree. High five Chazelle. Except it felt very forced, obvious. Maybe a personal taste thing again. .... it was almost as if near the end the movie lost subtlety in an attempt at getting an Oscar.

Also. Thanks for the responses. They were appreciated.

3

Kennymo95 t1_j6kekno wrote

>Toby Maguires creepy gangster man was just weird. Did it add anything to the movie?

It seemed like a direct reference to Alfred Molina in Boogie Nights. You can also see the contrast between the party they go to with Tobey and the party from the beginning of the movie. The party at the beginning seemed fun while the party with Tobey was perverse, showing the progression of Hollywood.

​

>Manny asks Sidney to wear charcoal in the most super awkward scene. And god damn the actor (i forget his name) man that shot of him playing with his face covered was ferocious. That man absolutely fucking crushed that scene. But the issue i have is that Chazelle doesn't use the scene to further (anything) Sidney quits in the next scene and he's not seen again till the end.

Think Sidney was used as a contrast to the other characters in show business. The ones who have fewer morals/allow their morals to be compromised usually last the longest, but suffer the harshest endings. Sidney is shown at the end continuing to do the thing he loves while the other characters are either dead or in a completely different industry. I don't think the specific point of the scene was to explore racism within Hollywood. I just think that's the vehicle they used to show Sidney's morals being compromised. I feel like him pretty much disappearing for the rest of the movie was intentional to align with his character no longer being a "star".

2

Ealiom OP t1_j6kn9g0 wrote

In regards to the party I can see that, if the original party wasn't also perverse. People were dying at that party. Sex in public. Excess in all its forms. Its just that Tobeys was more.... grim. Also from his frequent talk about getting into the movies its clear Tobey gangster man and his ugly party had no connection to the movie industry.

I take the point of Sidney leaving and thats it and I agree with it. Maybe its a personal thing. I found that scene alongside other scenes where 'racism isn't a thing' to be a little jarring. It makes me ask why the scene was put in in the first place. Sidney morals could have been challenged other ways. The same thing would have played out.

2

Creepy-Evening-441 t1_j6jqh4u wrote

Saw it twice, I think it’s Manny’s story and you get pieces of the folks around him. It shows the shit work (literally) that Hollywood can be and yet we love being part of the whole thing. It does seem disjointed but so is life/work in motion pictures.

1

tigersanddawgs t1_j6kce9p wrote

The movie was more than a bit of a mess (though i loved it). To me the film had a few simple messages (in addition to the history of hollywood stuff that i'll pass over for this comment)

-how people get sucked in and intoxicated by Hollywood/movie making

-how Hollywood uses, abuses, and largely destroys the people that get sucked in

-movies are freaking awesome, so is all this grossness and evil worth it in the name of the art? (i think Chazelle leaves this one as a question, but think his answer is yes)

I really enjoyed the Toby stuff, but the movie would have been much tighter without it all

1

genuxo t1_j6kld2i wrote

It seems to be a random movie with lots of influences mixed up, classic Hollywood, french and italian cinema, indie and artsy movies, etc.

The Mcguire sequence I see it as a reference to mob and horror movies, besides a homage to Irreversible of course. And the 'creature' they find in the last basement floor of that place is like King Kong, which was coming hot at that time. I also think that sequence wants to talk about how repression can turn men into monsters.

I midly appreciatte it but it would be interesting how would it be if he wrote it more focused and less gross.

1