.

Oh dear, this film is not good.

This is perhaps not a total surprise, I love La La Land but my feelings about director Damien Chazelle’s other work were already varied. First Man was a fascinating portrait of Neil Armstrong but it made the moon landings look less exciting than the mathematics in Hidden Figures. Also, Whiplash was totally gripping but the cheesy jazz montages at the end nearly killed the incredible final scene. Moreover J.K Simmons celebrated portrayal as the bullying teacher in that film was sorely misjudged, as if it seemed to be saying that bad treatment of others by those in power was fine if it pushed people to create great art. These have all been misdemeanours in otherwise quality movies though, Babylon is different, Babylon has very little to recommend it.

This last criticism of Whiplash is relevant here as well because Babylon appears to be putting forward a similar message writ large. The film shows Hollywood of the 1920’s to be a place of debauchery and destructive self obsession but by the end the director is apparently telling us that this was okay because everything we love about modern movies was built on it. This is ultimately done in a pretty ham fisted way (and I thought the montage at the end of Chazelle’s breakout film was bad) but worse than that it seems to be justifying, even celebrating, industry corruption and abuse. What is presented here, historically accurate or otherwise, is undoubtedly an environment in which vulnerable people would have been bullied and abused and it is being legitimised at a time when film makers have recently been exposed for the most deplorable treatment of actors, especially women. This is not okay, Damian. It’s not okay at all. That culture was inexcusable and so is your film for suggesting it might not be.

Even if you don’t read it this way, the film is undoubtedly making light of the excesses. The story opens with the most extreme party scene full of drugs and sex, going way beyond anything you’ve see in a mainstream movie before, and this wraps up with a young actress almost, if not actually, dying. This apparently is all presented as japes. There is a line shortly after where someone says ‘never have I seen such a maelstrom of bad taste and sheer magic’ and you know this is what Chazelle is going for but unfortunately he doesn’t deliver on the magic.

This then sets an unbalanced tone for everything that follows and in this context none of the comedy lands. For instance, shortly after the party scenes we see an extra die on a movie set which does not come over as dark humour as is clearly intended, rather it is just another example of fledgling Hollywood destroying lives. It’s not funny because it’s true.

There is seriousness in the film too but that is handled even worse. We are given cliche after cliche and then at one point Chazelle tries to make a very serious point about race but hasn’t earned the right or the capacity to do so because the character it centres around has not been given the required screen time for it to have the power it needs. What we are left with in its place is just discomfort and distaste.

Also in terms of the cliche, much of the plot revolves around Hollywood’s transition from silent movies to talkies, again. We’ve had this recently in The Artist and Downton Abbey. Singin’ in the Rain should have closed the book on this in 1952 but apparently not. As it is, the famous Gene Kelly film is heavily referenced here, so much so that you think they can’t possibly be going there – until they do. Seriously though, did nothing else happen in this era to shake cinema up? What about movie production moving away from making shorts and two reelers to feature length films, isn’t there drama in that? The switch from black and white to colour happened a decade later, I’m sure there’s an interesting narrative around that too. No though, all of the noise is still around the introduction of sound.

At worst then Babylon is irresponsible and at best it is an unoriginal mess. This being the case, at over three hours it is hard to stay patient with it. Brad Pitt and Margo Robbie both give it their all but the storytelling around them undermines their performances with neither of their arcs ending with anything like the required pathos. There is also an extended sequence with Tobey Maquire as the least convincing gangster since Helen Mirren in Fast 8 that is both stupid and totally unnecessary and just to round things out we get a really laboured coda.

Part of me would like to applaud Damien Chazelle for his ambition but where he is pushing himself here, it is only in bad directions and actually by the end you are in no doubt that you are watching a Chazelle movie; the lighting and the music are so reminiscent of La La Land that it must be deliberate. Also it seems that the only character to find actually happiness does so through jazz so there’s no departure there. Still I guess if he is aiming to include every trope then that would extend to his own.

This was clearly intended to be the director’s award garnering magnum opus but discussions around its failure to gather acclaim or financial reward need not be long. There a scene where an elephant craps right in a man’s face at the very beginning of this film and it turns out that this is a perfect metaphor for this whole thing. Babylon is a huge cumbersome beast that dumps plenty of stuff on its audience but none of it is anything they would want because it kind of stinks.

.

The Ripley Factor:

For all its sins, flagrant sexism is not one of them. However, most of the women in the film are seductresses, nagging wives or temperamental ingenues and Margot Robbie has definitely not been this objectified since The Wolf of Wall Street. There is also way more female nudity than there is any need for and while it is not generally in close up, it is used as spectacle more than for any particular narrative purpose.

It is significant that none of the famous name female cast are exposed in this way (Robbie clearly has a boob double at one point), despite a few of them having done nudity in the past. In this context you can’t help but worry that there is something here with those who have bargaining power being able to stipulate this and those without not. This may well not be the case but this film puts me in mind of a working environment where it might be so let’s not assume. Don’t come at me Damien, you put the idea in my mind.

Thank heavens that in amongst all of this we have Olivia Hamilton as Ruth Adler, a strong female character inspired by real life women like Alice Guy, Lois Weber and Dorothy Arzner who all, despite being largely written out of history, were successful and influential film directors in the silent era. Adler is not a big part though and it’s certainly not enough to outweigh everything else. Considering that Hamilton is married to Chazelle, this one good idea might not even be his. I know, I know, I may not be being fair again but you brought this on yourself Damien, don’t forget that.