Babylon (2022)

Fair warning: some spoilers in this review.

My friend and I went to see Babylon today at a local theater. Before the movie, two of its stars - Margot Robbie and Diego Calvas who plays "Manny" - introduce the movie and assure us - the audience - that we're watching the film "the way it was meant to be seen - on the big screen and then they say "we hope you enjoy Babylon".

I hoped so too since it's a 3 hour long movie. But really was curious about it since it was about old Hollywood and the seedy world behind the scenes, from the same director who made La La Land. I didn't love that movie because it ended on such a depressing note. It made me never want to watch it again, even though I liked some of the dancing scenes and set pieces. That was 6 years ago.

After watching Babylon, I never want to watch the movie again, except for maybe a few scenes that I really liked. For example, I really liked the scenes where the outdoor silent movie scenes were filmed. There's a camera pan sequence that shows all of the different movies that were being made on the same outdoor lot - a bar scene, a jungle scene, a battle scene, etc. There was a similar scene in Peter Bogdonovich's Nickelodeon (1976) which also was about silent filmmaking. 

In the first 5 minutes of Babylon, there's a scene in the desert showing how an elephant is being pushed up a hill to be an attraction at a Hollywood party. And then we see it's anus shoot out a gush of wet dung and squirting all over two people pushing the truck uphill. Am I enjoying the movie yet? 

What I thought might be a true ensemble film (like a Robert Altman film) really isn't. It focuses primarily on 3 characters and how they react to the transition from silents to talkies. 

The character of Manny, a Mexican immigrant who becomes a servant to one of the studio heads and later works his way up to an executive, is one of the three major stories told. 

The other prominent stories are of white actors played by Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie. Their characters are very similar to those of Jean Dujardin in The Artist (2011) and Jean Hagen in Singin In the Rain (1952), respectively. In The Artist, the lead character thinks of killing himself, and even points a gun to his head (before his dog saves him). But in Babylon, Brad Pitt actually uses it on himself. Tragic. But not unheard of for actors to do that. George Sanders and George Reeves were two examples. In Babylon, we sort of get a sense of what let the Pitt character to pull the trigger.

There were two other very interesting characters that were in the movie that I wished had gotten more to do in the film. In fact, both of their stories would make for a great feature film, I think.

The first is a Black trumpet player who first starts out as a musician on the studio set and playing at lavish parties. He then works his way up to be an early film star like Dizzy Gillespe or Cab Calloway (their names are not mentioned, but the movie heavily implies this could be part of their story). The other is a singer / supporting film player and studio staff member that is a characterization of Anna May Wong. A different name is used but we get the idea that this is partly her story, too. 

Great idea here - how about a long overdue biopic of Anna May Wong for a change? I think we're ready for her story in 2023!  And lets see more films about the early Black films of the early 1930s. Let's see a movie about The Nicholas Brothers, for example. 

There's even a female director on the silent movie set, which I suspect is a tribute to Alice Guy-Blaché, who did make silent films. At one point in Babylon, the director character even utters Alice's trademark line "Be Natural", which is the same name of the great documentary on Alice's life. But no biopic of hers has ever been made either. 

In the final analysis, my friend and I both felt that the character types played by Robbie and Pitt have been told many times in other movies. 

This film focuses on the tragic stories behind the transition from silents to talkies, but it's so long, and the gross-out humor is over the top. At the same time it is self-indulgent tribute to old Hollywood. Unfortunately, what's left out are the other stories of actors who succeeded the transition like Lilian Gish who lived to be almost 100 and had great acclaim in the "talkie" era and beyond. 

Sigh. I really wanted to completely enjoy this movie, and even love it. But in my opinion, it's unfocused, it's way overly sentimental at the end, and it's missing so much. Another blogger, Self Styled Siren, also did not like it. 

This new blog post from Bobby Rivers talks about Babylon and I agree with his assessment of the film, too. (I tend to agree with Bobby most of the time in his movie assessments)

Another perspective by Surrender to the Void.

Another vlogger that I usually agree with is Deep Focus Lens, who loves musicals more than I do. In their video review of Bablylon they use the phrase "thematically muddled", and also they emphasize how the characters "don't exist in the times they live in", and compare it to Boogie Nights and Casino where some parts they don't  like (and are "awkwardly inserted") and some they do. Check out the revie below:

""

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) Spoiler warning

Of the films I've seen by Quentin Tarantino, the one that I like most is Jackie Brown (1997); it was fictional but didn't present a revised history of true events like some of his later films did.

So I'm among those who have a problem with the ending of his new movie.

For the most part I like every other thing about it: the story, the setting, the two main characters are interesting (the fading western star and his stunt double) and their lives and careers at the end of 1960s Hollywood. I like how Pitt and DiCaprio are shown in unglamourous moments, and pondering the future of their careers apart from the television shows they were so used to.  In perhaps one of my favorite scenes, DiCaprio takes a lunch break (while filming a western tv show) to read a book, and meets another actor - a young child star who is also reading, and they stop to form an interesting bond before their scene together.

I liked the recreation of 1969 era Hollywood, and enjoyed all of the music and film references as well. My friend who is older knew pretty much every actual actor and film mentioned.

There is an actor who portrays Steve McQueen, and he looks just like him; it was at the moment where I really felt transported into this world and captivated.

So I didn't have a problem with how the fictional characters brush with real-life characters.

But the ending of the film bothered me because it isn't true to history of who was killed and who wasn't killed in real life. Spoiler - Sharon Tate doesn't die; she lives on. It's basically Tarantino's fantasy alternate universe now, as if he jumped into a time machine like in Back to the Future and altered events.

As a viewer I felt like I'm being asked to buy into this imaginative world in which the real-life victims were never murdered, and the actual killers are the ones who get killed. I'm supposed to be entertained by that?

There's something to that ending that I think Tarantino is trying to say but I'm not sure I fully understand. Maybe I'm not meant to understand. Maybe the ending is a dream that Dicaprio is having? That might make more sense interpreted that way.

A new post from A Shroud of Thoughts is a lovely tribute to Sharon Tate, reminding us she was a real person. I knew who she was going into to see the movie, and knew what happened to her. But no doubt, others may watch this film and have no idea. This recent post talks about who's real and who's fake in the film.

The real Sharon Tate may have lived in a "fictional"/ "dreamland" of Hollywood, but she was still a real person, and her life deserves respect. Or maybe a biographical film of her own one day.

Meanwhile, I won't write off Tarantino entirely yet. I will check out some of his additional interviews to better understand what he's trying to say with his film.

The fact that he made a film that has got me thinking after it's over may mean that it's a great film after all.

Here are some of the blogs I recently read for some other perspectives.
- The Collider   Matt has some problems with the ending which I agree with.
- Cinematic Corner - Sati has the same problems that I have with the movie and also talked about audience reaction in her theater.
- Live for Films  Adam echoes some other critics who call it "a love letter to Hollywood… to film making… and to film lovers"; in Amanda's review, she criticized the many female characters whose sole purpose is to react to the men around them.
- From the Front Row  - "Going into a Quentin Tarantino movie, one usually has a certain set of expectations: there will be copious amounts of violence, creative (and constant) use of curse words, extensive references to older films, and lately, a new spin on familiar history."

Bobby Rivers, a teenager in 1969, has a few questions for Tarantino (me, too - the same).
Brian Camp, in his recent post, also was around in '69 and remembers some of the other films of that era.

Keith and the Movies posted about some criticisms of the film:

The author of this Variety article called this "the first dramatic feature about the Manson murders that has a happy ending. Good for him, I guess. And good for us. At least, if you believe that movies should be fairy tales." "Quentin makes the trashing of history look hip....that Sharon Tate “lives” is supposed to send us out on a feel-good cloud (when, in fact, it’s arguably a trivialization of her memory)" - I agree with that.

Blog post by Lazarus' Lair

---

Videos

In this interview (below) from the Cannes Film Festival, Tarantino compares his film to the work of director Claude Lelouch.

Tarantino and the main cast talk to Entertainment Weekly (below)



Below: Cinemablend talks to Quentin Tarantino for about 20 minutes here (Cinemablend is biased and loves Tarantino). In the interview, Tarantino knows his history, and all, but doesn't really talk about the ending.

Cafe Society (2016) and A Star is Born (1937)

I saw Cafe Society in January of 2017. It's Woody Allen's latest film, set in Hollywood in the 1930s. I really liked it. It slowly turns into a love triangle story involving Steve Carell's agent character and two young people (Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart) at the start of their careers. The movie then ends on a bittersweet note, kind of reminding me of the ending of La La Land (2016) because I felt the characters were asking themselves "I wonder what might have been?"

Besides the period costumes and sets, one of my favorite things about the movie is that every now and then a character will name-drop a real-life actor or filmmaker from that era ("in Gable's last picture..." or "Did Selznick produce that one?..."). It becomes something of a running gag that I really got a kick out of.

It's really interesting to see actors like Kristen Stewart and Blake Lively appear in a Woody Allen film. They're not bad actors, it's just that some of their previous work has been geared to a younger audience.  Jesse Eisenberg was in To Rome with Love.

Another Hollywood-themed movie I saw was the original 1937 version of A Star is Born, with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March.  It's also set in the same time period, the 1930s. A starstruck Janet moves from her farm town to Hollywood to become an actor, and finds love and support from March. They eventually get married and are one of the most famous couples in Hollywood (but of course she is more famous -- a star on the rise, and he's on the way down). The strangest part of the film was the trailer-in-the-woods honeymoon sequence, which seemed a bit out of place and questionable destination for a honeymoon for two big name stars.

I liked the scene where a drunken March makes a speech in front of the crowd; he does something similar in front of a crowd in The Best Years of Our Lives during a dinner scene.

If you've seen any of the A Star is Born movies then you know what happens at the end, but I won't spoil it if you don't know what happens....just that it ends on a sad note.

I think these two movies - Cafe Society and 1937's A Star is Born - would make for an interesting double feature centering around 1930s Hollywood.

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

The movie poster's tagline reads: "A Hollywood Story". It certainly is one of the most famous and best movies ever made about Hollywood life, even though fictional, and brilliantly co-written by Billy Wilder, who also directed. Much like "Streetcar Named Desire", it's a film that is just as much about the emotionally-needed and mentally-troubled leading lady (Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond) as it is about the man in her life who feels trapped and caught in the middle of something he never asked for (William Holden). Holden is an unemployed Hollywood screenwriter who accidentally enters the life of has-been silent film actress Norma Desmond, who lives in her own world and pays Holden to write her comeback film. Co-star Nancy Olsen has never been better as Holden's love interest, completely unaware that Holden has moved into Desmond's home and treated like a king while being smothered by the reclusive's love hungry tendencies. A morality play, about jealousy, neediness, fame, wealth. Billy Wilder was able to recruit some well known silent stars to appear in cameos: HB Warner ("Lost Horizon") and Buster Keaton, as well as director Cecil B. DeMille, who plays an important role in the story. Arguably, DeMille is probably most remembered for his role in this film than any of his other movies outside of "The Ten Commandments". Gloria Swanson herself was a silent film star, and this also her most famous role. Holden and Wilder worked together again in one of my favorites: "Stalag 17" two years later.

Son of Saul (2015) and Hail Ceasar! (2016)

Son of Saul is a  Holocaust story, set in the Auschwicz concentration camp in Poland. It's sad, but a very well made film, directed by directed by László Nemes.

Saul is a Jewish prisoner forced to worked in a crematorium.
As he attempts to give a dead child a proper burial, he finds out that the child may or may not be his son.

As he continues to uncover the truth, he learns that either situation is likely.

The man risks his life devoting himself to the cause of a proper burial, especially during an uprising of the camp that causes many in the camp to doubt his loyalties.

The director's style is impressive; the entire film is told from Saul's perspective, with the camera focused on him the entire time, even when there's horrible violence taking place in the background of the frame.

Read a blog post by Cliched Monologues on this film here.

Read a blog post by Avvaganda.com here

Read a blog post by Korova Theater here

Another film I saw this past week was Hail Ceasar! directed by the Cohen brothers. The trailer showed some snippets of what looked like homages to old Technicolor movies of the '40s and '50s, which really intrigued me. I've seen some of the Cohen Brothers films but not all, so wasn't sure what to expect.

It's an ensemble comedy satire, and focuses on Josh Brolin's character, a Hollywood "fixer" who keeps actors' scandals out of the press. We meet some of the actors he helps, including George Clooney who's playing a Roman soldier in a Biblical epic called "Hail Caesar" (with dialogue very much - almost identical - to Ben Hur); his character is kidnapped by Communists. Yes, it's absurd. There's also a submarine in it. You have to see it to believe it.

The movie also spoofs musicals, westerns, and melodramas, as well as gossip columnists, communists, and censorship boards. There's a musical number with sailors in the bar; Channing Tatum is supposed to be playing a Gene Kelly-type sailor (like from Anchors Aweigh). I liked that the song used was an original piece, not a copycat number from a real '50s musical; kudos to the songwriters.

I have to say that George Clooney in the Roman solider uniform really looks as if he could play the part in a Roman epic from that time period.

The movie is pretty entertaining. A little crazy, but entertaining.  I enjoyed it.

Here's another review, from a blog about biblical epics.

Bobby Rivers wrote about this movie several times on his blog. Read the posts here:
Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3

A New Movie about Old Hollywood

Have you seen this new sneak preview for The Artist? 

 What do you think?

This movie looks so good. The costumes, actors, sets, and photography all make it look like an authentic black and white film.

I'm excited about this one!

More information about the movie here from Wikipedia

Inside Daisy Clover (1965)

Director Robert Mulligan ("To Kill A Mockingbird"), who passed away in 2008, was one of the great directors of the 1960s. This is another one of his achivements, an adaptation of a novel by Gavin Lambert (former film critic for Sight and Sound and the Guardian, and who often explored Hollywood themes in his novels). This story, set in 1936, makes a powerful statement about the facade of stardom and imagery; the "Inside" of the title refers the inner soul of teenage Daisy Clover, miserable and unhappy before famous, and even worse off as a major celebrity.



The Passionate Moviegover in a recent post compared this film to two other movies: A Star is Born and The Legend of Lylah Clare.
(Read the review here)

Another film that this reminded me of is the brilliant cautionary tale, A Face in the Crowd, and the Lonesome Rhodes character. Though they are both manufactured celebrities, Daisy doesn't crave the power and limelight like Lonesome; rather, she desperately wants to get out, even sticking her head in an oven in one scene.

This film that gets darker and more depressing as it progresses (Warning: There may be some spoilers in the rest of this review)



One of the songs that Daisy sings in the film, "The Circus Is A Wacky World", seems to sum up the movie and it's message pretty good.

I was surprised that the film was even released by Warner Brothers, since it's seems to be very anti-studio. It wasn't a major hit upon initial release, despite the fact that this was one of the first films to feature dapper Robert Redford, who plays movie star hearthrob Wade Lewis.



Also excellent are Ruth Gordon as Daisy's mother figure, and Christopher Plummer, who is good as Mephisto-esque studio head Raymond Swan of Swan Studios, a character completely the opposite of Captain Von Trapp from earlier in the year. He had a such a good year that year, I don't know why he wasn't nominated for at least Best Supporting Actor for either film. But no one can argue that last year, 2009, was also one of his best years ever, with roles in Up, 9, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and his Oscar nominated role as Leo Tolstoy in The Last Station.

Resembling "Anybodys" from West Side Story (ironically), Natalie Wood's character of Daisy is a chain smoking, trash talking, school-skipping tomboy, who lives in a trailer with her mother figure guardian on the fictitious Angel Beach Pier (which was filmed on the famous Santa Monica Pier).



Gordon's wisecracking mother reminded me a little of her character in Where's Poppa? In one scene, the superstitious woman pulls an Ace from her deck of cards and immediately flees to the nearest Card Reader to find out if she will die. Where the rest of her family is - and where they get their money - remains sort of a mystery to us for awhile.



I loved the scenery in these opening scenes. Reminded me of Santa Monica Pier and Venice beach boardwalk, where I have been and enjoyed.





In Daisy's spare time, she goes to the nearest record-your-own-voice machine and burns records (I almost said "burns CDs") of her singing tunes.

She mails the records to Hollywood studios, including the fictitious Swan Studios, hoping to get noticed.




Daisy plays the records she recorded in in the 25-cent record booth.


As an autograph collector myself, I got a kick out of this scene, where we see Daisy in a boardwalk booth selling black-and-white 8 x 10s, as well as conning people into believing she can get them autographed by the actual stars.

This karma-like scene is an interesting one: she's selling something phony to people, which is what Swan does with her image later on.


A woman asks if her "Myrna Loy" autograph came in. Daisy quickly runs to the back and fakes the signature, like she does for all of them.


Here, she gives the "autographed photo" of Myrna Loy to the gullible customer. (Caution: if you ever stumble upon any autographed photos of celebrities in a flea market, make sure you check it out with an autograph expert or compare the signature to a real one.)

One of her voice recordings lands in the hands of Swan Studios, and, amazingly, she is called for an interview with studio boss Swan (Plummer), who wants to make her into the next big thing in pictures. Daisy in intrigued, and is encouraged by her long-lost sister. As part of the deal, Swan forces her to lie about her homelife and family, and has her mother committed to an institution. A outrageous promotional newsreel is produced (which I thought was a brilliant comical moment--if this were a comedy film, that is). The newsreel is complete distortion of her life and upbringing in an attempt to sell her to the public. It shows her faux "family heritage" and introduces us to a number of her ancestors who were famous singers. The newsreel ends with a movie premiere of one of her films, and we see real clips of Clark Gable and even Mickey Rooney "showing up" for her film.

Her only friend is fellow movie star Wade Lewis (Redford). The film never specifies Wade's age, but he was clearly an adult movie star to me (Note: I believe the original character from the book was also a teen star the same age as Daisy) I found this Wade Lewis character to be sleazy; he's always trying to get teenage Daisy drunk. (Later we discover Wade likes boys too.) And I thought Wood, almost 30, was too old to play a 15 year old. But I was able to suspend my disbelief for most of the film. She didn't really look like a teen, but then again, Deanna Durbin looked much older than her years.



She marries Wade Lewis (and is abandoned by him, naturally), and is emotionally tormented for the remainder of the film. Her fame increases, and Swan becomes more sinister and controlling.



Former child star Roddy McDowall has a small part as Swan's emotionless assistant. (Sadly, we don't see enough of him; his screentime in this two-hour movie is roughly 1 minute and 30 seconds.)

Though the casting of former child-stars McDowall and Wood seem like a good idea for this subject matter, the biggest criticism I have of this film is that I didn't feel like I really knew the character of Daisy to sympathize with her. (I agree with Scott Marks' review - read here.) I really, really wanted to sympathize with her, but I was not convinced that she truly loved singing. Early on, she didn't seem desperate to make it into show business - just desperate to get out, anywhere. She spent most of her pre-fame days selling movie star photos, but seemed so bored. And we don't really get a feel for what she thought Hollywood would be like.

So I didn't feel we got deep enough "inside" Daisy Clover.

In this film, the character of Daisy is on that same superstar level as my favorite teen movie stars of the golden age, who are all still living: Deanna Durbin, Shirley Temple, Jackie Cooper, and Mickey Rooney. I thought about their subsequent careers and struggles. And wondered how much of Daisy's story they experienced.

Once the film ended, I felt sorry for Daisy. I felt it was just a matter of time before this character tries to kill herself.

Another review of this movie from the blog Just a Cineast here

Another review from Angelman's Place here

Another review from The Magnificent 60s here

Silent Movie (1976)

This is my favorite Mel Brooks which I recently re-watched. It takes place in contemporary (mid-70s then, of course) Los Angeles/Hollywood. However the main gimmick of the film is that it's "silent" without any  dialogue. Retro "title cards" are used throughout.

Watch the trailer:


The simple plot: has-been director Mel Funn (Brooks) trying to make a comeback with a new idea for a film: modern-day SILENT MOVIE. He pitches it to a studio boss (Sid Caesar) who is a little skeptical until Funn gets major Hollywood stars to sign up (leading to hilarious results). Among them: Burt Reynolds, Anne Bancroft, Liza Minelli, and James Caan. He even tries to get legendary French mime Marcel Marceau to sign up; in one humorous scene, he calls him in Paris to ask if he'd like to be a part. Marcel responds, "No!" in the only spoken word of dialogue in the film.



Everyone hopes the film will be a hit except for a rival studio who wants the film to fail. The rival studio even sends out a sexpot nightclub dancer/singer (Bernadette Peters) to distract Mel Funn and his bumbling associates (Dom DeLuise and Marty Feldman). The hilarious film is filled with sight gags that will remind you of the classic slapstick comedy you enjoyed in silent movies of an earlier era.

Even making an appearance is Paul Newman, playing (and mocking) himself. When we first see him in the film, he is in a hospital recovering from a broken leg after one of his famous car races, and we see him in a motorized wheelchair. Mel & Co. sneakily track him down, and this leads to a hilarious wheelchair chase, complete with a little Ben-Hur homage. I could also mention several more scenes, but I don't want to spoil it all. See the movie! I highly recommend it.



POSTSCRIPT:

Mel Brooks was chosen to be one of the 2009 Kennedy Center honorees. The ceremony is an annual gala where 5 American showbusiness legends are awarded lifetime achievement medals from the Kennedy Center, a performing arts center in Washington DC. The President attends, and it's always a grand affair. A well-deserved honor for the Oscar-winning filmmaker. No less than three of his films are usually regarded among the funniest of all time : The Producers, Young Frankenstein, and Blazing Saddles.

Watch a clip from the Kennedy Center tribute:

The Muppet Movie (1979) and Muppets from Space (1999)

I love how this movie attempts to tells the story of how the Muppet characters first "met".  We first meet Kermit the Frog who leaves his swamp and heads to Hollywood on a road trip, uniting him with the other puppets from the show along the way. And also along the way we see a number of celebrity cameos: Orson Welles, Mel Brooks, Milton Berle, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, and more. Also making an appearance (final film role) is Edgar Bergen, who was a pioneering puppeteer/ventriloquist famous for performing the "Charlie McCarthy" dummy in vaudeville, radio, film, and television, as well as an inspiration for Henson and his puppeteers. Most modern audiences will probably only know him from this film, but he was pretty popular decades earlier.

There's a subplot involving greedy restaurant entrepreneur Charles Durning who wants to exploit Kermit's talent for his frog-leg restaurant chain. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times gave the film three and half stars and called it "magical". I really enjoyed watching this again on its twentieth anniversary year in September of 1999, the same year that Muppets from Space came out in theaters, which I went to see. It was OK, but lacked the excitement of the original.