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:

""

Nickelodeon (1976) Directed by Peter Bogdonovich

In the early years of the twentieth century, the term "nickelodeon" had a few meanings. It could refer to a number of various types of music "jukeboxes" - the kind you might find in a penny arcade (immortalized in the famous Teresa Brewer pop song). There were also cinema nickelodeons, usually converted/renovated storefronts serving as theaters. They featured short silent films and seated usually up to 100 or so people. The price of admission was usually a nickel.

By the way, if you ever get the chance to visit downtown Chicago (where I'm from), you can actually step back into time into a replica nickelodeon cinema (and view a short silent film) at the Museum of Science an Industry's permanent Yesterday's Main Street exhibit. This, along with Colleen Moore's Fairy Castle, are two must-sees for any classic film buff who visits the city.

Nickelodeon cinemas became less and less popular after 1915, the year DW Griffith's full-length feature film The Birth of A Nation was released. This was a dawn of a new era, when long, epic films competed against each other, and when grand movie palaces started to go up.

Writer-Director Peter Bogdonovich was fascinated with this era, and for a long time wanted to make a period film about the making of silents. By 1976 he had established himself as a credible film historian and author, and had interviewed many legends of Hollywood filmmaking, such as Orson Welles and John Ford, just to name a few. He received acclaim for his B/W period films The Last Picture Show and Paper Moon (starring Ryan and Tatum O'Neal), and paid homage to several film genres such as screwball comedy (with What's Up Doc) and Astaire/Rogers type musicals of the 30s (with At Long Last Love, which starred Burt Reynolds).

Was the world ready for a film about the silent era in 1976? No matter what, the dream project was going to happen. Interestingly, a silent movie was a hit that summer: Mel Brooks' madcap spoof Silent Movie sort of paved the way for another silent-themed film. And when it was time to cast the picture, Bogdonovich turned to actors he already worked with, including Reynolds (who also was in the Mel Brooks film, ironically) and Tatum, who had a hit that summer with Bad News Bears. Many were anxious to see her re-teamed with her father on the screen, and Nickelodeon would be that film. But since then, they have yet to appear together on screen again.



Nickelodeon, co-written and directed by Bogdonovich, was released during the Christmas season in 1976 and takes place between the early cinema years 1910-1915. For authenticity, Bogdonovich wanted his film to be in B/W, but apparently the studio was against it for box-office reasons. I've seen both versions; the DVD has the Director's Cut (with commentary) and is in B/W, a version which I personally prefer. But there's value in the original theatrical color version as well; Laszlo Kovacs' beautiful cinematography brightens the period sets and costumes, and many scenes have a sepia-tone look.



There is alot to be learned about the history of cinema from watching this film (and from listening to the director's commentary on DVD, which I highly recommend!) I first watched it with a group of film students at a screening at the Gene Siskel Film Center at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (The original theatrical, color version was shown) The professor speaking about the film was author and film historian Virginia Wright Wexman Her lecture before the screening helped me to appreciate this film all the more.

It was brought up in the lecture that during this time, many folks who who never intended to pursue a career in films ended up doing so anyway, and often, were very successful. The characters in the film of Reynold's "Buck" is a stuntman who ends up coming a movie star by complete accident, and Ryan O'Neal plays a failed-lawyer who also stumbles into the movie business when he meets an independent film producer (played by Brian Keith, in an over-the-top performance). Leo pitches a few story ideas to him, and he's soon on his way into movies.

All these characters and scenarios are based on real life incidents, as told to Bogdonovich in a number of interviews he conducted with film directors of the pre-sound era, including Allan Dwan (who was a stagehand before becoming a writer-director), Raoul Walsh (who really was a stuntman before his directing career), and Leo McCarey (who really was a failed lawyer). In fact, almost every scene is inspired by a priceless, true story, or is an homage to an earlier film or director (the DVD's director commentary is a must-hear).

There isn't much of a plot to the film; mostly it's a series of scenes that center around one theme: "galloping tintypes", as they called movies back then. Often I just wanted to sit back in awe of what I experiencing; I really felt like I had been transported back in time. There are a few love triangles that give the film some romance. And providing the film with a sense of suspense and menace, the audience is introduced to the Motion Picture Patents Company, a group of studios formed to protect the invention of Thomas Edison's camera against copycats. But they could not stop a crop independents from making films with non-Edison cameras. The "Patents" often went to extreme measures to halt production on these independents, sometimes sending out goons to destroy the cameras. Nickelodeon features a number of scenes recreating some of these events. In one humorous scene, a Patent shoots a camera and a character exclaims, "He just killed a box!".

Leo sets out to a secluded California town to make movies for his independent film company (a patent is on his trail). His crew, whom he never met, awaits him. The first person he meets is Tatum, whose unexciting character is a child prodigy called upon to be the head writer. John Ritter, in an early role, is great as a cameraman. Stella Stevens and model-turned actress Jane Hitchcock (in her screen debut) play leading ladies (Hitchcock, who is good in this, never appeared in another film, unfortunately). George Gaynes plays one of the lead actors, and he seems to be warming up for his future role as "Dr. Brewster" in Tootsie. Burt Reynolds comes in a bit later as the dashing leading man, playing all sorts of silent film characters. He is quite good in this role, and turns out an impressive comic performance, probably my favorite ever of his. There are a few small bit parts played by a few veteran western stars, including James Best and Harry Carey Jr., who has ties not only to westerns, but to the silent cinema, as his father was a silent film star.

In one fun scene, the cast and crew travel to the big city and check out a nickelodeon theater, which happens to be showing one of their films (not a complete film, actually - you'll have to see the film). They are then followed out of the theater by fanatics (or, I should say, "fans") who recognize them and ask them for a souvenir. When they don't have anything to offer, the fanatics start ripping their clothes. Typical.



And here's another neat scene, which shows how several short silent movies were made at once, by one film company.



One of the best scenes is toward the end, which recreates the opening day of DW Griffith's The Birth of a Nation in 1915, a film that changed movies forever. The Los Angeles premiere had a full orchestra and even sound effects men behind the screen. Leo and company attend the premiere, which was called at first, "The Clansman". We are shown several extended clips from the actual movie, and Bogdonavich often cuts to audience reaction shots to demonstrate the incredible impact. At the end of the screening, the audiences is silent for a moment, then applause. Then a standing ovation by all, except Leo. He sits, and we wonder what he thinks. Is he jealous? Is his sad? Is he stunned? Then, the director of the epic - DW Griffith - walks out on the stage to take a bow, and Leo rises. A good scene.



The film didn't become a box office hit. Perhaps it was too history-heavy. There are a couple of potentially cringe-inducing scenes, one where white actors have to put on black makeup to play African tribal members, and another scene set at an original stage production of "The Clansman" featuring a stunt man in a white sheet and a burning cross. Historical, yes, but perhaps enough to turn off sensitive viewers. Also, advertising may have been a problem: the posters for this movie showed Tatum in a hot-air balloon, but there's no such scene in the film. And though it contains plenty of slapstick, it's heavily nostalgic. It certainly was a different kind of film for action star Burt Reynolds. Overall, it wouldn't be fair at all to call the film a failure, yet critics did have mixed feelings. Roger Ebert only gave the film two stars out of four (read review), commenting that 2/3 through the movie, it turns "from comedy to elegy". I could see his point; it did turn out to be a more serious film than I expected it would be. The last scene shows all of the main characters in a solemn state, pondering the future, and what the new age of films would bring.

Finally, I want to mention one more scene, which comes close to the end, and it sort of broke my heart. At a Christmas party, an open canister of one of Leo's films is carelessly placed on a table and someone mistakes it for an ashtray. In this scene, we see how flammable nitrate film was, as it almost burns an entire room filled with people. Sad to think of it, but this sort of thing surely happened to many films of this era. In fact, over 80% of all films made between 1894-1930 are lost forever. More must be done to ensure that surviving silent films are preserved, restored, and viewed, so they can be discovered and

Read The Posts | Donate

enjoyed for all time. Among the efforts: 2010 For the Love of Film: The Film Preservatation Blogathon taking place now through Feb 21, hosted by The Self-Styled Siren and Ferdy on Films.

For more perspectives on the film "Nickelodeon":

Alex wrote a critical review of this film not long ago from his blog Critic Picks (I enjoyed the movie much more)

Read Richard Eder's original 1976 review published in the New York Times.

Read Roger Ebert's original 1976 review published in the Chicago Sun Times.

---

Another great post from Dear Old Hollywood.

---

Bobby Rivers wrote about the ending of this film on his blog here.