Babylon Review - 3.5/5

I think it's best to start out with what the film does well. It is well-directed, and most shots fly off the screen. The music is always blasting through the speakers, filling your ears with some expert trumpet playing that makes you feel as though you are at the party. The costumes and sets are wonderful and full of life. The vivid colors and creative shots paint a beautiful picture of “Old Hollywood.” The initial party scenes especially show off the grandeur and luxury of the time and place. These elaborate and creative shots do become overwhelming a lot of the time, though. Chazelle is clearly trying to make a point about the excess that he so frequently shows us, and it is beaten into the viewers' minds so much that it is hard to disagree with him. Circling back to the good, the acting is top-tier. The camera loves Margot Robbie, and in turn she loves it back. Brad Pitt nails the roll of an old actor nearing the end of his run (similar, yet a major improvement on his performance in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood). Diego Calva is the spitting image of a young Javier Bardem, and he expresses emotions like he has been acting for 60 years. There are so many other actors and actresses that deserve recognition for their performances, but I haven’t the time. The issue is, that’s where the good stops.

Damien Chazelle is attempting to tell five stories in immense detail in a run time of 3 hours and 7 minutes. As long as the film was, it honestly still wasn’t enough to tell their full stories. Considering the swing-for-the-fences picture that Chazelle is attempting, it is a very solid effort, but it still falls short. To tell these stories, elements are constantly being added and things are happening at breakneck pace. The first two acts feel as though they are moving at 10,000mph, and there is what seems to be a hard stop for the third act. The pace starts to slow as all the stories are being resolved, but then it takes off again at light speed. The script feels very unfocused at times, and it flips from character to character in what feel like scenes where we need to stay on one character. What felt especially underdeveloped was the love plot between Calva’s Manny and Robbie’s Nellie. There was also Li Jun Li’s Lady Fay, who simply felt forgotten. The only character that felt fully fleshed out was Pitt’s Jack Conrad, which mixed with Pitt’s performance, created to some of the depth that one could only dream of for the other parts of the film.

On the surface of the film, it seems to be telling two stories, one being a rose-tinted nostalgic look at Hollywood in its infancy, and the other being a cautionary tale about how Hollywood will destroy you inside and out. In reality, both of the stories are preaching the idea of the second story. The idea of the film is asking the question, “Is it worth it?” Damien Chazelle then drags you through so much hardship and terrible things that you must question whether or not he is right at the end. He proposes the idea that we can’t get films that are as impactful as Singin’ in the Rain without people’s lives literally being destroyed over it. That’s a very bleak way of looking at the industry. All in all, it shows us the history and everlasting legacy of film. What it left out about film's history is all the exploitation and the power dynamics that make old Hollywood bad in the context of modern standards. While including lesbian relationships, Chazelle leaves out any homosexuality between men, which raises concerns about why he chose to leave lesbian romance in the film. It also leaves out all mention of the looming Hays Code and how it would shape Hollywood censorship.

To quote Jack Conrad: “It was the most magical place in the world, wasn’t it?”