The Film Experience

No two people feel the same exact way about any film. Thus, Team Experience is pairing up to debate the merits of each of the big awards season movies this year. Here’s Chris James, Ben Miller and Glenn Dunks duking it out over Babylon.

CHRIS: Hey Glenn and Ben, happy to chat with you on the most talked about/least seen movie of the holiday season. Oscar winner Damien Chazelle's big budget tale, Babylon, opened with $3.6 million over the holiday weekend. I hate to be the person to kick a movie when it's down. It benefits no one for an original auteur project to flop. However, I found Babylon to be an all-out disaster. Its grand scale debauchery grows stale with each passing scene, with nothing ever exuding sexiness or splendor.

Much could be saved if Chazelle had a clear thesis with the movie, or engaging characters to follow. Unfortunately, Chazelle never quite knows whether to vilify or exalt Hollywood; instead, we just get a confused portrait of the silent era that feels neither real nor heightened. Despite a game performance from Margot Robbie, none of the central three characters jump off the screen because they don't have a strong, propulsive want. They do wild and crazy things, but the movie never bothers giving any of their actions a strong enough motivation. Maybe I'm just being the Grinch of Babylon. What are both of your thoughts on Babylon? Were there any elements that really worked - or didn't - for either of you?

BEN: I am decidedly in the middle with this film. On the one hand, I understand what Chazelle was trying to do in showing the struggles between the silent and sound eras. At the same time, I think he got too bogged down in the depravity and excess. It's the same problem I had with Wolf of Wall Street and Blonde. After a point, the insane parties are par for the course and the inevitable crash takes too long to get there.

That being said, I really connected with the performance of Li Jun Li. Her character is the only one who was able to transcend the insanity and still maintain her own personality. She is not broken by the change to sound, but rather by the shifting morality of Hollywood. She exudes sex appeal but always shows she is way more than just her looks.

I came away from the film impressed but not blown away. I felt plentiful missed opportunities. The film never got into the Hays Code, but that's a personal wish more than an actual complaint about the film. Glenn, you are much more on the super-positive side, correct?

GLENN: I wouldn't say "super-positive", but I definitely came away from Babylon very surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did.

I am very much a proponent of the experience of movie-watching --style as substance and all that jazz. It's partly why I have so little time for the "no cultural imprint" narrative around Avatar or why Elvis stays in my mind where others have faded, because the sheer experience of watching a movie can be just as much of my enjoyment as all of the things you found deficient. Which isn't to say any of us are right or wrong, but as Chazelle tumbled along for three hours on this very specific track I found myself thinking that this movie could only be three hours and could only be a bit of a mess and could only be so wildly anachronistic. In those ways it feels like a very appropriate epic for 2022—a movie that I couldn't quite believe was allowed to be made, not because of the content so much as the way it's made. I'm not surprised it hasn't done well at the box office, because even if it was a more coherent and mainstream end product, the very idea of Babylon is so against what people are conditioned to sitting down and watching in a cinema. And that's what I liked about it.

All of that begs a question I've been so eager to ask. Where do you sit on Babylon's use of very period incorrect costuming, hair and so forth? I feel it's somewhat misjudged to critique a movie about Old Hollywood for being historically inaccurate when Old Hollywood was well known for taking its own fair share of liberties with history.

BEN: I love this question. As much as Ryan Murphy is a massive mixed bag for me, I loved the retconning of movie history with Hollywood. That's what I kept being reminded of while I was watching Babylon. Frankly, I wish they would have gone further. Everything is so extreme with the film, why did they ease up on the anachronisms? As soon as an elephant shits on a guy and a Fatty Arbuckle-type gets pee in his mouth, the hyper-realism was put to rest. The changing of haircuts and outfits to suit the story is fine by me.

What about you, Chris?

CHRIS: It is interesting what you both touch on in terms of the movie's relationship to the period and its details. Not everything needs to be fully accurate for me to appreciate it. However, if you are going to embrace anachronisms or modernize parts of your period film, it should be clear WHY you are doing it. Are you saying something interesting by not having period specific dialogue? Is there a greater point to the clothes and hairstyles feeling not "of the time." I like what you said, Glenn, about it reflecting the liberties Old Hollywood took with its own films. That suggests a more thoughtful movie than I got. Even though I wasn't loving the throughline of "Hollywood was built by a bunch of degenerates," it was a cohesive thesis that the film all but abandons by the end. All of these disparate elements never felt like they were serving a strong enough vision.

That said, seeing this loud, audacious and bodily-fluid filled film in theaters was a treat. In particular, Justin Hurwitz's score reverberating in the theatrical surround sound puts the audience in the exact right headspace for this raucous film. Even in disliking the movie, I don't want to dance on its grave. I'll always appreciate a director taking a big swing and missing, just usually I feel like a director has more to say when they make their "one for me" grand opus.

Despite the box office, Babylon will still be a figure in the awards race, particularly in the upcoming Critics Choice and Golden Globes telecasts. In particular, Margot Robbie still stands a good chance of making the Best Actress lineup. What did you both think of her performance as Nellie LaRoy, the foul-mouthed party-hard ingenue? Her commitment to the character and the material were commendable. It's always wonderful to see someone really "go for it," and Robbie always understood how to make you interested in someone who is living life with abandon. However, Nellie represented to me what I disliked about the film as a whole. Robbie is game and ready to give us a performance, but the character is skin deep. Her success comes early on, so what is the "want" that drives Nellie through each scene? I'd argue, the movie never gives her motivation and Margot Robbie doesn't end up filling it in. Compare it to a similarly gonzo performance like Sharon Stone as Ginger in Casino. Ginger may be drunk or high through most of the running time, but that doesn't stop us from following what it is that she wants. Her most histrionic moves are anchored by her desire to take her husband's money and run. What anchors Nellie?

GLENN: I mean, let's be honest—the performances are all over the shop in this one. I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing, although it does go to what you are saying about a lack of a core, unifying idea and I think that's why Babylon can't quite elevate itself to something approaching a masterpiece. I do see your points around the characters, and despite the long runtime, the actors are rarely given the opportunity to allow us to dwell on them and connect to them beyond the surface artifice that they are draped in. I love that comparison to Sharon Stone, actually. If the movie business wasn't what it was these days, Robbie would probably be a more bankable name in less interesting movies. Although I quite like her performance, to paraphrase Stu Macher (iykyk), Margot Robbie in Babylon is no Sharon Stone in Casino!

Speaking of the Golden Globes, I must say I was a bit surprised it snagged the trifecta of nominations for Robbie, Brad Pitt (in another case of category fraud, I would argue) and relative unknown (at least to me) Diego Calva. As a voter on this year's Globes, I am not meant to reveal my ballot, but it feels like in regards to the Oscars it would be somewhat the opposite. A tech play more than an actors' play like, say, The Master. I do wonder just how many movies-about-movies the Academy can be realistically expected to embrace in a single year. But I would be quite happy to see the aforementioned score by two-time Oscar winner Justin Hurwitz nominated, as well as nominations for art direction (loved that dusty film set meets desert carnival), cinematography and editing (which I felt had more energy to sustain its runtime than some competitors that are 20, 40 or 60 minutes shorter). Despite my previous statements on its anachronisms, I do think costumes would be pushing it, though.

What do you reckon the ceiling is for Babylon? There are a few films this year that are really divisive and could come away from Oscar morning with anywhere from zero to eight nominations.

BEN: That conversation on a lack of core is probably the biggest problem I have with the film. If you look at the film from a five-character storyline basis, only Pitt and Calva approach a complete arc. Robbie is a firecracker, but what else is she besides that? She is a Tasmanian devil, but what else is there besides the destruction and chaos. Her character feels woefully underwritten. Speaking of underwritten, how about Jovan Adepo's character? His trumpet player achieves his success, never goes to the dark side of morality, and refuses to compromise his morals. He plays a mean trumpet, but that's about it. Li Jun Li is in the same boat. She doesn't have to adapt to anything, because she isn't allowed to adapt due to the shifting morality. When her story is over, it's out of her hands and we don't get to see her deal with it. There are too many balls in the air and only a few of those balls are allowed to be developed.

Awards-wise, Babylon is definitely the barometer for the highs and lows of potential nominations. I can see a world where it's the nomination leader with 13 nods (Picture, Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Sound, Costume Design, Original Score, Production Design, Cinematography, Film Editing, Makeup), but I also see a world where it ends up with around three (Costume Design, Original Score, Film Editing). At the same time, even if it ends up with 13 nominations, I don't see that as propelling it to potential win status. Would it be the top vote-getter in any of the categories outside of Score? Oftentimes, we see the number of nominations and assume the potential success as the sole indicator. That didn't work out very well for The Power of the Dog, or Mank, or The Irishman, or The Revenant...you get the idea.

Frankly, I just don't see the passion for the film, and Chazelle in particular. There has been this bizarre backlash against Chazelle since La La Land. That Oscar race was always seen as this battle between good (Moonlight) and evil (La La Land), which I never understood. Chazelle didn't pit the two films against each other and some factions have been rooting for Chazelle's demise ever since. Do you think any of that will play a factor in the nominations?

CHRIS: Of all the movies up for awards, I'm most confused by Babylon's chances. Before the poor box office performance, I thought it would for sure make Best Picture as well as a slew of other categories. I don't think it will be completely blanked. However, I think it is secure for Original Score, Cinematography, Costume Design, Production Design and Makeup. If I'm making an official prediction, I think it will be this year's Nightmare Alley, earning those five craft nominations and Best Picture (barely squeaking in).

To wrap up our discussion, let's provide our grade for Babylon, as well as our MVP and LVP.

Grade: D+
MVP: Production Designers Florencia Martin and Anthony Carlino. The incongruence of Hollywood decadence with filth and squalor is best achieved in the grand sets. One can marvel at the grandeur but also feel like "ew, it must smell REALLY BAD in here."
LVP: Damien Chazelle himself. He's assembled a talented cadre of collaborators and, for my money, wasted their efforts by not having a cohesive vision.

What about the both of you?

GLENN:

Grade: B+
MVP: Justin Hurwitz' score is thrilling and elastic. I think it could win the Oscar, and I wouldn't be upset.
LVP: Damien Chazelle as writer. For me, the movie's deficiencies don't lie in the directing, which is energetic and ambitious in ways we rarely see these days. With a stronger backbone, though, the movie's entire three hours could have soared.

BEN:

Grade: B-/C+
MVP: I'm gonna say Diego Calva because he maintained as much of his humanity as possible while still having a lot of fun. Though Hurwitz is a close second
LVP: Glenn took the words right out of my mouth. Chazelle the writer betrays Chazelle the director

What side of the debate do you fall on for Babylon? Keep the conversation going in the comments.

other "split decisions"

All Quiet on the Western Front - poetic or vacuous?
Everything Everywhere All At Once - essential or exhausting?
The Fabelmans - joyous or phony?
TÁR - utterly engrossing or underwhelming?
Triangle of Sadness - facile or multi-faceted?
The Whale - moving or just plain bad?