Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

La La Land.

Review #1577: La La Land.

Cast:

Ryan Gosling (Sebastian Wilder), Emma Stone (Mia Dolan), John Legend (Keith), J. K. Simmons (Bill), Rosemarie DeWitt (Laura Wilder), Finn Wittrock (Greg), Callie Hernandez (Tracy), Sonoya Mizuno (Caitlin), Jessica Rothe (Alexis), and Tom Everett Scott (David) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man)

Review:

"Now more than ever we need hope and romance on the screen, and I think there’s something about musicals that just get at something that only movies can do. That idea of movies as a dreamland, movies as the language of our dreams and movies as a way of expressing a world in which you break into song, that emotions can violate the rules of reality.” - Damien Chazelle

Maybe the old saying about the youth being the future can work out in film, as one could observe from Damien Chazelle. Born in Rhode Island but raised in Princeton, New Jersey, he had a love of filmmaking from a young age (while doing music with the local studio band), which reflected on his study at Harvard University within Visual and Environmental Studies. As part of his thesis project, he directed his first feature film with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), which received some notice on the festival circuit. He tried his hand in Hollywood with writing assignments for hire (such as The Last Exorcism Part II (2013) and 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)), but he wanted to do his own projects. He and college classmate Justin Hurwitz had envisioned the idea for La La Land in 2010, and there had been plans to do it with a cheap budget that was scrapped, mostly because he was told that the concept and material "seemed brazenly uncommercial" (Focus, for example, wanted to change the focus from jazz to rock and modify the opening number and ending). It was the success of a film near to Chazelle's heart in terms of his experiences as a drummer in high school that led to his breakthrough with Whiplash (2014), a critical darling that also helped get his foot in the door to make this feature with a more suitable budget.

So, how does one make a film about Los Angeles come alive while describing it once as the place that worships everything and value nothing? (which just reminds me of that old joke about it being a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there). By trying to inspire hope within a cynical audience member? In some ways that may prove all they need, although it is clear that others might find their eyes rolling rather than in tears. I guess it depends on where you look upon the film's idea of bringing romance to the screen with the stylings that try to aim for classic musicals of yesteryear with a touch of modern flair that goes for "cute" but, "not that cute" at the same time, with listed inspirations being films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) to Singin' in the Rain (1952) to even Boogie Nights (1997). So here we are, a musical that wants to go on with no cuts for its numbers. Is it as great as those traditional musicals? Better than some of them, perhaps. This may all be subjective, but I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of the aforementioned Singin' in the Rain, or even An American in Paris (1951); technically, this might be comparable to the quality of Gigi (1958) - good, not great, but good in inspiring decent little charm with chemistry. One starts with Stone (freshly established earlier in the decade with films such as Easy A), the best presence in the whole film when it comes to well-delivered grace that obviously proves useful to watch on screen in the balancing act of struggling dreamer alongside time to sing and dance with chemistry that flickers with some worthy energy. Gosling does fine with what he has offered to him, since his pursuits come off a bit more aloof, but at least they make a worthy pair together when they dance (singing is a different edge). The supporting cast is played to short lengths, such as having singer/pianist Legend there for a time to promote charm with inverting classic jazz with fusion (which goes...somewhere?), or a stern one-shot from Simmons. Funny, I remember classic musicals having some sort of memorable third character to pair off the would-be romantic leads. It might seem like I am picking at this film a bit, but let's just list some positive notes too. After all, it is a charming film in execution, with the opening number on the freeway, while the dance between Stone and Gosling in that twilight of sunset is also a dazzler. The songs are fairly well-crafted too, perhaps not inherently catchy, but they resonate with a dream of gloss and fevered ambition that the film goes for without needing to stuff themselves. 

And then of course there is the ending of the film. It was stated by both Chazelle and others that this is the ending they wanted with no changes, grounding the classic musical in "real life". For that, all power to Chazelle, since I doubt the ending shifted audience notices downward at all. It's a shame I just don't like that ending, not merely because it's a bittersweet one, but more so because I just found it to be a ridiculous choice for a film that wants to adhere to old-school musical films but then decide for both a supposed honest ending alongside with an "imagined" sequence as a cheap joke to have it both ways. But hey, life is like a bunch of seasons, and one's dreams will require perhaps sacrificing things to get there. Cool, great, have fun with that attempt at spinning goo into the newest product of hope within cynical times (we've never been cynical like this!, says the history-maker of the now). It is also entirely possible that one can get weary at times even for "good" films, because sometimes expectations are higher for some films than others. As a whole, it is a nice little movie, filled with some useful charm and interest with harkening back to the musicals of yesteryear, which it reaches with mostly successful results. Is is the great return of the classic musical? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it is an interesting experiment from its young director in Chazelle that will surely prove a useful curiosity in discussion over where it sits in time spent with song-and-dance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

First Man.

Review #1146: First Man.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (Neil Armstrong), Claire Foy (Janet Shearon), Corey Stoll (Buzz Aldrin), Pablo Schreiber (Jim Lovell), Jason Clarke (Ed White), Kyle Chandler (Deke Slayton), Christopher Abbott (David Scott), Patrick Fugit (Elliot See), Lukas Haas (Michael Collins), Shea Whigham (Gus Grissom), Brian d'Arcy James (Joseph A. Walker), Cory Michael Smith (Roger B. Chaffee), and J. D. Evermore (Christopher C. Kraft Jr.) Directed by Damien Chazelle.

Review: 
Well, this film is a bit different from the horror focus for October, but I find this to be a necessary diversion that I hope you will enjoy. 

It is only fitting that this film includes a snippet from President John F. Kennedy and his famous speech on September 12, 1962 about going to the Moon in the decade, saying "not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." In a sense, the decision to make a biopic covering the years leading up to Apollo 11 and its mission to the Moon through the lens of the commander of its mission, Neil Armstrong is like that speech - using a great deal of creative energy and skill to try and make a film to take the audience on a journey to one of the greatest achievements for mankind from the Earth to the Moon. This is an adaptation of the autobiography First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James R. Hansen, written in 2005, with the screenplay by Josh Singer, who has written films such as Spotlight (2015). We know what the final result will be with the mission, but there is never a moment where you feel bored at what the movie wants to show in the years beforehand. One of the first things that I was reminded of during this film was The Right Stuff (1983), which covered the Mercury Seven astronauts alongside others such as Chuck Yeager (after all, there are some people that are depicted in both films such as Deke Slayton, one of the Mercury Seven and the Director of Flight Crew Operations for NASA that chose Armstrong to be the first man) and both films inspire curiosity and excitement for a past age with depth and skill to make a great experience in entertainment. Obviously the film isn't a complete adaptation of the book it is adapting, but it always manages to inspire interest to want to know more about what makes a man such as Armstrong and others to do what they did.

For the most part, the cast all do their respective roles pretty well, all seeming to blend into the people that they are playing with no real distractions. Gosling, playing a man whose family described upon his death as a "reluctant American hero who always believed he was just doing his job", manages to bring a sense of modesty and carefulness that is always watchable and down-to-earth. Foy does a pretty fine job as well, managing to play her scenes off fine with Gosling that generally keeps the movie with some focus on the Armstrong family that tries to make the film have more than one prism of focus. The highlights in the rest of the cast are Stoll, Chandler and Clarke, who each manage to be pretty effective and interesting to follow alongside with that don't get themselves lost in the spectacle. It shines more on a technical level with its depiction of the journey into space than its level with Armstrong and his family, but it ultimately proves to be entirely worth every second of its 141 minute run-time. It isn't a perfect film, mostly due to the fact that it can nearly come to a quiet lull with its family sequences, which are occasionally effective in drama. The film flows smoothly enough, covering pivotal events such as Armstrong's command of Gemini 8 to the Apollo 1 tragedy, each shown with care and respect that resonate quite clearly in the pursuit for space. The music by Justin Hurwitz is well-done, and the cinematography by Linus Sandgren is excellent, with the film having a look and feel that always seems authentic. For me, the best part is the Moon landing sequence, which is simply wonderful to process from launch to the pivotal breathtaking moment. The film builds itself up to a momentous climax and earns the patience taken to get there with good judgement taken by Chazelle to make sure things go as smoothly as possible. This is a very enjoyable biopic for anyone who is curious about some of the details of one of the greatest moments for mankind that will leave its audience eager to pursue further about space and exploration, of which there are numerous films and books to help serve that purpose. In closing, I will include a short quote from Armstrong that I feel is fitting for this review: "Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand."

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.