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.

The Gift.

Review #1573: The Gift.

Cast:

Jason Bateman (Simon Callem), Rebecca Hall (Robyn Callem), Joel Edgerton (Gordon "Gordo" Mosley), Tim Griffin (Kevin "KK" Keelor), Allison Tolman (Lucy), Beau Knapp (Detective Walker), P.J. Byrne (Danny McDonald), David Denman (Greg Pierson), Busy Philipps (Duffy), and Wendell Pierce (Detective Mills) Written and Directed by Joel Edgerton.

Review:

"I wanted to take those triangle thrillers that we’re all so familiar with and hold the audience’s hand going down that road for the first third of the movie, and then just start messing with those conventions."

Like I said, the director can come from anywhere. Sometimes he can even serve as the star of the picture, and this proves doubly true with Joel Edgerton, making his debut as a director alongside serving as star, writer, and co-producer. The son of a solicitor, he developed a passion for home moviemaking, doing so first with 8mm while growing up in Sydney, Australia. After studying drama at the University of Western Sydney, Edgerton entered acting with the Sydney Theatre Company before adding appearances in television and film in his native country, most notably with The Secret Life of Us (2001-02). This was the fourth film he had wrote for, having done so with The Square (2008, which had his brother Nash as director), Felony (2013), and The Rover (2014, co-written with David Michôd).

This is a decent little movie, certainly befitting someone making the rounds in terms of acting and directing as a moderately entertaining experience, one that uses its small cast to create a few moments of worthy tension. It definitely seems a bit familiar for those who know what it is trying to pull with psychological thrills (with influences noted such as Caché and Fatal Attraction), but Edgerton does a fine job with weaving a tense atmosphere that leaves doubt in one's mind with the nature of its plot before eventually getting to its sleight of hand ending, which will either work for what is needed in terms of lasting impact, or it will seem a bit hollow for all that it built to that point. One starts with Bateman, mostly known for his work equally as a teen idol on television before moving into straight man roles in comedy (such as with Arrested Development (incidentally, he also had gotten himself into directing with Bad Words a few years prior to this). He does quite well here, balancing himself in reserved tension that keeps you on your toes each time you see him. Nothing is quite as it seems, and he does well in maintaining the illusion of charming stability without collapsing into condescending cliché, because he can move between logic and ruthless fairly well - such as whenever Edgerton steps out of sight and Bateman introduces the seeds of doubt about this man to his wife (whether that means name-calling or something else). Hall does pretty well as the key piece between the two of them, handling her doubts and fears with reason and useful conviction that we gravitate to because of her position that sees the lines of who and what we know blur a bit in a way we shudder to think about. Edgerton makes for quiet tension, doing so with an act that seems just a little off-key from when we first see him (essentially equal to a person you met long ago that didn't quite understand when it's time to go) that only grows from there, building the seeds of doubt without needing any overblown theatrics. Sure, a dog could be kidnapped or so, but we never take our eyes off the doubt that comes from the building tension that comes from more than just a supposed weirdo, and by the end it's possible to not really even have a clear definition of who fits the role as "monster". On the whole, it is the build in quiet tension for what we know/don't know about someone that ultimately makes the difference in how effective the film works itself out, one that doesn't lead to any big moments of blood or even an overamped jump scare for its 108 minute run-time. If the idea of someone you know from long ago coming back with a few gifts of their own seems like it could be an interesting little thriller, I would suggest this one (while saying the less one knows the better), as it is a useful effort accomplished by Edgerton in terms of moving one's expectations about the thriller with creeping execution and conviction.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.