I see some people finding glee in “Babylon” bombing at the box-office. Even critics are enthusiastically panning the film in their reviews. Why?
There’s nothing “fun” in seeing such an ambitious endeavour being devoured this way. Same as it’s a total downer to witness films like “The Fabelmans,” “TÁR” and “Armageddon Time” doing poorly with audiences. These films needed support for the arthouse to survive, but they didn’t find any.
You already know my stance when it comes to “Babylon.” Despite some of its flaws, it has these moments that brought real cinematic nirvana to my eyes and ears. I found it infectious to watch an auteur aim this high with such an ambitious big studio project. The fact that the reception has been poor means it is less likely these type of films will get made in the future.
Don’t be fooled by the audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes. There are plenty of people out there who really like “Babylon.” Its IMDB rating is also pretty good at 7.4. Maybe not the “average” moviegoer, but serious-minded movie fans who seek out ambitious movies that challenge and don’t spoonfeed the viewer, well, they’ve responded much more positively to “Babylon.” Trust me, they read this site, I speak to them every day.
Forget about Oscars or box-office numbers for a second, I do believe “Babylon” will stand the test of time. Much like the other critically reviled arthouse film this year, “Blonde,” there is so much to dissect in this movie, it encompasses the kind of cinema that would have been celebrated just a few decades ago. A critical re-evaluation will most likely happen for “Babylon.”