The more risk-taking a film is, the more divided the reaction will be. Two years ago, film critics were dunking on Damien Chazelle’s “Babylon”; they could not stand the excess—a 57 percent Rotten score was undeserved. And yet, almost no film in 2022 aimed higher than “Babylon.” That, in itself, should have earned this rousingly frenetic epic more respect.
Here’s Paul Schrader, yet again channeling his inner Pauline Kael, and tackling his latest attempt at rewatching “Babylon,” which backfires — he hates it more now:
BABYLON (2022) popped on Prime and I gave it a second look. I'd so anticipated the film four years ago and was so dissappointed. It's even worse than I remembered. Everything that should have been easy to do right was wrong. All because of excess. Was there ever a party as debauched in the Twenties as the one which opens the film? Was the ever a so debauched party ever? Similarly difficulties with early sound shooting. Every aspect overplayed. What a missed opportunity--an opportunity which won't come again
“Babylon” starred Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Diego Calva, Jean Smart, Jovan Adepo, and Li Jun Li. The film chronicled the rise and fall of multiple characters during Hollywood’s transition from silent to sound films in the late 1920s.
The film tanked at the box office, making $63M against a production budget of $80M+. The film ultimately cost Paramount an estimated $87M. Oddly enough, it was a huge hit in France, with both critics and audiences praising it.
Of course, I disagree with Schrader. Much like his recent take on “Eyes Wide Shut,” he co.pletely misses the point on “Babylon,” which isn’t supposed to feel realistic, but more like a fever-dream. Chazelle shoots “Babylon” like a madcap painter, throwing tone and subtlety out the window. He doesn’t mold his movie as much as splatter it with constantly surreal brush strokes. From scene to scene, there’s constant wonder about exactly what it is that you’re watching: Drama? Comedy? Horror?
Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely some flaws in this 188-minute film—the ending is still a puzzler—but there are also incredibly realized moments. The film’s opening party, with an elephant, is a dazzler. The shoot of the silent epic in the California desert is another brilliantly conceived treat.
Also, what’s the deal with Tobey Maguire’s character and the illicit dungeon? The scene is preceded by a direct reference to Lynch’s “Lost Highway”—no coincidence then that Maguire looks like Robert Blake’s Mephisto. The whole sequence feels like a descent into an underworld of hell.
“Babylon” is such an oddly conceived film. I can’t seem to put my finger on it, but there’s something to be said about a film that goes from gross-out humor to sheer Greek tragedy in the blink of an eye. The whole thing feels like a hallucination, a fever dream of total chaos.
It’s Chazelle’s dark odyssey through the last days of silent-era Hollywood, where actors were being brushed aside for theater-experienced performers in talkies. If Chazelle had a positive outlook on the industry in “La La Land,” he’s far less optimistic here—tackling the system, the politics, and the money that fuels this machine. The characters here are all cogs in what will inevitably be a Hollywood that spits them out.
Forget about the critical snubbing: I do believe “Babylon” will stand the test of time. There is so much to this film, and it encompasses the kind of American filmmaking that might have been more celebrated just a few decades ago. A critical re-evaluation will most likely happen for “Babylon.”
