This is exactly how I interpreted the film. As a cinephile but also someone that is in love with this industry, theres just too many things that are really messed up about the industry. Which is what makes this film really truthful imo. People are just looking at the grotesque surface level tropes in the film.
I think the main point Damien is making is that Hollywood has always been like this. While the stars, directors, and studio executives change, the machine kinda just keeps on running the same way. Elinor's monologue to Brad Pitt's character is sort of the central thesis of the film. So your general read isn't far off, it can definitely serve as a metaphor for the modern era of filmmaking, especially as it feels like cinema is in the middle of another period of evolution akin to the massive shift that happened when sound was introduced in the late 20s. However, I do think a lot of your supporting "evidence" is not very well researched. There's definitely a meta aspect to the Samara Weaving casting since they look so similar, though it's not a direct reference to anything that happened in real life. Margot Robbie, being a few years older, made her Hollywood debut in The Wolf of Wall Street several years before Samara Weaving started landing roles in the USA. I don't believe there's any evidence that they were going after the same roles. The inclusion of Olivia Hamilton (Damien's wife IRL) is nothing more than an acknowledgement of the early days of Hollywood where directing was treated less as an artist's medium and more as a factory style job. Her character was not directing big-time epics like DW Griffith or Cecile B Demille, but rather average mass-produced studio fare, often short films. Look at the difference between her set among the dozens of other films being shot simultaneously on that outdoor lot, compared to the historical epic that Brad Pitt is starring in directed by the big-shot German filmmaker. There weren't a ton of female directors back then (there were LOTS of women film editors though), but there were some notable ones that inspired Olivia's character like Dorothy Arzner, Alice Guy-Blache and Lois Weber. Unfortunately these women became glossed over throughout history, and eventually the Hollywood system became increasingly male dominated as the industry became more organized and hierarchical in the decades to come. The only exception I can think of during Hollywood's "Golden Era" was Ida Lupino in the 40s + 50s, but again she often is overlooked and wasn't exactly making high profile films back then. Your next point makes no sense to me, of course people crossed the border illegally back then. It was honestly way easier and less dangerous than it is now. Sidney's character exists to highlight the importance of "race pictures" and "race music" during that time. It makes sense that with the advent of sound, and the success of The Jazz Singer, that Hollywood would want to churn out more music based films. It was also the entertainment industry realizing they could pander to black audiences, as well as other racial demographics, and make good money on it. Obviously the scene at the fancy dinner party was to show how white people viewed people of color as token objects, as something exotic to gawk at even though they didn't really view them as equals. I think that parallels can be drawn to how things are today, there's definitely still tokenism and faux-liberal pandering. But I would say that we are starting to see the industry finally giving people of color a more equal seat at the table, and it coming from a slightly more genuine place. And the last point about the debauchery and stuff is absolutely true to the time period. Another victim of general history sweeping things under the rug. The 20s were a time of hedonism and excess, the world had just gone through the "War to End All Wars" and the sexuality, drug use, etc was kind of a response to the social repression and economic difficulties during that time. Obviously this all came crashing down with the Great Depression, and then eventually (as the movie sorta shows) the general shift to conservativism and the "morality" that became imposed on Hollywood through things like The Hays Code in the 1930s. But seriously, do some research on city life in the 1920s, especially in places like Berlin where they were pretty wild and very free with their expressions of gender and sexuality. Sorry for the long comment, but hopefully it made sense and maybe inspires you to do some further reading or check out some interviews with Damien Chazelle about the movie. Very glad you enjoyed the film, I absolutely think it's going to age like wine and people will look back years from now on the negative reviews for Babylon wondering what the critics were thinking.
*IMO Elinor's Character was too Cynical for my own taste as she could've worked her journalistic skills for worthy causes like Demolishing The Clearly Unearned Squeaky Clean Reputation of Many Corrupted Greedy Politicians or Immoral Local Authorities, be it republican or liberal, lazy commies or capitalistic pigs and so on, and she didn't understood The Healing Role of Art...🎆*
Just, congratulations and thanks you for the comment. The video is so ridiculous. None of his "arguments" makes any sense. every time you corrected him, it was right. glad some one here did some research and know how to interpret.
hahaha I simply love this very long comment it makes me smile (even though I skimmed through most of it lol)😂 cheers to the '20s despite the ill-advised things that took place✨️🥂🎩 Thx for the long comment and the video too! lol
I totally agree, I think this is the reason why Hollywood feels uncomfortable with the film. The film is divisive because Chazelle is able to create emotions in his audience, any person may have a different experience and interpretation of the film, the same happened with Whiplash or La La Land, the history is crafted in a way that each person may takeaway something very personal. Only an artist can create such a thing.
1920's Hollywood was very much as debauched as depicted in the film. The fat guy who gets peed on is clearly a Fatty Arbuckle reference, and most of the weirder elements depicted are based on stories from the time. The point is that we think it was more wholesome than today because all we remember is the immortal cinema painting a pretty picture over the stuff we'd rather think didn't happen in the days of our sweet little old grandparents.
I misread "debauchery" while recording the voiceover. Oops. Btw, Chazelle said something interesting I read recently, paraphrasing of course: “Babylon is a love letter to cinema and a hate letter to Hollywood.” Take that as you will.
*From the Trailer, I've understood that the elephant in the room here is actually their professional ambitions impeding on their own personal lives, classism or elitism, social injustices, racism, lesbo_phobia, moral depravity, excessive consumerism, sexism, obtuse herd mentality & their meaningless hedonism both uplifting them & then destroying them, hence ruining the already more frail lives of those 4 main career driven yet socially naive protagonists & dreamers who reluctantly witnessed a greater change of scenery on The World's Stage along with the Implementation of the Famous Hays Code Production's Censorship Model Impeding on Their Quirky Creativity, Passion & Originality that separates them from the rest of the blindly obedient & emotionally repressed populace that's going to see their movies & vicariously living through their odd yet charming glamorous nonconforming rude characters on the silver screen that's always selling them beauteous escapist dreams!* 🔥🔥🔥
I saw it 4 times in theaters. The first time I was HIGH as a mofo and I couldn't believe my eyes. It really started to dawn on me how insane everything was to get where we are now. Especially with the whole Kinescope and battle scene. People were paid little to nothing. No real safety or labor laws. Relying on the sun, relying on actors and actresses to get there on time to do their work. People begging to work or just there suffering in hope to get noticed. I feel we don't really think about how many people had to go through hell to get where we are now. The film touches on so many aspects like that. The change to sound, the change of audiences humor or expectations. Big names becoming sell outs or embarrassing, provocative, old, etc.
That's exactly what I thought while watching it at home this weekend for the first time. We are in a massive technological and cultural shift right now akin to what happened a century ago with the shift from movies to talkies. The party at the beginning is decadent, magical, surreal, sexy, silly, disgusting, musical, inspiring, funny, scary, shocking and thrilling. It's everything that cinema has been, all at once. It happens atop a mountain (a proud pinnacle) and everyone wants to be a part of the celebration (where the word 'celebrity' comes from). Then we live a roller coaster through the 3 main characters: the biggest star in the world, one who will do anything to be the biggest star, and one who works his ass off just to participate in the industry. The cave scene at the end contrasts the party scene at the beginning. The party at the start represents what Hollywood was (metaphorically) at its height. The cave is where we are today... people just doing shocking stuff in hopes that anyone will watch. Clickbait. Subscribers. Re-tweets. Cheap thrills with no story. It's hidden, done in the dark, doom scrolling. It's underground and you run screaming for your life to get out. It's another Marvel Movie. It's another season of Walking Dead. It's another watered down, over-budget, poorly re-written remake that nobody asked for. The end of the movie, when Manuel comes back to Hollywood, is all about nostalgia and the end of film literally and metaphorically (the scenes with film in colored solutions, and him crying over what (and who) has been lost). - The end of actual physical film in place of digital technology. - The end of traditional film because of CGI, green screen, animation, etc. - What do the Oscars even mean anymore, if anything? They used to be our one chance a year to see the celebs. Now they're on social media constantly. - The average person has a better film viewing experience at home than theatres provide (surround sound, 4k big screens, comfy seating, pause when you need a new drink, etc.). - What do we "go to the movies" for now? It used to be the only affordable entertainment (assuming stage shows were pricey) - A lot of productions are going direct to any of the dozen big streaming services. - Most video games have better stories than what's in movies now. Party's over folks. But what a wild ride it was!
I think Babylon asks the same question as every other film he’s made “what would you sacrifice to reach your dreams?” Whiplash it was self preservation, as his obsession grew to the point of borderline self destruction. Lala land was about the people you love, and if you would trade your life with them for a life where you get what you’re most passionate about, and Babylon was would you give your humanity/morality? Even manny, who was arguably the most decent of the three protagonists, sacrificed his humanity for the sake of his dream, specifically with the charcoal scene. Personally I felt Babylon was classic chazelle, maybe I wasn’t as in love with it as the other two, and idk if I’ll really get used to the total depravity but it crafted a very beautiful bittersweet ending like the others, and stuck with me for days after I first watched it
In the final sequence all the colors mixed in a liquid colorful palette at the end form pure blue, pure red and pure green screens with no other colors and nuances. The metaphor is clear
I loved the film and pretty much agreed with the title as soon as I saw it, but I have disagree with your one example saying it's supposed to represent today because it had so much extreme behavior, debauchery, etc. Damien has mentioned that aspect in particular as being something from that decade that people have ignored and swept under the rug overtime. In his interview with ReelBlend he said "if you're gonna make a movie about the 20s or early Hollywood that doesn't shock and offend and appall some people, I would argue you're not really doing justice to the period." I liked hearing your thoughts regardless, though!
My understanding is that you hit the nail on the head. The ROARING 2020S is now. We're in an age where Star Talent doesn't really exist anymore. There are actors sure, but running to the cinema's for Clark Gable or Robert Deniro is a thing of the past. Chazelle aptly explores this theme very well in Babylon. A crumbling facade of Hollywood ideals and the belief that people would flock to a movie for technological advancements ie his use of Avatar at the end. Babylon isn't about Hollywood falling apart, but its about the stars, the people behind that screen who fall so far, they will never be able to see themselves immortalized on the big screen.
Great video dude! Loved a lot of your points. One note tho, woman WERE directors in the 20s, especially in the silent era. As the 20s progressed, and sound came around, it became way less common. I think the film in many ways ( especially in length ) is also a look into what life is like on a film set. It’s exhausting, funny, frustrating, and sometimes, beautiful in all the right ways.
I don't know if I would put it the way you did, but i thought a central theme of the movie was about the industry evolving but keeping its essence in the yuxtaposition of the ephemeral and the eternal. Movies are an outlet for the immortalization of us, mortal beings. And that is a fantastic concept, but can also create really toxic perspectives. Stars like Conrad thinking their heyday would last forever, children like Nellie being dragged out of the dust just to be chewed and spitted in less than a decade, and dreamers like Manny getting corrupted over this two sided coin. Sidney is the only main character who sees his own soul being delivered to an industry which doesn't appreciate it, so decides to leave it behind and stay next to what he really loved, the music.
@@Catherine_Dana ironic takes are a huge part of hipster ethos... "I hate the one that is obviously amazing because I'm supposed to like it, and I love the ones that aren't because they're clearly not as good... that's hipster philosophy 101.
Margot Robbie and Samara Weaving both hail from Australia, competed in rival soap operas on their home turf, and later crossed paths again in Hollywood. In this film, the two play out their own struggles with competition and jealousy－struggles that are echoed in the lives of their real-life counterparts. In a stark contrast to the uptight and poise of her co-star, Robbie's character steals the show in a wild west movie, but loses it in another period piece that resembles "Chevalier de Saint Georges"-except no one understands why. As a whole, The film is a bittersweet reflection on how women are often stereotyped. There are distinctly autobiographical elements embedded within it, too. Robbie once wrangled a snake, just as Brad Pitt plays an established mega star who is engaged to every one who was anyone in Hollywood plays out its renewal. 1:42
I've seen BABYLON in a glorious cinema of my hometown, as soon as IT'S been released in Italy. I really did love It! In my opinion It Is One of the best motion picture of 2022 and One of the best films by Damien Chazelle. I do agree with you that BABYLON IS a metaphor of modern-day Hollywood. Anyway. Do you really think that in those very glorious 20's there wasn't such "bacchanals" as those masterfully depicted by Chazelle? At least according to the book HOLLYWOOD BABYLONE by Kenneth Anger, sex, booze and drugs in 20's Hollywood, was very "normal". It wasn't as free as today because today there are social Networks that can destroy a career faster than the Speed of light. But Anyway, according to me, Chazelle directing BABYLONE, given us a true masterpiece, that Is destined to become a CLASSIC throughout the next decades.
Babylon will only be enthralling to you if you are already nostalgic about the time period or fascinated by Hollywood and the film industry moreover… but I feel like wonderful storytelling will MAKE you interested in a scene even if you weren’t before. It felt quite aggrandized and more into calling itself provocative, than it was truly provocative. Provocative should mean something is daring but not that something is blunt/on the nose and without any substance… Lately I feel like these films (Once Upon a Time, La La Land, Babylon) are just passion projects for actors and directors who think the underbelly of the industry isn’t already well-explored, no, OVER-explored territory
I mean, apart from what's depicted here, the sound movies and Netflix are generally the same thing as well. We're in a time where movie making and cinema is just changing, cinema itself is becoming old fashioned and starting to loose its gravitas to the internet content.
Evidence number 5 is very convincing! As a matter of fact, that scene with Sidney Palmer instinctively reminded me of Get out by Jordan Peele which kind of conveys a similar commentary (not on the industry but more generally on society). I don't know if this is truly what Chazelle ment with this movie but I think it's very important to try and go beyond a superficial analysis, so thank you for your insights ( btw I'm glad to know that someone actually liked the movie, I think it's a very good one after all, and much more complex than it looks)
When you talk about "the many quid pro quos in modern hollywood", what exactly are you refering to? And concerning Evidence 6 (all the hedonism): "not rampant in 1920s Hollywood" Are you sure about that? Maybe not AS rampant but the early 20's were certainly infamous for it's hedonism.
I liked the movie. It shows how crazy this industry is, shows the risks and desperately cries about how miserable the luxury party life actually is. On the other hand we are happy there is Hollywood - there are so many talented actors, writers, technicians, film directors/producers. Watching this I wanted to make a movie myself to see what comes out. Besides, I found one aspect especially interesting - the scene where the girl pukes all over the noble America. Actors suddenly appear as representatives of simple people who don't give a flying sausage about manners and noblesse, as left wing of the society so to say. I found that idea interesting I never thought about Hollywood actors that way.
I don’t have strong proofs here, but I bon’t see any reason for 20s hollywood not to include the drugs and orgies. Otherwise, is Gatsby also not realistic in that sense?
Totally agree. There are also other scenes such as the one with Lady Fay Zhu talking with Manny about the fact that Nelly being a lesbian is ruining her reputation as a movie star. Great video.
It seems that this is a film which allows many different interpretations and emotional hooks depending on the type of person you are. I personally consider it a misunderstood masterpiece and am of the opinion that the critic majority who thinks it's nonsensical and "a mess" is genuinely stupid. However I have to agree with another comment in here that a lot of your claims are factually incorrect and it hurts my soul to see that people are still running around talking about things like they know everything despite having done 0 research. That being said i like that we both like the movie so there's that.
I was with you right up until you made the claim that there weren't really any female directors working in Hollywood at the time. What about Lois Weber? Or Dorothy Arzner? Or Dorothy Davenport who famously also employed female writers? I totally agree with your argument. I was seeing it even before I clicked on your video. It could also easily be applied to the current state of the publishing industry. In any case, little white bursts of light exploded behind my eyes when you failed to mention the female directors in Hollywood (some of whom even owned their own studies) so I have to click out. I subbed, though.
I personally think there’s an underlying message when she’s laying down at the party and the initials DW are behind her. I think it could represent DW grifith who was a big director at the time. He made birth of a nation which resparked the KKK and a new racist movement in america at a time when maybe it was inclusive like we see with manny Sydney and Faye. DW grifith also made a film called Intolerance, consisting of three stories, one being the fall of Babylon. This movie was a flop I believe but the set of Babylon remained in Hollywood until they destroyed it decades later. Grifith later became a legendary influence in Hollywood. I feel there’s a subtext to be made about his involvement in Hollywood but I can’t fully figure it out if anyone has any ideas lmk.
@@mr_celluloid thank you. I’ve been rewatching as well bc there’s a lot to unpack from the movie. I notice details every rewatch. Another point I researched about DW is that he was a big director for silent films but when they transferred over to talking pictures he was cast out and didn’t make it as a director. His last film being in 1931
I also think that the film is more about recent Hollywood than the one where the story supposedly takes place. As you said, there were few female directors at the time, even though Chazelle mentioned Dorothy Arzner as an influence on the character played by his wife. The biggest clue for me was when Nellie suddenly appeared with enlarged breasts. That was hardly common 100 years ago, but Melanie Griffith did the exact same thing while making Bonfire of the Vanities. All that being said, I still think the film is a boring mess, which I wish that I had never seen.
Hmmm..I'll agree with you that Babylon's depiction of 1920s Hollywood as an orgy of through-the-roof hedonism ruled by perverse, fetishistic, drug-addled and debauched impulses seemed, well, anachronistic, but the question is, if you're correct and the film is really about contemporary Hollywood in the 2020s, why didn't Chazelle just make a film about contemporary Hollywood? (It certainly would have been cheaper and easier.) Why pack a narrative about 1920s Hollywood with misdated notions of hedonistic excess? On that score, had Chazelle made a film about, say, 70s Hollywood - a true golden age of both great films and genuine Hollywood hedonism where cocaine was king - I would have found it more historically plausible.
I personally think this reading is correct though only by proxy. I think the movie is about perversion. Quite literally, not as in kinks, but as in the perversion industry does to -Identity, beliefs and dreams. The key components of film making. And specifically that because of the nature of our socioeconomic structure film WILL NOT change. We are doomed to smile at the beautiful cinema being made for us through tears at what it costs. And we will never escape it. Even when we (like manny) know the truth intimately. I found it to be a tragedy on such a massive scale that I’ve kind of never been the same since watching it.
1920s were very much like they are depicted in the film. There is possibility that is was more pumped up for the film but it was the difference between the west and the east at that time. LA was wild, full of booze, parties and drugs while New York was more classy with the theatre and high society. Also the director played by Olivia Hamilton is supposed to represent Dorothy Arzner. There definitely were female directors at that time and Dorothy Arzner was the most famous one.
Hardly any hedonism in Old Hollywood? I guess you never heard of Lionel Atwill. It could be that some people understood the theme behind the movie and just didn't like Chazelle's execution of the story.
People in Hollywood often make decisions based on their personal interests, just as people in other industries do. But what we see on the big screen is a reflection of those interests. And we're drawn to it because we want to be part of the crowd. But if you think about it, what kind of crowd is it? The men are popular so long as they don't settle down and the women unpopular until they do. Who finances the films that people go to see? Are they, by and large, the wealthy Privileged ladies? 😂
Don't be want to be a smart-ass but I thought it was obvious that the movie was a critique/commentary about the movie industry in general. I didn't look at it as a historical piece at all tbh. Just as a movie on cinema that just happens to be set in the 1920s.
Literally this is how I interpreted it. Bc why do they all have modern day accents? Lol and the woman director, and then the clear lgbt representation/ I mean come on, they weren't THAT open minded in the party era 🫣😂
*I've watched the Avanpremiere for the EU 🇪🇺 Release last night & although I was sincerely mesmerized by the real collective efforts & energy they put into making this epic future neoclassic movie, I was at the same time majorly disappointed by the fact that both New & Old Hollywood Romanticised and even Sexually Fetishized Vulnerable Neurodivergent Young Women like Nelly LeRoy probably based more on Clara Bow, Marylin Monroe & so forth just to make Big Profits💰💰On Their Poor, Frail and Emotionally Damaged Backs & to actually bankrupt them both financially & worse morally due to the status quo of that toxic patriarchy in power erasing their own boundaries, their self worth or any creative agency whatsoever!🔥🔥🔥*
face facts, the films sucks if at least 10 youtube channels have to explain the movie... I watched it, it was boring as fuck, and no amount of breakdown videos will change my mind and I had high hopes for this movie
My God you lack knowledge of 1920’s Hollywood. For starters there were various famous female directors in the silent era, Dorothy Azner, Mabel Normand, Lois Webber, Germaine Dulac to name a few. Manny says his family crossed the border not because of his legal migratory status but because by the time his family crossed it passports weren’t a thing which is also why there were so many European immigrants coming into America. Yes, the 1920s was full of scandals and debauchery specially around Calneva. Cocaine was rampant even Chaplin alluded to it in his silent film Modern Times. There were many scandals at the time William Desmond Taylor’s assassination, Fatty Arbuckle’s rape and manslaughter accusation, Mary Pickford’s and Douglas Fairbanks extra marital affairs, Chaplin’s penchant for underage girls, Olive Thomas’ overdose, Wallace Reid’s morphine addiction etc… you totally missed the point of the film. You need to learn more about Hollywood’s history
I would go even further... For me Chazel is depicting a certain decline of America or it's american dream turning to shit... The best illustration of that is the symetry between the first party orgy with the elephant that is (for me) a clear reminder of the infamous studio 54 era going all the way to the seconde more somber and sketchy wird party with Sado mazo theme the as nothing of the hilarious fun tone of the first but convey a realy dark tone. All the caracter of the film follow that kind of curve going from enthousiasme and optimism to desilusion and sadness has they aged. It kind of reflet what I feel being from that generation that lived in that 80's till today era as an adult.
I dont think it is misunderstood. It is more like people just did not like it. It was well made, had an A list cast, but the setting and the inside Hollywood stuff was a hard sell. The 1920's is probably the least interesting decade in the 20th century in America. The two combined just made it a not see.
They were, what I said in the video is that there were not really any big time female directors back then. You will find a female director, but you will not find anyone on the caliber of D.W. Griffith.
1920's. WWI just passed. Weimar Republic in power turning Berlin " The whore of Babylon of Europe". Americans would fly to Berlin to experience such decadence, also people from other nations but due to inflation the dollar ruled better for the locals to keep a sense of wealth. After we get WWII. Propaganda thru media etc... Secondly again 1920's the technology of cars, films, the telephone, etc... Gave humanity a huge jump start in the industrial revolution. Lastly Tesla. Tesla invented AC at the time and loads of other invention. Roaring Twenties for a reason, and if going to roar you better believe that roar sounded like a mythical beast just the movie. Side note: I subscribed and like. Me gusta tu videos essay ese. PS: on Palmer, yes the USSR done the same with Afro people using the race as a token, the USSR gave rights to the Afro people who decided to live there, yet the native population got genocide. Just like today propaganda. If the tactic and execution works and provides the same results. Keep using the same methodology. Yes you can find this even in the book "The Art of War". Oh 1920's into 2020 that makes 100 years old of all current technologies that now seems to have removed the current people from such technological evolution and appreciation. Respect. Peace.
Also, is it just me or the actor who plays Wallach shows a great resemblance to Harvey Weinstein? Could this be another piece of evidence sustaining you thesis?
I feel like most of the things you’re saying in this video are just assumptions (that may be true but aren’t really ‘hidden’ or played way out of proportion). You didn’t really give any evidence for most of your claims, and even if they’re true, it doesn’t mean the movie is making an allegory.
please next time say if there are spoilers or not. i stopped watching after 50 seconds because i don't want to risk it. I'll come back to this video after i see the film because i really want to hear what you have to say.
terrible analysis, chazelle has clearly said in interviews this is about capturing what cinema was like in the 20/30s … if anything i think they sercretly long for the wild west days in film before corporate got involved like today
Babylon is closing movie theatres down by the dozen. My own neighborhood newly renovated cineplex was shut down a few days after I saw Babylon at that movie theatre. This cineplex had 15 beautifully renovated screens and Babylon shut down ALL OF THEM!!!
The expanded storyline of Brad Pitt wasn't necessary, it could save around 35 minutes of the film. I had a strong feeling that I am watching a sort of homage refering to Once upon a time in Hollywood, where the character of Brad Pitt faced similar problem of being outdated actor. In addition, the main character did not even greet Brad Pitt at the party, where Margot Robbie vomited everyone around herself, which proved that Pitt and Manny did not even care about each other. I am convinced, that the whole impression of the movie would be much better wothout the openning scene with elephant and a half of the party in the beginning as well, as it was too long. The movie would be shorter without them and much easier to perceive.
If I tripped and fell face first into a pile of fresh manure...I'm not sure I'd have any "misunderstanding" about what had happened. Babylon may tell a story that needs telling (for someone) but it is not a story that the world really wants to see. Technically it is very well done, but you've got to want to feel really crappy to sit there in this mess for 3 hours.
Misunderstood? This films is just terrible. Have you a metaphor for the explosion in the window at the house ? Of for the scene where she visits ‘someone’ at a mental institution…only to replay “well that was a waste of time”. , No metaphors are required for a film that is so badly constructed, scene upon scene that is dumped next to each other…. And an ending that includes TRON, Terminator 2 and The Matrix… films that themselves didn’t need to reference others. Just like the over the top vomiting scene, this film is just too much. I shall not be wasting 189mins of my life again on this trash
That’s all well and good, and the video is great. However, I understood this when watching it and yes the metaphor is executed very well; doesn’t make the film good. I thought it was actually very difficult to watch. Margot Robbie’s character was too infuriating to be sympathetic
Actually Hollywood was that demented back in the 20s leading up to and including the 50s. Hollywood started to become less depraved in the mid to late 60s as a cultural shift also occurred at that time. So this is something you're actually completely inaccurate on. There's plenty of material, from books to memoirs, that describe exactly the chaotic and depraved nature of Hollywood in those early decades. This includes deaths and severe injuries caused to background actors, as well as recurring and even side character actors. Even in later productions such as Wizard of Oz, we can see the inherited depraved, abusive and totally wild levels of production at that time which caused a lot of harm to people on set. I love Babylon but I disagree with a lot of stuff in this video as the movie IS an actual portrayal of that era, regardless of the also obvious parallels to modern Hollywood. But what I find more weird about your take is that it comes of a bit too political, almost conservative in nature, which is weird, because Chazelle is 100% anything but conservative. And definitely some of the messages that he put there were not about the increased focus on black actors today. What a weird thing to even claim the guy thought about when making this movie. If he would see this he'd 100% disagree. Using "film analysis" as a means of expressing your own views about something. Especially when you just talk about it and you're not part of the creative minds behind it.
Yes, the 1920s was a wild time. Due to the horror of World War 1, people become extremely progresive and were breaking the old norms. New drugs were invented every months, mostly to treat veterans with PTSD. Germany became the capital of drugs and exported them all over the world. Death in Hollywood was pretty common. It was getting so bad that the industry create the code to fix their public image.
This is exactly how I interpreted the film. As a cinephile but also someone that is in love with this industry, theres just too many things that are really messed up about the industry. Which is what makes this film really truthful imo. People are just looking at the grotesque surface level tropes in the film.
Perfectly worded
I think this will be one of my fav movies this year!!
The producer who is a double ganger of weistein made me realise that
I think the main point Damien is making is that Hollywood has always been like this. While the stars, directors, and studio executives change, the machine kinda just keeps on running the same way. Elinor's monologue to Brad Pitt's character is sort of the central thesis of the film. So your general read isn't far off, it can definitely serve as a metaphor for the modern era of filmmaking, especially as it feels like cinema is in the middle of another period of evolution akin to the massive shift that happened when sound was introduced in the late 20s.
However, I do think a lot of your supporting "evidence" is not very well researched. There's definitely a meta aspect to the Samara Weaving casting since they look so similar, though it's not a direct reference to anything that happened in real life. Margot Robbie, being a few years older, made her Hollywood debut in The Wolf of Wall Street several years before Samara Weaving started landing roles in the USA. I don't believe there's any evidence that they were going after the same roles.
The inclusion of Olivia Hamilton (Damien's wife IRL) is nothing more than an acknowledgement of the early days of Hollywood where directing was treated less as an artist's medium and more as a factory style job. Her character was not directing big-time epics like DW Griffith or Cecile B Demille, but rather average mass-produced studio fare, often short films. Look at the difference between her set among the dozens of other films being shot simultaneously on that outdoor lot, compared to the historical epic that Brad Pitt is starring in directed by the big-shot German filmmaker. There weren't a ton of female directors back then (there were LOTS of women film editors though), but there were some notable ones that inspired Olivia's character like Dorothy Arzner, Alice Guy-Blache and Lois Weber. Unfortunately these women became glossed over throughout history, and eventually the Hollywood system became increasingly male dominated as the industry became more organized and hierarchical in the decades to come. The only exception I can think of during Hollywood's "Golden Era" was Ida Lupino in the 40s + 50s, but again she often is overlooked and wasn't exactly making high profile films back then.
Your next point makes no sense to me, of course people crossed the border illegally back then. It was honestly way easier and less dangerous than it is now.
Sidney's character exists to highlight the importance of "race pictures" and "race music" during that time. It makes sense that with the advent of sound, and the success of The Jazz Singer, that Hollywood would want to churn out more music based films. It was also the entertainment industry realizing they could pander to black audiences, as well as other racial demographics, and make good money on it. Obviously the scene at the fancy dinner party was to show how white people viewed people of color as token objects, as something exotic to gawk at even though they didn't really view them as equals. I think that parallels can be drawn to how things are today, there's definitely still tokenism and faux-liberal pandering. But I would say that we are starting to see the industry finally giving people of color a more equal seat at the table, and it coming from a slightly more genuine place.
And the last point about the debauchery and stuff is absolutely true to the time period. Another victim of general history sweeping things under the rug. The 20s were a time of hedonism and excess, the world had just gone through the "War to End All Wars" and the sexuality, drug use, etc was kind of a response to the social repression and economic difficulties during that time. Obviously this all came crashing down with the Great Depression, and then eventually (as the movie sorta shows) the general shift to conservativism and the "morality" that became imposed on Hollywood through things like The Hays Code in the 1930s. But seriously, do some research on city life in the 1920s, especially in places like Berlin where they were pretty wild and very free with their expressions of gender and sexuality.
Sorry for the long comment, but hopefully it made sense and maybe inspires you to do some further reading or check out some interviews with Damien Chazelle about the movie. Very glad you enjoyed the film, I absolutely think it's going to age like wine and people will look back years from now on the negative reviews for Babylon wondering what the critics were thinking.
Thanks for the detailed comment
*IMO Elinor's Character was too Cynical for my own taste as she could've worked her journalistic skills for worthy causes like Demolishing The Clearly Unearned Squeaky Clean Reputation of Many Corrupted Greedy Politicians or Immoral Local Authorities, be it republican or liberal, lazy commies or capitalistic pigs and so on, and she didn't understood The Healing Role of Art...🎆*
@@Catherine_Dana She's a tabloid journalist, she even refers to herself proudly as a cockroach lol
Just, congratulations and thanks you for the comment. The video is so ridiculous. None of his "arguments" makes any sense. every time you corrected him, it was right. glad some one here did some research and know how to interpret.
hahaha I simply love this very long comment it makes me smile (even though I skimmed through most of it lol)😂 cheers to the '20s despite the ill-advised things that took place✨️🥂🎩 Thx for the long comment and the video too! lol
I totally agree, I think this is the reason why Hollywood feels uncomfortable with the film. The film is divisive because Chazelle is able to create emotions in his audience, any person may have a different experience and interpretation of the film, the same happened with Whiplash or La La Land, the history is crafted in a way that each person may takeaway something very personal. Only an artist can create such a thing.
1920's Hollywood was very much as debauched as depicted in the film. The fat guy who gets peed on is clearly a Fatty Arbuckle reference, and most of the weirder elements depicted are based on stories from the time. The point is that we think it was more wholesome than today because all we remember is the immortal cinema painting a pretty picture over the stuff we'd rather think didn't happen in the days of our sweet little old grandparents.
I misread "debauchery" while recording the voiceover. Oops.
Btw, Chazelle said something interesting I read recently, paraphrasing of course: “Babylon is a love letter to cinema and a hate letter to Hollywood.” Take that as you will.
*From the Trailer, I've understood that the elephant in the room here is actually their professional ambitions impeding on their own personal lives, classism or elitism, social injustices, racism, lesbo_phobia, moral depravity, excessive consumerism, sexism, obtuse herd mentality & their meaningless hedonism both uplifting them & then destroying them, hence ruining the already more frail lives of those 4 main career driven yet socially naive protagonists & dreamers who reluctantly witnessed a greater change of scenery on The World's Stage along with the Implementation of the Famous Hays Code Production's Censorship Model Impeding on Their Quirky Creativity, Passion & Originality that separates them from the rest of the blindly obedient & emotionally repressed populace that's going to see their movies & vicariously living through their odd yet charming glamorous nonconforming rude characters on the silver screen that's always selling them beauteous escapist dreams!* 🔥🔥🔥
I saw it 4 times in theaters. The first time I was HIGH as a mofo and I couldn't believe my eyes.
It really started to dawn on me how insane everything was to get where we are now. Especially with the whole Kinescope and battle scene. People were paid little to nothing. No real safety or labor laws. Relying on the sun, relying on actors and actresses to get there on time to do their work. People begging to work or just there suffering in hope to get noticed. I feel we don't really think about how many people had to go through hell to get where we are now.
The film touches on so many aspects like that. The change to sound, the change of audiences humor or expectations. Big names becoming sell outs or embarrassing, provocative, old, etc.
That's exactly what I thought while watching it at home this weekend for the first time.
We are in a massive technological and cultural shift right now akin to what happened a century ago with the shift from movies to talkies.
The party at the beginning is decadent, magical, surreal, sexy, silly, disgusting, musical, inspiring, funny, scary, shocking and thrilling. It's everything that cinema has been, all at once. It happens atop a mountain (a proud pinnacle) and everyone wants to be a part of the celebration (where the word 'celebrity' comes from).
Then we live a roller coaster through the 3 main characters: the biggest star in the world, one who will do anything to be the biggest star, and one who works his ass off just to participate in the industry.
The cave scene at the end contrasts the party scene at the beginning. The party at the start represents what Hollywood was (metaphorically) at its height. The cave is where we are today... people just doing shocking stuff in hopes that anyone will watch. Clickbait. Subscribers. Re-tweets. Cheap thrills with no story. It's hidden, done in the dark, doom scrolling. It's underground and you run screaming for your life to get out. It's another Marvel Movie. It's another season of Walking Dead. It's another watered down, over-budget, poorly re-written remake that nobody asked for.
The end of the movie, when Manuel comes back to Hollywood, is all about nostalgia and the end of film literally and metaphorically (the scenes with film in colored solutions, and him crying over what (and who) has been lost).
- The end of actual physical film in place of digital technology.
- The end of traditional film because of CGI, green screen, animation, etc.
- What do the Oscars even mean anymore, if anything? They used to be our one chance a year to see the celebs. Now they're on social media constantly.
- The average person has a better film viewing experience at home than theatres provide (surround sound, 4k big screens, comfy seating, pause when you need a new drink, etc.).
- What do we "go to the movies" for now? It used to be the only affordable entertainment (assuming stage shows were pricey)
- A lot of productions are going direct to any of the dozen big streaming services.
- Most video games have better stories than what's in movies now.
Party's over folks. But what a wild ride it was!
Well said!
I think Babylon asks the same question as every other film he’s made “what would you sacrifice to reach your dreams?” Whiplash it was self preservation, as his obsession grew to the point of borderline self destruction. Lala land was about the people you love, and if you would trade your life with them for a life where you get what you’re most passionate about, and Babylon was would you give your humanity/morality? Even manny, who was arguably the most decent of the three protagonists, sacrificed his humanity for the sake of his dream, specifically with the charcoal scene. Personally I felt Babylon was classic chazelle, maybe I wasn’t as in love with it as the other two, and idk if I’ll really get used to the total depravity but it crafted a very beautiful bittersweet ending like the others, and stuck with me for days after I first watched it
In the final sequence all the colors mixed in a liquid colorful palette at the end form pure blue, pure red and pure green screens with no other colors and nuances. The metaphor is clear
I loved the film and pretty much agreed with the title as soon as I saw it, but I have disagree with your one example saying it's supposed to represent today because it had so much extreme behavior, debauchery, etc. Damien has mentioned that aspect in particular as being something from that decade that people have ignored and swept under the rug overtime. In his interview with ReelBlend he said "if you're gonna make a movie about the 20s or early Hollywood that doesn't shock and offend and appall some people, I would argue you're not really doing justice to the period."
I liked hearing your thoughts regardless, though!
Thanks for sharing dude
The end montage with the history of film and it's rapid advances only solidifies this video
My understanding is that you hit the nail on the head. The ROARING 2020S is now. We're in an age where Star Talent doesn't really exist anymore. There are actors sure, but running to the cinema's for Clark Gable or Robert Deniro is a thing of the past. Chazelle aptly explores this theme very well in Babylon. A crumbling facade of Hollywood ideals and the belief that people would flock to a movie for technological advancements ie his use of Avatar at the end. Babylon isn't about Hollywood falling apart, but its about the stars, the people behind that screen who fall so far, they will never be able to see themselves immortalized on the big screen.
Great video dude! Loved a lot of your points.
One note tho, woman WERE directors in the 20s, especially in the silent era. As the 20s progressed, and sound came around, it became way less common.
I think the film in many ways ( especially in length ) is also a look into what life is like on a film set. It’s exhausting, funny, frustrating, and sometimes, beautiful in all the right ways.
Yeah I agree with the general perspective here, but the historical points he uses to back it up are mostly not true.
I don't know if I would put it the way you did, but i thought a central theme of the movie was about the industry evolving but keeping its essence in the yuxtaposition of the ephemeral and the eternal.
Movies are an outlet for the immortalization of us, mortal beings. And that is a fantastic concept, but can also create really toxic perspectives. Stars like Conrad thinking their heyday would last forever, children like Nellie being dragged out of the dust just to be chewed and spitted in less than a decade, and dreamers like Manny getting corrupted over this two sided coin. Sidney is the only main character who sees his own soul being delivered to an industry which doesn't appreciate it, so decides to leave it behind and stay next to what he really loved, the music.
*makes a mental note to make time to watch Babylon*
It's great
@@mr_celluloid it's only like what 3 and a half hours long no biggie
@@molliebug5196 with trailers, yes
Yep most people seemed to have missed this. I won’t be surprised if Chazelle goes awol and starts making weird French new wave type films after this.
Not a bad idea actually. I'd certainly seek them out.
he gonna do james bond
the same critics who slam Babylon, praise goofy shit like Barbarian, The Menu, and Banshees.
I thought those 3 were mid, The Menu probably best of them
@@mr_celluloid Agree. They were fine but to praise them and diss Babylon is incredibly hipster.
@@mr_celluloid *LOVED The Suspenseful Menu & even Seen it at The Cinema Theatre with a non-cinephile friend who also liked it too* 🎬
@@letmeknowhowthatgoes *Think only Sad Boring Hipsters Still Living with Their Moms , Cringey Zoomers & Grumpy Boomers hate it* 😂
@@Catherine_Dana ironic takes are a huge part of hipster ethos... "I hate the one that is obviously amazing because I'm supposed to like it, and I love the ones that aren't because they're clearly not as good... that's hipster philosophy 101.
Margot Robbie and Samara Weaving both hail from Australia, competed in rival soap operas on their home turf, and later crossed paths again in Hollywood.
In this film, the two play out their own struggles with competition and jealousy－struggles that are echoed in the lives of their real-life counterparts.
In a stark contrast to the uptight and poise of her co-star, Robbie's character steals the show in a wild west movie, but loses it in another period piece that resembles "Chevalier de Saint Georges"-except no one understands why. As a whole, The film is a bittersweet reflection on how women are often stereotyped.
There are distinctly autobiographical elements embedded within it, too. Robbie once wrangled a snake, just as Brad Pitt plays an established mega star who is engaged to every one who was anyone in Hollywood plays out its renewal.
1:42
I've seen BABYLON in a glorious cinema of my hometown, as soon as IT'S been released in Italy. I really did love It! In my opinion It Is One of the best motion picture of 2022 and One of the best films by Damien Chazelle. I do agree with you that BABYLON IS a metaphor of modern-day Hollywood. Anyway. Do you really think that in those very glorious 20's there wasn't such "bacchanals" as those masterfully depicted by Chazelle? At least according to the book HOLLYWOOD BABYLONE by Kenneth Anger, sex, booze and drugs in 20's Hollywood, was very "normal". It wasn't as free as today because today there are social Networks that can destroy a career faster than the Speed of light. But Anyway, according to me, Chazelle directing BABYLONE, given us a true masterpiece, that Is destined to become a CLASSIC throughout the next decades.
Babylon will only be enthralling to you if you are already nostalgic about the time period or fascinated by Hollywood and the film industry moreover… but I feel like wonderful storytelling will MAKE you interested in a scene even if you weren’t before. It felt quite aggrandized and more into calling itself provocative, than it was truly provocative. Provocative should mean something is daring but not that something is blunt/on the nose and without any substance…
Lately I feel like these films (Once Upon a Time, La La Land, Babylon) are just passion projects for actors and directors who think the underbelly of the industry isn’t already well-explored, no, OVER-explored territory
I mean, apart from what's depicted here, the sound movies and Netflix are generally the same thing as well. We're in a time where movie making and cinema is just changing, cinema itself is becoming old fashioned and starting to loose its gravitas to the internet content.
Evidence number 5 is very convincing! As a matter of fact, that scene with Sidney Palmer instinctively reminded me of Get out by Jordan Peele which kind of conveys a similar commentary (not on the industry but more generally on society). I don't know if this is truly what Chazelle ment with this movie but I think it's very important to try and go beyond a superficial analysis, so thank you for your insights
( btw I'm glad to know that someone actually liked the movie, I think it's a very good one after all, and much more complex than it looks)
I also agree it’s a good film
There were female directors in Hollywood at that time directing films at that scale though…where did you do your research?
When you talk about "the many quid pro quos in modern hollywood", what exactly are you refering to?
And concerning Evidence 6 (all the hedonism): "not rampant in 1920s Hollywood" Are you sure about that? Maybe not AS rampant but the early 20's were certainly infamous for it's hedonism.
I liked the movie. It shows how crazy this industry is, shows the risks and desperately cries about how miserable the luxury party life actually is. On the other hand we are happy there is Hollywood - there are so many talented actors, writers, technicians, film directors/producers. Watching this I wanted to make a movie myself to see what comes out.
Besides, I found one aspect especially interesting - the scene where the girl pukes all over the noble America. Actors suddenly appear as representatives of simple people who don't give a flying sausage about manners and noblesse, as left wing of the society so to say. I found that idea interesting I never thought about Hollywood actors that way.
I don’t have strong proofs here, but I bon’t see any reason for 20s hollywood not to include the drugs and orgies.
Otherwise, is Gatsby also not realistic in that sense?
And the figure of the film producer? When they’re trying to film the collage scene? He was so similar to Harvey Weinstein 🧐
YES! So true. Like it literaly couln't go unnoticed
Totally agree. There are also other scenes such as the one with Lady Fay Zhu talking with Manny about the fact that Nelly being a lesbian is ruining her reputation as a movie star.
Great video.
It seems that this is a film which allows many different interpretations and emotional hooks depending on the type of person you are. I personally consider it a misunderstood masterpiece and am of the opinion that the critic majority who thinks it's nonsensical and "a mess" is genuinely stupid. However I have to agree with another comment in here that a lot of your claims are factually incorrect and it hurts my soul to see that people are still running around talking about things like they know everything despite having done 0 research. That being said i like that we both like the movie so there's that.
I was with you right up until you made the claim that there weren't really any female directors working in Hollywood at the time. What about Lois Weber? Or Dorothy Arzner? Or Dorothy Davenport who famously also employed female writers? I totally agree with your argument. I was seeing it even before I clicked on your video. It could also easily be applied to the current state of the publishing industry. In any case, little white bursts of light exploded behind my eyes when you failed to mention the female directors in Hollywood (some of whom even owned their own studies) so I have to click out. I subbed, though.
I personally think there’s an underlying message when she’s laying down at the party and the initials DW are behind her. I think it could represent DW grifith who was a big director at the time. He made birth of a nation which resparked the KKK and a new racist movement in america at a time when maybe it was inclusive like we see with manny Sydney and Faye. DW grifith also made a film called Intolerance, consisting of three stories, one being the fall of Babylon. This movie was a flop I believe but the set of Babylon remained in Hollywood until they destroyed it decades later. Grifith later became a legendary influence in Hollywood. I feel there’s a subtext to be made about his involvement in Hollywood but I can’t fully figure it out if anyone has any ideas lmk.
Amazing observation, I can’t wait to re-watch this film with that idea on my mind
@@mr_celluloid thank you. I’ve been rewatching as well bc there’s a lot to unpack from the movie. I notice details every rewatch. Another point I researched about DW is that he was a big director for silent films but when they transferred over to talking pictures he was cast out and didn’t make it as a director. His last film being in 1931
You nailed it and I put this film of my favorite top 10 movies.
I think this is an interesting analysis. But truth be told, only one fact remains in my eyes: I loved watching this film!
I also really liked it
Did- anyone actually miss any of this??? Is that not what people think the movie is about-?
Interesting point of view! It’s explains why I felt it didn’t give 1920s vibes.
Intriguing!
*BABYLON= META TRAGICOMEDY🎞️ 4 Cinéphiles*
Spot on 🙌🏻
I also think that the film is more about recent Hollywood than the one where the story supposedly takes place. As you said, there were few female directors at the time, even though Chazelle mentioned Dorothy Arzner as an influence on the character played by his wife. The biggest clue for me was when Nellie suddenly appeared with enlarged breasts. That was hardly common 100 years ago, but Melanie Griffith did the exact same thing while making Bonfire of the Vanities.
All that being said, I still think the film is a boring mess, which I wish that I had never seen.
Hmmm..I'll agree with you that Babylon's depiction of 1920s Hollywood as an orgy of through-the-roof hedonism ruled by perverse, fetishistic, drug-addled and debauched impulses seemed, well, anachronistic, but the question is, if you're correct and the film is really about contemporary Hollywood in the 2020s, why didn't Chazelle just make a film about contemporary Hollywood? (It certainly would have been cheaper and easier.) Why pack a narrative about 1920s Hollywood with misdated notions of hedonistic excess? On that score, had Chazelle made a film about, say, 70s Hollywood - a true golden age of both great films and genuine Hollywood hedonism where cocaine was king - I would have found it more historically plausible.
I personally think this reading is correct though only by proxy. I think the movie is about perversion. Quite literally, not as in kinks, but as in the perversion industry does to -Identity, beliefs and dreams. The key components of film making. And specifically that because of the nature of our socioeconomic structure film WILL NOT change. We are doomed to smile at the beautiful cinema being made for us through tears at what it costs. And we will never escape it. Even when we (like manny) know the truth intimately.
I found it to be a tragedy on such a massive scale that I’ve kind of never been the same since watching it.
1920s were very much like they are depicted in the film. There is possibility that is was more pumped up for the film but it was the difference between the west and the east at that time. LA was wild, full of booze, parties and drugs while New York was more classy with the theatre and high society.
Also the director played by Olivia Hamilton is supposed to represent Dorothy Arzner. There definitely were female directors at that time and Dorothy Arzner was the most famous one.
Hardly any hedonism in Old Hollywood? I guess you never heard of Lionel Atwill. It could be that some people understood the theme behind the movie and just didn't like Chazelle's execution of the story.
cool story bro
Subscribed.
Why thank you!
Thank You!
People in Hollywood often make decisions based on their personal interests, just as people in other industries do. But what we see on the big screen is a reflection of those interests. And we're drawn to it because we want to be part of the crowd. But if you think about it, what kind of crowd is it? The men are popular so long as they don't settle down and the women unpopular until they do.
Who finances the films that people go to see? Are they, by and large, the wealthy Privileged ladies? 😂
Don't be want to be a smart-ass but I thought it was obvious that the movie was a critique/commentary about the movie industry in general. I didn't look at it as a historical piece at all tbh. Just as a movie on cinema that just happens to be set in the 1920s.
Literally this is how I interpreted it. Bc why do they all have modern day accents? Lol and the woman director, and then the clear lgbt representation/ I mean come on, they weren't THAT open minded in the party era 🫣😂
*I've watched the Avanpremiere for the EU 🇪🇺 Release last night & although I was sincerely mesmerized by the real collective efforts & energy they put into making this epic future neoclassic movie, I was at the same time majorly disappointed by the fact that both New & Old Hollywood Romanticised and even Sexually Fetishized Vulnerable Neurodivergent Young Women like Nelly LeRoy probably based more on Clara Bow, Marylin Monroe & so forth just to make Big Profits💰💰On Their Poor, Frail and Emotionally Damaged Backs & to actually bankrupt them both financially & worse morally due to the status quo of that toxic patriarchy in power erasing their own boundaries, their self worth or any creative agency whatsoever!🔥🔥🔥*
This videos a lot like this movie- it’s great, and I could do with another 30 minutes of it at least.
You’re too kind!
Wasn't the 1920's filled with all kinds of crazy stuff though?
One of the best movies ever made
A pretentious, big budget, self-indulgent student film with nothing to say.
I also loved this film and totally agree with this.
Mostly accurate but Hollywood hedonism was alive and well in the roaring 20s; the time period of this film.
Read the book Hollywood Babylon. This as going on in the early days. You did not do your research.
face facts, the films sucks if at least 10 youtube channels have to explain the movie... I watched it, it was boring as fuck, and no amount of breakdown videos will change my mind and I had high hopes for this movie
Does this mean that Margot Robbie will die when she turns 34 next year like in the movie????
Mark my words it will become a cult classic in the future
My God you lack knowledge of 1920’s Hollywood. For starters there were various famous female directors in the silent era, Dorothy Azner, Mabel Normand, Lois Webber, Germaine Dulac to name a few. Manny says his family crossed the border not because of his legal migratory status but because by the time his family crossed it passports weren’t a thing which is also why there were so many European immigrants coming into America. Yes, the 1920s was full of scandals and debauchery specially around Calneva. Cocaine was rampant even Chaplin alluded to it in his silent film Modern Times. There were many scandals at the time William Desmond Taylor’s assassination, Fatty Arbuckle’s rape and manslaughter accusation, Mary Pickford’s and Douglas Fairbanks extra marital affairs, Chaplin’s penchant for underage girls, Olive Thomas’ overdose, Wallace Reid’s morphine addiction etc… you totally missed the point of the film. You need to learn more about Hollywood’s history
I would go even further... For me Chazel is depicting a certain decline of America or it's american dream turning to shit... The best illustration of that is the symetry between the first party orgy with the elephant that is (for me) a clear reminder of the infamous studio 54 era going all the way to the seconde more somber and sketchy wird party with Sado mazo theme the as nothing of the hilarious fun tone of the first but convey a realy dark tone. All the caracter of the film follow that kind of curve going from enthousiasme and optimism to desilusion and sadness has they aged. It kind of reflet what I feel being from that generation that lived in that 80's till today era as an adult.
I dont think it is misunderstood. It is more like people just did not like it. It was well made, had an A list cast, but the setting and the inside Hollywood stuff was a hard sell. The 1920's is probably the least interesting decade in the 20th century in America. The two combined just made it a not see.
Female directors were a thing back then history kinda covers it up, Chazelle said so himself
They were, what I said in the video is that there were not really any big time female directors back then. You will find a female director, but you will not find anyone on the caliber of D.W. Griffith.
@@mr_celluloid I u probably know more, I’m just remembering what chazelle said at an early screening back in November during a Q&A
1920's. WWI just passed. Weimar Republic in power turning Berlin " The whore of Babylon of Europe". Americans would fly to Berlin to experience such decadence, also people from other nations but due to inflation the dollar ruled better for the locals to keep a sense of wealth. After we get WWII. Propaganda thru media etc... Secondly again 1920's the technology of cars, films, the telephone, etc... Gave humanity a huge jump start in the industrial revolution. Lastly Tesla. Tesla invented AC at the time and loads of other invention. Roaring Twenties for a reason, and if going to roar you better believe that roar sounded like a mythical beast just the movie. Side note: I subscribed and like. Me gusta tu videos essay ese. PS: on Palmer, yes the USSR done the same with Afro people using the race as a token, the USSR gave rights to the Afro people who decided to live there, yet the native population got genocide. Just like today propaganda. If the tactic and execution works and provides the same results. Keep using the same methodology. Yes you can find this even in the book "The Art of War". Oh 1920's into 2020 that makes 100 years old of all current technologies that now seems to have removed the current people from such technological evolution and appreciation. Respect. Peace.
Also, is it just me or the actor who plays Wallach shows a great resemblance to Harvey Weinstein? Could this be another piece of evidence sustaining you thesis?
You’re not the first person to mention this… it’s interesting to think about
I feel like most of the things you’re saying in this video are just assumptions (that may be true but aren’t really ‘hidden’ or played way out of proportion). You didn’t really give any evidence for most of your claims, and even if they’re true, it doesn’t mean the movie is making an allegory.
Yes, it is about the death of cinema NOW.
I like the film more now.
too short, not enough content
I agree overall but some of your points were just misinformed
please next time say if there are spoilers or not. i stopped watching after 50 seconds because i don't want to risk it. I'll come back to this video after i see the film because i really want to hear what you have to say.
👍
terrible analysis, chazelle has clearly said in interviews this is about capturing what cinema was like in the 20/30s … if anything i think they sercretly long for the wild west days in film before corporate got involved like today
Babylon is closing movie theatres down by the dozen. My own neighborhood newly renovated cineplex was shut down a few days after I saw Babylon at that movie theatre. This cineplex had 15 beautifully renovated screens and Babylon shut down ALL OF THEM!!!
You missed the scene when he has a big nose on and talking about “running Hollywood”
Oh boy... I’ll have to look for that when I rewatch it. Thanks.
Aesthetic is not symbolism.
"if you love the movie, yeay me too!! If you didn't like it, you clearly didn't get it!"
The expanded storyline of Brad Pitt wasn't necessary, it could save around 35 minutes of the film. I had a strong feeling that I am watching a sort of homage refering to Once upon a time in Hollywood, where the character of Brad Pitt faced similar problem of being outdated actor. In addition, the main character did not even greet Brad Pitt at the party, where Margot Robbie vomited everyone around herself, which proved that Pitt and Manny did not even care about each other. I am convinced, that the whole impression of the movie would be much better wothout the openning scene with elephant and a half of the party in the beginning as well, as it was too long. The movie would be shorter without them and much easier to perceive.
👃 👈
If I tripped and fell face first into a pile of fresh manure...I'm not sure I'd have any "misunderstanding" about what had happened. Babylon may tell a story that needs telling (for someone) but it is not a story that the world really wants to see. Technically it is very well done, but you've got to want to feel really crappy to sit there in this mess for 3 hours.
Misunderstood? This films is just terrible. Have you a metaphor for the explosion in the window at the house ? Of for the scene where she visits ‘someone’ at a mental institution…only to replay “well that was a waste of time”. ,
No metaphors are required for a film that is so badly constructed, scene upon scene that is dumped next to each other…. And an ending that includes TRON, Terminator 2 and The Matrix… films that themselves didn’t need to reference others.
Just like the over the top vomiting scene, this film is just too much.
I shall not be wasting 189mins of my life again on this trash
It’s obviously about modern Hollywood/ history repeats itself. It still sucks lol
I loved it personally… : ) but glad you saw the metaphor as I did.
*it's META lol* 🙈🙉🙊
That’s all well and good, and the video is great. However, I understood this when watching it and yes the metaphor is executed very well; doesn’t make the film good. I thought it was actually very difficult to watch. Margot Robbie’s character was too infuriating to be sympathetic
This is like you did zero research before making this video
Actually Hollywood was that demented back in the 20s leading up to and including the 50s. Hollywood started to become less depraved in the mid to late 60s as a cultural shift also occurred at that time. So this is something you're actually completely inaccurate on. There's plenty of material, from books to memoirs, that describe exactly the chaotic and depraved nature of Hollywood in those early decades. This includes deaths and severe injuries caused to background actors, as well as recurring and even side character actors. Even in later productions such as Wizard of Oz, we can see the inherited depraved, abusive and totally wild levels of production at that time which caused a lot of harm to people on set.
I love Babylon but I disagree with a lot of stuff in this video as the movie IS an actual portrayal of that era, regardless of the also obvious parallels to modern Hollywood. But what I find more weird about your take is that it comes of a bit too political, almost conservative in nature, which is weird, because Chazelle is 100% anything but conservative. And definitely some of the messages that he put there were not about the increased focus on black actors today. What a weird thing to even claim the guy thought about when making this movie. If he would see this he'd 100% disagree. Using "film analysis" as a means of expressing your own views about something. Especially when you just talk about it and you're not part of the creative minds behind it.
Yes, the 1920s was a wild time. Due to the horror of World War 1, people become extremely progresive and were breaking the old norms. New drugs were invented every months, mostly to treat veterans with PTSD. Germany became the capital of drugs and exported them all over the world. Death in Hollywood was pretty common. It was getting so bad that the industry create the code to fix their public image.