Damien Chazelle and Babylon: The Exploration of Achievement
Although it contains a hilarious first half, Babylon, directed by Damien Chazelle, is an overlong, bloated look into the cinema of the 1920s and 30s. While not quite as perfect as La La Land or Whiplash, this project continues Chazelle’s quest to answer the question: was it worth it?
Babylon starts in the late 1920s, and follows the simultaneous transition from silent to talking films and from an era of extravagance to one of moral purity. It shows us how the industry was forced to adapt while leaving behind the once-popular stars that could not keep up with the changing times. The film follows a plethora of characters, from Brad Pitt’s Jack Conrad, a veteran silent movie star; to Diego Calvas’ Manny Torres, an assistant to a popular film producer who seeks his own place in the industry; to of course Margot Robbie’s Nellie Laroy, a crass, lower class nobody who just wants to star in the movies. Lastly, there is Jovan Adepo as Sydney Palmer, a black jazz trumpet player who similarly finds himself caught up in the movie business.
However, one can not truly understand Babylon without knowing more about 1952’s Singin’ in the Rain. Gene Kelly’s Don Lockwood and Conrad seem very similar - stars from a bygone era of silent film, adapting to a changing world of sound. Conrad even participates in a Singin’ in the Rain sequence in Babylon, where he is forced to sing the song with other actors. Jean Hagan’s Lina Lamont and Nellie Laroy seem to be replications of each other, both with shrill voices and off-putting demeanors that seem to cause their downfalls.
Given the similarities between these characters, the ending of Babylon fashions its story as an anti-Singin’ in the Rain. Whereas Lockwood gets the girl of his dreams and finds success in a musical, Conrad goes through more than four different wives and is driven to suicide by his failure to find success in the new era. Whereas Lockwood’s assistant continues to help him and sing catchy musical numbers, Conrad’s assistant also kills himself. Where Lina Lamont is simply laughed off stage when the audience hears her true voice, never to be seen again, Nellie Laroy is discarded by the studio and the viewer sees her descent into gambling and drugs. Lina’s failure is a victory whereas Nellie’s failure is a tragedy. Lockwood’s story ends in victory whereas Conrad’s story ends in tragedy. The other characters, not so clearly recreating those in Singin’ in the Rain, do fair better, but still experience their own pain in the film industry. Sydney experiences racism from both studio execs and rich investors, leading him to quit in favor of playing his trumpet in small jazz clubs. Manny is forced to flee to Mexico after he loses Nellie and is targeted by the man to whom she owes money for gambling, leaving the movie business behind.
Consequently, Babylon represents the dark and grimy underbelly of Singin’ in the Rain, particularly towards the second half. Singin in the Rain paints a picture perfect vision of Hollywood, one with wonderful musical numbers, happiness, and success. Those who don’t “deserve” pain, don’t receive it. Babylon is the opposite: a film filled to the brim with gross extravagance, drugs, crime, racism, and insanity. It shows everything underneath the success of art and the toll it took on those creating it.
The final montage (a scene I dislike on the basis of its execution) emphasizes the point of the film. Manny, who after Nellie’s demise leaves the movie business, returns to the studio he once worked for as a producer, as a tourist. There, he attends a showing of Singin’ in the Rain, but eventually the film evolves into a montage of films throughout history that pushed cinema forward –beautiful films that only exist because of all the sinfulness and pain Babylon shows the viewer.
Chazelle is thereby asking the viewer the question: Is art worth it? Is the pain of contributors worth the art form at large? On an individual level, is all this pain worth being immortalized in your art? Is it all worth being eventually discarded in your lifetime for the progress of the art form? Jack perfectly poses these questions: he is a man who lives a lonely life, a life without love where he drowns his sorrows in alcohol and is eventually discarded by the art he loved, driving him to suicide. But he will forever live through his films. The viewer is left to decide whether that existence is worth the immortality cinema affords and the progress of art.
After writing about Whiplash, La La Land, and Babylon, a clear throughline has emerged in Chazelle’s movies. Whiplash asks whether greatness is worth it? La La land asks whether your dreams are worth it? And Babylon asks whether art is worth it? But what should Damien Chazelle do next? Perhaps, Chazelle will make a movie that explores a different theme, asking the same fundamental question but looking at something different that humans seek to achieve. The next Chazelle film could ask the question: Is power worth it? Logically, a political thriller or neo-noir film would make sense for this theme,exploring what individuals sacrifice to gain power and what they need to do to become powerful.
No matter what Damien Chazelle does next however, I will be in that theater on day one. He is clearly one of the best up and coming filmmakers that crafts movies with incredible cinematography, scores, themes, and performances. Even if Babylon is not nearly as airtight as his other work, it still stands strong alongside his previous filmography as a hate or love letter to cinema.