Words by Bailey Alexander
Damien Chazelle’s Babylon released in theatres just over two months ago with next to no fanfare and disappointing box office results, but was it in fact a diamond in the rough?
Biblically, the city of Babylon was the crown jewel of an ancient empire, and home to the lost Hanging Gardens, the Seventh Wonder of the World. Babylon’s legacy is one of intellect, religion, and culture and, fast forward a couple of millenia, the city’s name has re-entered the zeitgeist, this time under the guise of Damien Chazelle’s Babylon.
Chazelle’s Babylon tells the intertwining stories of characters in 1920s Hollywood, surviving, pioneering, and dreading the transition from silent film to so-called ‘talkies’. The decadence and depravity of this era are showcased in a way so spectacular, that its grand-scale truly can only be appreciated on the silver screen.
Rising to prominence with the Oscar-winning psychological drama Whiplash, Chazelle soon reached the stratosphere with his follow-up film, La La Land, a musical mammoth that seemed to have no bounds, permeating the culture at every level. Having already mastered the drama and the musical, and also the biopic in 2018’s First Man, Babylon sees Chazelle face arguably the most-challenging genre to conquer: the Hollywood epic.
Epics were once a dominant force at the box office. Films like Gladiator, Ben Hur, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy saw audiences arriving to the cinema in their droves, ready to get lost in a large-scale spectacle. For Babylon, these droves were nowhere to be seen. Against an $80 million budget, the film barely scraped $60 million.
When a film fails to break-even at the box office, many presume it is symptomatic of the move lacking any true value: this philosophy is wrong. Looking beyond Babylon, there are countless films that have failed at the box-office yet been considered as classics: The Shawshank Redemption, The Big Lebowski, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World being just a few examples.
Admittedly, reviews for Babylon have indeed been mixed: it is in no way a stone-cold classic. One reviewer described it as a “deliberately designed career-killer” for Chazelle, whilst on the other end of the spectrum another reviewer called it “an experience that won’t be easily topped, in this or any year”. The film’s intensity naturally makes it divisive: there are sequences of human debasement like nothing usually seen in big blockbuster films. Is it it is a step too far for Chazelle? Or, it is an uncomfortable breath of fresh air into an industry now too-often plagued by comic-book movies, remakes, and sequels, and, for that reason, something provocative that viewers simply weren’t ready for?
Reviews are important to the success of a film but, with star-power like Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt, Babylon was supposed to be a sure-fire hit, so what else potentially failed to entice cinema-goers? Perhaps the three-hour runtime changed a cinema trip from an afternoon activity into a daunting commitment. Alternatively, perhaps the bad weather on the film’s US opening weekend was far too detrimental to the public’s initial interest and any further publicity.
These factors had an impact, but there are two overriding elements that had an unmitigated effect on the film’s success. The first is the film’s marketing campaign. Babylon’s promotional trail was almost non-existent, and the trailer released to cinemas showcased the epic’s spectacle but failed to market the film’s plot, leaving viewers with no real reason to be invested. A film is essentially a product, and to sell a product you need to market it to the consumer and convince them that they need it: there was no presented need for Babylon.
The second reason is the rise of streaming services, and the ever-shortening period between theatrical releases and streaming releases. After Babylon’s cinema release, it was available to view at home just over a month later. Our growing reliance on streaming services means that the idea of waiting a little longer to watch movies at home and for no additional cost is all too tempting. This ideology is one that Tom Cruise battled studio executives over, regarding the release of Top Gun: Maverick, refusing to let the Best-Picture-nominated sequel debut on streaming services too soon.
It becomes clear that Babylon’s status as a bomb is undeniable, after all, numbers tend not to lie. Its status as a cinematic marvel, however, is up for debate. Some love it, others hate it. Perhaps we should consider the impact that its poor viewership has had on its credibility as a good movie. Surely there is some degree of intersection between revenue, quality, and reception?
This is a question that may be answerable over the coming years. For now, Babylon perhaps needs to marinade a while longer. Misunderstood by contemporary critics, like so many classics before it it’s not out of the question that future re-evaluations will be more favourable. Consequently, maybe Babylon is both a box office bomb and a soon-to-be cinematic wonder. In a sense, considering its depth and spectacle, it is only made more of a wonder by its failure to capture the public’s interest. Just like the Hanging Gardens of old, it has become a lost wonder. One that, if film history is anything to go upon, will one day down the line be rediscovered, celebrated, and mourned for the lease of life it failed to upon its release.