criterionforum.org

Never Cursed wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:50 am

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:39 am

Spoiler

I was told by someone that this is actually the set for the new Spielberg autobiographical film. The time period and the choice of a (mediocre) De Mille in my mind makes me feel that’s the right answer.

I highly doubt it.

Spoiler

The 50s segment is specifically stated to be set in the winter/spring of 1952, the year of The Greatest Show on Earth's LA premiere. I'd be very surprised if both films specifically referenced this exact same point in time.

Also, 1952 doesn't really line up with the age of the Spielberg stand-in (as Spielberg was 7 at the time of that film's release) nor does LA line up with Spielberg's childhood, though who knows how closely the film is going to follow these details in specific. Given what I've read about Babylon, I'd be astonished if this set was not for it.

Spoiler

If that’s the case, then the snow is bizarre. Los Angeles isn’t famous for having snow. I’ve seen Los Angeles used again and again as stand-ins for another place and assumed that this is what is was. I was also told by someone who lives near the shoot that it was the Spielberg. Could be wrong!

According to Wikipedia, Spielberg lived in Ohio then moved to New Jersey in 1952. Neither state had an Orpheum Theater

domino harvey wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 5:05 am According to Wikipedia, Spielberg lived in Ohio then moved to New Jersey in 1952. Neither state had an Orpheum Theater

Major spoiler:

Spoiler

Coroner vehicle has Los Angeles decals on it. Seems it isn’t the Spielberg. Still confused by the snow!

Let's compromise, Spielberg has taken over Babylon's directing duties from Chazelle, in order to eliminate all the X-rated material from it and make the film more marketable. Chazelle has, in turn, been hired to direct the story of Spielberg's life, and insert a bunch of X-rated material to destroy the myth of Spielberg's prudishness

There was an extremely rare snow event in California in January of 1952, the same month the film in question was released

Just throwing this out there: when he was given the Cecil B. DeMille award at the Golden Globes a few years ago Spielberg recounted going to see The Greatest Show on Earth in the theater. He remembers being six years old at the time (1952) and that it was at a theater in Philadelphia (where apparently there was an Orpheum Theater, though it's hard to find good pictures of what it used to look like).

ianthemovie wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:38 pm Just throwing this out there: when he was given the Cecil B. DeMille award at the Golden Globes a few years ago Spielberg recounted going to see The Greatest Show on Earth in the theater. He remembers being six years old at the time (1952) and that it was at a theater in Philadelphia (where apparently there was an Orpheum Theater, though it's hard to find good pictures of what it used to look like).

Worth noting that the cars pictured directly outside the Orpheum have old Philadelphia plates. Again, I heard directly from someone living nearby that it was the Spielberg film, but it could be hearsay.

Spielberg's film isn't completely autobiographical, correct? If something doesn't line up with his life, it could be yet another detail he's tweaked for the film.

Cast names have leaked and Clara Bow and Anna May Wong now go by other names. And Maguire is not playing Thalberg, Max Minghella is

Effusive reaction to the first test screening

Damien Chazellle’s new movie stunned L.A. moviegoers last night. I’m hearing the word “masterpiece” being uttered a few times this morning.

Judging by some of the reactions gathered from last night’s screening of Chazelle’s “Babylon,” this is going to be the writer-director’s go-for-broke epic. Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” was mentioned more than a few times, ditto Fellini’s “Satyricon.”

The film, which clocks in at 185 minutes, is said to take place between 1925 and 1952, tackling Hollywood’s wobbly transition from the silent era to sound. Margot Robbie’s performance as Clara Bow is said to be the big takeaway & a likely Best Actress contender. Jean Smart also registered major points as a showbiz journalist who helps Bow learn to act with spoken words.

I won’t say more about the film, but that it does pull off the kind of surprising opening credits that would make Hamaguchi blush, not to mention its shades of “Eyes Wide Shut” orgy debauchery. I’m telling you, this is Chazelle swinging for the fences and trying to rile up the dead horse that is American cinema’s current state.

I can't be the only person who read that and said, that sounds bloody awful, right?

Black Hat wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:13 pm I can't be the only person who read that and said, that sounds bloody awful, right?

Honestly, it could be atrocious, but I'm certain that I (and quite a few other people, from the sounds of it) will at least admire the audacity of it all. Then again, modern Hollywood is so chaste and bland that something this wild will look like high art compared to everything else out in the multiplex.

Was this review from letterboxd? The prose has mid-2000s niche blog energy.

Jordan Ruimy wrote it for World of Reel. For what it's worth, I don't think he or any of the other terminally-online journos actually saw it, as they and everyone else on the AW forum are talking about how they "spoke to someone" who gave these reactions

I thought it may have been an April Fools but then I saw the date of DH's post.

Yes. It’s an April Fools that a highly regarded filmmaker making a highly anticipated film would deliver a good film. I am so tired of you.

Every single time I post here you have something negative to say and if anybody spoke to you, or any other member, the way you do to me, you'd be the first one to jump in to scold and throw in a threat of some kind so, I ask you, respectfully, to please stop.

Honestly I think, if you swapped out a few names and the title, this could have just as easily been one of the excitable reactions to the latest Marvel film. I'll concede that the other thing that bores me as much as superhero films are the biopics and Hollywood Golden Age recreations, so I'm almost certainly not the target audience for this.

Testing that theory, I don't actually think that it works:

Chloé Zhao’s new movie stunned L.A. moviegoers last night. I’m hearing the word “masterpiece” being uttered a few times this morning.

Judging by some of the reactions gathered from last night’s screening of Zhao’s “Eternals,” this is going to be the writer-director’s go-for-broke epic. Scorsese’s Marvel movie was mentioned more than a few times, ditto Zack Snyder’s “Satyricon.”

The film, which clocks in at 185 minutes, is said to take place between 1925 and 1952, tackling Hollywood’s wobbly transition from the silent era to sound. Angelina Jolie’s performance as Thena is said to be the big takeaway & a likely Best Actress contender. Salma Hayek also registered major points as a showbiz journalist who helps Thena learn to act with spoken words.

I won’t say more about the film, but that it does pull off the kind of surprising opening credits that would make Vision blush, not to mention its shades of “The Incredibles” orgy debauchery. I’m telling you, this is Zhao swinging for the fences and trying to rile up the dead horse that is American cinema’s current state.

Found this conversation interesting in that it sort of revolves around the hypothetical that Damien Chazelle would make this (rumored) type of movie, and then the disputing of the merits of said hypothetical type of movie from this guy. Not so much the specific subject, but I really haven't been into his works so far- personally. I remember the hype of Whiplash at NYFF and seeing it there and feeling then how I feel about it and La La Land now- just as I've rewatched them in my wonder.

I don't want to get deep into my opinion on those films and their merits/faults as I see them. Not the biggest fan is all. But the description I read above about this movie sounds dope, admittedly- as anything described in certain ways can be seen as such from a certain lens. I don't believe that half of the things said about it would match up to what ends up happening- not for any (studio or other) interference or editing or anything like that, just because I'd believe it if I saw it.

What I'm thinking about after all of this is how some of these things can be seen as a negative. I don't understand the desire or interest in such a movie being bad. I loathe Moonrise Kingdom. Maybe it made me feel certain ways before Grand Budapest- but I was a huge fan of that one. Then saw Isle of Dogs and couldn't get into much of it.

I don't see a pattern- I just am surprised at the preconceived notions of these films based on 'mediocre' directors. (depending on viewpoint of course, don't mean to sound harsh. I'm a big admire of what these people do, obviously) I know that the director has a certain status on set, at the same time that I know most/all people on here are under the impression a project is far more than a director.

My random opinion: Can't see myself liking this movie because of his previous works. I try not to go in with that mindset if I go in blind. Don't usually believe in reviews and rumors much at all before I see a movie, as I've become suspicious of PR. I work in major studio advertising. Looking forward to seeing if this movie is good or not. Could be cool, I suppose. I know saying 'I suppose' makes it seem flippant, even. I'm not just saying it's early to judge. I mean: It could be cool as described. From a random person who admittedly doesn't dig the dudes films anyway. The (probably bullshit) rumors make it sound like something I'd see. Even though I don't believe it has a chance in hell to end up as hyperbolic as mentioned. Sorry for typing a bunch of nothing- End rant. Love this forum by the way, hope was okay rant.

Note: I've made a post about this before in expressing this sentiment I believe, but I expect this mythical NC-17 Kubrick inspired period Hollywood film to end up being from Andrew Dominik, not from Damien. I'm more excited for one than the other. But, if I have any real opinion about what I think we are to expect- it probably comes from my final note. And sorry for bad English!

Paramount and Chazelle are reportedly in disagreement over how to release the film, with its current state potentially landing it in NC-17 territory.

With this news along with Netflix's handling of Blonde (dumping it in September after it premieres at Venice), I'm beginning to wonder if producers and studios read the scripts that they are financing...

I thought early reports were that Netflix was going to scrap the awards-season push for Blonde last year and dump the film early this year, and they moved from that initially rigid stance into one of flexibility to the NC-17 cut and deciding to let it tour the festival circuit openly rather than burying it. Hopefully that transformation from fear of swaying from practicality into being receptive to artistic vision aids Babylon in following a similar trajectory. I don't care if the film gets shelved an extra year as Paramount calms down, but it'd be a shame for Blonde's publicity around owning its rating and not compromising on its content to be disregarded here. It also feels like a poor move for Paramount, since more and more filmmakers are flocking to Netflix/streamers to get creative control, and if one studio is remaining static while another is collaborative and open to changing times... well, I imagine people making much more money than me to make these high-risk decisions are considering all of this already. It is funny though, especially since the script has been public for so long- I mean, many people here have read the thing and its lewd content has been an ongoing topic of conversation on the internet for, what, a couple years now!?

There’s no chance, unless Chazelle was savvy enough to put language giving him final cut regardless of rating. It’s too expensive, everyone just assumed he’d tone the screenplay down but I guess he’s going to try

domino harvey wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:24 pm There’s no chance, unless Chazelle was savvy enough to put language giving him final cut regardless of rating. It’s too expensive, everyone just assumed he’d tone the screenplay down but I guess he’s going to try

There is a slim (and I mean slim) change that this could get an R on appeal (I believe The Wolf of Wall Street was re-rated on appeal, though I could be wrong), but it's most likely the theatrical release is edited for an R rating and we'll get the original NC-17 cut on home video. Maybe they'll come up with a catchy name to sell it... "Babylon: The Debauchary Cut" or something horrid like that

It hasn’t received an official MPAA rating yet; the NC-17 purely speculative at this point