Support Frock Flicks with a small donation! During Snark Week and beyond, we’re grateful for your monthly pledges for exclusive content via Patreon or your one-time contributions via Ko-fi or PayPal to offset the costs of running this site. You can even buy our T-shirts and merch. Think of this like supporting public broadcasting, but with swearing and no tax deductions!
Back when it came out in theaters, folks asked us to review Babylon (2022), which was receiving a lot of hype at the time because the movie is packed with stars (Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie) and had a big budget. I suspected that it was playing fast and loose with history just from the preview pix, and yes indeed it’s a Snark Week worthy train wreck!
The flick purports to show the “real,” meaning dark, sexy, sleazy, violent, gross, abusive, and disgusting to pointlessness, side of early Hollywood before talkies and the Hayes Code. What the movie does is regurgitate the plot of Singin’ in the Rain (1952) as a gritty reboot — although this movie actually has one of the main characters watch Singin’ in the Rain at the very end of this movie as a flash-forward finale. In between is over three hours of all kinds of bullshit (starting with elephant shit INTO THE CAMERA) that bears little relationship to the 1920s / early 1930s period. The plot wildly exaggerates how awful early Hollywood was, using every myth and cliché ever heard, and yet also wants you to think all this degradation and people killed is 110% worth it because movies are MAGIC.
That this movie only got an “R” rating and not “NC-17” or no rating just shows how stupid the American rating system is. There’s not much sex in this, but a ton of nudity, violence, and so very many disgusting bodily functions used as jokes / plot points. It’s also fat-phobic in gross ways, and I deeply hope all the animal violence was faked because it’s horrifyingly staged. None of that was necessary to further the story; it’s just excess to show excess.
Putting the rotten cherry on the actual shit sundae that is Babylon, the costumes suck! Title cards keep popping up stating each year as 1926 through 1932, and hardly anything the characters wear reflects the period. You’ve probably seen this first outfit Margot Robbie wears as Nellie, a rising starlet:
Costume designer Mary Zophres has a whole silly excuse for this outfit that she described in The Hollywood Reporter:
“She comes from the East Coast and is probably a former dancer. Nellie goes to the party to be discovered and wraps this scarf around her body, tucks it into her shorts and lets it drape at the hip. She is kind of covered up, and it makes her look less naughty.”
As if. This is pure Leading Character Syndrome where she gets the least historical costumes so she stands out. Like so much crap in this movie, it’s unnecessary. This character is supposedly inspired by ’20s silent-screen actresses like Clara Bow, Jeanne Eagels, and Alma Rubens, yet they could be sexy and wild-looking in the clothing of their own times.
To film her first movie, Nellie wears an almost 1920s dress — looks like it might have a drop waist? But her hair is still totally modern to go with her dancing.
Mostly, Nellie gets modern clothes for this flick, like the blue sequined two-piece she shows up in at the premiere of that first movie.
C’mon!
Filming her first talkie, she’s wearing stuff that looks like rejects from her Barbie movie (just put it in pink and you’ve got “Barbie Goes to College”).
Nothing like an actual ’20s movie…
Further proving the Leading Character Syndrome, it’s the side characters who get semi-decent historical costumes. Lady Fay Zhu (Li Jun Li) is first presented as a lesbian cross-dressing cabaret singer, sort of a cross between Anna May Wong and Marlene Dietrich.
Later she wears a cheongsam because of course she does.
The journalist Elinor St. John (Jean Smart) wears the only historical-ish outfit seen in the first 30 minutes of the movie, which is otherwise an entirely nutballs party scene.
Though I feel like her outfit is more inspired by a 1970s-does-1910s costume worn by Marisa Berenson to portray the Marchesa Casati. This was for the elaborate Bal Proust held by the Rothschilds in 1971 and photographed by Cecil Beaton. I’ve been low-key obsessed with this photo, and it was cool to see a riff on it in the movie (the only highlight!).
Both Elinor and Nellie get period-esque outfits for a fancy party in 1932. Look, Nellie’s hair can be styled, it is possible!
Of course, in this scene, she makes a point of how uncomfortable she feels and how awful this kind of party is for her, then she throws food around and projectile vomits on the host.
So if you hate actual 1920s fashion and you love poop and puke, this might be the film for you!
Almost like they’re afraid of making Margot look dumpy! Boardwalk Empire did it better with Billie Kent, IMNHO!
Weird case of a shite movie made by a lot of talented people. In my opinion it tried and failed to be both The Day of the Locust (1975) and Cinema Paradiso (1988). Those movies work because they commit to their premise. Babylon “borrowed” the ending from the latter and tacked it on the former and that doesn’t work.
If anyone’s interested in a movie about the seedy side of Old Tinseltown, I highly recommend The Day of the Locust. Be warned it is one of the more depressing films I’ve watched, but it’s impeccable filmmaking.
Between that and Amsterdam, Margot Robbie had some major swings and misses for madcap historical films in 2022. A lot of Nellie’s costumes bring to mind some of Josephine Baker’s outfits (notably her oft-reproduced banana skirt) but those were all stage costumes and at least from the photographs I’ve seen, Baker very much a period-appropriate (or period trendsetting) fashion plate off-stage.
Yikes!! I avoided this movie because the trailers made it out to be “outrageous for the sake of being outrageous” and your post confirms that feeling. That said, I had no idea Jean Smart was in the movie; she is SUCH a talented actress. Also, I loved the period photos in the post; they are so much more beautiful than what ended up on screen!
You’ve said it all, LLR, especially about the period photos.
Jean Smart was a very small highlight in this awful flick. Glad you liked the actual period pix ;)
As an antidote to the awfulness of Babylon, can I recommend ‘Women vs Hollywood’ by film writer/broadcaster Helen O’Hara, the first chapters of which delve into the women who directed, wrote, produced, and invented special effects for early movies? I particularly recommend the podcast version read by the author, not only for her highly listenable Northern Irish accent but for her delicate irony and general snark.
Costumes are meeh, but the movie is too boring too. The cinema hall was nearly empty in the second week and not really many were looking delighted. Not too mention the stylistic device with too loud music to wake up the audience…
I kind of understand (not really, but kind of) this level of anachronistic costuming in escapist, fluffy period dramas that aren’t really trying to say all that much, but it just feels weird and misguided when part of the marketing of this film was so “this is the REAL Hollywood, no holds barred.”
Another thing that makes it weird and misguided–a lot of 1920s and 1930s clothing, especially when it comes to the high-glamor stuff, is already pretty flattering by modern standards! Low backs, sleeveless gowns, slim silhouettes! The black lace dress on Engels in the photograph above wouldn’t be out of place on a modern red carpet, and neither would the real life Anna May Wong’s costume. Wavy bobs are even in right now! It just baffles me.
I get that historical hair and make-up can be a little tricky to get right, but WHY does she look so….. people in the early 2000s going to an 80s party?!?!? It is baffling.