Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's BABEL

I agree with a lot of what you say, if not with your conclusions. You have some keen observations on plot elements that had escaped me since viewing, and there's a lot in your comment that could have been developed further. It's Brad Pitt who's up for an Oscar. You might have mentioned that? Or did you prefer not to touch it?

Quote:

---

Though it's hard to deny its world-class filmmaking and ambitious scale, "Babel" is so numbingly downbeat that it may end up defeating its' raison d'etre, which is to make a multitude of various national audiences think about their relationships--or lack thereof--with each other.

---

That in particlar, worthy of further clarification, and development.

Originally posted by bix171
Far more bewildering--and equally unexplained--is an attitude towards those female characters who dare to explore or exploit their sexuality; Inarritu and Arriaga seem to want to punish them (a Mexican nanny is forced to abandon her American charges in the desert a day after her son's wedding at which she allows herself to be seduced by a widower; a young Moroccan girl is beaten by her father for allowing one of her brothers to spy on her undressing) or have them punish themselves (a Japanese deaf-mute throws herself at unsuspecting adult males to compensate for the distance she's placed between her and her widowed father). Only Blanchett, trying to cope with the loss of her infant son and the strain it has put on her marriage, seems to be let off somewhat easily--it's as if she's done her penance through the loss of her child and being shot.

Very perceptive. A well-reasoned argument. I like Babel for Rodrigo Prieto's lensing, the editing, and a few performances. But overall, it feels like a lost opportunity, mostly because the characters get short-shrifted.

Chris Knipp writes:

It's Brad Pitt who's up for an Oscar. You might have mentioned that? Or did you prefer not to touch it?

I don't think Brad Pitt's been nominated. And while I think he can be a fine actor (he's a riot in "True Romance" and very good in "12 Monkeys"), I think his performance here was merely competent. It was also, as was so much of the film, underwritten.

That in particlar, worthy of further clarification, and development.

Actually, the title "Babel", with its biblical reference, seems the most obvious and trite thing about the entire film; I wish it'd been given a more subtly suggestive title. Be that as it may, I think the filmmakers' goal, in a perfect world, was to get people to talk about their cultural differences and, as such, form a consensus. I think that, unlike most filmmakers today who seem to welcome homogenization (Paul Haggis' "Crash" comes to mind; in fact, while watching it, I kept thinking "'Crash' in reverse"), Inarritu wants us to think he celebrates cultural differences, as if to imply that it's okay that cultures differ as long as we learn to respect that.

But, in a way, I think Inarritu doesn't really believe that. For example, when demanding an ambulance for his injured wife, Pitt not only tells the messenger "Fuck you", he also makes a point to say the same thing to the guide who's been holding a vigil alongside him. This is why, in my original comments, I note that he doesn't fully bond with the guide; when it comes down to it, the guide is still a foreigner and Pitt sees other races as "the Other". (Ironically, in this situation, Pitt's the foreigner.)

Which brings me back to the slight anti-American sentiment that ingratiates itself into the film's weave. It's kind of tired to consistently paint Americans as holier-than-thou and priviledged with special rights, even when visiting a foreign country (though, granted, the various Europeans on the bus seem to have been granted the same priviledged status by Inarritu--and made to look equally as bad). Perhaps because the film's style triumphs over its substance, it's not as damning as it might seem in the hands of another, less talented director.

And therein lies the cynicism I think is in Irnarritu's heart: while he's hoping for a dialogue, he doesn't expect one. Though the film ends with the binding of daughter to father--and the implicit hope for humanity a film like this is supposed to have--it feels forced, a stretch.

Oscar Jubis writes:

it feels like a lost opportunity

Yeah...a lost opportunity. I like that. Sums the whole thing up in a nutshell.

I was confused saying Brad Pitt had an Oscar nomination. But in this country his performance has gotten a lot of favorable mention, that's all. Don't agree his performance is merely competent; he gives his all. And we agree he can be a good actor.

I don't think the title Babel is "trite," but you're right that the theme it suggests when you hear it and see the trailers is not lived up to in the movie. I see what you mean, though. But doesn't that conflict between the celebration of diversity and the title show a confusion of aims? You're saying that yourself.

Quote:

---

Which brings me back to the slight anti-American sentiment that ingratiates itself into the film's weave. It's kind of tired to consistently paint Americans as holier-than-thou and priviledged with special rights, even when visiting a foreign country (though, granted, the various Europeans on the bus seem to have been granted the same priviledged status by Inarritu

---

I guess you mean insinuates rather than ingratiates. Your statement is a bit confusing. Americans do think themselves "holier-than-thou and privileged" even if at times they aren't. This theme is not "tired". I also don't get why you keep calling this a "slight" anti-American sentiment. I'd say it's pretty large, not slight.Innaritu is confused about this too though, which maybe is why your discussion gets a little tangled. He justifies Pitt's character's superior attitude by having his wife get magically medi-vaced out of the Moroccan bled, which I think would a pretty neat trick, especially given that there are almost no communications.

Quote:

---

And therein lies the cynicism I think is in Irnarritu's heart: while he's hoping for a dialogue, he doesn't expect one.

---

Again I think it's confusion but not cynicism--he's just pessimistic. Surely we can assume that from Amores Perros and 21 Grams?

Quote:

---

Oscar Jubis writes:

it feels like a lost opportunity

Yeah...a lost opportunity. I like that. Sums the whole thing up in a nutshell.

---

I don't think it puts anything in a nutshell. What opportunity? The opportunity for a talented filmmaker, as Denby says, to figure out a way to shake up conventional moviemaking? (Denby concluded his review of Babel, "Iñárritu has enough talent to shake up conventional moviemaking. But he still hasn’t figured out how to use it.") But given the tangled and pretentious material Iñárritu chose to work with, where's the opportunity Babel offered? You have demonstrated that the effort was doomed from the start -- not an opportunity.

However I have a gut feeling that this is still a great movie even though it's bloated and pretentious, because of the excellence of the scenes, and they're not just good "lensing." Good "lensing" is empty in itself. Innaritu has put together some powerful material here. But it's just that his high flown overall theme does not fly. I like this movie better than Cuaron's and del Toro's latest efforts because, partly, Innaritu has been true to his own themes, while Cuaron and del Toro have gone off in pop directions and shown no consistent vision. (Yes, I know Pan's Labyrinth has strong links with del Toro's first film, but he has Disneyfied the world of his original vision too much.)

the theme it suggests when you hear it and see the trailers is not lived up to in the movie....doesn't that conflict between the celebration of diversity and the title show a confusion of aims?

I don't agree that there's a confusion of aims, just a lack of execution. Your quote of Denby's comments is right on. And what I think I meant by "slight" was perhaps in retrospect a feeling of lack of development, ideas stillborn. Therer's too much going on for Inarritu, let alone the audience, to focus on and the big ideas seem smaller.

I also don't feel the film is, as you say a few sentances later, "bloated and pretentious". I think it is a sincere, somewhat understated, picture with ambitious goals made by an immensely talented director whose best work is still ahead of him.

We don't have to quibble, we essentially agree on this. I am impressed by the film despite of those adjectives I used. I guess I think you can be pretentious and still sincere; I'm not saying he isn't the latter. I get what you mean by "slight" now and also can grant the possibility of "lack of development" rather than "confusion of aims." That's fair. We'll see what Iñárritu does next, and whether Denby's statement turns out to have a positive outcome. Your discussion has been interesting.

Thanks!I don't think we're quibbling, just exchanging viewpoints and you're right: we essentially agree.

I also agree that it has been an interesting conversation. With both you and Oscar they always are.

May they long continue.