angustse is speaking in tonguesBabel n. 1. A famous tower built by a united humanity to reach toward heaven, causing God in his anger to make each person involved speak different languages, halting the project and scattering a confused and disconnected people across the planet.
Morocco- The couple Richard (Brad Pitt) and Susan (Cate Blanchett) are among a group of tourists. Susan is accidentally shot by Ahmed, a boy who’s out hunting with his brother Yussef.
Mexico- After the shooting incident, and despite Richard asking their nanny to stay behind, Amelia (Adriana Barraza) brings Richard’s children, along with her nephew Santiago (Gael Garcia Bernal), to her son’s wedding in Mexico.
Japan- The rebellious death-mute Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi) is looking for love. She is coping with her mother’s suicide, and has a strained relationship with her father Yasujiro (Koji Yakusho), who the police are looking for.
No doubt, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is an ambitious director/writer. The same narrative device was used in his previous films, Amores Perros and 21 Grams: seemingly separate stories and characters are miraculously connected by twists of fate, allowing the exploration of themes of love, suffering and guilt. Babel is no different, except this time the plot spans several continents, the action intercutting between stories but not as annoying as the idiosyncrasy found in 21 Grams. Alejandro’s intentions seem clear- he wants to examine humanity, and by utilising the Tower of Babel allegory, the contexts of human communication and cultural differences are particularly relevant.
Babel is about the failure to communicate. The violence instigated accidentally is wrongly described in the media as terrorism. The Western tourists’ mistrust of the Moroccan villagers inhabits the ‘us versus them’ mentality in the war on terror, and also the natural fear of the unknown. Recklessness, by the children in Morocco and Santiago in Mexico, and misunderstanding leads to grave consequences. Babel is also about love. The motherly love that Amelia fosters over Richard’s children. The ultimate bonding nature of love found between Richard and Susan, despite hints that their relationship was faltering. The distances that people go for love, where Chieko, the permanent outsider, is desperate to seek love and intimacy and escape loneliness.
Babel has a lot to say, but a lot is omitted too. Sexism is introduced, and oddly enough through the form of incest, but barely scratches the surface. Furthermore, the terrorism issue is merely portrayed in news clips. Is it a touch of realism reflecting the global implications of the war on terror? A comment on the paradox that modern media still has a long way to go to unite people? Or is Alejandro not interested in the political dimensions, rather placing them at the backdrop to the characters’ interactions?
It is this ambiguity that deals the fatal blow. The same themes are prevalent throughout, but is Babel meant to be viewed as separate but similar stories or a large puzzle? The connections in Alejandro’s previous films are incidental to the strong narratives, but in Babel this is unclear. Besides the chronological link between the stories, one wonders whether there is anything more substantial. It is the problem of making sense, or even finding the existence of any connections, that shakes Babel’s foundations and challenges the narrative device that Alejandro repeatedly uses. It is peculiar that the Japan story is uniquely detached from the other two. Also, there is a lack of social and cultural issues on display, nor a real contrast between stories, if they were intended to be connected. Babel is not meant to be subtle, but the stories seem minimalist compared to its scope. Furthermore, Babel’s tagline- ‘If you want to be understood…listen’- hints it wants to adopt a moral high ground. Is it an invention by PR, or Alejandro’s call for tolerance? Wouldn’t a better summary be ‘Act sensibly’ or ‘Love thy neighbour’? The message is so cliché and even arrogant - a book called The Bible taught that ages ago.
It is also this ambiguity that absolves Babel to an extent. Compare it with last year’s Oscar winner Crash. Both films are well made, boasting great performances and serious drama. The problem arises once you recognise director/writer Paul Haggis’ goal to make a film about racism and prejudice. It is ironic that Babel, in failing to be a product of its intentions, escapes the blame that Crash deserved, where it tried to tackle the issues head on, and thus exposing its shallowness and ignorance. At least Babel doesn’t insult our intelligence, and one can at least see three separate episodes, compared to the racism and prejudice lock holding hostage to the stories in Crash.
I can’t decide whether Babel is genuinely or accidentally self-important. Of course a film could have multiple interpretations and purposes. But Alejandro’s choice to amp up the scale of his project and the use of the Biblical tale suggests an ultimate ambition to create a colossal global saga of connectivity. He instead created a big conundrum.
In the blogosphere, Alejandro is one of the ‘Three Amigos’, including his fellow Mexican filmmakers Alfonso Cuaron and Guillermo Del Toro. They made Children of Men and Pan’s Labyrinth respectively, two of the best of 2006. Babel isn’t. Alejandro is a talented filmmaker, being able to construct scenes and manipulate the environment to portray human harmony and isolation. The scenes in Japan, especially the hypnotic disco sequence, are stunning. But his talents and the stellar cast can’t hide the fact that as a piece of intellectual cinema, Babel fails. Whether the film is a noble failure, a missed opportunity, faux-enlightenment or pure indulgence is for you to decide. Now that’s a real scope of opinion.