Babel

There's something unique to film, something relatively new in the word that has had profound effect on how we relate to art.

I call it noir, and define it a bit differently than the ordinary fellow, who thinks it has something to do with dark shadows and unhappy endings.

For me, noir is centered on the idea that the camera represents our eyes; that the nature of the world we see is bent by us watching it; and that the fate of the characters in that world are arranged — sometimes by extreme coincidence — for our purposes. The extreme photography is an indicator of that eye, and not necessarily a characteristic of noir. The camera might not be cinematically introduced, though of course it usually is.

I'm interested in the evolution of noir because its right at the edge of how we construct narrative, how we experiment with ideas and the stories we swim in. But what does a filmmaker do if that edge is always moving? Nearly every film I see that was made recently has some twist on the exploration — this is how genres mature today, and how we build tools to see ourselves.

For some reason, its the Spanish-speaking filmmakers that are doing the most interesting work in pushing this further, and effectively.

What Iñárritu does is especially adventurous. I particularly appreciate it because instead of rattling around in established cinematic conventions, he's trying to extend to new ones. Well, not precisely new, but newly recast. I like his idea of narrative braiding, but that's only part of his adventure on the edge. Its what he leaves out that matters. The absences aren't noticed because of the way things are sliced and respliced. And people think the story is important, which of course it isn't, just a pointer: here generally misinterpreted as miscommunication. Deliberately so, I think.

Those elided parts mean that we fill in more of the story than usual, that the container of a long form film can be bigger than usual. That it presents an open world. What's new for Iñárritu is the notion of referring to large sweeps of society as metaphors; and also new is the idea of lacing watchers in the story, here a disembodied global TeeVee audience. They "watch" but of course see almost nothing of what we see.

Its about listening transformed into watching; each of the three threads involves watching. The Japanese episode of course literally has watching as listening and the lasting trauma of what has been seen. The Morrocan episode is triggered by a boy spying on his nude, colluding sister, and on the Brad Pitt side about a reluctant busload of watchers. The Mexican story has a woman going to see her son's wedding and having trouble with being seen clumsily.

Sight. Made explicit of course by the cinematic flourishes, the deliberate differences in the three camera stances, whose differences penetrate to primitives beyond grain, light, stance to the soul of the eye. Its as if Iñárritu decided to create three of the most elementary braids of sight he possibly could with the notion that their cleanliness would allow them to braid into a larger container than any other film.

Its one of the most exciting things happening. Almost thankfully he underused Cate, who is one of the few actresses who could hint that everything other than her we see is in her mind. Almost thankfully he underplays the merger into one soul of three wonderful actresses.

Almost, but not quite thankfully, he only hints at the notion of detective work, three types of discovery.

Its delicate, good, rich, dangerous without seeming so.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I loved "Amores Perros" It was revolutionary in so many ways and smelled like the real thing even if I couldn't quite put my finger as to what the real thing really was. "21 Grams" had gigantic intentions and superb performances but didn't feel quite revolutionary because we had kind of seen it before - and better - in "Amores Perros". Now "Babel" and, my goodness, the first thing that comes to mind is, what an extraordinary filmmaker Inarritu really is. I suspect that his universe, even if it feels infinite, it is framed - beautifully so - between the walls of biblical references. His methods may be way ahead of the times but the roots are as ancestral as fire itself. I'm not sure where I want to go with all this but the question is, Inarritu is taking me places and that's what I long for in a filmmaker. He's not taking any of us for granted and I'm very grateful for that. His movies are experiences and I for one can't wait for the next one.

"Babel" centers on several groups of people in 4 countries that are all connected by one freak accident… Alejandro González Iñárritu takes us from North Africa to North America to Asia… His film exposes four unconnected story lines that are eventually divulged to be inextricably linked to one another…

The first involves an isolated family of goat herders who live in the High Plateaus of the Moroccan desert where two young boys are testing a rifle's range handed by their father to protect their goats from jackals...

The second concerns a Middle-class American couple on a bus tour of Morocco trying to save together their damaged marriage…

Meanwhile, in the US, there is grave danger for an undocumented immigrant—a Mexican nanny as she tries to return to United States after she wrongfully decides to take her two blonde-haired young charges to her son's wedding across the Mexican border, despite her employers' sudden change of plans, that needs that she remains with them and miss the joyful occasion…

And on the opposite side of the world, we follow, in Tokyo, an alienated, confused deaf and mute teenage student, recovering from her mother's suicide, who eases her feelings of depression and loneliness by trying to win the friendship or attention of every man or adolescent who crosses her path… She flirts with sexual exhibitionism to attract the attention of her distant and uncommunicative father…

"Babel" tries to make a point and the point is that when people can't or won't communicate, unpredictable paths can lead to tragic consequences… It also tries to leave a message of how a 'shooting' from a simple 'gift' can set off a chain reaction of tragic events in three continents and four countries over which the different characters have exceedingly uncomfortable human emotion…

Out of the entire cast, it is only Rinko Kikuchi as Chieko who steals the movie especially when she transmits to her friends her mad decision of sexual aggressiveness, saying to all: "Now they're going to meet the real hairy monster." This scene remembered me, in some way, Sharon Stone uncrossing legs in "Basic Instinct."

4 tenuously connected stories, beautifully shot, admirable soundtrack, and competent acting and directing. But, psychologically, philosophically, sociologically meaningful? Perhaps in their individual stories? But as a whole, I for one cannot connect the dots in this one.

Different people, different races, socio economic classes, cultures, countries, oh, and of course languages, hence communication. A lot of them making really stupid decisions, one in each tale, giving rise to tension and drama in each. Rich or poor, east or west, weak or strong, everyone is prone to just doing the wrong things at times.

It was a decent watch, even given the over bloated running time. If it affected you? Then you have understood the directors language I guess.

The film opens in the Moroccan desert: an elderly tribesman trades a high-powered rifle to a goat herder for 500 diram & a goat. He hands the rifle to his two young sons and tells them to kill jackals with it, to protect the herd. As practice, the start shooting at rocks, a car passing on the hill below, and finally a bus. That's the only thing they manage to hit, putting a bullet through the shoulder of a tourist. In the middle of nowhere, there's no medical help, and no one wants to wait with the injured person except her husband. That's the setup of this complex, challenging film. It splits into four related stories, one in Japan, two in Morocco, and the last in California, where a housekeeper has to get to her son's wedding in Mexico, but has no one to watch the two children in her care. She decides to take them along, and of course things go sour. A good cast, great acting, fine cinematography, and expert direction make this film well worth watching. It's not for everyone, but for people who are ready to see deliberately paced low-key thriller, this is one good film. The split story line is reminiscent of "Syriana," but in no way copies it.