Thoughts after Babel

[Lindo]

I just saw "Babel", a film that's as interesting for

what it is as what it does. And what doesn't get done

elsewhere.

Lump it in with "Crash" and "Amores Perros" and you

have a sort of genre of films made up of isolated events

tied together by some detail and perhaps subtle

ideas...perhaps ideas only in the minds of the critics or

audiences. Let's toss in a previous Pitt film, "The

Mexican", where the common thread is a gun passing hand to

hand: an idea other films have done.

My question is: why aren't we seeing novels like that?

It's not because people don't write them. Kozinski's

"Steps" won the National Book Award in like 1971. I came

within an ace of getting one published in 1990, describing a

series of photographs linked by rhymes of image and words:

the editor that liked it told me there is no chance they'd

even consider it now.

Which is more to my point: nobody in publishing wants

to see anything like that. Just ask them. Why not?

Actually I have a few half-formed ideas on the subject, but

would be more interesting in seeing what you have to say.





By the way, if anybody is interested, I include some of my

thoughts on Babel below.



BABEL

It's the sort of thing that makes other script writers

gnash teeth. Everything about is just WRONG, according to

Them. It takes forever to get going, it serves up long

silent streteches of some of the emptiest country

imaginable, it punishes our feeling as bad as "A.I.". But

there it is, with great actors and production and (to say

the least) budget.

But does it really work?


It's well worth seeing, of course. A great cast doing

great work. Hauntingly beautiful shots. A wonderful

soundtrack that pops in mini-videos of often alien music

like lead solos in a blues number. It sneakily engineers an

uneasy sense of impending dread more contrived and effective

than any horror film. We have seen a woman shot from

nowhere by random chance: we are prepared to see children

die from thirst, a young woman plunge to naked death, a

drunken hotshot shoot it out with border cops. But that is

mere manipulation. The film announces some heavy

intellectual baggage right off...the name alone. Is that

really there?

The critics keep spouting the already-tired idea of

butterfly wings affecting hurricanes around the world. Very

New Age, very Heavy. Very full of it. Are we seeing causes

and effects here? How many people travel to Africa? Give a

butterfly a rifle and a ticket abroad, and yeah, maybe he

can affect things there. That a woman shot in Morrocco has

children in Tijuana illegally that same day is just not a

common enough circumstance to hang a world view upon.

So back to that title. Critics have Babbled about it,

but can't really seem to pin it down. Is it a stunt?

(American critics just don't know what to say about a Wyeth

or Rockefeller, but can jabber all day about a Pollock or

minimal performance non-event.) Is it just talking about

failed communication? That language is just stage-dressing

while we all sit alone in desolate deserts? (Downtown Tokyo

comes off as one of the more desolate, by the way.) I hate

to say it, but that's pretty thin and has certainly been

done.

Sometimes juxtaposing a jumble of things, like putting

objects in a shadow box) can create a feeling of gestalt,

elevating them in significance. But does that actually make

them more significant. We see some devastating moments

here, but taken separately they might seem like soap

opera...events contrived to create teary closeups. I would

see the inclusing of the Japanese deaf girl as just tossing

in a cool story somebody heard or thought of...then bringing

in the rifle to hook it into the fold. It is the "odd story

out" of the three and without we would do less wondering

about the main story--and it would seem thinner.

We hear a conversation between Pitt and the little boy

twice. The second time he is crying alone in an Egyptian

clinic. An old, old, evocation of communication failure.

But is that what the film is about. On the contrary, we

see huge realms of communication working remarkably despite

barriers: a deaf girl talking to non-deaf boys, a sweeping

phone/cell/radio hookup between a village and an embassy and

the U.S. border and helicopters and TV spots around the

world. What if it had been called "Spin"? Or "Goats"?

The question, I guess, is how big a role this type of

film will play in the future. It's something that could

very easily be abused. Has it already?

[Inkdaub]

Anyone who thinks Arriaga is doing anything wrong is a buffoon. The guy is a great writer.

Did you see that Inarritu banned Arriaga from attending a premier or a showing of some sort because Arriaga dared to take some credit for the story he wrote? These directors are so insecure it cracks me up.

[icerose]

Because these kinds of stories SUCK. They make no sense at all, have barely linkable ties, implausibility up to their necks and it pisses people off.

If you are going to have coincidences in a story, it better be made clear at the end and not appear half baked and partially thought up. Have those images mean something, without it they are random shots and stories. Might as well call them a collection of shorts rather than a feature.

[a tree of night]

Shoot. I thought it was going to be about Isaac.

[Goodwriterguy]

I just saw "Babel", a film that's as interesting for
what it is as what it does. And what doesn't get done elsewhere.

Lump it in with "Crash" and "Amores Perros" and you have a sort of genre of films made up of isolated events

tied together by some detail and perhaps subtle ideas...perhaps ideas only in the minds of the critics or audiences. Let's toss in a previous Pitt film, "The Mexican", where the common thread is a gun passing hand to
hand: an idea other films have done.(fairly major snippage)
It seems in every era there are those who end up playing on the edges in their attempts to bring something new to the table, which producers are constantly telling writers, "Ya gotta bring something new to the table!"

Okay buddy, check this out.

And we get "Babel," or whatever, but something that's way off the beaten track. God knows where this stuff comes from, but surely, given the investment that's necessary, somebody thinks they just might have something.

What's "Babel" done box office-wise? Is it making money? Did "Crash" make money? Did "Amores Perros" make money? I don't know. I assume "The Mexican" made money, with the star power it brought to bear.

But box office results will play a very big role in the calculus of these kinds of pictures being produced to the extent of becoming an established genre.

There is art in cinema beyond the traditional dramatic or comedic uses to which we put film. Ever see "Koyanisqatsi"? But again, what's the market? Somebody just might figure that somewhere in today's whacked out teenage and twenty-something demographic, there is an audience for this kind of material. "Crash" certainly seemed to be overtly designed for it.

And who knows, maybe they're right, it is a pretty disconnected and non-linear generation that has few roots in traditional drama ... with some in comedy, I mean Adam Sandler seems to do okay. And whatisname from SNL he can't seem to make comedies fast enough.

I'm hard pressed to think these films are made for an older demographic, thirty and up. Will teens and twenty-somethings fall out in sufficient numbers and pay the $10 to see them to make them financially feasiible? I have no clue. But I wouldn't be surprised.

The overarching economic climate in the country has some role in these decisions as well. When people feel bucks up and have some cash rolling in and the economic future looks ebulient, they're more open to taking risks, more keen on following their own paths and manifesting their own ideas. And, as whacked out as some of them may be, we'll still see them.

There's always a few experimenters around.

There's also always a few lousy filmmakers around, too.

It might be a little like the idea that if someone's home is a messy place then it may be deduced that the homeowner's head is a messy place too, one sort of generates the other, or so the theory goes.

If a bunch of messed up people shoot and assemble a bunch of disconnected scenes and clip them together in a feature-length picture and call it a "movie," well, I expect it's gonna lack the sort of cohesion and logic that resonates with a broad audience and gives them a meaningful emotional experience, despite the fact that any one of us could probably point out some aspects of the piece that can be interpreted as having meaning to the common man, however unintended such a consequence might have been.

There may be a corrolary in jazz music, which is very personal in nature and expresses the highly personal emotions of one or a few individuals and is hence only attractive to the few among us, perhaps those who resonate with that musician's personal feelings and ideations.

Rock and roll on the other hand employs much more basic idioms, less complex rhythms, and more directly meaningful ideas ("Light my Fire," "We'll Do it All Night"). The baser instincts, as it were.

Country music even goes closer to the human bone and appeals to the most basic of needs and hopes and fears and desires of listeners, "You're Cheatin' Heart," "Momma Said No," "Stagger Lee," "Johnny's Comin' Home."

And both Rock and Roll (and its myriad manifestations) and Country are big sellers. Ask Garth Brooks, he'll tell you all about it, or Reba McIntyre.

Time will tell where this kind of material goes. Maybe it'll all end up looking like some big computer game we play on our PS2, I dunno.

It isn't something that's subject to meaningful prediction.

Time will tell.

[ATP]

I am watching Babel for the second time. The first time it was certainly hard going intellectually, in trying to get the connections. They are there, and subtle, and certainly come out toward the end.

I like it. I initially likened it to those of its ilk - Syriana, perhaps Crash,
28 Grams, and further back, Traffic. I don't know how old many of you people are in this forum, but how many of you remember seeing any of the later series of Hill Street Blues? This was the seed of these films' structure.

Babel's sum of its parts are greater than its whole - or its Gestalt - without doubt, and the Japanese story segment is perhaps the 'weakest' but it serves a good purpose - it is not wasted, I believe.

[As an aside, might I enquire as to the age of the people on this forum? For the record, I am 47].

Thanks.

[seanie blue]

And we get "Babel," or whatever, but something that's way off the beaten track. God knows where this stuff comes from, but surely, given the investment that's necessary, somebody thinks they just might have something.

What's "Babel" done box office-wise? Is it making money? Did "Crash" make money? Did "Amores Perros" make money? I don't know. I assume "The Mexican" made money, with the star power it brought to bear.


Babel isn't way off the beaten track. It's the way. Why else would Brad Pitt agree to make it, and the next one from the same writer?

The movie has grossed $15-million, and will do well in DVD and foreign sales. Everyone associated with it will make money. Not the obscene profits of 40-Year Old Virgin, but profits nevertheless.

Brad Pitt isn't clamoring to work with the directors of Sandler's or Ferrell's ilk. If Pitt sees something worth making in Babel, that's all we need to know. He isn't slumming when he agrees to be in a movie like this. He's raising his reputation.

"This stuff" is the future of movies. More of "this stuff" is being made every year, while the imbeciles trying to shape teenage entertainment are losing their jobs. To dismiss a movie like Babel as marginal or way out there is to misread even Hollywood's infantile notions of art: You make the money by peddling trash, and you save your reputation by cutting diamonds. Every money person I've met in California (producers) would love to be associated with a movie like Babel. Even the grips on "Beerfest" aspire to something like Babel rather than the inevitable Beerfest 3.

[ATP]

Some thoughts :

As to Babel being 'the way' (of films of the future?) - yes and no.

Yes, in that it and its ilk most definitely stand out against the background of much of Hollywood dross. One might go as far as to say that they raise the bar of the craft. No, in that cinema replete with this kind of film will lose its attraction very quickly for the viewing public, not to mention provide a plethora of 'copycat' films and those that are simply poor quality 'riffing'.

[seanie blue]

And we get "Babel," or whatever, but something that's way off the beaten track. God knows where this stuff comes from, but surely, given the investment that's necessary, somebody thinks they just might have something.

What's "Babel" done box office-wise?

There's always a few experimenters around.

There's also always a few lousy filmmakers around, too.

It isn't something that's subject to meaningful prediction.

Time will tell.

The quotes above are taken out of context, but with today's nomination of "Babel" for a slew of Oscars, the whole thread has a different context. My production pal Sandie Black hung out with Arriaga at Sundance, and we have an old interview with him and a new interview planned for Mexico City, and the guy is right on top of the screenwriting game. Any writer would be well-advised to check out how this guy tells a story. And he's from Mexico! Pan's Labyrinth and Duck Season and Japon are other recent wonders from south of the Border. Children of Men was made by the guy who made Y Tu Mama Tambien, another Mexican gem. How is it possible that more thoughtful movies come from Mexico than the seat of cinema, Hollywood?

Arriaga's success is not coming from "off the beaten track," it is THE way to go into the movies, even into Hollywood. Write intelligently, give your characters quirks, and you can predict your own success, no problem. Do it by the Scorsese/Eastwood book, and you'll be one of two million people howling for attention that never comes.

The posts in this thread are only a few months old, and look how craazily wrong they are!!! Babel is a signpost now, but only a few months ago it was an oddity?

[winter]

I thought it was a bit long in the tooth.

And Brad Pitt always looks a bit self-conscious to me. Like he knows he's only standing there because he looks pretty. And then he tries to overcome it by taking on films like Babel.

But that's what I like about British films. They're not afraid to cast old guys with big noses.

[zeprosnepsid]

Anyone who thinks Arriaga is doing anything wrong is a buffoon. The guy is a great writer.

I'm sorry, having a mute character in a story about people who can't connect is just lazy. Maybe that should go in the 'on the nose' thread.