I found Babel to be easier to follow than Syriana. The theme of globalization in Babel was a little less pronounced than in Syriana however. In Syriana, it showed some very poor looking people standing in this line, and contrasts that with showing how rich the people involved in the oil industry are. What I thought was most interesting about Syriana was the people that were actually working on the oilrigs. They were immigrants, and when they got fired they were told they would probably be deported. This reminded me of the Pakistan chapter of Workingman’s Death. They were stuck there because they needed the job to survive because there weren’t any jobs in their home country. This was also true for Import/Export; Olga had to leave her home country in order to find work that she could support herself with.
The aspects of globalization that I saw in Babel were how all the stories connected. The (supposedly rich) Americans going on vacation to an “exotic” country get shot at by local boys with a gun that came from a Japanese man. At first, I wasn’t sure how all the stories really connected, or if they were going to connect at all, like we saw in Import/Export. It was interesting to see how a small act, the gift of a rifle from another person who was on vacation in Morocco started all the trouble and sadness that we saw in the film. There was also the added storyline of the immigrant worker Amelia who was taking care of the Americans’ children. We do not find out that she is working illegally in the US until the end when she is arrested. I think that this kind of story would be impossible to tell without the effects of globalization. All different types of people were connected by this one event, and it affected all of their lives.
I agree with Elsa in that the globalization connection in Babel is very obvious; all these people from different countries and nationalities are interconnected. While it appears to at first be very adjunct, I was able to fairly quickly guess that all the situations would be connected. The global theme was evident early on in the film as we went from Morocco to America to Japan to Mexico.
The title "Babel" is very interesting. I am sure that this must be referring to the Tower of Babel that is referenced in the book of Genesis in the Bible. The post-flood population attempted to build a tower that would reach to heaven, but the Lord "confounded" their languages, causing them to "scatter" rather than stay in one place with one language. I found this title be very ironic and almost challenging of the Genesis story. There are many languages spoken in the film, from Spanish to Japanese to even Japanese Sign Language. While everyone's language is "confounded," they are still connected and still touch each other's lives in significant ways. Even though they are not in one place; they are, indeed, "scattered over the face of the earth," they are still impacting each other and causing a lot of damage. The title of "Babel" could be seen in an ironic sense or in the sense that the effects of globalization have united the world in spite of the language and geographical barriers that come with having "confused" language and being "scattered."
This is the over-arching theme of the film, but each story was beautifully crafted and intricately poignant. Chieko's story especially touched me and was not as predictable as some of the other stories. The ending of her story surprised me and made me want to reach through the screen and embrace that vulnerable, traumatized teenager. I fully expected her to have jumped and killed herself, but seeing her standing on the balcony, still naked but alive, was a surprise. While it is never revealed what exactly Chieko says in her note, I would surmise that it might be a suicide letter.
The film was very well done. Everything that was done in the film served the plot and the message.
Like Elaina, I also thought of the Tower of Babel that is talked about in the book of Genesis when I was watching the film Babel. There are many language barriers and I feel that the main problems that were portrayed in the film are the result of not understanding each other because of this language barrier. The language barrier isn’t only referring to the different spoken languages, but also to the deafness of Chieko in Japan.
The globalization that is seen in Babel is the fact that all of these characters in the film are from different countries and are connected in the way that they are all in different countries other than their country of origin and communicate or are associated with others from different countries. Chieko’s Japanese father sells the gun to the Moroccan herdsman, the gun then is shot at the American tourist who in a way connects the American and the Moroccan. Then the Mexican nanny is connected to the American because she is the nanny of the American children. In a sense you can say that the gun starts the whole globalization process and connects all of these countries.
The globalization that is seen in Syriana is all of the different countries that are again seen in the film and communicating with each other. Corruption is seen in all of these countries because they all want and need the oil to keep their own countries safe and thriving. All of these countries are connected through the oil industry and the need of this oil in the need of the oil in these certain countries.
Both of these films are connected in the way that globalization is started with a certain object or need. In Babel the gun is the premise for the globalization that is seen, while in Syriana the oil is the start of globalization.
Just a point of clarification: the gun isn't sold but given as a gift by the Japanese father (& hunter) to his hunting guide in Morocco--a gesture of gratitude, as we learn eventually, because the Japanese man thought his Moroccan hunting guide did a great job.
With regard to the last paragraph: if we agree that in Babel it's the gun and in Syriana it's the oil that is the object with which "globalization is started (this is probably not the best way of putting it since globalization is clearly already in effect), then one might want to ask a question about these particular "objects" and the weight they're carrying for and in the film. Is the gun and oil of the same value? Does, in the films, the gun and oil, respectively, carry the same force? Who's attached to these objects and the force they exert? Note, for example, that the gun in Babel is connected only to individuals: the Japanese man, the Moroccan hunting guide, the Moroccan father to whom the hunting guide sells the rifle, his children, Cate Blanchet (and through her Brad Pitt's character), the Mexican maid (because she now can't attend there wedding w/o taking the children), the children, the Mexican maid's nephew. All of the stories we get seem fairly private stories, perhaps with the exception of the Mexican maid and her nephew who are subject to immigration laws (that are depicted, it seems to me, in predictable ways) but here, too, we don't get moments ABOUT immigration laws (and why they exist etc) but just see how the law affects these two individuals because of their own individual decision (one that we could argue wasn't a smart decision, though perhaps understandable). And the same in Morocco: when we see the effects of the shooting--the US immediately being able to shut down airspace, resulting in the medical helicopter not being able to fly in to rescue Cate Blanchet's character, the local police's brutality--there's little sense of these having any impact beyond that of these few individuals. The film's gaze, that is, seems always on the individuals, which are linked (but why?) by the gun. What, in the end, is the point of the gun? Why force this issue of being connected across the world through an OBJECT (in Hitchcock's world we might call this object a MacGuffin, incidentally.)
In Syriana, the "object" is oil. Oil, by definition, is of a different order, in terms of its force, than a single rifle. Oil is something that has to be extracted, moved around, and capitalized upon through massive transnational processes that exceed the purview of any one individual or small group of individuals. If the gun "causes" the events in Babel, and oil does in Syriana, then it seems these two causes are not different in degree but KIND. Perhaps this accounts for the fact that Babel is actually very easy to follow notwithstanding its "butterfly effect" premise whereas Syriana is very difficult to follow: in this sense we might say the latter is very much realistic with regard to its object--which is really a massive process connecting complex socio-economic and political relations--whereas the former is essentially a contrived fairy tale in which a coincidence, chance, is blown up to become the absent cause of events across the world without ever giving us a sense of why this cause matters, or, for that matter, what the REAL cause underlying the events are (for example, why did the Japanese father end up hunting in Morocco in the first place: what enabled this, and why Morocco?; or, why are Brad and Cate in Morocco to get over the loss of one of their children? And why are all the "ugly" Westerners there, in the tourist bus?; why is the Mexican maid in San Diego? what forces puts these people in motion, as tourists, hunters, workers?).
Alejandro González Iñárritu cleverly weaves four countries together in his film, Babel. In the case of globalization, we saw in this film very clearly the barrier that language provides. I agree with Elaina that the film alludes to the story of the Tower of Babel from the Bible. There was desperation in each of the story lines to be understood. Chieko’s deafness prevented her from communicating with her father. I believe that her being handicap adds to her insecurities. I agree with Roger Ebert when he said, “these characters are not idiots, and desperately want to utter that word or sentence, but are prevented because of (a) the language barrier, (b) their cultural assumptions, (c) the inability of others to comprehend what they are actually saying, and (d) how in that case everyone falls into an established script made of prejudice and misunderstanding.” Such barriers led them to make the drastic decisions such as Santiago’s bolt from the border police and Chieko’s attempts at seducing men.
I noticed that in this film there aren’t any true villains. The repercussions of the character’s actions led to one another. It just shows how someone else that they have never met can affect everyone.
Iñárritu did a marvelous job to show the different customs and geographies of the countries. The viewer saw juxtapositions in geography from the barren land of Morocco to a fast paced city in Japan. His establishing shots helped the viewer not necessarily pinpoint exactly where these people are living but it was enough to give us ideas of the kinds of civilization that was presented. The close up and medium shots were nice to empathize with the characters such as Chieko and the couple in Morocco. His chronologically twisted film adds suspense in every scene. It reminded me of Import/Export but in this case, the characters are related to each other in one way or another.
For the moment, I’d like to perhaps take a look at what other students have already said upon these films, rather than comment upon them directly. Like many of my peers, I feel that as a whole, Babel was perhaps the more successful film in terms of its relation to globalization. In fact, I think a better word to describe this particular idea in relation to these films might be that of inter-connectivity. Once again, as many of my peers have stated it is this sort of inter-connectivity is what makes this film so successful in pushing its ideas toward the audience. Like Elaina had stated, I too was quick to figure out how all of these stories became intertwined with one another. Although, I’d like to point out that this is perhaps because of the more mainstream nature of this film unlike others which we’ve watched. Due to this film being maybe created for viewing of a much larger audience, the underlying natures of many of the facts might be closer to the surface for better understanding. Once again, this is only a side note, but something I found interesting in both of these films nonetheless.
Nevertheless, this inter-connectivity conveyed in Babel like others have stated manifests itself in many way. In fact, even these motifs are technically interconnected in a much broader sense. Like many other have already mentioned, this idea of the biblical story obviously ties into the language barrier within this film. In addition, this separation is not only limited to just language, but that of culture as well as others.
But, an idea that Monica mentioned really struck me and got me thinking. In line with what she said, there are seemingly no “villains” within this film. In fact, the events of this film are set off by actions, actions that soon become interconnected with other characters in the film and in her words “It just shows how someone else that they have never met can affect everyone.” This little idea once again returned my thoughts to inter-connectivity and globalization. We are, in fact, connected to nearly everyone on the planet not only economically, but socially as well. I think this little idea also might rotate in turn with the Tower of Babel story in a sense that while we might not be connected entirely by language, we are connected through our actions and what we do undoubtedly affects other people. I would like to know perhaps what others might think of this idea?
Monica and Daniel both noted the lack of the traditional villainous characters. The characters whose actions guide the audience to identify and emphasize with the “good” characters in the film. However in this film, characters purposely portrayed as empathetic and struggle with decisions in which many would most likely emulate the characters ultimate decision.
The film’s wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_(film)) provides an interesting piece of information about the film that I had not realized, and upon locating additional research, it seems that each location in the film lies on the 32nd parallel north (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_parallel_north). Although it would appear that the characters are all very different and simply connected by chance (through the rifle), this may not be the case. This is what I assume director Alejandro González Iñárritu was trying to highlight: the often denied common denominator the characters share.
Many classmates pointed out the reference to the Tower of Babel and the resultant destruction caused by fracturing the language. The director does indeed confirm the connection in a behind the scenes segment for the movie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acdMqpBuI1I, disclaimer, it does contain adult language later in the video).
Roger Ebert wrote a review at the film's initial release that not only discusses globalization within the film but globalization factors surrounding the film. Ebert describes Inarritu as “is one of three friends I have taken to calling the New Mexican Cinema” along with Guillermo Del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron, , both of who did go on to continued success (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/babel-2006). Ebert explained that “for unknown reasons a country (France, Sweden, Brazil, South Korea, Iran, Germany) will suddenly produce a brilliant generation,” and the fact that “Mexicans are also completely at home in English is our gain, but not their loss.” He cites the acceptance of subtitles by non-US audiences as a reason why foreign directors are able to find transnational success. Andrew Higson, an essayist featured in the book Film and Nationalism, suggests that to identify a country’s national cinema one must “first of all specify a coherence and a unity; it is to proclaim a unique identity and a stable set meanings” (Williams, 2002, p. 54). However Babel would argue that “we” do not possess different sets of values, but instead have shared meanings (although not shared languages) that connect us.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, Babel standouts from our other films, including Syriana, for its use of music montages with non-diegetic music. Import/Export had the party scene at the hospital, but the music was part of the scene and had no extra outside shots. Same with La Promesse, when Roger and Igor sang. Although Dirty Pretty Things did insert Non-diegetic music it was not set to a montage of clips (again please correct me if I not remembering).
Williams, A. L. (2002). Film and nationalism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
As some of my classmates have stated I agree that Babel’s theme of globalization was very obvious. I found Cheiko’s story to be the most interesting by far. It is not until the very end does the viewer learn exactly how she fits into the bigger story and even then she is not directly connect to the shooting. I found her lack of direct connection to be troubling. I wonder why the filmmaker chose to use her story instead of her father’s. Every other character that we follow is somehow directly related/involved in the shooting. As Elaina points out, this could be to show language barriers within countries i.e. Japanese speakers and Japanese Sign Language. Globalization is most clear through the connections that each character has with one another. The four different countries are connected by meaningful relationships. This film clearly shows a good and bad side to globalization. The good is shown through the meaningful relationships portrayed. However, the negative side is shown through the political mess that happens after the shooting. While our world is constantly being globalized there are still hoops that one must jump through to get real action done.
Much like everyone else has said the aspects of globalization are pretty obvious in Babel, probably more so than most of the other films we have watched so far. We observe American, Moroccan, Japanese, and Mexican families all interconnected in some type of way, despite their different locations and languages. Something I noticed throughout the film was how problematic the language barrier between people was. The two most significant events were when Richard is trying to save his wife and is unable to communicate effectively with the Moroccan people and when Amelia is trying to tell the police officers where to find the two Jones children. I actually, was almost positive they were going to leave the children in the desert because they couldn’t understand Amelia trying to tell them to go find them. Like Elaina first mentioned, the name ‘Babel’ is most definitely referring to the Tower of Babel in the book of Genesis in the Bible. These people struggle simply because they cannot understand each other, much like in the story in the Bible where they can’t build a tower reaching heaven because they can’t understand each other’s languages. This may be far-fetched but perhaps it’s also due to their sins, as in the book of Genesis, that these people are presented with this fate. Richard obviously left his wife and children at some point that’s referenced a few times by Susan and Amelia never told Richard or Susan she was taking their children to Mexico. Maybe the two characters are presented with this language barrier because of their actions as the people in the book of Genesis who tried to build a tower to heaven to reach God. I noticed Coca-Cola was seen in a few shots throughout the film, while Richard and Susan are eating in Morocco and at Amelia’s son’s wedding. Coca-Cola is an American product, based in Atlanta, Georgia, yet we see it all the way across the world in Morocco and in Mexico. Although subtle, this is a form of globalization – bringing forth an American product into other cultures. Another thing I took note of was how the film was shot. This film had many head on shots that made it easy to follow along with background music that helped with predictability. I never questioned whether these separate stories would intertwine, like I did in Import/Export. Being that this is more of a “Hollywood” film I knew things would have to connect and make sense at some point.
Babel plays itself out like a tragedy. By this, I mean that all of the characters are governed by fate. As soon as the rifle is fired at the bus, none of the characters no longer had any choices at all. The repercussions that course through the lives of so many separate individuals are automatic. Susan is obviously the one least in control of her outcome. Richard has no other choice but to accept the help of the village doctor. The Moroccan children have no choice but to play out their parable. Amelia can't find any other option but than to take the children with her to Mexico. In all cases, once the characters are set in their paths, they lose all agency. But what exactly are these cogs in which these characters find themselves a part of? Roger Ebert in his review of the film says "The movie is not, as we might expect, about how each culture wreaks hatred and violence on another, but about how each culture tries to behave well, and is handicapped by misperceptions." (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/babel-2006) The destinies of these characters are shaped by all those they interact with and everyone is simply trying to do the "right" thing or the "necessary" thing. Santiago left his aunt and the kids in the desert because he believed that it was his only choice. Chieko reveals her body to boys and men because she thinks it’s the only way she can possibly connect with anyone. The tourists in the bus leave because they (selfishly, of course) believe that they need air conditioning, or that they simply were afraid to be stranded in a remote Moroccan village. But the point is that there is no one at fault. Things could not be helped. Responses to trauma are always automatic, whether that be on the individual or the global levels. I guess you could use the idea of the butterfly affect as a way to talk about Babel. The theory is that if a butterfly flapped its wings, a thousand miles away, it creates a tsunami. Or, in this case, if a Japanese man gives away his rife, on the other side of the world, some blonde children will be lost in the Sonoran desert.
Sarah, I think you're really getting at something important here when you say: "However, Babel would argue that 'we' do not possess different sets of values, but instead have shared meanings (although not shared languages) that connect us." I completely agree. What's interesting is how Alejandro González Iñárritu gets us to acknowledge this crucial similarity.
In his review of Babel, A.O. Scott, the New York Times's chief film critic wrote that: Mr. González Iñárritu’s own visual grammar tries to go deeper, to suggest a common idiom of emotion present in certain immediately recognizable gestures and expressions. We may not be able to read minds or decipher words, he suggests, but we can surely decode faces, especially when we see them at close range and in distress. Loss, fear, pain, anguish — none of these emotions, it seems, are likely to be lost in translation."
Many of you have mentioned that spoken language as a means to communicate is a dominate theme--I think what Babel foregrounds even more is how dependent we are on visual information to facilitate communication, especially when there's a language barrier. Cheiko's story in particular relies heavily on the language of the cinema for its tone and pace; much of the context and content must be derived from visual cues such as the setting or the subtle facial expressions of the actors.
But as Sarah notes, the language barrier between us (and by us I mean, the audience, but also her fictive society) and Cheiko don't prevent us from grasping what's powerful about her story. I think this can be said about all four of the narratives in the film: despite the barriers, we get the point.
One last thought: I don't think we've spent much time discussing how globalization impacts the act of film-making in and of itself (or have we? Perhaps I missed that). But I think we can say that the films we've watched are themselves products of the process of globalization. Do the films feel self-aware of this fact to you? Do they need to be? I'm thinking again of Dr. Abel's query about what problem do these films identify and do they identify solutions. From our textbook, I've gathered that globalization is a systemic process with a long history. Can the cinema itself be part of the solution to alleviating the negative aspects of globalization by simply attempting to visually articulate them to an audience? Is that enough? Just some questions to think about.
I found Babel to be easier to follow than Syriana. The theme of globalization in Babel was a little less pronounced than in Syriana however. In Syriana, it showed some very poor looking people standing in this line, and contrasts that with showing how rich the people involved in the oil industry are. What I thought was most interesting about Syriana was the people that were actually working on the oilrigs. They were immigrants, and when they got fired they were told they would probably be deported. This reminded me of the Pakistan chapter of Workingman’s Death. They were stuck there because they needed the job to survive because there weren’t any jobs in their home country. This was also true for Import/Export; Olga had to leave her home country in order to find work that she could support herself with.
ReplyDeleteThe aspects of globalization that I saw in Babel were how all the stories connected. The (supposedly rich) Americans going on vacation to an “exotic” country get shot at by local boys with a gun that came from a Japanese man. At first, I wasn’t sure how all the stories really connected, or if they were going to connect at all, like we saw in Import/Export. It was interesting to see how a small act, the gift of a rifle from another person who was on vacation in Morocco started all the trouble and sadness that we saw in the film. There was also the added storyline of the immigrant worker Amelia who was taking care of the Americans’ children. We do not find out that she is working illegally in the US until the end when she is arrested. I think that this kind of story would be impossible to tell without the effects of globalization. All different types of people were connected by this one event, and it affected all of their lives.
I agree with Elsa in that the globalization connection in Babel is very obvious; all these people from different countries and nationalities are interconnected. While it appears to at first be very adjunct, I was able to fairly quickly guess that all the situations would be connected. The global theme was evident early on in the film as we went from Morocco to America to Japan to Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThe title "Babel" is very interesting. I am sure that this must be referring to the Tower of Babel that is referenced in the book of Genesis in the Bible. The post-flood population attempted to build a tower that would reach to heaven, but the Lord "confounded" their languages, causing them to "scatter" rather than stay in one place with one language. I found this title be very ironic and almost challenging of the Genesis story. There are many languages spoken in the film, from Spanish to Japanese to even Japanese Sign Language. While everyone's language is "confounded," they are still connected and still touch each other's lives in significant ways. Even though they are not in one place; they are, indeed, "scattered over the face of the earth," they are still impacting each other and causing a lot of damage. The title of "Babel" could be seen in an ironic sense or in the sense that the effects of globalization have united the world in spite of the language and geographical barriers that come with having "confused" language and being "scattered."
This is the over-arching theme of the film, but each story was beautifully crafted and intricately poignant. Chieko's story especially touched me and was not as predictable as some of the other stories. The ending of her story surprised me and made me want to reach through the screen and embrace that vulnerable, traumatized teenager. I fully expected her to have jumped and killed herself, but seeing her standing on the balcony, still naked but alive, was a surprise. While it is never revealed what exactly Chieko says in her note, I would surmise that it might be a suicide letter.
The film was very well done. Everything that was done in the film served the plot and the message.
Like Elaina, I also thought of the Tower of Babel that is talked about in the book of Genesis when I was watching the film Babel. There are many language barriers and I feel that the main problems that were portrayed in the film are the result of not understanding each other because of this language barrier. The language barrier isn’t only referring to the different spoken languages, but also to the deafness of Chieko in Japan.
ReplyDeleteThe globalization that is seen in Babel is the fact that all of these characters in the film are from different countries and are connected in the way that they are all in different countries other than their country of origin and communicate or are associated with others from different countries. Chieko’s Japanese father sells the gun to the Moroccan herdsman, the gun then is shot at the American tourist who in a way connects the American and the Moroccan. Then the Mexican nanny is connected to the American because she is the nanny of the American children. In a sense you can say that the gun starts the whole globalization process and connects all of these countries.
The globalization that is seen in Syriana is all of the different countries that are again seen in the film and communicating with each other. Corruption is seen in all of these countries because they all want and need the oil to keep their own countries safe and thriving. All of these countries are connected through the oil industry and the need of this oil in the need of the oil in these certain countries.
Both of these films are connected in the way that globalization is started with a certain object or need. In Babel the gun is the premise for the globalization that is seen, while in Syriana the oil is the start of globalization.
Just a point of clarification: the gun isn't sold but given as a gift by the Japanese father (& hunter) to his hunting guide in Morocco--a gesture of gratitude, as we learn eventually, because the Japanese man thought his Moroccan hunting guide did a great job.
DeleteWith regard to the last paragraph: if we agree that in Babel it's the gun and in Syriana it's the oil that is the object with which "globalization is started (this is probably not the best way of putting it since globalization is clearly already in effect), then one might want to ask a question about these particular "objects" and the weight they're carrying for and in the film. Is the gun and oil of the same value? Does, in the films, the gun and oil, respectively, carry the same force? Who's attached to these objects and the force they exert? Note, for example, that the gun in Babel is connected only to individuals: the Japanese man, the Moroccan hunting guide, the Moroccan father to whom the hunting guide sells the rifle, his children, Cate Blanchet (and through her Brad Pitt's character), the Mexican maid (because she now can't attend there wedding w/o taking the children), the children, the Mexican maid's nephew. All of the stories we get seem fairly private stories, perhaps with the exception of the Mexican maid and her nephew who are subject to immigration laws (that are depicted, it seems to me, in predictable ways) but here, too, we don't get moments ABOUT immigration laws (and why they exist etc) but just see how the law affects these two individuals because of their own individual decision (one that we could argue wasn't a smart decision, though perhaps understandable). And the same in Morocco: when we see the effects of the shooting--the US immediately being able to shut down airspace, resulting in the medical helicopter not being able to fly in to rescue Cate Blanchet's character, the local police's brutality--there's little sense of these having any impact beyond that of these few individuals. The film's gaze, that is, seems always on the individuals, which are linked (but why?) by the gun. What, in the end, is the point of the gun? Why force this issue of being connected across the world through an OBJECT (in Hitchcock's world we might call this object a MacGuffin, incidentally.)
In Syriana, the "object" is oil. Oil, by definition, is of a different order, in terms of its force, than a single rifle. Oil is something that has to be extracted, moved around, and capitalized upon through massive transnational processes that exceed the purview of any one individual or small group of individuals. If the gun "causes" the events in Babel, and oil does in Syriana, then it seems these two causes are not different in degree but KIND. Perhaps this accounts for the fact that Babel is actually very easy to follow notwithstanding its "butterfly effect" premise whereas Syriana is very difficult to follow: in this sense we might say the latter is very much realistic with regard to its object--which is really a massive process connecting complex socio-economic and political relations--whereas the former is essentially a contrived fairy tale in which a coincidence, chance, is blown up to become the absent cause of events across the world without ever giving us a sense of why this cause matters, or, for that matter, what the REAL cause underlying the events are (for example, why did the Japanese father end up hunting in Morocco in the first place: what enabled this, and why Morocco?; or, why are Brad and Cate in Morocco to get over the loss of one of their children? And why are all the "ugly" Westerners there, in the tourist bus?; why is the Mexican maid in San Diego? what forces puts these people in motion, as tourists, hunters, workers?).
Alejandro González Iñárritu cleverly weaves four countries together in his film, Babel. In the case of globalization, we saw in this film very clearly the barrier that language provides. I agree with Elaina that the film alludes to the story of the Tower of Babel from the Bible. There was desperation in each of the story lines to be understood. Chieko’s deafness prevented her from communicating with her father. I believe that her being handicap adds to her insecurities. I agree with Roger Ebert when he said, “these characters are not idiots, and desperately want to utter that word or sentence, but are prevented because of (a) the language barrier, (b) their cultural assumptions, (c) the inability of others to comprehend what they are actually saying, and (d) how in that case everyone falls into an established script made of prejudice and misunderstanding.” Such barriers led them to make the drastic decisions such as Santiago’s bolt from the border police and Chieko’s attempts at seducing men.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in this film there aren’t any true villains. The repercussions of the character’s actions led to one another. It just shows how someone else that they have never met can affect everyone.
Iñárritu did a marvelous job to show the different customs and geographies of the countries. The viewer saw juxtapositions in geography from the barren land of Morocco to a fast paced city in Japan. His establishing shots helped the viewer not necessarily pinpoint exactly where these people are living but it was enough to give us ideas of the kinds of civilization that was presented. The close up and medium shots were nice to empathize with the characters such as Chieko and the couple in Morocco. His chronologically twisted film adds suspense in every scene. It reminded me of Import/Export but in this case, the characters are related to each other in one way or another.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/babel-2006
For the moment, I’d like to perhaps take a look at what other students have already said upon these films, rather than comment upon them directly. Like many of my peers, I feel that as a whole, Babel was perhaps the more successful film in terms of its relation to globalization. In fact, I think a better word to describe this particular idea in relation to these films might be that of inter-connectivity. Once again, as many of my peers have stated it is this sort of inter-connectivity is what makes this film so successful in pushing its ideas toward the audience. Like Elaina had stated, I too was quick to figure out how all of these stories became intertwined with one another. Although, I’d like to point out that this is perhaps because of the more mainstream nature of this film unlike others which we’ve watched. Due to this film being maybe created for viewing of a much larger audience, the underlying natures of many of the facts might be closer to the surface for better understanding. Once again, this is only a side note, but something I found interesting in both of these films nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, this inter-connectivity conveyed in Babel like others have stated manifests itself in many way. In fact, even these motifs are technically interconnected in a much broader sense. Like many other have already mentioned, this idea of the biblical story obviously ties into the language barrier within this film. In addition, this separation is not only limited to just language, but that of culture as well as others.
But, an idea that Monica mentioned really struck me and got me thinking. In line with what she said, there are seemingly no “villains” within this film. In fact, the events of this film are set off by actions, actions that soon become interconnected with other characters in the film and in her words “It just shows how someone else that they have never met can affect everyone.” This little idea once again returned my thoughts to inter-connectivity and globalization. We are, in fact, connected to nearly everyone on the planet not only economically, but socially as well. I think this little idea also might rotate in turn with the Tower of Babel story in a sense that while we might not be connected entirely by language, we are connected through our actions and what we do undoubtedly affects other people. I would like to know perhaps what others might think of this idea?
Monica and Daniel both noted the lack of the traditional villainous characters. The characters whose actions guide the audience to identify and emphasize with the “good” characters in the film. However in this film, characters purposely portrayed as empathetic and struggle with decisions in which many would most likely emulate the characters ultimate decision.
ReplyDeleteThe film’s wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_(film)) provides an interesting piece of information about the film that I had not realized, and upon locating additional research, it seems that each location in the film lies on the 32nd parallel north (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_parallel_north). Although it would appear that the characters are all very different and simply connected by chance (through the rifle), this may not be the case. This is what I assume director Alejandro González Iñárritu was trying to highlight: the often denied common denominator the characters share.
Many classmates pointed out the reference to the Tower of Babel and the resultant destruction caused by fracturing the language. The director does indeed confirm the connection in a behind the scenes segment for the movie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acdMqpBuI1I, disclaimer, it does contain adult language later in the video).
Roger Ebert wrote a review at the film's initial release that not only discusses globalization within the film but globalization factors surrounding the film. Ebert describes Inarritu as “is one of three friends I have taken to calling the New Mexican Cinema” along with Guillermo Del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron, , both of who did go on to continued success (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/babel-2006). Ebert explained that “for unknown reasons a country (France, Sweden, Brazil, South Korea, Iran, Germany) will suddenly produce a brilliant generation,” and the fact that “Mexicans are also completely at home in English is our gain, but not their loss.” He cites the acceptance of subtitles by non-US audiences as a reason why foreign directors are able to find transnational success. Andrew Higson, an essayist featured in the book Film and Nationalism, suggests that to identify a country’s national cinema one must “first of all specify a coherence and a unity; it is to proclaim a unique identity and a stable set meanings” (Williams, 2002, p. 54). However Babel would argue that “we” do not possess different sets of values, but instead have shared meanings (although not shared languages) that connect us.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, Babel standouts from our other films, including Syriana, for its use of music montages with non-diegetic music. Import/Export had the party scene at the hospital, but the music was part of the scene and had no extra outside shots. Same with La Promesse, when Roger and Igor sang. Although Dirty Pretty Things did insert Non-diegetic music it was not set to a montage of clips (again please correct me if I not remembering).
Williams, A. L. (2002). Film and nationalism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
As some of my classmates have stated I agree that Babel’s theme of globalization was very obvious. I found Cheiko’s story to be the most interesting by far. It is not until the very end does the viewer learn exactly how she fits into the bigger story and even then she is not directly connect to the shooting. I found her lack of direct connection to be troubling. I wonder why the filmmaker chose to use her story instead of her father’s. Every other character that we follow is somehow directly related/involved in the shooting. As Elaina points out, this could be to show language barriers within countries i.e. Japanese speakers and Japanese Sign Language.
ReplyDeleteGlobalization is most clear through the connections that each character has with one another. The four different countries are connected by meaningful relationships. This film clearly shows a good and bad side to globalization. The good is shown through the meaningful relationships portrayed. However, the negative side is shown through the political mess that happens after the shooting. While our world is constantly being globalized there are still hoops that one must jump through to get real action done.
Much like everyone else has said the aspects of globalization are pretty obvious in Babel, probably more so than most of the other films we have watched so far. We observe American, Moroccan, Japanese, and Mexican families all interconnected in some type of way, despite their different locations and languages.
ReplyDeleteSomething I noticed throughout the film was how problematic the language barrier between people was. The two most significant events were when Richard is trying to save his wife and is unable to communicate effectively with the Moroccan people and when Amelia is trying to tell the police officers where to find the two Jones children. I actually, was almost positive they were going to leave the children in the desert because they couldn’t understand Amelia trying to tell them to go find them.
Like Elaina first mentioned, the name ‘Babel’ is most definitely referring to the Tower of Babel in the book of Genesis in the Bible. These people struggle simply because they cannot understand each other, much like in the story in the Bible where they can’t build a tower reaching heaven because they can’t understand each other’s languages. This may be far-fetched but perhaps it’s also due to their sins, as in the book of Genesis, that these people are presented with this fate. Richard obviously left his wife and children at some point that’s referenced a few times by Susan and Amelia never told Richard or Susan she was taking their children to Mexico. Maybe the two characters are presented with this language barrier because of their actions as the people in the book of Genesis who tried to build a tower to heaven to reach God.
I noticed Coca-Cola was seen in a few shots throughout the film, while Richard and Susan are eating in Morocco and at Amelia’s son’s wedding. Coca-Cola is an American product, based in Atlanta, Georgia, yet we see it all the way across the world in Morocco and in Mexico. Although subtle, this is a form of globalization – bringing forth an American product into other cultures.
Another thing I took note of was how the film was shot. This film had many head on shots that made it easy to follow along with background music that helped with predictability. I never questioned whether these separate stories would intertwine, like I did in Import/Export. Being that this is more of a “Hollywood” film I knew things would have to connect and make sense at some point.
Babel plays itself out like a tragedy. By this, I mean that all of the characters are governed by fate. As soon as the rifle is fired at the bus, none of the characters no longer had any choices at all. The repercussions that course through the lives of so many separate individuals are automatic. Susan is obviously the one least in control of her outcome. Richard has no other choice but to accept the help of the village doctor. The Moroccan children have no choice but to play out their parable. Amelia can't find any other option but than to take the children with her to Mexico. In all cases, once the characters are set in their paths, they lose all agency. But what exactly are these cogs in which these characters find themselves a part of? Roger Ebert in his review of the film says "The movie is not, as we might expect, about how each culture wreaks hatred and violence on another, but about how each culture tries to behave well, and is handicapped by misperceptions." (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/babel-2006) The destinies of these characters are shaped by all those they interact with and everyone is simply trying to do the "right" thing or the "necessary" thing. Santiago left his aunt and the kids in the desert because he believed that it was his only choice. Chieko reveals her body to boys and men because she thinks it’s the only way she can possibly connect with anyone. The tourists in the bus leave because they (selfishly, of course) believe that they need air conditioning, or that they simply were afraid to be stranded in a remote Moroccan village. But the point is that there is no one at fault. Things could not be helped. Responses to trauma are always automatic, whether that be on the individual or the global levels. I guess you could use the idea of the butterfly affect as a way to talk about Babel. The theory is that if a butterfly flapped its wings, a thousand miles away, it creates a tsunami. Or, in this case, if a Japanese man gives away his rife, on the other side of the world, some blonde children will be lost in the Sonoran desert.
ReplyDeleteSarah, I think you're really getting at something important here when you say: "However, Babel would argue that 'we' do not possess different sets of values, but instead have shared meanings (although not shared languages) that connect us." I completely agree. What's interesting is how Alejandro González Iñárritu gets us to acknowledge this crucial similarity.
ReplyDeleteIn his review of Babel, A.O. Scott, the New York Times's chief film critic wrote that: Mr. González Iñárritu’s own visual grammar tries to go deeper, to suggest a common idiom of emotion present in certain immediately recognizable gestures and expressions. We may not be able to read minds or decipher words, he suggests, but we can surely decode faces, especially when we see them at close range and in distress. Loss, fear, pain, anguish — none of these emotions, it seems, are likely to be lost in translation."
Many of you have mentioned that spoken language as a means to communicate is a dominate theme--I think what Babel foregrounds even more is how dependent we are on visual information to facilitate communication, especially when there's a language barrier. Cheiko's story in particular relies heavily on the language of the cinema for its tone and pace; much of the context and content must be derived from visual cues such as the setting or the subtle facial expressions of the actors.
But as Sarah notes, the language barrier between us (and by us I mean, the audience, but also her fictive society) and Cheiko don't prevent us from grasping what's powerful about her story. I think this can be said about all four of the narratives in the film: despite the barriers, we get the point.
One last thought: I don't think we've spent much time discussing how globalization impacts the act of film-making in and of itself (or have we? Perhaps I missed that). But I think we can say that the films we've watched are themselves products of the process of globalization. Do the films feel self-aware of this fact to you? Do they need to be? I'm thinking again of Dr. Abel's query about what problem do these films identify and do they identify solutions. From our textbook, I've gathered that globalization is a systemic process with a long history. Can the cinema itself be part of the solution to alleviating the negative aspects of globalization by simply attempting to visually articulate them to an audience? Is that enough? Just some questions to think about.