One of the more disheartening news stories out of filmdom is the apparent dissolution of the partnership between writer Guillermo Arriaga and director Alejandro González I?±árritu.
As a pair, their past collaborations have resulted in "Amores perros" (2000) and "21 Grams" (2003), each a swirling, dense examination of a series of interconnected characters. Arriaga recently claimed much of the credit for "21 Grams," only to be shut out of the Cannes screening of their latest effort, "Babel," by none other than I?±árritu himself. The potential for future cooperation is looking grim.
It's a shame, because the talents of both Arriaga and I?±árritu are on full display in "Babel." While the themes of personal responsibility that run through "21 Grams" and I?±árritu's "Powder Keg" (2001) are preserved in this film, "Babel" succeeds in expanding into new thematic and political territory. This expansion comes courtesy of a global storyline which interweaves multiple characters, several continents and no less than four languages.
The plot follows a deaf-mute girl in Japan (Rinko Kikuchi), an American couple traveling in Morocco (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) and the Hispanic caretaker for their children (Adriana Barraza), all of whom become linked by a horrific accident. "Babel" is fundamentally about a failure of communication (hence its Biblical title) and the gulfs that we allow language and fear to create. While some problems arise from a lack of shared language, others are created when the characters only hear what they want to hear.
I?±árritu and Arriaga have fashioned a narrative where the associations between different cultures are forged by violence, a sole common denominator that bridges our divisions. "Babel" speaks volumes in its demonstration of how an unlikely act of bloodshed does more to focus our attention on each other than any number of personal interactions. Save for a few choice exchanges scattered about the film, "Babel" seems to imply that our global culture is not that of common experiences and values, but of misunderstanding.
If the film has flaws, they cannot be solely attributed to either Arriaga or I?±árritu. The first hour wanders in a lengthy set-up that, however necessary, is only intermittently memorable. It is not until a hypnotic sequence of isolation in a Tokyo night club that the film finds its footing, followed by a startling revelation that brings the link between the stories into focus.
Several scenes, particularly a near-end reconciliation between Pitt and Blanchett, lack gravitas when they should be clinching our emotional surrender to the film. "Babel"'s final moments build to a scene that has the potential for a powerful, heartbreaking conclusion. Unfortunately, this opportunity is sidestepped in favor of ending on a mixed message of hope and pessimism that doesn't completely resonate.
Nonetheless, these flaws seem minor, especially in a work of such complexity. The film deserves kudos for effectively juggling a constant undercurrent of xenophobia while compounding it with lessons about terrorism, prejudice and globalization. At the same time, no easy answers are offered for the questions that are raised. Although it is clear that the characters should make more of an effort to understand each other, it often seems that this goal is out of reach.
The real tragedy of "Babel," though, is how the characters, despite their lack of malicious intent, are locked into situations descending into disaster. This is a world where the characters' fates are at the mercy of how others interpret their actions and where feelings and intentions are irrelevant.
Small triumphs for certain characters are overshadowed by the looming specter of white privilege, while those less racially fortunate are doomed. Nonetheless, any salvation for these individuals is marred by an inability to escape the suffering that they must endure.
After finding himself caught in a nightmare reminiscent of 2000's "Gerry" (think: copious amounts of sand), one of the film's young characters exclaims bewilderedly, "But we did nothing wrong." And in a sense, he's right - but the rest of humanity will just as soon assume otherwise.
