"Babel": Pointless. Empty. Critically Acclaimed.

Babel
(Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, 2006)

1 star

Pointless. That’s the word that comes to mind when I think about "Babel." Pointless. Why was this movie made? What great statement do Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu and Guillermo Arriaga have to make about life, the universe and everything? I kept waiting for the big scene where all the connected strands would come together and I’d suddenly understand everything. But it never came. It was like I’d done almost three hours of work and suddenly found out that I wasn’t going to get paid.

Honestly, what’s the point of "Babel?" That we’re all connected? I’m sorry, but how does the fact that events in Morocco have ramifications in Mexico illuminate some great human truth? In the age of the internet, that’s almost a given, something that can be summarized in a sentence. Filmmakers like Iñárritu need to learn that interconnectivity in of itself isn’t a theme. It’s a technique; you use to show something else. For example, events “Short Cuts” are just as random and coincidental as the events "Babel," but in "Short Cuts," Robert Altman was making a point about how accidental and random life could be. In "Traffic," Stephen Soderbergh was showing us three different ways to approach the war on drugs. Hell, even “Crash” had a point behind its interlocking stories. “Babel” makes no points; Iñárritu expects the style’s self-importance (because only important movies bother with time-shuffling) to substitute for meaning.

He also expects self-importance to substitute for meaning in the scenes dealing with “important” subjects like border control. Alright Alejandro, you show a woman getting deported. So what? That’s only half the job: You have to say something new and enlightening before it becomes important and meaningful. And no, the fact that she’s lived here for over fifteen years doesn't count – everyone already knows that happens all the time.

“Babel” is the worst kind of shallow movie: the kind you have to think about before you realize there’s nothing to think about. Look at the scene where the Moroccan boy sees his sister naked: Initially, it seems artistic and powerful. After all, how could something like that not have meaning? But then the holes start to show. How does this tie into the boy shooting the bus? Is it some sort of commentary on masculinity? If so, what’s the comment? That being attracted to your sister and shooting a bus are both very bad ways of showing off your chest hair?

Further adding to the pointlessness, there’s some obtuse political commentary that basically amounts to the equivalent of an angry internet rant attacking George Bush, only less informed. Seriously, how does the movie benefit from the inclusion of a broadcast where newscasters blame terrorists for the bus attacks? I know some people would say that it shows how the government jumps to conclusions, but when a bus full of American tourists gets shot in the middle of a Muslim country ... well I'm sorry, common sense dictates that terrorists did it, not dumb little children with military-trained-sniper aim. (Don’t even get me started on how unrealistic this movie is). Iñárritu is only complaining because he knows that he has nothing meaningful to say and wants to score a few points with liberal film critics around the world. After all, tell them something they agree with and they’ll be more than happy to overlook a few flaws, like, say, the lack of thematic unity.

Here’s the main reason “Babel” is pointless. Judging from the title and tagline (“Listen.”), it’s a film about miscommunication, right? But none of the conflicts and problems are caused by miscommunication. There’s no miscommunication with the bus shooting (that’s caused by dumbness), no miscommunication at the village (insensitivity), no miscommunication at the border (dumbness again). The only part where there's any miscommunication is the Japanese segment, but even that’s more about depression and loneliness improperly expressed.

All of “Babel’s” problems can be traced back to the screenplay. Iñárritu is a very talented director and his direction here is phenomenal – I didn’t realize how much the movie sucked until after it was over. The acting is all top notch (even Brad Pitt is good). And the editing… well, here’s a note to the person who claimed that I only understand editing: if that were true, I’d be giving Babel four stars instead of one. It’s just the script that sucks. It feels like Guillermo grabbed four rough drafts from the bottom shelf of his writing drawer and combined them into one movie, hoping that pretentious critics across the country would find a point (and write lengthy essays explaining it for him).

It probably would have been better if he had stuck to one script, instead of trying to cram four stories into one film. Any one of them could have made a good enough film by itself: The core stories and characters could potentially be interesting and compelling; do a little expanding and you’d even find a theme or two. But putting them together is just asking for trouble. It’s like trying to combine four short stories into a novel. It simply doesn’t work.

Those of you who know me understand that despite my boisterous exterior, I will never use the words "I'm right" when talking about anything, especially a movie. I'm an open-minded person, and even though I may have strong opinions, I like to think that I can find merit in every argument. Not here. When it comes to "Babel," I am right. The world is wrong. This movie is so empty I could rent it out for storage. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m not intolerant, I’m not biased (although I am Republican). I’ll never disregard a movie on politics alone. Never. If a movie has something to say, I’ll listen. “Babel” just doesn’t have anything to say.