BABEL

[gustavius smith]

....I saw it a couple nights ago and was sort of underwhelmed by it. This could have something to do with the mood I was in when I saw it, but I left the cinema thinking it was one of Brad Pitt's least convincing performance that I have seen. I was sitting there watching the guy act. It really surprised me. Clearly it is a problem in the directing. My second gripe was with the editing. I was watching the cuts too!! The cinematography was fine, although I'm not a big fan of using shaky cameras to signify disorientation. And if the Morocco shots were shot on S16, I did not notice a degradation in the image. I agree that the Japan vignette was the most compelling and Rinko Kikuchi's performance was the most notable.

 

In the end I really got the feeling that this production was rushed. It just felt unfinished to me. The scene with Brad Pitt loosing his temper should have been cut. It was one of the moments in the film that dropped me out of the story. These kinds of web-of-life screenplays have really become trendy recently. I like them, but I think Babel is not exemplary of the best ones. Twenty one Grams was a more convincing story and better film.

 

In brief, that is my reaction to it.

 

Steve

 

I couldn't agree with you more! There were gasps in the movie theatre in New York city that night by the midway point of the film whenever the scenes cut between the storylines. People were tired, it was a tiring film to watch. The soundrack, was a nuisance like a bug flying around your ear. This film cannot be compared to 21 grams. The different film stocks didn't really do much for the story. Brad Pitt's performance was unmoving to say the least. A film critic worte that Babel is realy about what happens to white men when minorites have guns. Maybe that explains why this film is being praised about. I ran to see this film along with two other directors because of my love for 21 grams, I was very disappointed.

 

 

Gustavius

Edited January 3, 2007 by gustavius smith

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Your're in the wrong profession. You should work in still photography. Not motion pictures.

 

Still photography is "the decisive moment'. Everything summed up in a single image.

 

A motion picture does not have to race along, unable to observe, let alone meditate on, what is going on.

[Sean Azze]

As far as creating complex characters in a network of narratives, check out almost any Robert Altman film. His people have character and individuality no matter how short they appear on screen.

 

 

I won't argue with that - you do find some interesting personalities in Altman's films. But I'd say that also has to do with how character driven his films are. I mean, whats Short Cuts really about? Does Gosford Park really focus on the murder mystery that much, or is that really just a starting point to examining a varied cast of characters divided by the aristocracy and the help?

 

Think about the message in Babel. It deals with our failure to communicate with one another- whether it be because we speak a different language, or because we are a deaf/mute who speaks in signs and with a pen and a pad. The characters exist primarily to serve a greater purpose, but I don't think the writer and director neglected to flesh them out to achieve that goal.

 

Anyway, there were better movies this year so I think I'm gonna let this discussion go. Yet I do think the film merits a second viewing and should be appreciated for what it set out to achieve, not be faulted for what some people presume its lacking. I mean, did Mission Impossible 3 have the most intriguing characters? Not really - but man it was a kick ass movie! (I have a feeling I'm gonna spark another debate... :huh: )

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Bought a ticket to see it, sat through the first 30 minutes then walked out.

 

I felt the handheld cinematography was unmotivated, the dialogue (with the exception of the Housekeeper's scenes) was so bad and very "soap opera", and the cutting and mixing of storylines just left me disinterested in any of them.

 

I felt all we needed was the Housekeeper's story, and we would have had a great film...but it wasn't enough to keep me in my seat.

 

The last movie I walked out on was "Undercover Brother"...this wasn't nearly on that level of bad. But it had so much potential that I'm more disappointed than anything.

[Matt Goldberg]

Saw the film yesterday.

 

It reminded me a lot of "Eyes Wide Shut". Both films I thought had several parallels in plot development, namely in pace, which was untraditionally slow for a commercial release. I'm referring to plot development, and not the structures of both (one is non-linear).

 

Overall, I didn't feel very much impacted by the film. I was looking for nostalgia and motivation, which were two things this film didn't have. I concluded that the filmmaker/s were trying to focus more on the form of film. The narrative was singular and 'god-like', looking at all characters from one view, and that is what made this film deeply singular and fresh for film-going audiences that may appreciate more higher-art films out there, namely (but not subsequently) indies. I'm still a bit overwhelmed that it won at the Golden Globes, but I think one of the reasons it did is because of how original the idea was, and how it stepped over current boundaries of traditional, narrative filmmaking that ceases most of the elements of a commercial production.

[Robert Lachenay]

But hold on... isn't this style just a rip off from Quentin Tarantino?

 

Quentin Tarantino is most certainly not responsible for the omnipotently observed, disjointed style expressed in his films or those expressed in Inarritu's (I mean it was perfected in Kurosawa's Rashomon and had been done in many films prior to that, not to mention in many works of literature, including Dostoyevsky).

 

Max Jacoby, I also felt that this was an overrated, lackluster, and almost embryonic (as far as the characters are concerned) film. It?s narrative structure was something that has been done so many times before and so much more effectively that I grew bored with it almost immediately. I feel that it is alright to do something that has been done before, but only if you can do it better...only if you can enhance its effect?.reinvent it. I don't want to see the second-rate version of any type of narrative, and sadly that is what I was seeing in Babel.

 

In my opinion, Amores Perros has been Inarritu's only success. That film felt organic and his unapologetically eccentric style of editing felt fresh and lively with that material. In the rest of his films, this style of editing has seemed more like a crutch than a vehicle to enhance our viewing experience or aid in our understanding of Arriaga's characters ( I also felt this way about Memento, but I'm sure I am in the minority on that). The moments he built tension from also seemed quite shallow--hand-picked, predictable scenarios that were guaranteed to taunt our emotions The two children across the globe...the problems with the guards: I felt manipulated. The entire film attempted to assure me that it was organic, unforced and realistic, however it relied far too heavily on contrivance to garner my emotional affection. I didn't fall for it. (Does no one remember the ease with what Altman could derive such feeling from an audience...with such small, intimate tragedies?)

 

Whoever said that it seemed forced, I concur. And many films today seemed forced...like manufactured, formulaic pieces of faux-art (as this one was), pumped out efficiently enough to wet the palettes of competition judges and unripe filmgoers just in time for Oscar Fever. Inarritu, in my mind, has become a conformist to the Hollywood expectation He claims to be an artist, but with money has begun to play it safe (would he now dare to let frogs fall from the sky, or God crawl out of a closet door, or lend an entire film to dream sequence? It is not that he needs to take such risks as Anderson, Bergman or Lynch, but his voice seems to have become a vapid murmur, where it was once an explosion). He has lost that daring originality and experimental fervor expressed in his debut effort, Amores Perros (which, as I have said, is the only one that truly affected me). He has become acquiescent to the sort of reliable Big Studio balance of pretense, profundity and underdevelopment (as we saw last year in Crash and again this year in Babel). I grow tired of hearing such work being called ?daring"..."a true artistic achievement of transcendent power"..."blah, blah, blah." Couldn't it be equally observed that Arriaga and Inarritu are shamelessly manipulating the current tensions in our society to draw a sort of nostalgic, invested reaction from the audience?

 

Again, I use an Altman example: In Nashville, he fully articulated the wound of national deception...the paranoia and mistrust of post-Kennedy, post-Watergate America, without ever laying a heavy hand on the material...by simply creating a microcosm from believable, soulful characters. Films like Crash and Babel rely on overt gestures--sometimes even written out for us--to express their intentions. This was not a bad film...but I did not at all feel it was a great film. It seemed eternally feigned--from start to finish--which would not have mattered much if it hadn't also been so utterly pretentious at times.

 

But that's just my opinion...perhaps it sounds silly?.maybe over articulated and pretentious. Don?t blame me though?I?m just a silly high-schooler who doesn?t know much of anything (besides what strikes me and what rubs me the wrong way). Take it as you will?the cool thing about film as an art form is that it?s all subjective.

[Robert Lachenay]

But hold on... isn't this style just a rip off from Quentin Tarantino?

 

Forgive me for posting this twice...I tried to edit, but failed. This was the result. THIS SI THE ONE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO READ.

 

Also, please forgive me for writing so much or for seeming confrontational, if at all I do, throughout this piece.

 

 

On a first, most irrelevant not, I would just like to say that no, Quentin Tarantino is most certainly not responsible for the omnipotently observed, disjointed style expressed in his films or those expressed in Inarritu's (I mean it was perfected in Kurosawa's Rashomon and had been done in many films prior to that, not to mention in many works of literature, including Dostoyevsky).

 

Max Jacoby, I too felt that this was an overrated, lackluster, and almost embryonic (as far as the characters were concerned) film. It's narrative structure was something that has been done so many times before and so much more effectively that I grew bored with it almost immediately. I feel that it is alright to do something that has been done before, but only if you can do it better...only if you can enhance its effect...if you can reinvent it. Otherwise, I don't want to see some second-rate version of any type of narrative, and sadly that is what I saw in Babel.

 

In my opinion, Amores Perros has been Inarritu's only success. That film felt organic and his unapologetically eccentric style of editing felt fresh and lively with THAT material. It now seems that this sort of editing style has become more of Inarritu's crutch than a vehicle to enhance our viewing experience or aid in our understanding of Arriaga's characters ( I also felt this way about Nolan's Memento, but I'm sure I am in the minority on that). The moments he built tension from also seemed quite shallow: hand-picked, predictable scenarios that were guaranteed to taunt the emotions of the common viewer. The two children across the globe...the problems with the guards: I personally felt manipulated. The entire film attempted to assure me that it was organic...unforced...realistic... However it relied far too heavily on contrivance to garner my emotional affection. I didn't fall for it, for I prefer subtle, tangible emotion to that which is forseen and as an earlier poster coined: "operatic." (Does no one remember the ease with which Altman could derive feeling from an audience...with such small, intimate tragedies? With Cries and Whispers and Fanny och Alexander, even Bergman found that focusing on individual struggle is the far superior form of expressing universal struggle.)

 

Whoever said that it seemed forced, I concur with you. And many films today seemed forced...like manufactured, formulaic pieces of faux-art (as this one was), pumped out efficiently enough to wet the palettes of competition judges and unripe filmgoers just in time for Oscar Fever. Inarritu, in my mind, has become a conformist to the Hollywood expectation He claims to be an artist, but with money has begun to play it safe (would he now dare to let frogs fall from the sky, or God crawl out of a closet door, or lend an entire film to dream sequence? It is not that he needs to take such risks as Anderson, Bergman, or Lynch, but his voice seems to have become a vapid murmur, where it once was an explosion). He has lost that daring originality and experimental fervor expressed in his debut effort, Amores Perros (which, as I have said, is the only one that truly affected me). He has become acquiescent to the sort of reliable Big Studio balance of pretense, profundity and underdevelopment (as we saw last year in Crash and again this year in Babel). I grow tired of hearing such work being called “daring"..."a true artistic achievement of transcendent power"..."blah, blah, blah." Couldn't it be equally observed that Arriaga and Inarritu are shamelessly manipulating the current tensions in our society to draw a sort of nostalgic, invested reaction from the audience?

 

Again, I use an Altman example: In Nashville, he fully articulated the wound of national deception...the paranoia and mistrust of post-Kennedy, post-Watergate America, without ever laying a heavy hand on the material...by simply creating a microcosm from believable, soulful characters. Films like Crash and Babel rely on overt gestures--sometimes even written out for us--to express their intentions. This was not a bad film...but I did not at all feel it was a great film. It seemed eternally feigned--from start to finish--which would not have mattered much if it hadn't also been so utterly pretentious at times.

 

But that's just my opinion...perhaps it sounds silly?.maybe over articulated and pretentious. Don?t blame me though?I?m just a silly high-schooler who doesn?t know much of anything (besides what strikes me and what rubs me the wrong way). Take it as you will?the cool thing about film as an art form is that it?s all subjective.

 

--Robert Lachenay

Edited February 17, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Robert Lachenay]

After writing my last post yesterday, I began thinking about it and I?ve come to the conclusion that I should pay reference to the evaluations of Truffaut in his early Cahiers du cinema articles, in which he condemned French Cinema at the time for having writers and directors who simply manipulated their characters, feeling superior to them and their struggles.

 

He wrote of directors, "These 'superior' artists claim to be superior to their creations; this presumption explains, but fails to excuse, the bankruptcy of the arts since the invention of motion pictures." And of screenwriters, "For them, psychological realism inevitably requires that men be base, infamous and vile...the films the write are even more base, vile and spineless..." Now this quote is taken a bit out of context, for he was evaluating the state of French Cinema during the mid-1940s to mid-1950s, however the principle rings true in all film.

 

This is why Babel, Crash and 21 Grams left me feeling cheated. The characters and their actions/emotional drives were merely products of their abusive creators. The end revelation of each film either snuffs catharsis, or simply fakes it to hide that the journey of the characters has only ever been one of literary manipulation (which should never be evident in the type of film Inarritu and Arriaga were attempting to make...and which was, to me, offensive and shameless in Paul Haggis's picture ).

 

The reason the humanitarian efforts of Altman, the Dardenne Brothers, Green, De Sica, Loach, Ramsay, and P.T. Anderson (just a few examples of ensemble-cast, humanitarian filmmaker that come to mind) are so successful and ring so true, is because they are executed to bring the characters and their struggles to a human level. We relate with these people...we can see a bit of what we've gone through in our own lives through their ordeals. It allows us deeper application in the film.

 

It would seem that the minds behind films like Babel, Crash, and 21 Grams enter the creative process with specific analytical intentions, then simply form their characters around the goal of expressing those intentions. I think it would serve Haggis, Arriaga and Inarritu much better to return to examining and feeling close to their characters, instead of using them as oversimplified objects, whose function is only push the filmmakers agenda down our throat.

 

I hope this doesn?t sound like nonsense?I was trying to express how I felt about it, but sometimes I get a few too many ideas going on at once in my head. Forgive me.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[NathanCoombs]

Max Jacoby, I also felt that this was an overrated, lackluster, and almost embryonic (as far as the characters are concerned) film. It?s narrative structure was something that has been done so many times before and so much more effectively that I grew bored with it almost immediately. I feel that it is alright to do something that has been done before, but only if you can do it better...only if you can enhance its effect?.reinvent it. I don't want to see the second-rate version of any type of narrative, and sadly that is what I was seeing in Babel.

 

In my opinion, Amores Perros has been Inarritu's only success. That film felt organic and his unapologetically eccentric style of editing felt fresh and lively with that material. In the rest of his films, this style of editing has seemed more like a crutch than a vehicle to enhance our viewing experience or aid in our understanding of Arriaga's characters ( I also felt this way about Memento, but I'm sure I am in the minority on that). The moments he built tension from also seemed quite shallow--hand-picked, predictable scenarios that were guaranteed to taunt our emotions The two children across the globe...the problems with the guards: I felt manipulated. The entire film attempted to assure me that it was organic, unforced and realistic, however it relied far too heavily on contrivance to garner my emotional affection. I didn't fall for it. (Does no one remember the ease with what Altman could derive such feeling from an audience...with such small, intimate tragedies?)

 

Whoever said that it seemed forced, I concur. And many films today seemed forced...like manufactured, formulaic pieces of faux-art (as this one was), pumped out efficiently enough to wet the palettes of competition judges and unripe filmgoers just in time for Oscar Fever. Inarritu, in my mind, has become a conformist to the Hollywood expectation He claims to be an artist, but with money has begun to play it safe (would he now dare to let frogs fall from the sky, or God crawl out of a closet door, or lend an entire film to dream sequence? It is not that he needs to take such risks as Anderson, Bergman or Lynch, but his voice seems to have become a vapid murmur, where it was once an explosion). He has lost that daring originality and experimental fervor expressed in his debut effort, Amores Perros (which, as I have said, is the only one that truly affected me). He has become acquiescent to the sort of reliable Big Studio balance of pretense, profundity and underdevelopment (as we saw last year in Crash and again this year in Babel). I grow tired of hearing such work being called ?daring"..."a true artistic achievement of transcendent power"..."blah, blah, blah." Couldn't it be equally observed that Arriaga and Inarritu are shamelessly manipulating the current tensions in our society to draw a sort of nostalgic, invested reaction from the audience?

 

Great review. I concur totally. Babel is a 'high concept' Hollywood film tailor made for politically correct festival audiences with a reliable cast of baddies (US border control, Moroccan police force) and goodies (Mexican maid, Moroccan farmers).

 

A massive degradation in quality from the magnificent Amorres Perros. The best thing about the last two films is the cinematography, which as we all know has nothing to do with Inarritu.

 

Before Irraritu became a feature director he was a music video maker and radio DJ and he now appears to be reverting to type. He has nothing to say and no understanding of characters or narrative at all. He is a posturing fake.

[Robert Lachenay]

Before Irraritu became a feature director he was a music video maker and radio DJ and he now appears to be reverting to type. He has nothing to say and no understanding of characters or narrative at all. He is a posturing fake.

 

Most people would hate me for saying so, but I believe that this is also the case with Michel Gondry. I don't like him at all and can see right through his faux pas mise en scène. My blood curdles when I hear him being praised by filmgoers with developing pallettes as one of, "the greatest directors of his generation." All he's ever done outside of Eternal Sunshine is a terrible vision of Human Nature, a vapid mechanical film in the Science of Sleep, and a short of Jim Carrey riding on a bed-car, singing Elvis Presley. I feel that the only reason he ever even succeeded with Eternal Sunshine was due to Charlie Kaufman's great writing and a great cast (however Kaufman's original script was much better and much more heartbreaking). We see many ex-music video directors and commercial directors enter into filmmaking, without ever being able to supplement their sleek, predictible style for character development. Mind you, I am not condemning ex-music video/commercial directors, for there have been many who have successfully converted and gone on to become extremely accomplished filmmakers. I supposed I'm just making an observation.

[Cesar Rubio]

Reading this posts makes me understand the word jealousy at its fully extent.

Ok Mrs. Perfects, what have YOU done?...so we can "critique" your work too...

 

Do you think that the GOLDEN GLOBES are wrong then?

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

And yes, I am a proud MEXICAN!

[Max Jacoby]

Reading this posts makes me understand the word jealousy at its fully extent.

Ok Mrs. Perfects, what have YOU done?...so we can "critique" your work too...

 

Do you think that the GOLDEN GLOBES are wrong then?

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

And yes, I am a proud MEXICAN!

Oh gosh, let's not start this again...

 

One's own filmmaking abilities have nothing to do with the right to critique other people's work, otherwise there simply would be no cinema criticism in general, since the vast majority of critics have never even made a film themsleves.

 

As far as I am concerned Robert argues his point very articulately. You can see that he has obviously put some thought into this matter and he makes an intelligent argumentation, which is far more than can be said for you I'm afraid. Golden Globes, just like Oscars are simply no indicator of a film's qualites, otherwise 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King' would be the best film ever.

[Cesar Rubio]

Golden Globes, just like Oscars are simply no indicator of a film's qualites, otherwise 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King' would be the best film ever.

 

Oh yes, I forgot, the Golden Globes are chosen by the foreign press...which according to some ignorants, foreigners are "minorities", even though they live in their own Countries!

 

Was your grand'pa a minority too?

 

It's so easy to "judge" or "critique" the work of others...but why don't you try to wear the same "shoes" of that person first, and see how it goes for you...

 

One thing is to point out some things that you don't like in a film, and other very different to say that the guy was not a Director before bla, bla, bla...BTW Are people born with the title of Directors? AFAIK, All Directors weren't Directors until they started doing that job!

 

What do you think of a person that before seeing a Movie has already form a "review" on his mind? (..... I immediately thought "Here we go again...)

 

Or of a "film critic", which wrote that Babel is really about what happens to white men when minorities have guns....

 

Yes is alway me, us.... the rest are just 2nd class world citizens, or better said "minorities". No wonder there is so much hate against US citizens in the World....

 

This concerns me because me wife, my son and the coming one, all are American Citizens. And because of ignorant people's comments, people all over the world have a negative view of them already!

 

What kind of person is the one who walks out after 30 minutes of seen a movie and then have a "complete review" " ...what a stupidity!

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Robert Lachenay]

Was your grand'pa a minority too?

 

Actually, grandmother is Armenian, born there in 1909. Her parents were murdered and she fled with her sister, then was put into foster care until she was adopted. I'd rather you not go off on a rant about the hardships of minorities in America and the hatred in this country. It gets old.

 

Also, Max Jacoby is European...his film "butterflies" won a european cinema award.

 

It's so easy to "judge" or "critique" the work of others...but why don't you try to wear the same "shoes" of that person first, and see how it goes for you...

 

If it weren't for critics, or critiquing, cinema wouldn't be what it is today. Send your regards to Andre Bazin, Francois Truffaut, and the rest of Cahiers du cinema. Learn your stuff. Was it not Helen Scott who compared filmgoing to developing a wine pallette? I've seen too much and far better to have appreciated this pompous, recycled film. I personally believe Inaritu to have become one of the most shameless conformists in cinema today. His films completely lack auteurship because through them, he is only trying to appeal to others. They are, as a result, impersonal, overblown messes...done in a now cliche editing style and mixing profundity with pretense, simply to translate into a public who hasn't seen the BETTER versions of his films. As I said, that is only MY opinion...if it is not your own, don't be malicious toward me, but rather state how YOU FELT about the film/filmmaker.

 

Also, your feeble, incoherent attempt to manipulate very serious social tensions, simply to enforce a point on a film message board, shows how little your argument is actually worth. If you had anything to contribute, you would have been able to have done so without retreating into rabble, rabbles about race and discrimination and all that blah, blah, blah. Sadly, you picked the wrong person to present this to, as my heritage is far more of a minority and has suffered more hatred and discrimination and hardship (ultimately under-appreciated, I might add) than just about any that is currently inhabiting this planet. I, however, would not be so disrespectful as to use that to create guilt in someone for not liking a movie (I would, however, use it to humble some one like yourself). Personally, I find your willingness to USE the pain and suffering that others have endured as a tool in a discussion as trivial as film critique, sickening. It is something that, if I were an adult like you, I would be deeply ashamed of.

 

So, shucks to that....now, do you have anything important (or coherent) to say?

 

One thing is to point out some things that you don't like in a film, and other very different to say that the guy was not a Director before bla, bla, bla...BTW Are people born with the title of Directors? AFAIK, All Directors weren't Directors until they started doing that job!

 

In answer to this question, I suggest you become acquainted with the Auteur Theory.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Cesar Rubio]

 

I personally believe Inaritu to have become one of the most shameless conformists in cinema today. His films completely lack auteurship because through them, he is only trying to appeal to others. They are, as a result, impersonal, overblown messes...done in a now cliche editing style and mixing profundity with pretense, simply to translate into a public who hasn't seen the BETTER versions of his films. As I said, that is only MY opinion...

 

 

Thats why you are NOT in ANY official and respectful all over the world Film Awards Board!

Because you don't know a thing about good Cinematography.

 

 

Also, your feeble, incoherent attempt to manipulate very serious social tensions.... Sadly, you picked the wrong person to present this to, as my heritage is far more of a minority and has suffered more hatred and discrimination and hardship (ultimately under-appreciated, I might add) than just about any that is currently inhabiting this planet.

 

 

I wasn't attacking you, or referring to you in any way...I don't know why you took those comments personally!

 

 

I, however, would not be so disrespectful as to use that to create guilt in someone for not liking a movie (I would, however, use it to humble some one like yourself). Personally, I find your willingness to USE the pain and suffering that others have endured as a tool in a discussion as trivial as film critique, sickening. It is something that, if I were an adult like you, I would be deeply ashamed of.

 

 

Aren't you ashamed of the "white" people who thinks that the rest of the world are "minorities"? If we go by the numbers, people from China and India are majority and the rest of us...oh well are minority, including the "white men"!

 

And please, leave the things as they are already, I don't know you and don't make the moderators close this thread. There are plenty of people out there who liked the movie. Including Tomas Koolhaas, the starter of this Topic.

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

[Max Jacoby]

Thats why you are NOT in ANY official and respectful all over the world Film Awards Board!

Because you don't know a thing about good Cinematography.

There is no need to insult people like this. If you do not agree with Robert's assessment of 'Babel' then offer some real arguments against it, instead of insulting him personally all the time, which only ends up reflecting badly on yourself.

[Cesar Rubio]

There is no need to insult people like this. If you do not agree with Robert's assessment of 'Babel' then offer some real arguments against it, instead of insulting him personally all the time, which only ends up reflecting badly on yourself.

 

Out of respect for the starter of this topic, I wont "discuss" who say this and that any further. Just remember one thing...your head (and what you think) is NOT the world!

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Robert Lachenay]

Aren't you ashamed of the "white" people who thinks that the rest of the world are "minorities"? If we go by the numbers, people from China and India are majority and the rest of us...oh well are minority, including the "white men"!

 

I'm not really sure I know what you are talking about. The word minority is just the antonym of the word majority. I think a person would have to be pretty stupid to feel that they are the ethnic majority of the WORLD being a caucasian male. I also think someone would have to be pretty stupid to make such a broad, generalized statement as to say, "White people think that the rest of the world are minorities." And what's your definition of "white people?" I think it's all irrelevant. I don't really get what kind of point you're trying to make...I just don't understand what you're writing. It's too disjointed and incoherent. I...I don't know, haha! I'm at a loss of words. I have a feeling, however, that it has nothing to do with whether or not Babel or Inaritu are any good.

 

And the reason I'm probably not respected internationally for filmmaking is because I'm 17. I did win $2K for a short film I made a year and a half ago though...that was pretty "ballz" for me (not a big deal to most of you guys, I'm sure...but I was happy at the time. It made me smile and I don't smile a lot). Of course now that you know my age, feel free to tell me how naive and inexperienced and shamelessly idealistic I am (which is often what people tell me upon learning this, even though they forget that Dostoyevsky was reinventing lit when he was my age, bret easton ellis was writing less than zero, truffaut was reinventing film critique). To me (in viewing film and in hopefully soon creating it) being "internationally renowned and recognized" isn't all that important...certainly not as improtant as making something that is a very good, honest piece of work. Ken Loach gets a lot of respect, but people worldwide aren't really flocking to see his films. Lynn Ramsay is one of the greatest directors of her generation, but how many of you have actually seen Ratcatcher? David Gordon Green (who is probably one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet and is VERY independent as a filmmaker) is hardly bringing in the box office dough that "Reno 911" is...or the oscar nods that "Babel" is...even though his films feel much more organic and ALIVE. If I made something, I could honestly say that I'd be much happier having made something that people walk out of dizzy...having experienced something new and life affirming...rather than simply getting box of dollars or an oscar nod. As far as critiquing is concerned...Truffaut and Godard (hardly comparing myself to them) were not recognized filmmakers when they were critiquing (and they said some NASTY, NASTY things about the filmmakers), however they had the right to be critics (and look at who they became). The two are completely seperate. "Wise up."

 

Sorry that last post was so lame and all over the place. It is what it is, I guess.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[NathanCoombs]

Out of respect for the starter of this topic, I wont "discuss" who say this and that any further. Just remember one thing...your head (and what you think) is NOT the world!

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

Is this shameless trolling or has your Mexican nationalism got the better of you? I know there is racism against Mexicans aplenty in the USA, but that fact is completely irrelevant in the discussion of Babel.

 

I suggest you get to know some "foreign" directors who have something meaningful to say. If you want to jump in the deep end try Tarkovsky and Bela Tarr!

 

You seem to be under the impression that Babel is the only film that has ever been made in a non-American country.

 

And the reason I'm probably not respected internationally for filmmaking is because I'm 17. I did win $2K for a short film I made a year and a half ago though...that was pretty "ballz" for me (not a big deal to most of you guys, I'm sure...but I was happy at the time.

 

Hi Robert. For a 17 year old you have a lot of wisedom and should make a fine filmmaker if you have the right luck and persistence.

 

Why not add a film to Citizen Super-8 (if you can shoot super-8 or 16mm)? I hope to create quite a lot of attention for this project.

 

http://www.workhorse.tv/citizensuper8.html

[Robert Lachenay]

I suggest you get to know some "foreign" directors who have something meaningful to say. If you want to jump in the deep end try Tarkovsky and Bela Tarr!

 

I'd throw Kieslowski into that mix.

[Cesar Rubio]

Say whatever you want, but this is what matters the most anyways! :D

 

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Max Jacoby]

Hmm, I am trying to think of the last dvd that I saw which put the Golden Globes on its cover. Can't think of a single one actually. Oh well, I don't give much about the Golden Globes and Oscars anyway and certainly don't use it as an indicator how good a film is.

[Cesar Rubio]

Hmm, I am trying to think of the last dvd that I saw which put the Golden Globes on its cover. Can't think of a single one actually. Oh well, I don't give much about the Golden Globes and Oscars anyway and certainly don't use it as an indicator how good a film is.

 

How old are you Max?

 

I am almost 36, and I've learned through the years to never say never.

 

If one day you make a really good job in directing, and they make a nomination for you in either awards...please remember your own words.

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Ken Cangi]

I just saw it, and I was unimpressed. It failed in several ways for me. For starters, Pit's and Blanchett's characters seemed grossly underdeveloped, and the acting, what there was of it, forced. I also felt that the Asian story was so tenuously interwoven into the main story that it felt as though I were juggling two completely different films. To ultimately find out that their only connection was the passing down of a hunting rifle was less than intriguing, to say the least. Finally, there were some serious plot holes. For example, the news of Susan's shooting had obviously already reached the local authorities, because police were traipsing around the countryside - brutaly interrogating suspects - while Susan lay bleeding to death and lying in her own urine, waiting with uncertainty for a transport to a hospital. The drive would had been approximately four hours in any one of the police vehicles, yet she ended up stranded on a dirt floor for at least that long while the police went around kicking the crap out of some old people and threatening to cut children's balls off. "Quite a stretch." There were other gaping plot holes, although I prefer not to rehash them at this point. Once was enough.

[Cesar Rubio]

I don't remember who said (and I don't care either) that Brad Pitt was crying like a baby.....he was crying like a MAN, and that was one of his BEST performances ever. I liked his acting in Troy too, but in Babel he was more human. And real men cry too. Even God's son Jesus Christ, cried when he came to live as a man.

 

Cesar Rubio.