Babel

Well, this is my first post - I've thought about what my theme's going to be and the obvious one is a diary of film, television programmes, books, exhibitions etc. I've been keeping a diary of films I've seen and books I've read for about 10 years, and I've always thought right at the back of my mind that I ought to write about what I've seen, read, heard etc. After all, I've been writing about film for years, ever since I did an OU module on media in the 1930s and 40s. I did an MA in British film history as well, so it's been my subject for a long time. I don't pretend to be a great film critic, but I like to talk about film and books.
Anyway, where to start? Well, I went to see Babel yesterday with my daughter, who's also a film fan. (I've brought all my kids up to love the movies, and I'm glad to say it's paid off - now they're grown up, it's almost the first thing we talk about when I see/phone them - 'what films have you seen recently?) We went to an afternoon screening - it's come back to Bristol for a week presumably because of its Oscar nomination (it was on for about 3-4 weeks when it was first released). I'd read the reviews - incredibly mixed - a few loved it, but many hated it, most notably Mark Kermode on Radio 5. I normally trust MK's judgement - don't always agree with him, but respect his opinion. Most haters felt the film was, to quote Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian (someone whose opinions I don't respect, although I always find myself checking him out), 'self-important' and 'conceited'. Kermode agreed, and thought the film was horribly 'up itself'. Whatever, it obviously excites emotion - I remember MK and Julie Myerson nearly coming to blows over it on Newsnight Review.
Bradshaw promises that the audience will come out 'irritated' and 'incredulous' at what he sees are the 'naive' and 'laughable' plot machinations. Well, the audience members I overheard discussing it in the loo afterwards were enthralled and overwhelmed. Myself - I didn't lose concentration once -drifting off for the odd doze has been an occupational hazard at the movies in the last couple of years - but not this time. It's certainly ambitious in scope, and too few films are these days. I think it's attempting to show the difficulty of connecting, our failure to communicate, misapprehensions, and the messy, chaotic ways in which we lead our lives. It raises many more questions than it answers, such as the problematic American couple who employ an illegal immigrant to look after their children while they 'experience' the third world.
Anyway, I like films that make me think long after I've seen them, and Iñárritu deserves praise, not the incredible level of condemnation he's received in many quarters for this film. I suppose he was somewhat overpraised for Amores Perros and is now getting a bit of a backlash, which often happens. Philip French's review in the Observer hit the nail on the head, I think. 'Some will think this film glib and overly schematic. I found it an impressive, beautifully acted work with a tragic sense of life'.
Yes, the film is a bit of a mess, but so is human nature, global politics and life in general. A brave and human film which will reverberate in my memory for a long time.