Talk:Babel (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Isn't Chieko unable to talk, rather than unwilling?

The current page says Chieko "refuses to speak" but doesn't the film make quite clear that she is deaf and mute; she simply cannot speak even if she wanted to?

Edit: I understand "deaf-mute" is not a very accepted term (wasn't aware of that) but still, she is in a situation where she CAN not talk. It's not a matter of WILL (refusing) but of ability. Maybe not very important, but nonetheless. 195.169.201.127 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more than simply the offensiveness of the term "deaf-mute". There is no evidence that she cannot talk. Many deaf people do not talk even though they can do so. Therefore it would be speculative and POV to say that she is unable to talk. See Deaf-mute discussion on this page. Ward3001 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on your POV comment, but then again, "refuses" is POV aswell, isn't it? We simply don't know, then, so "doesn't talk" describes it best, don't you agree? -- 84.29.216.117 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that she should simply be described as "deaf" without any reference to whether she speaks. That's based on knowing hundreds of deaf people who never describe themselves or other deaf people in terms of speaking or not speaking. But in the previous discussion here and on users' talk pages it was felt by others that, from a standpoint of meaning in the film, it was important to comment that she does not speak. I agreed to that, and I agree with you that "refuses" is a matter of interpretation. But I'm OK with either "refuses" or "does not", just not "cannot". -- Ward3001 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I thought about it and changed it to "does not" (instead of "refuses"). Hopefully everyone can live with this :) Leokennis (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When I watched the film I had the subtitles on. During the scene in which Cheiko disputed the referee's line-call the subtitle had Cheiko saying: "I'm deaf-mute, not blind". 61.69.129.193 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't count for much for several reasons. First, do you understand Japanese well enough to know that it was a literal translation for the words "deaf" and "mute"? The subtitler may be subject to the same bias as a lot of people and did not know the difference between the term "deaf" and the term "deaf-mute". Secondly (and more importantly), the issue isn't the language of the character Chieko. The issue is how we should refer to her in the Wikipedia article. Chieko herself, or the writer of the screenplay, might use the term "deaf-mute", but that doesn't necessarily mean that she is literally mute. Decades ago, many deaf (non-mute) people referred to themselves (or more likely, passively accepted others' references to them) as "deaf-mute". That doesn't make it accurate or right. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows whether Chieko literally cannot talk. And, in any event, there is enough social sensitivity to this issue that Wikipedia should not use the term, except in a historical sense. The "N-word" used to be widely accepted usage to refer to African-Americans, and some people still use the word. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's clear that you have some specialist knowledge; what is the correct term to describe someone that cannot hear and is unable to speak? 61.69.129.193 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question that has some complexity in its answer. First of all, keep in mind that almost all deaf people can speak; some simply choose not to. The number of deaf people who are literally, medically unable to use their voice is almost nonexistent. So the need for a term, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Most deaf people simply wish to be called "deaf", without any reference to speaking. There is no official term that I know of for those extremely rare deaf people who are literally unable to speak. If I had to use a descriptor (which I probably would never do) for someone that I knew for sure could not speak (e.g., has nonfunctional vocal cords), I would simply use the term "deaf" and describe the speaking problem without an official term. Even many professionals who work with a person who cannot speak (regardless of hearing status) don't use the term "mute". Some might say "deaf and mute", but to me that's too close to the unacceptable term "deaf-mute". I would never use "deaf-mute" even if I knew the person could not speak, simply because it is offensive to most deaf people. Ward3001 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought this was obvious. First off, offensive or not, Cheiko used the term deaf-mute to discribe herself. As for the mistranslation idea presented above: this film costed millions of dollars and I am sure that they thought about what they wanted to convey to the viewer before hand. Cheiko is mute in the sense that she can barely speak. Throughout the film she mumbles and moans, which indicating SHE CANNOT speak. If she wanted to be called anything different she would refer to herself as something different, but she doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.58.47 (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

this film costed millions of dollars and I am sure that they thought about what they wanted to convey to the viewer before hand: Having money to spend does not indicate absence of bias by the subtitler.

Throughout the film she mumbles and moans, which indicating SHE CANNOT speak: That's your POV. The only thing clear is that she does not speak. Mumbling and moaning doesn't demonstrate anything else. I've heard thousands of deaf (and non-mute people) make such vocal sounds.

If she wanted to be called anything different she would refer to herself as something different: The issue is not what she calls herself; it's what she is called in the Wikipedia article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Stories forced to cross

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned that the stories in the movie seemed to be "forced" to match, and doesnt appear to be loggically connected (as they in fact were in Gonzalez Iñárritu's previous film "Amores Perros", that used a similar context of paralell crossed stories). The whole story of the Japanese guy hunting in Moroco seemed not believable and appear to a critical viewer to be a not well developed attempt to "close" the stories' crossing, but not in the best way (not because a Japanesse man can't hunt in Moroco, but because the way that link is written appear to be not logical). --Fredyrod 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This is a valid criticism of the film. Unfortunately so many flaws in the film, that it would take days to compile them all. Who has the time? The director would release another bad film before you could even compile them all!!

It seems that everyone who criticizes the film is over looking the most important aspect of it. The title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.239.134 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Border Crossing

When Amelia is crossing the border from Mexico to the US; the movie implies that the US Border Patrol was going to let Santiago's car pass except for the fact that Amelia did not possess a letter from the children's parents granting consent to the border crossing. However, later, Amelia is informed that she has been working illegally in the United States and is subject to deportation. The movie doesn't seem to explain why Amelia would think that re-entering the United States would be a simple matter of driving across the border?

Agreed. The movie seems to depart fairly early on from what an informed audience would as a consensus agree to be reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.65.130 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WRONG! Ameilia could re-enter the united states freely. They dont require that every mexican man or woman must have a work permit to enter the states. In addition, that is an immigration issue, not a border patrol issue so your point is completely invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.58.47 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias in meaning of the word "Babel"--source of subjectivity

By omitting the first definition of "babel" in the first part of the Extended Summary section, the writer seems to be purposefully misrepresenting the definition of babel, so as to make a certain point. I feel as if including the first definition of babel ought to be there. Without it, this is a rather subjective Extended Summary section, when we should be aiming for an objective one.

Just my two cents. jjk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.104.145 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the Japanese guy hunting in Morocco?

What important game would make a man from Japan come to Morocco?

Gazelle.

Bias in "Themes"

I just saw the movie, and it seems like this section is extremely slanted to promote an individual's political beliefs. The nanny's deportation is a fine comment, but Brad Pitt's character is only frustrated over the reality he's in. As a matter of fact, he offers the Morrocan money before he leaves in the helicopter!

Yeah, here's another great example of someone putting their own ideas into a supposedly non-partial analysis: "perhaps under pressure from the US government (though this is never explicitly shown)" Take this out immediately please! 210.20.86.85 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nationality of the Film

Should this be considered an American film or a Mexican film? The studio is American, as are the producers. The director is from Mexico and filmed some portions there. So where does that leave the film? The cast is international, the languages are numerous. I couldn't even say which language is used the most. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be considered American because of the studio. But I think that the article should reflect what you stated -- the international cast, the languages used, the locations in which Babel was filmed. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask primarily for the purpose of categorization. The infobox describes it as Mexican but I disagree. I don't know how much discussion of the international nature of this film is warranted in the actual article, but I suppose there's no harm in it either. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Summary is missing Information

The movie doesn't end with the Mexican woman. The plot summary is somewhat incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.51.239 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The movie ends with the message, "guns are mean and scary, border enforcement is mean and scary, and Western nations are too blame." What more do you want? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters, a description of the film's meaning might be a nice addition. As of 2/8/07, there is no mention of the original city of Babel, where, according to the Old Testament, God made it so that everyone suddenly spoke different languages. As a result of not being able to communicate, the people couldn't cooperate productively and weren't able to finish building the Tower of Babel. I respectfully disagree with the above contributor, Haizum who thinks the film's goal is to show that guns, border patrol, and Western nations are "mean and scary." Although I understand how one might arrive at this conclusion, I believe the film's title gives us a better clue as to its message. Just like the people in Babel, not one character in the movie is a particularly good communicator--especially when trying to interact with someone from a different culture. All of the countries represented in this movie are at times portrayed as "mean and scary." The Japanese are portrayed as a culture that is cold and stand-offish and has superficial, drug-abusing teenagers; the Mexicans are seen as barbaric, uncivilized, drunk-driving fugitives; the Moroccan children randomly fire rifles at buses filled with innocent people. Since all of the characters or countries are flawed and imperfect, it is too narrow an interpretation for us to say the movie "blames" the USA, and only the USA, for all the world's problems. I think as an English speaking American my gut reaction was to feel defensive (as Haizum did) after watching Babel. But that is the film's "message": in today's world it's easier for us to sympathize with our own kind than it is for us to try to understand other people and other cultures. It's not just that Americans can't relate to other societies--other societies can't relate to Americans either! Our planet has become just like the biblical town of Babel, only on a larger scale. We all speak different languages, have different values, and communicate poorly (if at all) with those who aren't like us. M. Frederick 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said. - 203.113.194.194 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be nicely said here, but it doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia guidelines indicate that commentary and personal analysis violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breach the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Ward3001 13:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The message of the movie is to show people that even if there were no guns, people will still have the mentality to go and kill or hurt others. This is a strong point throughout the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.87.88 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor detail here, but I removed the description of the American children as being 'adolescent' from the page. The age of the children was not revealed in the movie, but given the fact that they look about seven, Mike has an unbroken voice and is shown to be missing some of his first baby teeth, the kids travel in children's car seats and other inferences of childlike behavior I think that it is safe to say that they are still elementary school aged. Can someone also verify that they are actually twins? The way the girl looks, behaves, and is treated (such as when she is carried while Mike is left to walk) suggests that she is a little younger to me - but maybe I am just missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.140.98 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Chieko's final note to detective Kenji Mamiya said?

Answer: She sexually propositioned the officer??

This is purely my speculation, since this isn't explicitly shown in the film at all, but I think that she may have been considering suicide by jumping off the balcony (the way that she had told him her mother had killed herself, which her father tells the officer is false). Perhaps the note was her confession or maybe even her thanks? (It would explain why she did not want him to read it right away.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.31 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Boxoffice statistics weren't NPOV, too fanzine

If we need to know that the movie made more money than the director's last movie, and other upbeat facts, we should also know that Box Office Mojo concluded from the anemic American boxoffice that America's interest in films like Crash and Babel has plainly declined. I spliced in a quote, to give context-- but took none of the upbeat stuff out. Profhum.

The last sentence does not seem to make much sense:

"As of the latest figures, 1,795,000 units have been sold, translating to 1,795,000 in revenue."

Shouldn't the last figure be the revenue amount in dollars?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It still has not been corrected! 12:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.164 (talk)

Summary

Needs a brief plot of the film to say what its about as well as the full plot

In that, might make mention of the Berbers, plus the language and cultural difference in Morocco too. Nothing much, just a note. I didn't see this mentioned anywhere, but as with Syriana, I had fun listening to the interplay between languages (don't understand a word of Berber, just knew it wasn't Arabic!). Somebody who has knowledge with the region might be able to add some insight, apart from the classic U.S. foreign policy tough-talk needlessly escalating a sensitive situation, on the domestic circumstances within Morocco itself. The Berber-Arabic mirrored the Spanish-English interplay in my mind, as well as that between the Japanese-Japanese Sign Language. Khirad 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

transeities?

To the best of my knowledge (and I've searched the term, singular and plural), the word "transeities", used in the plot summary, is not an English word. It apparently is a typo, but I have no idea what it might be. If someone knows, it needs to be fixed. Ward3001 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Context? Transitions, trans-cities, transitives!? Have no idea either! Khirad 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler marks

There are two "Spoilers end here" marks. 200.49.224.88 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deaf-mute

The issue of the offensiveness of the term "deaf-mute" to deaf people was discussed and resolved in previous edits of this page. See talk page User talk:Cop 633. Also see discussion of details about why the term is offensive at Deaf-mute. Thank you. Ward3001 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All the way through the movie people talk to the girl in Japanese and she responds and clearly understands them, thus deeming her not deaf, just unable to or unwilling to speak, to put it shortly she is mute.

You are absolutely wrong. Many deaf people do not speak and are not mute (they choose not to speak). She attends a school for the deaf with other deaf students and uses sign language. She understands hearing people by lipreading. She very obviously is deaf. Ward3001 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect/misleading to say she "refuses to speak". Can't we simple say "who doesn't speak"? -- MacAddct1984 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (forgot to log in)

I don't have any problem with your suggested change, although perhaps we should wait a bit before changing the phrase to see if there are other opinions. Ward3001 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The security guard at her apartment building refers to her as "deaf and mute" - shouldn't that be pretty self explanatory? Greg Birdsall 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A character saying it doesn't make it so. If the guard said she was stupid, should she be described that way in the article? In the novel and film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the character Chief Bromden is perceived by the other characters as deaf and mute, but he was neither. Another character's description isn't necessarily accurate. Ward3001 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, I didn't think of it as being a subjective statement, which you are inferring it is. Greg Birdsall 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Shootout Scene Inconsistencies

During the shootout scene when the Moroccan police engage Yussef, his brother and father on the hillside there is an interesting error. The police open fire, Yussef's family takes cover behind larger rocks, the shooting continues, Yussef's brother gets scared and starts to run away until he is hit in the back of the leg. He falls, Yussef's dad crawls over to him and pulls him slightly out of the line of fire. No sooner does he finish that when he notices Yussef is about to return fire on the police. Yussef's father shouts and begs Yussef to put the gun down, but Yussef ignore's him and wounds an officer in the shoulder or arm. The film then returns to the other parallel stories until it comes back to Yussef's family in Morocco. Back on the hillside Yussef's father is pulling the gun away from Yussef while Yussef's brother lies alone uphill. The brother tries to stand to run away when he is fatally struck in the back and collapses. Given the distance between Yussef's and his brother's locations and the lack of cover seperating the two areas it's unlikely Yussef's father could have returned to Yussef without getting shot, especially since he would have had to crawl over Yussef's brother to get back to Yussef. 70.135.195.113 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize... but that is an oversight. You are looking far to deep for flaws that don't exist. Think about it: you are discussing the probability of a man getting shot in a FICTIONAL movie. In addition, you don't take into consideration that hitting a moving target is difficult. Maybe they just missed. Enough with the shitty critiques of this film.

Theme: Guns

Is the theme of guns in this movie not an elephant in the room that needs to be discussed? The motivations of the characters and the general plot development all depend in no small part on the use and abuse of guns it seems. Riteofapollo 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation

This makes no sense:

(n.b., "[EDGE]" indicates the end of that particular line on the notebook page): ". . . I wanted [EDGE] . . . myself [EDGE] . . . that's why [EDGE] . . . connected [EDGE] . . . that is [EDGE] . . . although I cannot [EDGE] . . . I have to find out [EDGE] . . . message from my mother [EDGE] . . . I was not sure if I was loved by my mother [EDGE] . . . but that's not the case . . . [EDGE] thank you."

Was it properly translated? If anyone has a picture of this text from the movie I would like to look it over and see if we could give a better idea of what it says. --Toritaiyo 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine the note is seen over someone's shoulder, with his head covering the left half, like this:

.......たかった |
...........自分 |
.........だから |
.......繋がって |
.........それが |
.....できないが |
.....知りたくて |
...母からの手紙 |
.....母に愛され |
...そうではない |
...ありがとう。 |

I've translated the English back into Japanese here, and it makes just as much sense in English or Japanese; either way it's just fragments, but fragments of plausibly complete, coherent sentences. -- Paul Richter 05:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BS alert. I just watched the movie right now. The scene with the note flashes past, if someone was able to read it, they must have paused it and even if it was paused I think it would be difficult to read because its not really in focus. Please think of the "translation" as suspicious until someone can provide a screencapture of something to help. Nesnad 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The subplot is open to question. I strongly disagree with this choppy translation of the note being included in the article. This is not the way the film was meant to be interpreted. - ShelleyCakes

I agree, including the text of the note is silly—it clearly was not meant to add anything to the movie, and it adds nothing to the plot summary. It's just a hyper-completist distraction. —johndburger 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Translator of the Note:

Over a year ago, I asked my Japanese roommate here at Columbia University whether he could translate the note. (I presented him with a series of screen shots taken after slowing down the play speed on VLC Player.) He acknowledged that he could, and produced the language now available on Wikipedia. If you take a look at the "Babel" entry when that translation was first added, you will also find my interpretation of how the skeletal contents of the note fit in with the larger storyline/theme of the film. Incidentally, I have no problem with my interpretation being deleted if it does not comport with Wikipedia's standards and practices. What I do have a problem with is Wikipedia citing to some weblog that merely lifted the translation from Wikipedia (but failed to credit the source, thus creating this confusion). This, of course, is circular citation, and hardly befits Wikipedia or any other putatively encyclopedic source. Ergo, I am deleting this citation, with the hopes that future devotees of this website will continue to ensure that, until someone else independently verifies my (Japanese roommates') translation, the translation of the note remains as "independent research." --Rckent (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that we cannot cite a source that itself is taken from Wikipedia. You are also correct that the translation is "independent research". As such, it should be removed. When a translation of the note is discussed in reliable sources, then it can be discussed here. Mike R (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical "Babel" and the socioeconomic hubris of Yasujiro and Richard

Because the title "Babel" says something significant about the authors' intended message, the backbone of the plot is probably the story of Yasujiro and Chieko because (1) there is only one Babel-like city and tower in this movie, which is Tokyo and the luxurious high-rise in which they lived, and (2) because Yasujiro launched the chain of events when he gave his high-powered rifle to Hassan. If Tokyo is the world's Xtreme Babel, then perhaps Richard and Susans's San Diego represents a mini-Babel that is more familiar to US audiences.

The Biblical curse for Babel's hubris in Genesis 11:1-9 was that God made universal communication impossible so that business and personal endeavors could no longer be pursued. Former joint endeavors had to be abandoned and the people of Babel dispersed throughout the earth (in the first diaspora?).

There is no question of failure to communicate in Yasujiro's wealthy household. However, instead of probing into the problems of his culture and/or personality, Yasujiro blamed the gun.

But rather than destroying the gun to permanently remove its violent potential (as Yusef did toward the end of the movie), Yasujiro gave it to Hassan, an impoverished man living in a suspicious and polarized and violent country where secretly owning a weapon was punishable by torture and death.

In this movie, the curse of Babel is explored horizontally within the same family and socioeconomic class, and is also explored vertically between socioeconomic classes. The short-sighted selfishness of Babel's well-shielded adults, Yasujiro and Richard+Susan, harmed the vulnerable within their own households and the vulnerable below them in the socioeconomic hierarchy. The clean "towers" of Yasujiro and Richard are insulated from the blood and dirt realities of life at "street level" where the Hassans and Amelias of our planet live. For example, Richard's children may have eaten meat every day of their lives but had never before witnessed the true brutality and horror of animal slaughter until they entered Amelia's world.

The above themes can and should be more fully explored when analyzing this film. Ultraninth 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheiko's mother's shooting versus jump off balcony

I came to this article hoping that it would clear up something I was confused on. It seemed that Cheiko was under the mistaken impression that the police officers had come to discuss her mother's death and its circumstances. If this were actually the case, I imagine that the officers would surely know that her mother died of a gunshot wound to the head -- and more significantly, I would think that Cheiko would know that they know. Therefore, I was confused as to why she presented the balcony story to the officer (i.e. shouldn't she have known that he would have seen right through it?). But when he made clear that his visit was to investigate the Moroccan gun's origins, she seemed genuinely surprised that it was unrelated to her mother's death. Any answers? Was this a mistake in the screenplay or intentional?? LegalFiction (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

i think it's very intentional. i think that cheiko was wanting to commit suicide by jumping off the building, as it was implied when her father found her waiting on the balcony. i also think that that note she wrote to the officer was a confession that she was the one that acctually wanted to jump off the building and that her mother shot herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S aiola (talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sakamoto in "Music" section

i just edited the section to delete an imbalance in the form of a full list of Sakamoto's awards, it is out of place in this article. i don't question his credentials, & i didn't place a "citation needed" tag though i could've if i wanted to pick nits (just happened to be watching the movie & decided to check its wiki; for the record, Sakamoto's song does appear at the end of the credits). anyway he couldve won every award in the world a dozen times but a full list'd STILL be out of place here. & unless someone is willing to spend some time fattening up the whole Music section with balanced coverage of ALL songs/composers (necessary & nice), the singling-out of Sakamoto's song is still seems promotional just sitting there by itself. theres LOTS of other wonderful music in this movie by OTHER award-winning composers. Japanglish (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)