Babel Master and muse, interviewed

HUCK: Some of the criticisms of Babel, particularly in America, have been that it's too brutal - too fatalistic. What do you make of that?

Iñárritu: Any time you make a film there are people that will like it, people that will hate it and people that don't give a damn. I don't think that Babel is trying to explain, trying to preach, trying to make propaganda. I think it goes beyond that.

I'm talking about the human condition in different cultures, different religions and different countries, and I'm saying that what happens between nations and cultures is exactly what happens between individuals. Nobody is right or wrong, bad or good; we are just trapped in this fucking world where nobody is able to listen.

Is this microcosmic world a reflection of what is going on around us? Yes. Is that uncomfortable for America? Yes. Can they presume that this is an attack against Westerners or the United States? Yes. Was that the intention of the work? No.

Bernal: There's also another side. People from other parts of the world say, 'This is an attack to show that the whole world is dangerous except the United States'. There are two different interpretations, but it depends on your context. It depends where you're living, and it depends what you're fed day-to-day by the media.

But also I think that there is a positive side. In the Biblical myth of Babel, of the tower, of people trying to achieve something together and get close to God, God punished them by making different languages so that people couldn't understand each other. But the positive side to that is the fact that diversity was the spark that made people interested in the Other as well. There is that joy of interpreting what another person is saying, what another person is feeling, and of sharing those emotions and empathising with the Other. It is not a punishment on the whole; it is actually an incentive to understand one another. That is what you see in the film.

HUCK: Was there an irony in America's reaction to Babel? And do you think it's taken an outsider to see that 9/11 was part of a much wider problem?

Iñárritu: Some American people react the way George Bush reacts, which is to say, 'If you are not with me, you're against me'. They feel that anything that discusses or points out certain things that they don't like must be an attack. That's what I call guilt. It's an over-reactive response.

I think that there are better ways to make a case against America than spending three years of my life making a film about it. I will not waste the power of cinema talking about that. This film is not about the United States.

Bernal: I think there's a semiotic problem that sparked as soon as September 11 happened, which is that now every issue can be combined with the argument of terror or protection, you know? That's why in this film they assume immediately that if a bullet hits someone from the United States it must be an act of terrorism. It's understood like that automatically. That's why they are building this wall on the border between Mexico and the United States. Everything is combined with the issue of security – about protecting yourself from the Other – and it's a semiotic problem I think because these issues don't have anything to do with each other.

Iñárritu: There's a point in the film that is about how different the life of an American is worth, and how much an African life is worth. It's like this balance of when an American is killed it's huge news, but when 200 people are killed in a wedding in Iraq 'accidentally', it's just a small news story, you know what I mean? Or there are these massacres in African countries and nobody really gives it a lot of attention, but when one bomb in England goes off it's like a whole other issue. It's the perception of what a life is worth.

HUCK: In the UK and the US we're considered an apathetic political generation, and yet Latin America is so radicalised. Do you feel more politicised?

Bernal: Being born in a poor country gets you more in touch with the realisation that anything you do carries a political complexity to it. You are aware of that because politics has a day-to-day effect on you. If you come from an even poorer country it is way more palpable. And I'm talking about the pure political form, which is the human one, not the structural one.

My own opinion about Babel is that they carry a political complexity without wanting to, you know? Because it's there, it's part of the relationship between mother and son, between one person from one country and the other person from another country, between languages. It's very difficult to not recognise it. And also it's part of the complexity that comes from a project that's as ambitious as this one – that carries across different countries – there's a political line to it, you know? A political argument.

Iñárritu: But I want to add something to that. Half of the United States is against George Bush, right? Why haven't these people manifested themselves more aggressively in the streets? The big difference is, when the economy and the consequences of your government hit you in your house, in your pocket, in the school of your kids, that is when people go out in the streets. The thing is, this country is so rich. The other day it was Halloween in LA and the houses have, like, $20,000 of Halloween shit on them, and I was like, 'This is a country at war!' They are at war, right? But because they are not personally affected it's hard to manifest yourself. When you're in a Third World country, the economy is so thin that any decision hits you, so that makes you more aware.

Bernal: You are more aware and it's more palpable. But also it can be argued that in the political system of the United States, these people who are against George Bush have no real representation in the government. Like, right now with the wall and everything, the Democrats were the ones to sign off the deal. It's all electoral games in America, but in Mexico for example, we've personally lived through two big devaluations, no?

Iñárritu: I see my father all the time crying because he can never recoup that money, never. We never had money in our life. We were really poor. Why? Because it was every day, every year, 'Again the dollar is blah blah blah...' So since I was a kid I am aware that that thing that that stupid asshole in government was doing was getting my father depressed and poor, and resulting in me having nothing. So I'm conscious of politics.

HUCK: Given the success that you've had - both together and apart - does it become easier to pursue this kind of independent ethos? Or is there more pressure on you to take a Hollywood payday?

Bernal: I think that because we're doing the things we want, you might as well just keep doing that all along. At the same time, I think we're all open to the possibility of doing whatever story interests us in whatever context it comes from.

The whole Hollywood experience carries a different weight on a director or on an actor, no? As an actor, you know, if you do a big Hollywood movie it doesn't only imply the movie itself, but also the promotion and the type of burden that you have to carry.

But take Babel for example; it is the most un-Hollywood film you could think of because it's in different languages, and yet at the same time it was done in the studio system. That's what’s great about finding those loopholes.

Iñárritu: I sold the rights to distribute the film, but it wasn't developed or decided in a studio. They bought the rights but I made it independently. It's about working with what is good about the studio system – working with them, but not 'with' them. And something that I think is amazing about Gael is that he has become a world recognisable actor without ever doing a Hollywood film. He has broken the paradigm that if you want to be recognised worldwide, you have to be in a Hollywood explosion. It's not true.

Babel is out now in The United States and on January 4 in Europe.

This story originally appeared in Huck #003.

Subscribe to HUCK for six issues
Only £20 (UK) / £43 (EU) / £58 (Rest of the World).