This post is not really a review so-to-speak. I mean, I cannot really evaluate the movie dispassionately now, having watched it like five times already and having loved it every single time. In fact, I did watch it again earlier this month to sort of re-estimate the film’s likeness quotient and I am delighted to tell you that, it’s still very much up there in my list of favourites. Babel, also directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu , features in this list too. Watching a film is an experience for me and every time I have watched these two films by Alenjandro, I have found myself marveled by the sheer creativity with which their narratives have been constructed and subsequently, unfolded. Watch 21 Grams (2003) and Babel (2006) back-to-back and you will know what I mean. Unfortunately I haven’t yet watched Iñárritu’s Amores perros (2000) which too employs (I am told) his distinctive style of narration, but I will be watching it soon, very soon.
Back to 21 Grams, I will not disclose all the details of the plot here. Briefly then, it is a tale of an ex-convict and a born again Christian Jack Jordan (Benicio del Toro), who is trying to recover from his excessive drug addiction; Paul Rivers (Sean Penn), a mathematics professor who will die of an heart condition unless he receives a heart-transplant from a donor; and Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts), who is a recovering drug addict too but now living a happy, suburban life with her husband and two daughters [Source: Wikipedia]. As fate would have it, an incident occurs. Following which, these three independent stories and lives get connected and inter- weaved with one another like a piece of crochet.
If you go to look at it, 21 Grams has a fairly regular kind of a plot. There’s nothing revolutionary about it. However, as mentioned earlier, what really takes it to a completely different level is the dramatic manner in which this simple story has been told. So in that respect, it is an experimental film and it does work on varied levels. On a philosophical level, it begs you to ask introspective questions concerning guilt, loss, life and the worth and value of life. So the title 21 Grams is very apt.
21 Grams may have been shot in a chronological manner for all we know, but what is shown on the screen is far from it. What we get to see are different segments about the lives of these three aforementioned characters unfolding at different points of time. A series of non-linear and seemingly unrelated multiple scenes constitute the entire film. It is near impossible to foretell what is going to happen next throughout this entire film – what is being shown is either something that has happened in the lives of these three protagonists in the past, something that they are currently going through or experiencing in their present lives or something that happens to them in their future, but not necessarily in this linear and chronological order. So really, at every stage a different picture and interpretation of the story emerges in your head. Please don’t worry, it all comes together in the end and perfectly makes sense:-)
The screenplay as well as the restrained performances (especially by my favourite Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro), engage you like you have been never before. Nothing is spoon-fed; you have to work hard in order to make sense of what’s going on. This is what I call genuine audience participation! I recommend this movie on a DVD to every one who has an appetite for something adventurous and have missed watching it on the big screen way back in 2003.
But before I sign off, I really hope I am not getting into a pattern here where I praise everything that’s non-Indian and do the otherwise when it is an Indian film. No seriously. I mean, I have seen a lot of non-Indian trash too but I tend not to bother and waste my energy writing a blog post about them whereas, everything that comes out of India does matter a great deal to me. My point is, why cannot we be more experimental in terms of story-telling, chronology et al? [Please Note: This comment is reserved for the writers/directors who have a story to tell, not for the Anees Bazmee's and others of that nonsensical ilk] We certainly seem to have a lot of talent and the audiences have now matured a great deal too. Life in a Metro & Salam – e- Ishq? Really? Is that the best we can come up with? Can we have more Yuva’s please?
(Photo credits: Google Images)
While I rate Alejandro González Iñárritu, I have to disagree on Babel, I thought it was meretricious nonsense.
21 Grams worked as a piece of art, Amores Perros, arguably, worked better as a piece of exploitation. Babel felt like it was made to court praise and awards, which is did, so I can’t say it wasn’t a success I suppose.
In a wider filmic sense I feel its worth mentioning the following contributors, specifically Guillermo Arriaga who has written all 3 of Iñárritu’s features.
As I understand Babel was their last collaboration and it will be interesting to see how Iñárritu gets on without him as I can state that, structurally, the film is non linear on the page and the finished film closely resembles that structure.
In this instance it is worth checking out Tommy Lee Jones’ directorial debut The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, also written by Arriaga. Again the structure was there in the script and, in my opinion, is a more satisfying piece than Babel.
Highly recommended.
Arriaga himself is also going behind the camera to direct The Burning Plain from his own script, I wish him well.
I would also like to make note of Editor Stephen Mirrione, who also edited Traffic, and manages to bring out the best in the footage delivered to him by the director and Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto.
Prieto is another long term Iñárritu collaborator and, along with Guillermo Navarro, one of the best working today (RIP Conrad Hall). Prieto will be working on the next Iñárritu project however, so we’ll see if it has the style but not the substance I suppose, I hope not. It’s worth noting Prieto also shot the excellent 25th Hour for Spike Lee and Lust, Caution for Ang Lee. The former showcasing the same kind of gritty visuals he has brought to Iñárritu projects.
By: MCA on October 14, 2008
at 9:34 am
@ MCA
Thank you for dropping by.
While I too shall rate 21 Grams better than Babel any day, I certainly won’t ever go as far as calling it ‘meretricious nonsense’!! I must admit though that, Babel worked for me big time essentially because of its experimental narration. The performances are not bad either. Although your comment has sort of got me thinking. I wonder whether it is just my Indian sensibility or it is being subjected to years of torturingly bad movies, that I now lap up anything that’s slightly different and rate even average non-Indian films too highly. I really wouldn’t know.
Thank you for your recommendation as well.
Keep visiting.
PS: I am not exactly sure as to why you say “Amores perros worked better as a piece of exploitation”.
By: Anorak on October 15, 2008
at 8:29 am
I should have capitalised Exploitation and added cinema at the end. Amores Perros, for me at least, felt like a piece of 70’s Exploitation film run through a more modern art house brain. Which is one reason I think it felt so fresh, innovation on existing elements.
All those elements in there… the dog fighting, the car crash, the hitman, you’d find them in lots of silly, crass, B-pictures. But here they work as both tropes and re-inventions. The film is both innovative yet, at its core, is still one of those low budget movies.
While I think 21 Grams might be the better film, I think Amores Perros might work better as an installment in a genre that hasn’t been reinvigorated in a long time. Lets call it Mexploitation…. okay, lets not.
By: MCA on October 17, 2008
at 7:58 am
@MCA
“Mexploitation”…???…Another one for me to check out in the dictionary;-)…I am going to use your word (I presume you coined it) in one of my future posts.
PS: I am gonna watch Amores perros tonight, so hopefully your thoughts on the movie shall make more sense to me by tomorrow.
By: Anorak on October 17, 2008
at 10:54 am