Babies

Babies are cute.
This universal truth is, or would seem to be, the basis of "Babies", a 2010 documentary made by French director Thomas Balmès. "Babies" follows four babies...

Ponijao, from Opuwo, Namibia

 

Mari, from Tokyo, Japan

Bayar, from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia
 

Hattie, from San Francisco, CA, USA

 

 

...as they embark on that great journey known as life. The film documents the first year of their lives, and, though they are extremely adorable, the overall impression--minus the cooing--is that of amazement at how radically different and yet similar each child and upbringing is. I, naturally, identified most with Hattie, who has an upper-middle-class American family and home, but all the children developed in noticeably similar ways, from the curiosity, the sleeping, the crying, the movement, and the adorableness. Gah. So cute. Anyway...

The film was basically entirely B-roll, or straight footage of the children interacting with their parents and environment. One might think this could get boring, but it was strangely fascinating to watch the children explore and learn (or just be really really cute). It was also very interesting to observe the different cultures shown, particularly the ones from rural areas, Namibia and Mongolia. Those children spent significantly more time outdoors, playing in the dirt, grass, and with random bits of wood and stone, and interacting with animals (which was often hilarious). Somehow their upbringing seemed much more peaceful than the Tokyo or San Francisco babies, whose environments, while fairly tranquil, couldn't compete with the wide open skies and plains shown in Namibia and Mongolia.

Since it was all basically the filmmaker passively observing the children, the astounding quality of the cinematography was the most striking aspect of the film. Simply put, it was beautiful. It was also all completely real, which was even more exciting. There was nothing staged, not even interviews. No one wore makeup, and no one dictated what was going to happen. It just happened. That kind of filmmaking excites me: completely true-to-life films that highlight the beauty of life instead of creating it.

...That being said, it might have been even more interesting had more things been explained. In a way, it was as though we were seeing the movie from the perspective of the babies, as nothing was explained to them, and they just had to watch and learn. And that was cool. However, I would've liked to know more about each baby's life than what I saw. I don't think it would've disrupted the flow too much just to have some text on the images giving some basic facts, or more basic facts than location and name. The situations of the Namibia and Mongolia children interested me specially, because I know absolutely nothing about either of those places, and about how life works there. But I was overall content, because...babies.

Admittedly, in order to enjoy this movie (which I did, whole-heartedly), you must like babies. I do not understand how one could not like babies, but apparently it is possible, and those sorts of people would probably not enjoy watching 79 minutes of babies. For everyone else--i.e., all normal and sane people--WATCH THIS MOVIE.

"Babies"

79 minutes

PG

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

A. O. Scott, of the New York Times, agrees with me: 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' is a great movie. In his review, titled "This Girl Has a Lot of Baggage, and He Must Shoulder the Load", Scott introduces us in the world of the movie enthusiastically and easily, describing the many extraordinary cinematic features of the film before explaining the quick, entertaining motions of the plot. He praises the handling of the line between reality and fantasy, which is "not so much blurred as erased", and the fast-paced humor, action, and visual delights, which serve as only the top layer, with the promise of a good old coming of age story underneath--the likes of which have never been seen before. The review flows nicely, with the three aspects of film interwined throughout--plot, cinematographical discussion, acting, special effects, theme, and puns are all given equal weight, with commentary and opinion sprinkled on top, just to make sure you understand: you really need to see this movie.

(If you need more persuasion, here are some quotes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446029/quotes)

For our quarterly movie reviews, there should be limited structure and much freedom, but with the requirement of discussion of the three aspects. Not all movies are across-the-board interesting, not all movies stand out in the same ways, and not all reviewers will perceive movies in the same way: therefore, we must be free to discover and explain the elements that strike us as being the most noteworthy. However, the reader deserves to know what's going on in the film, so reviewers should be required to mention certain key things involved in the three aspects.

My annotated movie review: http://diigo.com/0su9k