Babies

[PopTodd]

I saw this yesterday with the family. I didn't even know that it existed until my wife requested that we see it for Mother's Day. Gotta say: it was a pretty great movie. Of course, the babies, themselves are hilarious and adorable. But, after the movie was over, out with the family, I saw a couple walking their baby in the stroller and could not help but to think about that baby and it's place in the world... how their growing up/going to grow up and all that. And, isn't that what a documentary is supposed to do?

 

On top of it all, for a movie with NO dialogue, it held the attention of even my attention-challenged 8-year-old boy. He loved it.

 

Recommended.

[calvino]

Saw a preview - it does look interesting. I like the premise; especially since my first kid is 7 months. I would enjoy seeing the raising of a kid from difference parts of the world.

[u2roolz]

I am upset at the documentary titled Babies. Do we really need to follow and film 4 newborns first breaths on this planet only to be shown to the mass public for consumption? Where does it end?! Between Kate Gosselin, Octomom & this film it's hard to believe anyone who preaches about privacy in today's public forum. (hey..quit being a baby about it!!)...

 

Plus, they have the nerve to release it on Mother's Day weekend. Seriously some things should be left in private. These 4 babies should grow up and sue the filmmaker and parents for not getting their permission to film them.

 

Edit: We all need to ask ourselves would we allow this filmmaker or anyone for that matter to do what he did to you and your wife/husband and your baby?

 

I hope that Thomas Balmes can sleep at night because I can.

 

Let's objectify our newborns immediately out of the womb because that's what we do best.

[Sir Stewart]

Did “Babies” Violate Child Labor Laws?

[PopTodd]

I am upset at the documentary titled Babies. Do we really need to follow and film 4 newborns first breaths on this planet only to be shown to the mass public for consumption? Where does it end?! Between Kate Gosselin, Octomom & this film it's hard to believe anyone who preaches about privacy in today's public forum. (hey..quit being a baby about it!!)...

 

Plus, they have the nerve to release it on Mother's Day weekend. Seriously some things should be left in private. These 4 babies should grow up and sue the filmmaker and parents for not getting their permission to film them.

 

Edit: We all need to ask ourselves would we allow this filmmaker or anyone for that matter to do what he did to you and your wife/husband and your baby?

 

I hope that Thomas Balmes can sleep at night because I can.

 

Let's objectify our newborns immediately out of the womb because that's what we do best.

 

I think that, if you had actually taken the time to watch the movie (and not boycott it based upon principal alone), you would have a wholly different opinion of it.

The parents, if they were looking to be stars, will be SORELY disappointed, as all 8 parents have barely 5 minutes of screen time, combined. This is not a voyeuristic exercise in the least, but a highly enlightening and thought-provoking look at who we are and where we come from. A look at how we are all, at heart, the same, yet are shaped by our very different environments.

 

It's much, much more than staring at cute babies for 1.5 hours. Yes, while the cute babies do bring on the yuks (and the "yucks") for the duration of the movie, it is not what sticks with you once you leave the theater. What sticks with you (or, at least with me and my family) is the interactions between the child and parent, and how different it varies from culture to culture. It made me reevaluate what is important about that relationship and why. Is it because our society says that it's important, or is it truly something essential?

 

This is an excellent movie and you should really save your outrage for something more deserving.

[u2roolz]

Yes. But I don't need a movie to feel that way.

 

You kind of glossed over my point. It's not with the parents, but moreso with allowing us as viewers to watch these 4 children in a voyeuristic way. Is it my right to watch someone else's kid grow up before me for purely selfish reasons to go "Oh such a cute baby!!" or to get some profound idea into my head? We shouldn't be shoving cameras into our newborn's faces for our own pleasure or knowledge.

 

I can understand it for purely anthropological reasons, but if we're all going through the same thing but in different cultures do we really need a film to present it to us as if we don't know?

 

Maybe part of my anger comes from that Disney Nature film entitled Planet Earth where a documentary crew films a polar bear dying and you stop and think "well, they just sat back in a very passive way and did nothing to save the polar bear who was on a melted ice cap with no food." Yeah, getting within death range of a polar bear to save him conflicts with mother nature and the way of the world, but it reminded me of that poor homeless man who was stabbed in New York City and people walked over him and did nothing. I think one person even snapped a cell phone picture.

[PopTodd]

I can understand it for purely anthropological reasons, but if we're all going through the same thing but in different cultures do we really need a film to present it to us as if we don't know?

 

Oh, we "know", but knowing isn't the thing... it's to help bring a greater understanding. And, to that end, I do think that this movie does a great job. It's one thing to read about cultural child-rearing practices in an anthropology book, but to witness the bonds being formed and development of these children... it provides a greater understanding of who we are as people. Understanding, not just knowledge.

 

So, while you have every right to be appalled at the methods employed to create the movie, I have every right to disagree with you. I think that it's not only an excellent piece of entertainment, but also something that helps create a greater appreciation for who we are, as human beings; and what is important in helping create our Selves and define our place.

 

Also: mention of "shoving cameras in the babies' faces? How do you know how intrusive (or unobtrusive) the film crews were? Were you there? Did you know any of the families? I know that I don't... Again: don't judge until you have full information. Take the film within its own context, and I don't think that you will have any argument (unless it's an artistic one).

[u2roolz]

Also: mention of "shoving cameras in the babies' faces? How do you know how intrusive (or unobtrusive) the film crews were? Were you there? Did you know any of the families? I know that I don't... Again: don't judge until you have full information. Take the film within its own context, and I don't think that you will have any argument (unless it's an artistic one).

 

 

I can probably figure that they at least had a crew of 5 to 6 people with equipment which would probably scare the baby. They probably hid in the back to get a good zoomed in shot. (Edit:) I guess the difference between you and me is that I have an obvious problem with the whole idea of cameras (read: film crew) even being there and you're making a point of whether or not they were intrusive.

 

And again I ask you: Would you want a film crew of 5 to 6 people with equipment filming your child for 6 months? And I'm not even talking about your rare chance of being a celebrity because we both know this isn't about the parents. I get upset when I go to a child's birthday party and everyone has their cameras out. Let the kid enjoy his/her birthday with some quiet.

 

All in all this is a 79 minute informercial for Angelina Jolie and Sandra Bullock.

[u2roolz]

Again: don't judge until you have full information.

 

I'm 100% with you on this concept. Normally, I'd be the one making a case similar to what you're doing for me. But like I said this whole concept rubs me the wrong way.

 

In a strange way I wish that they could achieve this film and it's impact but without using actual babies.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Are all documentaries voyeuristic to you? Are you familiar with journalism?

[Guest Speed Racer]

All in all this is a 79 minute informercial for Angelina Jolie and Sandra Bullock.

 

There are barely any adults featured in this documentary. How would this be an infomercial?

 

Also, are you implying that there is something wrong with adoptive parents? I don't see your angle, and I'd love to understand this line better.

[u2roolz]

Are all documentaries voyeuristic to you? Are you familiar with journalism?

 

I've done documentaries. I did one on my friend who is a musician. I filmed his performances and interviewed him. The performances I felt were voyeuristic because the camera was in one location and because of that you couldn't get another angle to view the performance hence it being fly-on-the-wall.

 

The interview portion was not voyeuristic because I was interviewing my friend who responded with answers. Although, I was off camera and it was from my perspective.

 

Babies seems very voyeuristic because there is no narration. You're there to see images which tells the story.

 

There are barely any adults featured in this documentary. How would this be an infomercial?

 

Also, are you implying that there is something wrong with adoptive parents? I don't see your angle, and I'd love to understand this line better.

 

It was a joke. I have nothing against Jolie or Bullock. It was meant that they were the demographic.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I can probably figure that they at least had a crew of 5 to 6 people with equipment which would probably scare the baby. They probably hid in the back to get a good zoomed in shot. (Edit:) I guess the difference between you and me is that I have an obvious problem with the whole idea of cameras (read: film crew) even being there and you're making a point of whether or not they were intrusive.

 

And again I ask you: Would you want a film crew of 5 to 6 people with equipment filming your child for 6 months? And I'm not even talking about your rare chance of being a celebrity because we both know this isn't about the parents. I get upset when I go to a child's birthday party and everyone has their cameras out. Let the kid enjoy his/her birthday with some quiet.

 

Documentaries to me are to entertainment and experience as clinical trials are to scientific research. The purpose of filming is to provide cameramen with data collection that they can whittle down to a digestable set of findings (a film) that they can present (in this case, to an audience of laypersons) to further their perception and/or understanding of [subject], which they may not already be familiar with.

 

I always participate in surveys and data collection in connection with someone's psychological/sociological research. If I were on medications and there where a clinical trial occuring, I might participate. I have participated in several studies on casual distance runners.

 

If someone approached me asking if I would like to be a part of a documentary about [part of my lifestyle/quirk of my personality], I would consider it. I don't think it's necessarily vouyeristic so much as educational - not the booksmart educational, but the "gee I didn't know that a sport called Murderball existed," kind of way. And I think that documentaries are a very important part of the film industry, simply because they often provide in a compelling way experiences that people generally would not seek out on their own - or, even better - provide a new perspective on one's every day experience.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I've done documentaries. I did one on my friend who is a musician. I filmed his performances and interviewed him. The performances I felt were voyeuristic because the camera was in one location and because of that you couldn't get another angle to view the performance hence it being fly-on-the-wall.

 

I would consider that to be a 'perspective,' not voyeurism.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : one obtaining sexual gratification from observing unsuspecting individuals who are partly undressed, naked, or engaged in sexual acts; broadly : one who habitually seeks sexual stimulation by visual means

2 : a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous

 

Because you only had one angle, this meant that you were seeking sexual gratification from it? Or was it scandalous, because you could only see the right side of his face?

 

Babies seems very voyeuristic because there is no narration. You're there to see images which tells the story.

 

In newspapers across the globe, photos come with captions that narrate the reporter's/photographer's perspective. Is this voyeuristic?

 

It was a joke. I have nothing against Jolie or Bullock. It was meant that they were the demographic.

 

I'm still not laughing; a demographic of what? Why would this demographic be funny?

[u2roolz]

Documentaries to me are to entertainment and experience as clinical trials are to scientific research. The purpose of filming is to provide cameramen with data collection that they can whittle down to a digestable set of findings (a film) that they can present (in this case, to an audience of laypersons) to further their perception and/or understanding of [subject], which they may not already be familiar with.

 

I always participate in surveys and data collection in connection with someone's psychological/sociological research. If I were on medications and there where a clinical trial occuring, I might participate. I have participated in several studies on casual distance runners.

 

If someone approached me asking if I would like to be a part of a documentary about [part of my lifestyle/quirk of my personality], I would consider it. I don't think it's necessarily vouyeristic so much as educational - not the booksmart educational, but the "gee I didn't know that a sport called Murderball existed," kind of way. And I think that documentaries are a very important part of the film industry, simply because they often provide in a compelling way experiences that people generally would not seek out on their own - or, even better - provide a new perspective on one's every day experience.

 

I agree with what you wrote. My friend agreed to "his" documentary because he understood the point of it being about a struggling musician in today's musical environment.

 

You would say yes or no to a film crew to film you.

 

My point that I've said on here and still stick to is the filming of newborns. I know that I'm not alone in this feeling. It's just that no one has popped in here yet with similar feelings on this subject.

[Guest Speed Racer]

My point that I've said on here and still stick to is the filming of newborns. I know that I'm not alone in this feeling. It's just that no one has popped in here yet with my feelings on this subject.

 

Why is it voyeuristic to film babies, doing things that babies do?

[Lammycat]

How do we know the babies didn't agree to and/or sign waivers for the documentary. Let's not be so quick to assume here. They're smarter creatures than are often given credit for....

[u2roolz]

Why is it voyeuristic to film babies, doing things that babies do?

 

Going back to my original post I feel that some things should be kept private between mother, father and child. That is their experience that if they wish to share with relatives, friends and others is entirely up to them.

 

The Truman Show is becoming real by the day.

[Guest Speed Racer]

The Truman Show is becoming real by the day.

 

Documentaries/news reels/journalism existed LONG before Jim Carrey ever marred the film industry. Why does filming a baby for a documentary suddenly equal complete and total loss of privacy?

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the definition just isn't lining up for me. Using the definiton of voyeurism, what is scandalous or sexualized about filming babies being babies? Do we not see parents and children engaging in intimate moments all around us every day, at the grocery store, babysitting, hanging out with our friends and their children?

[bleedorange]

Documentaries/news reels/journalism existed LONG before Jim Carrey ever marred the film industry. Why does filming a baby for a documentary suddenly equal complete and total loss of privacy?

 

Are you suggesting The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are anything less than outstanding films?

[u2roolz]

I would consider that to be a 'perspective,' not voyeurism.

 

It's not my fault that people haven't used voyeurism by it's Merriam Webster definition. I'll admit to using it in my own way which other people use too. Sexual gratification doesn't come into my head for every instance of voyeurism.

 

I'm still not laughing; a demographic of what? Why would this demographic be funny?

It was a joke because Jolie & Bullock have both adopted babies from different countries and it sounded funny in my head because it seemed like an infomercial for them to order from. Like I said I respect them for that even if I made an off color joke about it. I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. Also, I'm happy that they chose to get different races for this film.

 

[Guest Speed Racer]

So how would you define voyeurism?

 

Sandra Bullock adopted a baby from New Orleans, by the way.

[u2roolz]

Why does filming a baby for a documentary suddenly equal complete and total loss of privacy?

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the definition just isn't lining up for me. Using the definiton of voyeurism, what is scandalous or sexualized about filming babies being babies? Do we not see parents and children engaging in intimate moments all around us every day, at the grocery store, babysitting, hanging out with our friends and their children?

 

I think what bothers me is the nonchalance of it all. The fact that it doesn't seem to bother some people makes me feel upset.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Are you suggesting The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are anything less than outstanding films?

 

I actually like The Truman Show. I saw ES in a bad state (honestly, I think I was in and out of a completely-sober sleep), but the whole thing was WAY too trippy for my taste.

 

That being said, Jim Carrey's liabilities are much, much greater than his assets in my opinion.

 

I think what bothers me is the nonchalance of it all. The fact that it doesn't seem to bother some people makes me feel upset.

 

This, right here, is what I'm missing. What is "it"?

[bleedorange]

I actually like The Truman Show. I saw ES in a bad state (honestly, I think I was in and out of a completely-sober sleep), but the whole thing was WAY too trippy for my taste.

 

That being said, Jim Carrey's liabilities are much, much greater than his assets in my opinion.

 

Okay. Carry on.