If you were, hypothetically, waiting for a baby to arrive, there are few audiovisual materials for getting the family excited quite as effective as “Babies.” The visually rich, all but wordless film, released in 2010 and directed by Thomas Balmès, captures footage from the first year of life for four babies in different parts of the world. Called a documentary, Balmès preferred the term “non-fiction.” The film, like the eyes of a small child it seems, aims to take in the world as it is.
The four babies at the center of the work live in a mud hut in Namibia, a yurt on the steppes of Mongolia, a high-rise in the heart of Tokyo, and a home in San Francisco. The former two locations are remote; the families’ lives informed by rhythms quite foreign to many of us. Few plastic toys, no baby-and-me yoga and music classes, no video monitors or whiz-bang electronic gadgets. There are scenes of playing in the dirt. A goat walking up and drinking out of the baby’s bathwater. Simple hours of braiding hair, preparing food, and living in closeknit family life. For the mother awaiting a baby’s arrival, the Mongolian mother’s hefting a leg over the back of a motorcycle and bumping down the road with her tightly-wrapped newborn might be particularly memorable in its difference from our own experience.
In contrast, life in Tokyo and San Francisco can be saturated with intellectually stimulating baby activities, toys galore, rows of colorful books, a wide variety of foods, stores, and experiences. All those notable contrasts are observable, but they also don’t seem to be the point of the film. Many reviewers admit that the babies are exceptionally cute—as all babies are—but seem flummoxed that there is no clear “point” to it all. What is the analysis that provides insight in this film? It seems to me intentional that there isn’t one.
The film shines when, captured vividly at eye level, the viewer witnesses a young child captivated by a cat, a rooster, or a toy, diligently peeling a banana or learning to stand. These simple yet miraculous moments can be easily overlooked to the world-weary. Yet, the film puts them center stage in a marvelous and memorable way.
In his review of “Babies,” Roger Ebert seemed to understand the film better than most. While he wasn’t eager to watch it, he wrote, “I appreciated the fact that there was no narrator to explain what I was seeing; no voiceovers like ‘little Bayarjargal learns early to appreciate the mystery of yogurt.’ No parents asking, ‘Are you a good little boy?’ and answering, ‘Yes, he’s good little boy.’ Just babies. Wonderful.”
Ebert added, “I was once in that state myself. I remember being flat on my stomach with my eyes an inch away from ants all crawling in a line on the front sidewalk. I’ve never been so entertained in my life.”
While some adults go so far as to call “Babies” “a little disturbing,” I fail to see the cause for alarm. The music is subtle and well chosen, the immersive visuals are exquisite. Many parents find that their young children prefer the realism of “Babies” to cartoons and other “children’s” entertainment. Even the pickiest of young viewers, easily “bored” by lots of fine movies, can stay thoroughly engaged with “Babies,” proclaiming the film “hilarious!” when reflecting on the antics of babies throughout the world. If those young viewers are lucky enough, they may have a baby brother or sister to look forward to, a real life baby with whom to journey through that miraculous first year with.
If you are having a baby, some people will recommend training your toddler to watch television so you can catch a break when you need it. I find this advice monstrous. However, if you want to put your feet up when heavily pregnant or newly with a babe in arms, I’m all for cozying up with said toddler for a presentation of “Babies.” It’s not your ordinary television experience. There’s something quite remarkable and genuinely childlike in this unassuming film.
