How Is Babby Formed?

On the opening night of the 2010 edition of Toronto's festival of documentaries, Hot Docs, I attended the premiere screening of Babies at the Winter Garden Theatre. This theatre, along with the Elgin Theatre, is the last of the "stacked" Edwardian theatre. It typically hosts live shows such as operas and musicals. Personally, I'm not too fond of the fake tree branches, leaves, and vines that decorate the walls and ceiling. There used to be a Peruvian restaurant on college that also had a fake grape trellis theme, but it worked better as you can imagine that you are sitting on a patio somewhere warm and fragrant for dinner. Inside a 1,500 seat theatre, it just seems tacky.

Babies follow the first year in the life of 4 babies: one in Tokyo, Japan; one in San Francisco, USA; one in Mongolia, near Bayanchandmani; and the last near Opuwo, Namibia. Though each belong to different families with different child-rearing traditions, they do share many common development: breast-feeding, crying, sleeping, learning, exploring, babbling, and finally walking. Given the response babies evoke in people, especially women, due to neoteny, it was no surprised that the film is a feel-good 80 minutes. Add in footage of babies interacting with pets such as cats and dogs, as well as more unusual domestic animals including goats, chickens, and cows, and you might overdose on the cuteness. However, as a documentary without verbal narrative or talking heads, and is meant to be experiental, it does drag near the end as there is no indication of an ending in sight.

The director, Thomas Balmes, was there to talk a bit about the process (2 years filming), the challenges (missing his own kids, coming close to being divorced), and so on. The first question was, actually, not a question. It was a rambling monologue which compares this documentary to other films, in my opinion nothing more than showing off, and ending with this gem, to paraphrase, about "how the Namibian baby may have been lacking in material goods but she was rich in love, as compared to the Japanese baby or the San Francisco baby".

I wanted the moderator to interrupt with a terse "Is there a question here?", although he did respond half-jokingly that this was more of a statement than a question. The director himself answered that he did not film this documentary with any "lessons" in mind.

If this supposedly sophisticated (in his own mind) movie viewer truly felt this way, then his own personal views and bias have blinded him to anything resembling reality. I have to also wonder if his own experience of the world is similar skewed.

First, about the parental love. It is actually the 2 "1st world" babies that received attention and parental care from their fathers. The papas were noticeably absent from any day-to-day child rearing in Namibia and Mongolia. They also received less constant attention. Often, they were left to their own devices, though the mothers were near. However, the variety in their surroundings: pets, animals, other babies and siblings gave them continuous stimulation as they explored and learned about the world. It might have been this that fooled our oh-so-aware critic.

If there are any lessons to be learned for Westerners, it is that babies don't need so much coddling. Also, being exposed to a "dirty" environment is not a disaster. Maybe we don't need to keep our place and our babies so pristine and clean. Finally, and this may be the hardest to copy, raising babies in a large extended family have many benefits.

But the truth is that all 4 babies were reared in an environment full of care and love. There are many documentaries that show what children raised in dysfunctional household without emotional support look like, in any part of the world, and they don't look like these lucky babies.

Second, about the lack of material goods. Oh look, the Namibian baby, and to some extent the Mongolian child too, are raised in a "primitive" milieu: flies, dirt, no indoor plumbing, animals running around, etc. Everybody walks bare-foot. Ergo, they must be so poor (but so rich in love.)

Look again. The African women are strong and fleshy, wearing beautiful decorations. Their children are active and lithe, as well as numerous. They own a herd of goats and other animals. The Mongolian family have cows, goats, pets, as well as a motorcycle. Their yurt contains a TV, beds, rugs and hangings, and other household items.

There are many reports on poverty and deprivation, here and elsewhere, and it is markedly different from these people. The 4 families are solidly "middle-class", living a comfortable life. It's just that "middle-class" does not mean cars and baby strollers in Africa. On the other hand, no toilet is not automatically a sign of poverty either.

Don't assume things, Mr. Hot Docs viewer. Keep your mind open to new experiences, just like those babies. Now there's a lesson everyone can take to heart.