Am I nuts to be made uncomfortable by all this talk of pornography when it comes to the movie Babies?
Nick Schager from Time Out New York gets the ball rolling:
Babies is barely more insightful than your average Flickr photo gallery or home movie clip: it’s just infant porn for prospective parents.
The Village Voice's Dan Kois gets right to the point, in his review titled "Babies Porn":
Is Babies a good movie? Of course not. But that's missing the point—like asking if a porn video is a good movie. Babies gets the job done.
He concludes his evaluation with this bit of insight:
But for the most part, the strength of Babies is the way it babies babies babies babies babies universality babies babies babies, babies babies babies miracle babies babies.
He also claims to have ovulated a dozen times during the film. He should probably get that checked out.
So even if Babies employs the same audiovisual manipulation/fascination techniques as pornography (or, say, The Food Network), am I nuts to cringe at the comparison spelled out in print?
Am I nuts to want to keep babies and porn as uncorrelated as possible?
0 comments:
Post a Comment