Nasty Baby

Freddy (Sebastián Silva) and Mo (Tunde Adebimpe) are a gay couple in NYC. They're trying to have a baby with friend Polly (Kristen Wiig). Freddy discovers that he has low sperm count. Mo is reluctant to contribute. Freddy is a performing artist making a short of adults acting like babies. The group gets harassed by local homophobic unstable Bishop (Reg E. Cathey).

This is a rambling indie at first. The starts as a low-budget mumbling gay lifestyle artsy New York indie. It sprinkles in some darker tones and then it takes a completely different dark turn. It's intriguing although it doesn't completely work.

Wow. Just... wow. I don't think I've seen more than five films in my life that take such an unpredictable, wild turn and tonal shift like this did. I had no idea what it was about, and the first hour or so was great on itself. Engaging characters, well-acted, very humane in its storytelling. What prompted the filmmakers to do what they did? Well, it helps to bring up questions of what the "everyday" person would do in that scenario. Do I buy it? Well, I don't "not buy it". I can definitely say that I didn't dislike its execution. One doesn't really know what they would do in such a scenario. Of course, everyone would like to say "I would have done the right thing!", but we just don't know. This is the troubling question that this film wants us to answer, and honestly, I think it did an amazing job of it. In real life, everything is normal, everyone can be normal... until it's not. What DOES happen when the "stuff hits the fan"? What WOULD we do? There are many different ways that the film could've posed these questions, and sure enough many other films that I've seen have posed them in different ways, but I think the unorthodox unpredictability of this really hits those points home. I think that first normal hour is needed for this reason, and why no one should read anything about this film going into it. I can totally see why it may not have worked for so many people, but I think the execution was on point. For better or worse, the filmmakers took a huge, giant risk here (like, I cannot stress enough how HUGE that risk was), and they didn't want this film to be forgotten lightly. For my money, I left it feeling like it had made me think about a lot of different things, along with being a highly intriguing, engaging film.

Greetings again from the darkness. Many indie films receive positive responses during a film festival run because most festival goers are frequent movie watchers, and really appreciate the unique and brave approach taken by the rebellious and up-and-coming filmmakers. Writer/director Sebastian Silva lulls us into the comfort zone of a "friends" story and then stuns us with a third act that could seem out-of-the-blue, if one weren't paying close attention along the way.

Mr. Silva also stars as Freddy, a media artist who is working on a video project (entitled Nasty Baby) that features himself (and others) imitating infants. He lives in Brooklyn with his boyfriend Mo, played by TV on the Radio's Tunde Adebimpe (so good in Rachel Getting Married, 2008). They are part of a trio of friends completed by Polly (Kristen Wiig), who is addressing her biological clock by relentlessly pursuing artificial insemination from her two friends.

While it's easy as a viewer to get complacent watching the interactions of these three mostly likable people in various elements: together, separately, at work, with other acquaintances, and especially with neighbors; the script offers many subtle hints along the way about the make-up of each.

The supporting cast is excellent and includes Reg E Cathey ("House of Cards") as a mentally-shaky neighbor, Mark Margolis ("Breaking Bad") as a more level-headed neighbor, Alia Shawkat (underutilized here, but very talented) as Freddy's assistant, and Neal Huff as the eccentric gallery owner.

Normal seems like a pretty straightforward term, but the film shows that normal really doesn't exist, since it's always changing. The relationship of this trio of friends, their plan for child-rearing, and the family dinner at Mo's parent's home … all examples of how normal has shifted. And to top it off, the film's third act can't be considered normal by any standard of story-telling, and you will question how you missed the true character of the main players … and maybe even how you would react, if you found yourself in this spot. If nothing else, the film might make you a bit more tolerant of your annoying neighbor that has caused you so many negative thoughts over the years.

This film really had an impact on me. I'm not sure this was in the way the filmmakers intended though, as it was a very mixed experience.

I was immediately drawn in by the "indy" vibe, if that's what you call it. The naturalistic acting was appealing and seemed, for the most part, to ring true. The way the actors moved and conversed was convicing, so perhaps it was improvised to an extent? I thought the two main male actors did exceptionally well and I'd be curious to see them in other work. (Obviously I know Kristen Wiig already, and she is so good!) I liked the tone that was set and I felt more and more connected to the characters and story as it went along. But, as others have mentioned, when the film takes an abrupt turn, I just stopped believing it. Not the premise of this event or how it is dealt with initially, or how it is shown (I appreciate the graphic portrayal of it) but how the challenge is dealt with afterwards, and everything that follows, including the closing credits. The realism stopped there, and I felt ripped off and pissed off. It was like they took two completely different plots and mashed them together, and I really want to know how things would have turned out without the abrupt turn. I would like to understand the whys and hows of the filmmaker's decisions. Was there a message? Did the filmmaker intend to upset his audience? What was the point of this whole thing? And, that said, I still think it's a good piece of film-making, which perhaps explains why I can't just let this go and dismiss this as a piece of crap.

Films are like visiting a city. Mainstream movies cover the big attraction: Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame Cathedra, and Musée du Louvre. Indie films take you through the back streets and occasionally you get a tour of the underbelly of a city. "Nasty Baby" by filmmaker Sebastián Silva takes you on a back ally tour of the character of ordinary people. We all like to think we know what we will do in hypothetical situations. The truth is often we don't. This movie starts off pleasant enough with likable, real character; but from the start there is a slow burn that is building towards some unwanted destination. This movie takes you around the big attractions of a city and delivers you via the characters in places you would never expect to visit or would want to go. Check out "Nasty Baby" if you get a chance.