First off, really great acting by all involved especially the child actors. It's always refreshing to see Canada, Ontario, Toronto play itself and showcase it's stories on film (and this is particularly true for an area like Scarborough). Hard film to watch (because of the emotionally weighty material) but goes to show the many similarities between the rural economically depleted small town and the economically challenged inner/city-suburb neighbourhood.
What really, however, makes this film intriguing is the fact that, on its face, While the film may be seen as being a critique of systemic income inequality, racism, sexism (the underfunding of social programmes, housing, etc.), it (while doing those other things) also puts forward the sometimes uncomfortable notion that simply throwing money at a situation (whether through charity or personal wealth) is not sufficient in helping rear children who are emotionally and physically neglected.
For example, the social worker's boss in the film is not wrong in telling the social worker to set boundaries with the families that she serves and that they are a literacy programme and not a food bank. While it may seem harsh and cruel, that distinction is important because in any relationship, having boundaries are super, super important. If not the least, because once you give to much of yourself to something or someone, that cannot possibly reciprocate what you give, it inevitably leads to resentment. We see this with the Caribbean food owners and the single dad who asks for food outside closing hours. The reason why they say "no," even though they otherwise do help people in his similar situation (they give one of the mum's earlier some jerk chicken) is because if they don't set boundaries (i.e. Closing the restaurant for personal/familial use) they will grow to resent the people they help and may otherwise stop being charitable altogether. As the restaurant owner rightfully points out, "it's not my fault your daughter doesn't have a meal tonight."
The other thing the film highlights is that, along with the lack of financial literacy in the K-12 education system, the lack of parental education is also something that is lacking. Sex education is (rightfully) seen as important (in terms of helping young people understand their bodies, healthy interpersonal relationship, sexual/gender identities) but there is (probably because, historically, "home economics" was a gendered subject in school aimed mostly towards women and motherhood) no real equivalent education about how to be a good parent. This is especially hard given that most people who end up in the situations that the parents in this film find themselves in had parents young and so would benefit the most from having this education as early as possible.
Through that education, they'd learn perhaps the most important thing; if you can't take care of yourself, how can you possible think you can take care of a child? This is not a eugenics argument against lower socio-economic individuals having children (as the film proves, and we'll get to later, money is not the most important thing in the rearing of children). But through the parents of two of the kids highlighted in this film (the Indigenous and Caucasian kid) it's very obvious and clear that the parents are probably most likely themselves the victims of their own traumas; and haven't dealt with them enough to adequately put them in the proper spot to properly raise a child. If you've got a drug habit, or are in an abusive relationship, those are not ideal environments with which to bring a child into the world and you kind of have to deal with/quit those type of things before you think about child rearing. Indeed, it is those things couple with poverty, not the poverty in and of itself, that hurts the children.
This is probably most evident in the Filipino mother who's son probably has the best shot of the three children of leading a semblance of a healthy/normal life because even though she's "poor," she is not dealing with other external issues which means she is able to centre her son in her life. In other words, her only real concern is making enough money for them to survive (not, for example, also battling a drug addiction or toxic romantic relationship). She is there for her son, accepts his defying of traditional gender norms, and is even willing to sell her own family heirlooms to support his passion of singing/performing. He gets accepted into the gifted programme, and it's clear his mum has decided she is going to live for him rather than herself. Conversely, We actually see with the girl at school who lives in the nice suburban house, that the financially well-off father is neglected his own daughter's wants and needs (as she wants to look out the window but her tells her the window is so that other people can look in).
Again, as this film illustrates, poverty in an of itself actually provides for things like community and selflessness that may be absent in more affluent neighbourhoods. As seen in the film, neighbours watch each others kids, take children to the store, share food, etc. This is why, for instance, a lot of people romanticize their university/college experience or musicians, bands, artists, actors/actresses look fondly on their early days of hustling before "making it." The days when you thought you had nought, you may have had plenty; just not materially. Things you appreciate more in hindsight as you accumulate wealth.
In other words, while this film definitely makes the case for more government and social support (and does so effectively) it also makes the point that all the governments support and social services in the world can't necessarily compensate for parental emotional and physical neglect. There should be parental education in school, people should work on themselves (especially emotionally and mentally) and then should thick twice, three, four, multiple times before even considering having kids, and yes, organizations should be funded more and led from grassroots people on the ground who know the situation.
As this review demonstrates, this film caused a lot of during and after thinking which is always the mark of a solidly made film. My only critique (albeit minor) was the story telling was a bit disjointed and the film a bit too long but otherwise the setting and what the film explores more than make up for any potential shortcomings it had. Recommend.
What really, however, makes this film intriguing is the fact that, on its face, While the film may be seen as being a critique of systemic income inequality, racism, sexism (the underfunding of social programmes, housing, etc.), it (while doing those other things) also puts forward the sometimes uncomfortable notion that simply throwing money at a situation (whether through charity or personal wealth) is not sufficient in helping rear children who are emotionally and physically neglected.
For example, the social worker's boss in the film is not wrong in telling the social worker to set boundaries with the families that she serves and that they are a literacy programme and not a food bank. While it may seem harsh and cruel, that distinction is important because in any relationship, having boundaries are super, super important. If not the least, because once you give to much of yourself to something or someone, that cannot possibly reciprocate what you give, it inevitably leads to resentment. We see this with the Caribbean food owners and the single dad who asks for food outside closing hours. The reason why they say "no," even though they otherwise do help people in his similar situation (they give one of the mum's earlier some jerk chicken) is because if they don't set boundaries (i.e. Closing the restaurant for personal/familial use) they will grow to resent the people they help and may otherwise stop being charitable altogether. As the restaurant owner rightfully points out, "it's not my fault your daughter doesn't have a meal tonight."
The other thing the film highlights is that, along with the lack of financial literacy in the K-12 education system, the lack of parental education is also something that is lacking. Sex education is (rightfully) seen as important (in terms of helping young people understand their bodies, healthy interpersonal relationship, sexual/gender identities) but there is (probably because, historically, "home economics" was a gendered subject in school aimed mostly towards women and motherhood) no real equivalent education about how to be a good parent. This is especially hard given that most people who end up in the situations that the parents in this film find themselves in had parents young and so would benefit the most from having this education as early as possible.
Through that education, they'd learn perhaps the most important thing; if you can't take care of yourself, how can you possible think you can take care of a child? This is not a eugenics argument against lower socio-economic individuals having children (as the film proves, and we'll get to later, money is not the most important thing in the rearing of children). But through the parents of two of the kids highlighted in this film (the Indigenous and Caucasian kid) it's very obvious and clear that the parents are probably most likely themselves the victims of their own traumas; and haven't dealt with them enough to adequately put them in the proper spot to properly raise a child. If you've got a drug habit, or are in an abusive relationship, those are not ideal environments with which to bring a child into the world and you kind of have to deal with/quit those type of things before you think about child rearing. Indeed, it is those things couple with poverty, not the poverty in and of itself, that hurts the children.
This is probably most evident in the Filipino mother who's son probably has the best shot of the three children of leading a semblance of a healthy/normal life because even though she's "poor," she is not dealing with other external issues which means she is able to centre her son in her life. In other words, her only real concern is making enough money for them to survive (not, for example, also battling a drug addiction or toxic romantic relationship). She is there for her son, accepts his defying of traditional gender norms, and is even willing to sell her own family heirlooms to support his passion of singing/performing. He gets accepted into the gifted programme, and it's clear his mum has decided she is going to live for him rather than herself. Conversely, We actually see with the girl at school who lives in the nice suburban house, that the financially well-off father is neglected his own daughter's wants and needs (as she wants to look out the window but her tells her the window is so that other people can look in).
Again, as this film illustrates, poverty in an of itself actually provides for things like community and selflessness that may be absent in more affluent neighbourhoods. As seen in the film, neighbours watch each others kids, take children to the store, share food, etc. This is why, for instance, a lot of people romanticize their university/college experience or musicians, bands, artists, actors/actresses look fondly on their early days of hustling before "making it." The days when you thought you had nought, you may have had plenty; just not materially. Things you appreciate more in hindsight as you accumulate wealth.
In other words, while this film definitely makes the case for more government and social support (and does so effectively) it also makes the point that all the governments support and social services in the world can't necessarily compensate for parental emotional and physical neglect. There should be parental education in school, people should work on themselves (especially emotionally and mentally) and then should thick twice, three, four, multiple times before even considering having kids, and yes, organizations should be funded more and led from grassroots people on the ground who know the situation.
As this review demonstrates, this film caused a lot of during and after thinking which is always the mark of a solidly made film. My only critique (albeit minor) was the story telling was a bit disjointed and the film a bit too long but otherwise the setting and what the film explores more than make up for any potential shortcomings it had. Recommend.
