You cannot be realistic as Sean Baker is and sugar-coat the characters. But I would still call him a humanist, for even bothering to depict this world, and his treatment of the kids, arguably his real subject. Tangerine is another example you need to see, which I found visually beautiful - the colors. Maybe my conception of humanism is different from yours. It's not "liberalism" and portraits that are realistic shouldn't be seen as "tilted" into "favorable" or "unfavorable" "territory". Territory is a good word, but it's neutral territory. I also repeat that this film reminded me of Andrea Arnold's American Honey, an exciting, disturbing film whose characters from the American white underclass ("poor white trash") are full of incredible life, but some of them are definitely not nice or right in any way, they make you feel uneasy and sort of soiled. Andrea Arnold is a humanist too, and watch her amazing Fish Tank, Perhaps Michael Fassbender's best role, where he is a really awful character, but it's a realistic look at these people's lives, and she gives you an intimate look at what he does.

I agree with you on Faces, Places. It seems a bit thin, but it is beautifully put together, and she is an icon now, and very remarkable given her age (89! - how does she do it?). Have you really not seen Dunkirk? If so that is really too bad, because it was essential to see it in IMax and/or (I saw it in both) 70mm. About half the people didn't get it. Varda is the darling of the Film Society of Lincoln Center. This is not realistic at all, nor does it show any of the dark or problematic side of the rural France she and JR go through. It's just a show they put on. But it's so slickly done, you have to admire it, and her repartee with JR is so slick and pleasing. I didn't really feel anything though.