1.What do you feel was the driving question that this film was seeking to answer?
2. Through most of the film there would be scene that tells a child's story and the next scene would show that child's photography. How does this structure aid the films message?
3. Born into Brothels used many different camera angles ( e.g dutch, eye level, low, high). How did these camera angles help affect the tone of the film?
4. For me the music in this film was so powerful that it felt like another character in the film. How do you feel the filmmaker uses the music to correspond with the images in the film?
5. The filmmaker had a heavy presence in this film. Did this make you feel any differently than films that we have viewed were the filmmaker was not present?
6. How does The Meaning of Pictures, where we saw pictures of the Appalachian people taken by a professional photographer, differ from Born into Brothels, where the children are taking their own pictures? Did you feel that some images were more “true” than others?
5. A "heavy presence," I like how you put that, Sophia. I agree. It almost felt as though she was the star of the film. With her poise, demeanor, and classic beauty, she could easily have been an actor handpicked for the role, which of course, she wasn't, but she seemed almost too perfect to be real. A few months ago I re-watched a film called Man Push Cart that I thought was a documentary. As I was watching it the second time, it dawned on me that it was a fiction movie. The thing that first gave it away (for me) was that the young woman the man fell in love with looked more like an actor delivering her lines, which indeed she was. I wonder if Zana Auntie couldn't have pursued her mission of helping the children without being such a prominent presence on camera.
In response to her presence, I actually liked it. It was refreshing because I feel that we're stuck on trying to keep the filmmaker out of the film, to make it more authentic or less like a movie, but here I think it's important that she is on screen. Part of the point of this film is her coming in to see the conditions these children live in and to bring them a chance for a better life. I think that she is satisfied with herself and the work she's done, and seems a little into herself, but I do think her presence is necessary for the topic and the influence she had on these children. In Born into Brothels, the film would have had a truly different feel because it relies on pathos and I believe the filmmaker brings that element by making herself present. If she tried to stay hidden, then the impact of the pathos wouldn't be as strong and another means, most likely logos, could have needed.
I agree that the filmmaker's heightened presence (or at least Zana Briski, the photographer) was necessary for this film to have the effect it did. It as a bit jarring, after all of the films we have viewed where the filmmaker stays behind the camera, but in this case, the film was as much about the attempts to pull these children out of their situation as it was about the children themselves. Despite the ethical issues it raises, keeping Briski in front of the camera makes this film more honest. We see the difficulties she encounters in trying to get the children accepted to boarding schools and the conflicts that arise between her and the family members of the children. I don't think the purpose of this is for her to gain accolades, but rather to show the difficulties inherent in these children's situations and the power and creativity they contain within themselves, as shown through their photography--which she teaches them. Her presence lends a sense of ethos to the film as well; we know she's been living with them for years, and she's trying to teach them a skill which can better their lives, she's not just swooping in and trying to remove them from their families for the purpose of a documentary (though many critics brought up this latter view). She could certainly have made a film about the children of Calcutta's brothels without stepping in front of the camera, but it wouldn't have been this film, and the heartbreaking reality of how difficult it really is for these children to escape their lives wouldn't be as apparent if we didn't see her struggle throughout the film to help them do just that.
3. I felt by telling the child's story, then showing us their photos as a viewer it gave me a better view into the child's mind. I felt like I could see their perspective, how into their photos they really were. I became fascinated even mesmerized by some of their photos. Their photos revealed their true self at least in my eyes. Shanti was full of life and her photos were full of color. Avjit captured life in the moment, Suchitra believed their was no hope for him, yet his photos captured the essence of life, the pure beauty of it.
I noticed the camera was always blurry at night (darkness, unknown) the music was very mystical as if danger was lurking. I compared this to the beach trip where the music was magical, camera focused on many different angles. I think the angles showed us different aspects of life, a different aspect of these children because I am sure this experience was different for them.
I think this differs from the Meaning of Pictures due to the involvement of the film maker and her desire to affect their situation. But this would then take us to the message of the documentaries which are both different. In The Meaning of Pictures, he wanted to expose the culture for the beauty he believed it had, and in Born into Brothels, I feel she wanted to make the public aware of the lives of these innocent children.
1. I felt that the driving question that this film sought to answer was, what happens when children are considered materials and not valued as potentials to prosper in society. The filmmaker incorporated the children's stories in which they described their work, expectations of guardians, and community obligations. the children described a full days work that did not include child like activities of play, academics, or affection. The filmmaker briefly included a few clips where the caregiviers were stating that they needed them to work to support the family, a grandmother stressed that her granddaughter could not leave on a Thursday because work needed to be done, while another child's aunt stated that she was next in line. It was sad to see that the guardian did not posses what many of us want or strive for.... The American dream of success, prosperity, and happiness. We often vie other countries who are always seeking to create this dream in their homeland or relocate to the United States to obtain it, so when we see an entire community comfortable with repeating generations of illegal activities that will not lead to success, happiness, or prosperity, we begin to feel that the children are being deprived, therefore, needing assistance.
4. So true! The music was a vital addition to the film. When scenes were darker the filmmaker created depth between the visual and audio track by accompanying rough, dreary, mysterious music. Likewise, the music was lively, but still possessed a mature overtone of music selection when the girls were dance on the bus.
5) It was sort of strange, after the series of film's we've been watching, to see the filmmaker take such a participatory role in this documentary. I didn't have a problem with it, but my off-the-cuff assumptions of a film called "Born into Brothels" were that this was going to be a film full of observation, statistics, and shocking stories. Instead, it was really evident, even more so than usual, just how much the presence of the filmmaker radically changed the course of events in the film. I appreciate the necessary distance of a journalist, but I kind of can't fault her. I appreciate the empathy she presents.
6) I loved the kid's pictures, and seeing how they took them. They made it seem fun, in an environment where little to nothing else seemed fun. Children are so easily exploited, and it would have been easy to present them as pawns in this really unhealthy situation. It was still this really fuzzy line where their pictures were exhibited without them and they were a part of the show themselves, but like I talked about in class I really thought that these kids were empowered by photography. This is some of the only education they've received, and we especially see Avijit create art with his photography, pouring sand from the bucket to create the frame he wants. As a documentarist, I'm not sure how I feel about the photographer, but as a human being I appreciate what she's done.
There were a few comments made during the class discussion that I wrote down to comment on in this thread. Here are my thoughts on that...
1. I still believe that the purpose of the film was to showcase this issue of these children who are born into a life of shame, sex, and poverty. That's not to say that anything was actually done to effectively help these children. I don't believe that many of these children can be helped. It's telling, though, that she did not actually just do these things for the novelty of creating a documentary about how she saved these children. If her purpose in making the film was to congratulate herself on a job well done, I don't think she would have shown that many of these children did not make it out of the brothels. As someone in class DID say, though, she taught these children how to photograph. She gave them choices about their lives. She tried to inspire them by caring about them and establishing a rapport with them. Those are some of the most important things these kids could have gotten from her-with or without the video camera present. We wouldn't have questioned her if she wouldn't have made a documentary out of it, and would have, say, been given an award for humanitarian efforts.
2. Everything about this film, from the video, audio, and text track, right down to the opening sequence with the wide-eyed children, and the use of the camera and photos, was for the viewer to actually be a voyeur and see through these children's eyes. Did anyone notice (because I don't believe it was commented about in class) that the pictures that were shown as the transition between each child's story became more and more violent/angry/agressive/uncomfortable as the movie progressed? I was surprised by the raw pictures of the last kid portrayed. Was this done on purpose? Absolutely. I'm sure there were hundreds of pictures that they could have chosen from, but instead the last few shots they used were terribly harsh, uncomfortable photos of people screaming or in pain.
5.) The heavy presence of the filmmaker was difficult for me to process. I suppose it made the film seem less objective and less like a documentary, and more like a memoir of the filmmaker's personal story. Although I think I would have done (or at least wanted to do) something similar to what the filmmaker did, I felt like at times HER story overpowered that of the children she was working to present and assist. It's funny, because I think if someone else would have made the film and she would have just been IN it, I would have felt differently. This being said, I think her presence was necessary to the film and warranted, but - and not surprisingly so - the autobiographical connotations took away from the feeling of objectivity. I suppose it's a double-edged sword.
1.What do you feel was the driving question that this film was seeking to answer?
ReplyDelete2. Through most of the film there would be scene that tells a child's story and the next scene would show that child's photography. How does this structure aid the films message?
3. Born into Brothels used many different camera angles ( e.g dutch, eye level, low, high). How did these camera angles help affect the tone of the film?
4. For me the music in this film was so powerful that it felt like another character in the film. How do you feel the filmmaker uses the music to correspond with the images in the film?
5. The filmmaker had a heavy presence in this film. Did this make you feel any differently than films that we have viewed were the filmmaker was not present?
6. How does The Meaning of Pictures, where we saw pictures of the Appalachian people taken by a professional photographer, differ from Born into Brothels, where the children are taking their own pictures? Did you feel that some images were more “true” than others?
5. A "heavy presence," I like how you put that, Sophia. I agree. It almost felt as though she was the star of the film. With her poise, demeanor, and classic beauty, she could easily have been an actor handpicked for the role, which of course, she wasn't, but she seemed almost too perfect to be real. A few months ago I re-watched a film called Man Push Cart that I thought was a documentary. As I was watching it the second time, it dawned on me that it was a fiction movie. The thing that first gave it away (for me) was that the young woman the man fell in love with looked more like an actor delivering her lines, which indeed she was. I wonder if Zana Auntie couldn't have pursued her mission of helping the children without being such a prominent presence on camera.
DeleteIn response to her presence, I actually liked it. It was refreshing because I feel that we're stuck on trying to keep the filmmaker out of the film, to make it more authentic or less like a movie, but here I think it's important that she is on screen. Part of the point of this film is her coming in to see the conditions these children live in and to bring them a chance for a better life. I think that she is satisfied with herself and the work she's done, and seems a little into herself, but I do think her presence is necessary for the topic and the influence she had on these children. In Born into Brothels, the film would have had a truly different feel because it relies on pathos and I believe the filmmaker brings that element by making herself present. If she tried to stay hidden, then the impact of the pathos wouldn't be as strong and another means, most likely logos, could have needed.
DeleteI agree that the filmmaker's heightened presence (or at least Zana Briski, the photographer) was necessary for this film to have the effect it did. It as a bit jarring, after all of the films we have viewed where the filmmaker stays behind the camera, but in this case, the film was as much about the attempts to pull these children out of their situation as it was about the children themselves. Despite the ethical issues it raises, keeping Briski in front of the camera makes this film more honest. We see the difficulties she encounters in trying to get the children accepted to boarding schools and the conflicts that arise between her and the family members of the children. I don't think the purpose of this is for her to gain accolades, but rather to show the difficulties inherent in these children's situations and the power and creativity they contain within themselves, as shown through their photography--which she teaches them. Her presence lends a sense of ethos to the film as well; we know she's been living with them for years, and she's trying to teach them a skill which can better their lives, she's not just swooping in and trying to remove them from their families for the purpose of a documentary (though many critics brought up this latter view). She could certainly have made a film about the children of Calcutta's brothels without stepping in front of the camera, but it wouldn't have been this film, and the heartbreaking reality of how difficult it really is for these children to escape their lives wouldn't be as apparent if we didn't see her struggle throughout the film to help them do just that.
Delete3. I felt by telling the child's story, then showing us their photos as a viewer it gave me a better view into the child's mind. I felt like I could see their perspective, how into their photos they really were. I became fascinated even mesmerized by some of their photos. Their photos revealed their true self at least in my eyes. Shanti was full of life and her photos were full of color. Avjit captured life in the moment, Suchitra believed their was no hope for him, yet his photos captured the essence of life, the pure beauty of it.
ReplyDeleteI noticed the camera was always blurry at night (darkness, unknown) the music was very mystical as if danger was lurking. I compared this to the beach trip where the music was magical, camera focused on many different angles. I think the angles showed us different aspects of life, a different aspect of these children because I am sure this experience was different for them.
I think this differs from the Meaning of Pictures due to the involvement of the film maker and her desire to affect their situation. But this would then take us to the message of the documentaries which are both different. In The Meaning of Pictures, he wanted to expose the culture for the beauty he believed it had, and in Born into Brothels, I feel she wanted to make the public aware of the lives of these innocent children.
1. I felt that the driving question that this film sought to answer was, what happens when children are considered materials and not valued as potentials to prosper in society. The filmmaker incorporated the children's stories in which they described their work, expectations of guardians, and community obligations. the children described a full days work that did not include child like activities of play, academics, or affection. The filmmaker briefly included a few clips where the caregiviers were stating that they needed them to work to support the family, a grandmother stressed that her granddaughter could not leave on a Thursday because work needed to be done, while another child's aunt stated that she was next in line. It was sad to see that the guardian did not posses what many of us want or strive for.... The American dream of success, prosperity, and happiness. We often vie other countries who are always seeking to create this dream in their homeland or relocate to the United States to obtain it, so when we see an entire community comfortable with repeating generations of illegal activities that will not lead to success, happiness, or prosperity, we begin to feel that the children are being deprived, therefore, needing assistance.
ReplyDelete4. So true! The music was a vital addition to the film. When scenes were darker the filmmaker created depth between the visual and audio track by accompanying rough, dreary, mysterious music. Likewise, the music was lively, but still possessed a mature overtone of music selection when the girls were dance on the bus.
5) It was sort of strange, after the series of film's we've been watching, to see the filmmaker take such a participatory role in this documentary. I didn't have a problem with it, but my off-the-cuff assumptions of a film called "Born into Brothels" were that this was going to be a film full of observation, statistics, and shocking stories. Instead, it was really evident, even more so than usual, just how much the presence of the filmmaker radically changed the course of events in the film. I appreciate the necessary distance of a journalist, but I kind of can't fault her. I appreciate the empathy she presents.
ReplyDelete6) I loved the kid's pictures, and seeing how they took them. They made it seem fun, in an environment where little to nothing else seemed fun. Children are so easily exploited, and it would have been easy to present them as pawns in this really unhealthy situation. It was still this really fuzzy line where their pictures were exhibited without them and they were a part of the show themselves, but like I talked about in class I really thought that these kids were empowered by photography. This is some of the only education they've received, and we especially see Avijit create art with his photography, pouring sand from the bucket to create the frame he wants. As a documentarist, I'm not sure how I feel about the photographer, but as a human being I appreciate what she's done.
There were a few comments made during the class discussion that I wrote down to comment on in this thread. Here are my thoughts on that...
ReplyDelete1. I still believe that the purpose of the film was to showcase this issue of these children who are born into a life of shame, sex, and poverty. That's not to say that anything was actually done to effectively help these children. I don't believe that many of these children can be helped. It's telling, though, that she did not actually just do these things for the novelty of creating a documentary about how she saved these children. If her purpose in making the film was to congratulate herself on a job well done, I don't think she would have shown that many of these children did not make it out of the brothels. As someone in class DID say, though, she taught these children how to photograph. She gave them choices about their lives. She tried to inspire them by caring about them and establishing a rapport with them. Those are some of the most important things these kids could have gotten from her-with or without the video camera present. We wouldn't have questioned her if she wouldn't have made a documentary out of it, and would have, say, been given an award for humanitarian efforts.
2. Everything about this film, from the video, audio, and text track, right down to the opening sequence with the wide-eyed children, and the use of the camera and photos, was for the viewer to actually be a voyeur and see through these children's eyes. Did anyone notice (because I don't believe it was commented about in class) that the pictures that were shown as the transition between each child's story became more and more violent/angry/agressive/uncomfortable as the movie progressed? I was surprised by the raw pictures of the last kid portrayed. Was this done on purpose? Absolutely. I'm sure there were hundreds of pictures that they could have chosen from, but instead the last few shots they used were terribly harsh, uncomfortable photos of people screaming or in pain.
5.) The heavy presence of the filmmaker was difficult for me to process. I suppose it made the film seem less objective and less like a documentary, and more like a memoir of the filmmaker's personal story. Although I think I would have done (or at least wanted to do) something similar to what the filmmaker did, I felt like at times HER story overpowered that of the children she was working to present and assist. It's funny, because I think if someone else would have made the film and she would have just been IN it, I would have felt differently. This being said, I think her presence was necessary to the film and warranted, but - and not surprisingly so - the autobiographical connotations took away from the feeling of objectivity. I suppose it's a double-edged sword.
ReplyDelete