Qian Zhang
The author Hampe mainly talks about ethnics in making a documentary. Hampe states that some documentarians record the subject’s verbal consent at the beginning of shooting, which means documentarians would ask the subjects if they willing to be recorded and show respect to the people who would appear in the documentary, avoiding invade their privacy. This point applies to documentary Born into Brothel, the filmmaker Zana spent approximately five years to completing filming, before shooting this documentary, filmmaker Zana took a long period of time to get acquainted with the eight children and make friends with them so that the children would tell Zana the stories about themselves and willing to taking pictures and hanging out with Zana. In this sense, filmmakers could touch their inner life and real opinions on the world and life. Besides, in the article, Pryluck contends that when using people in sequences filmmakers put them at risk without considering their potential hazards and did not recognize which of their actions would hurt other people. Similarly, Hampe states that quite often producers have no way of foreseeing the way when the film comes out. It reflects some aspects of the social significance of the documentary born into brothel. There is a scene shocking the audience and very impressive, Avijit’s mother was burned to death by pimp in the kitchen. It is not difficult imaging that when Avijit grows up and watch the documentary again, he will be deeply anguished and because the scene is presented to the public, it will bring psychological injury to him and hurt his dignity. Perhaps the filmmakers merely want to represent how miserable the kids’ lives are and their tragic experience, however, they are unaware of the potential hazard it brings to the kids, even the people who had the same situation ever. As the statements the author argues, the documentarians should downplay the possible risk to the participants and heighten the awareness of the actions’ ethnics implications.
Alex Young
ReplyDeleteThis article raises the issues of ethics in a documentary. When a documentarian is filming, the people in the film will be seen under whatever light the film puts them into. Their image is placed into the hands of the documentarian. The article brought to light the fact that documentarian (should) have an obligation to inform the subjects that will be filmed of the possible risks involved with their image being used in the documentary. This is a responsibility for the film maker, so as to avoid any legal repercussions. In Born Into Brothels, I have my doubts that the documentarian made very much effort to convey the consequences of using the featured extras or featured people in the documentary, or she was unable to accurately convey the potential consequences. The people living in the Red Light District seem unlikely to watch documentaries, let alone would they imagine being filmed in one. How they would be presented on film, I’m sure, was the last thing on their mind (much the same as many people are, as was mentioned in Pryluck’s article). I don’t know if Zana herself understood this, or perhaps she knew, and designed the documentary in this way, but almost all of the Indian adults in the documentary were represented as foul-mouthed, hateful, irresponsible, and overall horrible people. I can’t, off the top of my head, recall more than a couple scenes where the adults are portrayed as more than selfish and primitive individuals. How ethical is that? Judging that the children seemed to have such a strong connection to their homes, with these people, you’d think that perhaps these parents had a good side to them? The documentary even brings up a point that the kids want to be at home with their families, but, judging by what was shown in the documentaries, there isn’t any reason that anyone should want to be around those people. I’m not saying that the kids actually live in wholesome and loving homes, but I do feel perhaps the adults didn’t understand the way that she’d be portraying them.
Hampe's article discusses the ethical boundaries of filming real people for use in a documentary. Documentaries are meant to show real life circumstances and authentic human behavior, but some people do not want thers to see their true colors, or maybe just don't want their private life to be shown to anyone that wants to see it. But where is the line, because documentarians want to show things as real as possible. It is then common for people to sign forms of consent to what they are doing. This is for the safety of the subject and the documentarian themselves. If the subject does not agree with how the director protrayed them, this states that they will not sue. The article does state however that many people will overlook the possibility of being portrayed negatively because they are more eager to have their fifteen minutes of fame. This does not seem to be the case for Born into Brothels, however. Both the children and the parents get a lot of time in front of the camera and we learn much about their daily lives. I wonder how Zana Briski got them to give consent for her to do this. Indian culture, especially when living in a brothel, does not seem like a place that would welcome open publicity. One of the children even stated that people do not like when they take pictures of them and the children often get yelled at. I also wonder if those who were depicted in a more negative light had some idea that Briski was doing so, or if they've seen the film. Some of the scenes used to show us the children's oppressed lifestyle show the adults yelling, swearing, and beating the young children, or saying rediculous things like "she cannot go to school today because it is Thursday and that is when my mother died." Maybe they gave their consent but the way they act is not so bad for them because that is the lifestyle they grew up in and they know nothing else.
ReplyDeleteHampe's "Ethics is making a documentary relates in many aspects to the documentary we recently watched, Born into Brothels. First of all, it touches on the issue of respect. I think Zana Briski, the maker of Born into Brothels, has a deep respect for the children but that their mothers, the prostitutes, feel that she has no respect for their culture and is an intruder. This is probably due to the fact that she doesn't have much respect for them because they participate in an illegal craft and one day hope that their children will do the same. Hampe also discusses the eagerness of most people to be on camera. This comes across very clearly in Born into Brothels, as the children, who are unfamiliar with photography and documentaries, love every second of camera time while their mothers and street dwellers do not want to expose any part of their life, even if it is just one photograph. I think this truly reflects cultural differences between India and The United States. I think Americans would be more eager to have their lives exposed to the world, even if it was something shameful. I think it is partly shame, partly cultural differences, and partly disrespect for Zana that leads to the women of the brothels being somewhat aloof. This also brings up the question of whether or not Zana actually requested permission to shoot and photograph inside the brothels. I believe that they did, because if they hadn't, they would not have been able to publish the documentary and win awards for the film. I got the sense throughout the film that the locals had an intense distaste for Zana. I do not think, however, that she violated any laws and that as a foreign documentarian, she was pretty respectful.
ReplyDeleteNikole Locke
ReplyDeleteHampe’s article raises questions about ethics regarding making documentaries. He states that although not all documentarians go to the extent as to have their subjects either sign a release form or film them saying that it is okay for the person recording to use it in the film, that it is a good way to cover your back whether you are the subject or the one making the documentary. In the article they also say that most people, from their experience, could actually care less about signing a release as long as they get their few moments of “camera time”. People will willingly let their 6 hour old baby be in a commercial without even a second thought of the possible things that could go wrong. And, if they do give their consent, is it always right to show everything in a documentary no matter how embarrassing or with out regard to the subject’s reputation. How much truth is too much? In the movie Born into Brothels I’m not sure if they did sign a release or not, but I’m assuming so just because of all the publicity and attention the film got after debuting. I think Zana did a great job of telling the whole truth behind the red light district of India with out taking it to the point where the families were too exposed. She showed the way the parents interacted with the children and other people around, although not always being child appropriate; you would have to see them act that way to fully grasp the seriousness of the problem. She did not go into their homes and bombard them with questions or tape them during compromising times like when the mothers were working. She kept the film tasteful and real all at the same time.