Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman’s documentary Born into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids (2004) raises many provocative issues about the ethical concerns involved in documentary filmmaking. One particular problem is discussed in the assigned article by Frann Michel. Michel offers a scathing critique of Briski and Kauffman’s film, suggesting that the documentary perpetuates a colonialist view of India. The poor children of the Sonagachi district are presented as “others” in need of rescuing from their situation, and the only people capable of offering this help are the western filmmakers (instead of, for example, local activist or social resources and support systems). Moreover, Michel contends that Briski and Kauffman “succumb to some of the failings typical of documentaries and other research projects by outsiders, especially when, as so often, the outsiders are more privileged in their access to resources – the wealthy researching the lives of the poor, westerners researching the lives of those in the developing world” (55).
Michel’s point brought to my mind the title of an article on documentary ethics by Calvin Pryluck: “Ultimately We Are All Outsiders.” What are the implications of seeing nonfiction filmmaking from this perspective? Does this mean that documentary filmmakers can only make films about themselves in order to escape the problems mentioned above? Do you agree that documentarists are always “outsiders” when filming? Is it ever possible for a filmmaker to make a documentary about someone else without risking exploiting or rendering exotic his/her subjects?
Another issue that is relevant to any analysis of Born into Brothels is the question of the moral obligation of the documentary filmmaker, an argument taken up in the assigned article by Ellen Maccarone (and a question we began to debate when we talked about To Be and To Have). Does the documentary filmmaker have a moral, ethical obligation towards his/her subjects? Is it morally acceptable for documentary filmmakers to intervene in the lives of his/her subjects? What happens when this intervention causes harm to the film subjects? Is this harm justified if it potentially leads to a greater good?
Whether or not documentarians are always "outsiders" when filming largely depends upon one's definition of being an "outsider" and in what context the film is to be discussed. In the case of Zana Briski and "Born into Brothels", she is one of the main subjects of the film. It is her teaching of the children and her quest to "save" the children of Calcutta's Red Light District that we see in the film. She is part of that world, and has even spent several years living in it. So is she still an outsider? On the other hand, She is a Westerner coming into the lives of these under-privileged Indian children- a world she is not native to. In her years living in Calcutta she has never even managed to learn the language. Looking at it this way, she is, of course, an outsider.
ReplyDeleteBut what I think Briski does a wonderful job of is finding some balance between these things. She acknowledges that she is an outsider just by being able to get on a plane and go to New York whenever she needs to, and having the resources to get these children into the boarding schools and take them on trips and provide them with cameras when their families cannot. She also gives us a look at how the children see the world, and how they document it through their photography. It can be argued that Briski has taught them these photography methods and what we see is still influenced by her. But, we also wouldn't even get a chance to see these images without her help.
And afterall, who is to say that an outsiders view of a certain world is any less valid than the one of an equally biased insider?
Briski and Kauffman take an unorthodox approach to achieve trust and intimacy with their subjects. With an apparent ethical responsibility, these two truly try wholeheartedly to better living and present future opportunities for lives otherwise inevitably defined by the brothels and slums they call home.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between 'talk and action' and Briski certainly a woman of action - throwing herself in the middle of the Calcutta red light district, becoming assimilated to their culture and witnessing the reality and gravity of this environment and how truly awful it was to see innocent children bound to that culture.
It is the (ethical) overall responsibility of the film maker/director to cause more good than harm to their particular subject(s). With obvious good intentions it is unquestionable that Briski and Kauffman brought some light to a very dark and dirty place. Helping these red light kids who otherwise would remain in those slums till their death, giving them opportunities for a better life, chances to learn about the world outside of the brothels, and with an education move on to cleaner and healthier environment. It's terrible, considering the 'blood, sweat, & tears' Briski put into getting these kids out of the brothels, that some of the families would not allow their children to leave, depriving their own children of a better life. The existence of conditions like this in the world is a real pity, especially for the countless innocent boys and girls who are bound to them.
I think Briski & Kauffman have already tainted our representation of this world, or at least are only showing their own point of view when it comes to Calcutta's red light district. By making this film and trying to get these kids out of the brothel lifestyle, the filmmakers are making us believe that being in Calcutta and being a part of the prostitution business is wrong. They are telling us what to believe instead of letting us make our own decisions for ourselves. What if the prostitutes don't view their occupations as something that is dirty and wrong but something that is powerful and necessary? What is pain is a part of life for these women and children, something that shouldn't be erased or transported out of their lives? Briski puts herself out there as a protagonist who obviously feels like these children are being victimized so she's clearly going to turn the camera on them and show them to be victims. And that is probably the main issue everyone is having with the film. Who is to say our culture is better than theirs? And who are we to try and make everyone else adapt to our culture and leave their way of life for something else? Then again, who are we to invade their country, strip their economy and emplace unfair trade agreements, and force their people into prostitution?
ReplyDeleteDocumentarists are almost always (if not always) outsiders. If documentarists were insiders, there would be no motivation to make documentary films. In the case of Briski and Kauffman, had the two documentarist been insiders of India's red light district, there would have been no curiosity to incite the making of the film. In this way, being an outsider is not the negative trait that Frann Michel makes it out to be.
ReplyDeleteThe moral obligations of documentarly filmmakers is something we have discussed extensively this semester. I don't think documentarists have any moral obligations whatsoever. There is no rule documentaries have to be truthful or factually correct. Other filmmakers have no moral obligations regarding their films. So why should documentarists? Filmmakers like Briski and Kauffman are not obligated to intervene when they witness tragedy such as prostitution in India. However, if they do, that is their perogative. However, the audience should then be congnizant that the film they are watching presents a message and/or conclusion that the audience is not allowed to arrive at on their own. In the case of Born into Brothels, that conclusion is the audience should feel compelled to help the children of Indian prostitutes.
Katie--
ReplyDeleteBut where is the humanity? Why does having a camera and a job as a film maker absolve filmmakers of moral standards? In the Maccarone article, she discusses documentary ethics and states that art is not superior to humanity...that humanity must rule above all.
While I know that it is impossible, and as someone pointed out in our discussion yesterday, there can be no 'moral police.' But just because there is no law that makes filmmakers morally and ethically responsible to their subjects does not make it right. Laws tend to leave out ethical grey areas (in this case, documentarian responsibility to subjects).
And, if we do talk about laws, the only thing that the law is concerned with for documentary subjects, and actors for that matter, are a talent release. A release! A one page document with a signature. Nothing protects them from the powers of editing, of revealing their personal life, of any repercussions that may occur due to a film. How can we justify AND continue this cut throat way of filmmaking?
To this, you may say, that subjects should know what they are getting into, and that the should foresee the future of their image being totally manipulated and protect themselves at the outset. But how is it that we can be totally comfortable toying with someones image, and to that end, their life? How does the law not require more responsibility from filmmakers?
I know it isn't a perfect world, and what I'm proposing will probably never happen. But it sure would be nice if people looked out for the best interests of others, especially in the case of documentary filmmaking, when documentarians often profit from the portrayal of their subjects.
I agree that documentary filmmakers often can't help but be outsiders to the situations they are filming. I also believe that in all films, but especially documentaries, the filmmaker brings a piece of him or herself into the film. There is always going to be an autobiographical element because we are limited by our own experiences and perceptions. "Born into Brothels" suffers more than anything because it presents itself as a piece that sees the world through the eyes of another, a task, I would argue, that is impossible. Empathy only goes so far when it comes to stepping into someone else's shoes. And in "Born into Brothels", Briski and Kauffman fall short because they only achieve sympathy but try to portray it as empathy. Additionally, on the subject of the moral obligation of filmmakers, I am more inclined to side with Katie. While I understand what Kelly is saying, I think everyone makes their own morals. Society has laws in place to settle the big issues. Murder is wrong and punishable. Same goes for stealing, abuse, etc. but when you get to the gray areas, like how to use someone's image in a film, there are certain things that the law doesn't, and shouldn't have jurisdiction over. Each filmmaker must establish his or her own set of moral standards when taking on a film and he or she has to decide what will be sacrificed for the sake of the end result. Documentary is manipulation. There's no way around it. And filmmakers have the right to present the story the way they choose to present it. All moral and ethical obligations have to come from the filmmaker. He or she shouldn't be forced into holding such standards because in the end, it is the filmmaker who has to be responsible for the final product.
ReplyDeleteThere are some really great posts here, and I think everyone has a point.
ReplyDeleteWhich in turn, is what this discussion is really all about!
I think a film documentarians job is to gather information about a particular issue or event through research and interviews... etc., and present what they have found to the "world." If that documentarian has a motive to try and sway us to one side or the other on an issue, then they have every right to do so. After all they are the ones who took the trouble to do the research, raise the money, and generally take on this task to begin with. That being said, sometimes it can backfire, as is the case with Michael Moore films. For example, I don’t think anyone thinks school shootings are a good thing… it’s the way Moore presents the issues and himself, that causes people to not like him and his films.
In the case of “Born into Brothels” I think Briski and Kauffman did what they felt they needed to do to make their point. The fact they exist “outside” the world they are presenting is actually the very reason we can sit in a classroom, at a very prestigious college and watch and debate this film. The people who are generally the subject of films like “Born into Brothels” don’t generally have the resources to produce documentary films that show their particular issues and/or situation.
I feel as though it has been an outsider tendency to exhibit superiority over another group throughout much of history. Colonialism/Imperialism ring a bell? It's an interesting issue. Is it empathy for those 'less fortunate' or is that a scapegoat for personal gain? I think we can all make our own conclusions, though in the case of "Born in to Brothels" it seems as though Briski and Kauffman genuinely wanted to help better the lives of the children. I can understand how and why the filmmakers are criticized for never learning the language, etc., however, I do believe that their efforts were minimally damaging to the culture in which the children lived. After all, they were not sent off to schools in the U.S., they remained very much local.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, differences in beliefs and values can be problematic when forced or pressed upon another. To be aware of this idea, as a filmmaker, is highly valuable. "Born into Brothels" offers contemplation of this notion, though it is dealt with well, as the filmmaker's efforts attempt to better the lives of her subjects within their cultural boundaries.
I dont want to just repeat whats already been said so I'll just quickly align myself with some of the established viewpoints being thrown around.
ReplyDelete1. No such thing as true objectivity which leads me to hop on the "film maker will always be an outsider" wagon.
2. Humanity above all else sort of disposition sways me over to this viewpoint: Help your subjects in anyway you can and do it for their greater benefit.
The distance or separation between a film maker and subject is always going to be present because the camera and the act of film making create an unavoidable rift between the two. That being said, just because a division is created doesn't mean its invincible. I think that a compassionate responsible person knows where to draw the line or when to break down a wall.
I actually took an art history class a couple semesters ago that focused mostly on this idea of colonialism in the arts. I took many of the ideas we covered in that class into consideration when watching Born into Brothels and one thing that I kept thinking about was how many of the societal issues covered in the film are issues that are present in our own country. Drug abuse, child and adult prostitution, and poverty are all problems we face here in America. I feel like somehow Briski felt as though she was doing a greater good by helping a few children in Calcutta than helping American kids for simply colonialist reasons. It's almost as though behaviors like this are attempts at showing America's superiority by pointing out problems with non-American countries while covering up the fact that America faces the same issues.
ReplyDeleteKelly - Humanity is simply idealized excuse for feeling bad. Don't we live in a world where yes, colonialism can be viewed as a great evil that essentially doomed entire races of peoples for millenia, but also as the overarching reality that governs our national interests, and therefore our personal perspectives, prerogatives, and basic livelihoods?
ReplyDeleteAs a documentary filmmaker, yes we can take into the account the humanity of the subject, but if humanity was truly our goal, would we be screening documentaries? Honestly, if deep down, you looked into yourself and decided that your only prerogative was to be human, and help humanity, would documentary be your avenue of approach?
That's a bigger question. For now, if we look through a colonialist lens...we simply see ourselves.
This film generally made me feel very uncomfortable and uneasy. The idea of some wealthy westerner coming to "save" the children by picking just a few and teaching them to take pictures? Is that really a method for helping people get out of poverty? What can any of these kids do with photography when just getting enough food to eat is a struggle in itself?
ReplyDeleteAlso, relating back to the idea of outsiders looking in, I just don't know why Briski thinks she has some god-given reight to tell these people how to live their lives. I don't like how she portrayed the children's mothers. I know she might only have had a few clips of them, but it seems whenever they are referenced or shown, they are yelling or being cruel and sometimes a lot of that is based on some context. Yes, parents get mad. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of these women are terrible parents. I mean,look at the world they have to raise their kids in!
I think it's not the responsibility of a documentary filmmaker to help the people she's documenting. You should choose one! A: Humanitarian; B: Documentarian. That's it. It seems a bit pretentious to think while filming, 'I shouldn't wait for help after my film is made, I should help them now. I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN.' You are making a film because that is your profession, and you chose this subject because it's something you care about. But you are not in the position to change lives by yourself. This is just a case of not even fully understanding what people in developing countries need most. That should have been the purpose of the film, to document what is going on and identify the problems. Then, watching the film would show a slice of the issues in the country, and someone with the right knowledge of how to handle things could step in and do it correctly if that was necessary.
ReplyDeleteObviously, her heart was in the right place and I admire her for trying - and maybe she did leave a positive lasting impact on somebody - but it wasn't really her place. She was clearly out of her element. There are times when I'm sure it's acceptable for the filmmaker to step in, as long as they have actual knowledge of the situation. Part of it is that they probably should be part of the group being affected, which makes it much more difficult for outsiders to help.
In essence, outsiders can make documentaries, but must be purely objective, stay distant, and only watching with the camera. Insiders may do both, but it is less likely for insiders to make a doc about their own plight. I think we should all just learn from Timothy Treadwell's mistake. Feel free to watch and learn, but for fuck's sake, DO NOT MESS WITH THE BEARS. (Ahem, the group to which you are an outsider can take care of itself.)