[Reader-list] film on sonagachi wins oscar

[S Datta]

a totally unwarranted, and somewhat racist, rant against a
film the writer of the mail i am responding to has not even seen. first of
all, it is highly inappropriate to sound off on a film (or a book, for
that matter), without doing its maker (writer) the basic courtesy of
watching (reading) it. secondly, sudesh's objections seem to centre in
large part on the race of the filmmakers (incidentally, zana briski is
half iraqi, so i'm not sure she qualifies as 'white'). i do not wish to
waste too much time responding to something that is essentially without
merit, but i just wanted to make a few points:

1. the race of a filmmaker is hardly, in and of itself, a disqualification
for making a documentary on a particular topic. you could argue that it
colours her view in a particular way, or imposes a way of seeing that is
problematic, but to do this you would have to see the work (and not
pre-judge based simply on her race)

2. the film (and yes, i have seen it) grew out of briski's desire to
document the lives of sonagachi prostitutes, in aid of which she lived in
sonagachi for several years. whatever you think about the politics of her
project, it is clear from the film that she has spent enough time in the
area with the familes of those the film is about for them to talk freely
about their lives, let her into their homes, and generally open up to her
in a way they would be unlilely to do with someone they did not trust.
incidentally, the woman is not a filmmaker. she's a photographer, and
that's precisely what makes her eminently qualified to teach a photography
class, which is how it all began. so in response to 'who allowed them' ..
answer: the subjects. luckily, sudesh unnikrishnan isn't a one-person
censor board. yet.

3. in case sudesh unnikrishnan hasn't realised, the film is about a bunch
of kids learning to use cameras, and turning out to be very good
photographers. if this is the sort of material she thinks pedophiles get
off on, then i suppose she has a very strange idea of what constitutes
pornography. it's not a film, even tangentially, about sex. it's about a
bunch of children.

4. finally, on the topic of the film not being released in india: i think
it's an enormous pity, because it should be seen, but it seems that some
of the women whose kids were filmed prefer it not to be shown in india. a
pity, as i said, but everyone (yes, even a sonagachi prostitute) has a
right to real or imagined privacy, and it's important that this be
respected. given the amount of prejudice children such as those in the
film face simply because their mothers are prostitutes, it's not
surprising they wouldn't want this to be widely seen in the community
where they or other members of tiehr families (who may not in all cases be
aware of the precise nature of their jobs) live.


the politics of any documentary film are both interesting and worthy of
discussion, and born into brothels is no exception. yet to peg that
discussion on grounds which seem inherently racist ('white filmmakers')
and xenophobic ('had an indian filmmaker'...) seems a pity. incidentally,
unless the writer is of the opinion that there is something inherently
wrong about the premise/project of the flim, i'm not sure why (s)he
suggests that an indian filmmaker 'would  not have been allowed' to
handle the topic.
perhaps she is unaware that indian filmmakers, specifically documentary
filmmakers, have handled topics such as this with sensitivity. what makes
this particular film worth seeing is how completely it surrenders the
centre to the ostensible subjects: few 'do-gooders' would be able to
recede into the background as ably and willingly as zana briski has done.
whether it is a 'good' film, or even a 'successful' one (artistically,
that is) is certainly worth discussing; whether the lives of the children
who are shown in it changed for the better is unclear and will continue to
be debated; but to discuss an extremely moving work in the terms put forth
in the mail i am responding to seems utterly ridiculous.



On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, sudhesh wrote:

> Today morning I woke up to an strange news. A documentary film Born
> Into Brothels has won the Oscar for the best documentary and already
> there are questions raised against how the filmmakers were allowed
> access into the lives of the children.  How come this group of white
> filmmakers were allowed to shoot in Sonagachi?
>
> But first some info about the film (and for this I depend on
> rediff.com reports)
> Zana Briski, whose film Born Into Brothels about her work with the
> children of Kolkata prostitutes won the best documentary Oscar, will
> soon see her inspiring film expand from its current screen count
> (about 40) to hundreds of screens across North America and Europe.
>
> The British Broadcasting Corporation recently quoted Partha Banerjee,
> who interpreted for the Bengali-speaking children and English-speaking
> filmmakers, complaining there were 'ethical and stylistic' problems
> with the documentary. Banerjee also wondered why the film should be
> considered a documentary as it used fictional shots. He also wrote to
> the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the organiser of the
> Oscars, asserting the experience made the children's lives 'worse,'
> not better.
>
> The filmmakers probably new that this might happen and anticipated
> this. Look at what they say on rediff.com
>
> Three months ago, Briski told rediff.com in New York that even if the
> film were to win an Oscar, she would not want it to be seen in India
> except at film festivals because she had promised to protect the
> identities of the prostitutes from police and politicians.
>
> What does she mean by saying that the children needed protection from
> Indians? Do western tourist not go to such places? Hasn't she been
> told about the arrests in Goa of several western tourists on charges
> of pedophilia? I am sure the film must be already doing the rounds in
> these circles in Europe and America.
>
> My point is this – had an Indian filmmaker made such a film we would
> have torn that person apart. Why let them go without an explanation?
> And how did they pull off this scam?
>
> Regards
> sudhesh
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>