simply ridiculous - Born Into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids (2005) Discussion

[–] odusslee 18 years ago

ya i see what your saying. but thats how most films work. whether or not her idea was to show how great she was, i think people will still have their view and think shes only trying to do this or that. but while watching it didnt come off like that to me. she just seemed like she did what she had to do, went out of her way, and tried to help. and you see in the end that her help didnt pay off because one of the mothers decided to take her kid out.

reply

[–] Comfortably_Numb01 18 years ago

I also never saw, her "Western Supremacy", for she went to help the sex workers and met the kids. But I'm curious, where did you find she didn't pay the mothers or familes?

" I don't mind being shot.... I don't dig being told about it" -Bob Dylan

reply

[–] nosnojsirhc 18 years ago

"Help" or "change shouldn't be seen as something coming from the "West." But, on the other hand, would you be happier with "Westerners" (i.e. Pepsi producers in Burma, Nike in Indonesia, Wal-Mart in Mexico, and so on) profiting off of the people. Or, worse, not doing anything at all? What you are really saying is "each to each" and that everyone should stay in an isolationist little cocoon and let everyone else figure out their own lives.

I agree that this one woman descending on the neighborhood with connections isn't really solving the problem. And perhaps it's a career move for her - but few would call the chances she took "lucrative," or millions more would follow her. Those people, looking for fast profit, are at Pepsi and Nike and the other global corporations.

I don't know the answers, really. But at least she tried. And 4 of the 8 children are doing better than they would have without her involvement. That's something. Forget about her, her career, and her pictures - 4 kids who wanted change were able to find it.

reply

[–] taurusred 13 years ago

I don't see it as western supremacy - if that were the case, it would simply be a film about flying them all out of there to the U.S. where they can be "safe". Instead she is giving them tools and encouraging them to go to school there and make their own home a better place. She wasn't swooping in to take them away from their city. She was just being a teacher. Giving them direction and a purpose. Working with them in their own city. Trying to encourage them to take a different path in life and make their communities better.

reply

[–] belzile_g 18 years ago

This film does not show that "Westerners" must interfere to help the poor in developping countries, it shows that art is a powerful tool, it gives a voice to the voiceless, and art has no nation, race or religion. Not to mention that the kids who took advantage of their talent, will surely come back someday and help the next generation of red light kids. Her efforts will have a lasting affect.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pswar 18 years ago

Suzanne sounds like west is completely open and only india or so are after systems like caste. So untrue, every western country has caste like system one way or other. If you keep a close eye then you will find out what i am talking about. Even though they are a little better, the social "seperation" do exist in western society big time and people do not go beyond their own group in normal circumstances.

India has more number of inter-caste marriages than USA's white marriage to a black. Take a look at hollywood movies, how many movies cast a white lead paired with black? Very little. That should explain.

Donating $25 to one of the "CHRISTIAN childrens fund" doesn't mean you are helping out all the poor children in the world.

This movie is a great one, no doubt. They are good film makers and they tried their best to help these kids but they helped their film a far better compared to those kids.

Just try researching somemore and you will find out more...those people are getting more help from within india than any outsiders. Those are not trying to concentrate on a subset of these under privileged people but the whole group.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GhettoFOBulous 17 years ago

I donate to one of those "CHRISTIAN children's fund"

I know I'm not helping all the poor children in the world. But I know I'm helping at least one. Now when I pass by fridge, I see the picture of a little girl in Bolivia in a blue dress with a dirty face and I know that me going without a few starbuck coffee's a month means she can stay in school.

I don't see how you can say "they helped their film a far better compared to thoses kids"

If you get a chance to rent the DVD in the extras you find that this woman has spent 8 years of her life devoted to this cause and continues to do so by building a school. Her organization Kids with Cameras continues to do the work you saw in the film. I don't think you can minimize the positive impact she has had one some of those kids. The film will be a blip on most people's radar screen. People will soon forget the movie. By next year no one will remember what dress she wore when she accept the Oscar for best documentary. Her legacy won't be the film or the photos, but breaking the cycle of poverty and prostitution that have held generations of their family.

I honestly think those kids don't care who they are getting help from and I don't see why you should either (unless it was your hand).

reply

[–] paul_cowsill 16 years ago

In a caste system, occupations are hereditary. If such a caste existed, children of prostitutes couldn't escape that fate themselves. Western society doesn't have this system.

I'm sorry that the Coen brothers don't direct the porn that I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?

reply

[–] jtyroler 16 years ago

We don't have this system officially, because we are all told that with hard work we can have a better life. But how many American children born into poverty grow up and not be living in poverty? Do you think George W. Bush would have had any of the opportunities he's had if his father had been a carpenter or if his grandfather hadn't done business with the Nazis or hadn't been a US Senator?

Do you think John McCain would have made it through the Naval Academy if his father and grandfather weren't admirals?

reply

[–] paul_cowsill 14 years ago

Carter grew up wealthy, Regan didn't. George H.W. Bush grew up wealthy, Clinton didn't. George W. Bush grew up wealthy, Obama didn't. (By the way, McCain made his wealth the old-fashioned way, he married into it.)

I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?

reply

[–] Kidooo 18 years ago

For me, i always see the positive parts rather than the negative parts of ones' films. I don't have the ability to think suspicious (even worse: to judge) to someone who had done all she could do best to help few of the children within her reach in the Red Lights District.

Once my teacher said he didnt like the movie Armageddon because he said the message was "America saves the world, the world owes to America, etc". This suspicious paradigm blinded him from the all the moving, positive parts of the movie.

Maybe the absence of signs is a sign

reply

[–] tadeu-br 18 years ago

Sorry to say, but your teacher was right. Does Armageddon have any positive or moving part? No, it is all about how USA wants to dominate and exploit the world.

reply

[–] Kidooo 18 years ago

alysson, i suspect a person having a paradigm like that see other things in this life with negative tendency too. People leave the theatre with tears (because they liked the movie and moved by it) or with complain (because for them the script is weak, or whatever cinematic flaws they see) but you leave the theatre with hatred towards USA.

but MAYBE, (Who knows?) you loved so much your Converse snickers, having Kellog's Corn Flakes for breakfast, and drink Coca-Cola while you having your Double Whopper, then your Motorola is ringing, it's your best best friend telling you that she won a trip to Hollywood and asking you to come with her. Your heart says hooray, I'm going to AMERICA, i'm gonna meet Keanu Reeves. At the time you already there, while your friend taking a picture of you who already posing with big smile in Hollywood Walk of Fame, a guy from a TV station picks you and interviews you what do you think about this trip and with a joyful smile you say... (I really wonder what will you say.)

Maybe the absence of signs is a sign

reply

[–] ctodd1000 17 years ago

To RonaldairlanggA,

I loved reading your response. It was GREAT and "hit all the high points."

Your use of English is interesting; the way you described things imparted so much more poignancy and meaning with the words. You have described so much of what bothers me about "materialism in the West" and in America, in particular. I can't even begin to discuss it here as everyone is aping Oprah with "give, give, give, education is the key, give money and things" when so much more interior work is required. There are plenty of educated criminals so there has to be a moral component to giving as well.

I spent most of my life giving material things, money, kindness and compassion, only to be robbed and treated cruelly in return by more people than I can count. So “giving” is not always the “golden shield” it is made out to be. Giving can be an actual detriment if people do not learn to or wish to take care of themselves.

That is part of what I liked about this film; how it showed the aftermath as well as the process of how people live and how people try to help, and what is the outcome of all that. The fact that some children chose to or were allowed to stay in school makes all the difference in the world. Some do, some don't, the same life is not for everyone. I would just like to see each child HAVE A CHOICE, as did this filmmaker. And she made it happen for them! What more could anyone ask for? I know people in the “helping professions” who say if they can save ONE CHILD PER YEAR then their work is well done.

I wrote another response with my admiration for this film and the work this filmmaker has put into it on another message board, under "Cameras Used?"

I have no idea why on earth anyone would take exception to the work this woman has done for these children, regardless of what they or their parents did after the fact. I also do not know how to "truly help" anyone, since it is a "moral compass" we seem to be lacking, and I have yet to stabilize my own. Magnetic North is out of whack!

I loved the film and bought the DVD so I can use it as a model for "how other people live" and what we might do to try and help, and the joys and sorrows we all face wherever we live, anywhere in the world. Kindness in the face of cruelty must always win out. This documentary filmmaker must be applauded greatly for her efforts.

Sincerely, Catherine Todd

reply

[–] lbski14 18 years ago

First of all, let us not compare Born into Brothels to Armagedon. One is fantasical fiction the other is raw, real, and very moving. Ok, maybe Briski used this film as an advantage to her career and life, but she didn't set out to do that intentionally. She acctually lived in the brothels with these people. She didn't stay in 5 star hotels in the rich parts of Calcutta, and she wasn't paid for her work. This to me was true grassroots development work. Briski helped a few kids who are now almost self-sufficient. She also continually goes back to Calcutta to provide support to the children who need it, and is planning to build a school. Anyone who works in social work will tell you that probably over half of the people they try to "save" are not saved. Of course there is always a power complex between the savior and the saved, we cannot deny this. But can we for one moment appreciate that, let me repeat, Briski devoted her life to these kids, lived in brothels with them, and recieved no pay. Much of the proceeds from kids with cameras are going to the education of the children. Remember that kid Avijit who was an amazing photogropher. He's going to fulfill his life dream. Could he have done it without Briski? Probably not, but he has the stamina and talent to take a little guidance and flourish. I think that is the point. Briski was the catalyst, now it's up to the kids to take action.

reply

[–] am1305 18 years ago

So...what about you? What lengths have you gone to to help somebody lately? It's easy to sit back and judge, judge, judge...

reply

[–] mookie2002 18 years ago

To those people who claim that the filmakers were in it for the money I offer the domestic gross of this film ($3,410,863 per IMDB). I am sure it is making some money on DVD but I DO NOT think that that gross $ figure will yield a lot of profit after production, distribution, etc...

With one or two corpulent exceptions doc film makers do not make any money off of their films and probably earn much less than minimum wage if you factor in the hours they put in over months or years.

Now making films as a career move... well that is debatable (i vote no in this case)

reply

[–] wilsonj_40 18 years ago

Wow, talk about dripping with cynicism.

reply

[–] jss-35213 18 years ago

I disagree. I was most impressed with the boarding schools that were depicted. As far as I could tell they were Indian.

Also I work with inner city children in much the same way that Briski does. I felt her motives were pure. Has the poster ever gotten to know children from another economic background? Too many people have opinions on topics they have only read about.

I do not think the mothers of the children needed to be paid. Are people in documentaries usually paid?

reply

[–] puzzow 18 years ago

There was nothing patronising about this film. I think you are reading things into it that aren't there. The filmaker went into the brothels merely to capture the situation there and bring it to the attention of the rest of the world. She began working with the children because they took such an interest in the cameras and such delight in photography-- how could someone with a passion for photography themselves resist? Eventually, she turns to trying to rescue the children (NOT her original intention) from the bleak future for which they are almost certainly predestined, *not* because she sees herself as some kind of great saviour, but because, after working with them closely for months and seeing what they are capable of, she realizes what a damned disgrace it is and CAN'T sit back and do nothing.

As for not doing anything to help the mothers, after watching her exert so much effort to teaching the children, giving them equipment and getting them into schools where they will be taught and well fed, I don't think that claim holds water.

reply