Why so much negativity about this film?


I just watched the film and spent about half an hour reading all the comments and I'm shocked at the amount of vitriol spewed out about the so called "career-minded film makers". It makes me sad.
I for one did not see a brilliant piece of innovative film making. It was sufficient at most. Admittedly, there were a few interesting edits and creative filming but I found the techniques used basic at best. Obviously it was the subject matter that makes the film so watchable, but only if you actually care about the subject (ie if you are a human being!)
The photos the kids took (with a couple of exceptions) were also basically snapshots. You would have to understand a little more about photography to appreciate what goes into a well constructed piece of photographic art. These kids literally pointed and clicked (with the most basic of cameras) without a clue about depth of field, exposure, composition etc, etc. Again the subject matter is what draws you in. Any out-of-focus, grainy, black and white image of a (real) dirty faced slum child, surrounded by poverty should evoke some kind of response regardless of who presses the shutter. The scene in which the child says it's his photo because it was taken with his camera, even though another child actually took the photo, reveals a lot about their level of ability. That the photos are now in exhibitions and auctioned as art is ridiculous, but, I'm really happy that they are! (It also makes me laugh to think of all the rich people who possess one of these "pieces of art") I don't care that basically anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of photography could have taken those photos, the fact is these kids (if only for a limited time) were given a glimpse of something positive outside their very negative environment. If the kids, or the organisations that provide for them profit from the proceeds of any aspect of the film or the photography, where is the slightest negative point in that? Would it be better to just sit back and do nothing as most of us actually do? Why is it such a source of any kind of anti-Western/American etc feeling? I don't get it.
She didn't just "pop" over to India and hook up with a few poor kids, she actually gave years of her life to this project. She lived there with them and through her perseverance, forced opportunities for kids who literally had absolutely no other hope. I'm not suggesting she lived in the brothel and lived their life, but she also didn't live in a 5-star hotel or in a huge movie trailer with a star on the door! I also didn't get the impression that she was in love with these kids and was completely driven to change their lives no matter what. I just think she is a good person who had an idea she could make a difference with her actions and with the knowledge of her chosen medium. To suggest (as has been many times on this forum) that she (and her collaborators) thought up this documentary as the easiest route to an oscar is laughable. But, what if that's exactly what she did do? (a view in no way I endorse) Again, why is that so awful? She at least took action and changed (whichever we look at it the people in the brothels lives were changed after the film, even if momentarily) a situation positively. I would love to hear any of the people with a counter argument back it up with actual proof of their own actions that changed the world, even in the minutest way. I'm not exactly waiting with baited breath for that to happen!
I also, like another poster here, thought more background story could have been developed. We were given no indication of exactly what it's like to be a prostitute there, which, given the title, is surprising. There were no narratives from girls in "the line", I've no idea at what age the girls actually become prostitutes and if pimps are involved. There are many more "gaps" in the narrative, but, it doesn't matter, I can research that information if I choose to.
There are posters here saying America should sort it's own brothels and poverty out before intruding into another country's problems. This is a truly ridiculous argument. Zana is british anyway! That she chose to film in Calcutta was a personal choice and not in any way a political one. The first time I was even given the indication that the film was portraying an India that needed western involvement to solve it's problems was when I read the comment on here. I never saw this at all in the film (probably because it's not there!) Also if we do compare the slums and poverty in India to the poverty in the US or England for that matter, well, they don't even come close to a comparison.
I was disappointed and saddened at the end of the film when we were informed of how the kids fared afterwards, and I did feel a little of "what was the point?" I do hope the ones that did improve their lives continue to do so.
If I'm honest I don't think it was deserving of an oscar anyway, but that is completely irrelevant. I applaud all of the people involved for a good piece of film-making, but more for the depiction of a part of humanity that we in the western world (I'm english by the way) are not openly exposed to.

reply

they are mostly 9-11 year old kids. everyone has to start somewhere. who cares that they dont have talen or a keen eye yet? i know i didnt when i began taking photographs.

reply

A lot of the negatvity comes from people who cannot understand how this woman could give so much of herself, so they judge her saying she was there SOLELY to make money off of them. Hopefully non of us will never have to go through what those kids went through and we wont have to wait for a "western saviour" to dig us out of the crap life we live.
BTW I loved the photos those children took. They looked like the pictures in my national geographic portraits book.... those are "professional" arent they?

reply

If you love those photos, that's fine, we're all entitled to like what we want. I was only making the point that (in this case) it is the subject matter, not the skill or art of the photographer (in this case, the kids) that makes them noteworthy. Of course they are only kids and should be critiqued as such. As I said, that rich people have paid a lot of money to have these photos hanging in their homes, is fantastic, but it doesn't make them "works of art". I hope my original post was taken in the positive way it was meant.

reply

and of course 2 years later i read that comment and i mean to say that thats a good age to start taking photographs, not following in mamas line of work. k thanks

be yourself.

reply

[deleted]