Lily,
i understand what you are getting at with the "direct Western gaze" and the inherent inequalities represented by the fact that these children depicted in the film didnt have their own cameras or outlets to edit, interpret, and broadcast their perception of their interaction with the film makers. however, im wondering what you suggest as an alternative. how else do you make a film about a crisis that involves so much suffering? the children's fascination with the camera i found to be very powerful becuase it showed that few people had been there to film what was happening to them--the world had turned its eyes the other way. if you say it doesnt matter to you that these images are "real" than i am really unsure how you would move forward.

Katie,

I cannot tell you how to change this in your film, but this does not disqualify my point. I do not doubt by the end of your film that there is much suffering in Darfur, however this is told to me by every other image but those of the children leaning into the camera. Those images do not speak of suffering, but speak of a power dynamic of which they are at the bottom. Perhaps it is more honest to keep these images in the film, to express quite boldly to the viewer how the fundamental ideologies behind these power dynamics really haven't changed at all. Every film is a unique situation, and requires a unique approach. As Debroah Scranton expanded to the class, the process behind her film was a slow idea in the coming, it took much deliberation to come to a division of cameras between soldiers. I do not know what footage you omited, what other images you have that could powerfully affect the viewer. I am critiquing your film because film is a powerful propaganda tool, and I would like to make sure you are projecting the message you intend.

I think this discussion targets some recurring concerns in the class: how does one represent suffering without engaging in/triggering prurient reactions? how does one bridge the gap between authorial intention and audience reception? mitigate/pre-empt the effects of unintended readings and political consequences?

I suffered an early lesson in this while teaching in (and getting banned from) the Massachusetts prison system because of an incident that involved a videocamera, Morley Safer from 60 minutes, Jesse Helms and some good intentions that went very, very bad. It's a long story (and usually only told after cocktail self-medications, but the lesson is that once we target mass audiences, we have much less control over our stories and images than we would like to think....

Some smart background reading on this, especially on the images of atrocities, can be found on David Campbell's website:

http://www.virtual-security.net/attrocity/atroindex.htm

He's chairing a panel at a conference in Amsterdam that I'll be attending (on themes related to class: http://www.stedelijk.nl/) and I have invited him to come to Watson (and hopefully the class).

VTY
JDD