08.11.07

Born into Brothels

Posted in documentary, reviews at 3:21 pm by FilmFemme

So, Netflix sent me a new DVD of Born into Brothels since the first one was cracked and I watched it today. I thought it was really boring and I didn’t like it. I am a huge fan of documentaries and as long as they’re about something I’m remotely interested in, which this one was (brothels, prostitution, developing countries, women’s rights). But I just couldn’t get interested in this movie. The premise is that this woman, Zana Briski, went to a red light district in Calcutta to document the lives of the women working there. She ended up getting to know the children really well and gave them some cheapo cameras and taught them about photography so they could take pictures of their lives and eventually tried to help get them out of the brothels and into good schools. I think one of the big problems I had with it was Briski and how much she injected herself into the story (she was in front of the camera as much as the kids were) and I how I found her really annoying. Obviously, she wants to help these kids whose mom’s are whores and that’s completely noble but there was something about her mannerisms or something that just reeked of pretension and superiority, so it was hard to get on her side.

Also, Born into Brothels didn’t have the format of a regular documentary. Now, that’s not a problem in the case of supercool movies like Fast, Cheap and Out of Control or American Splendor, but I was left wanting more typical documentary moments. I wanted to know what it was like to be these kids instead of spending so much time watching them take these classes with Briski teaching them about photography and learning words like ‘composition.’ I wanted to know more about their mothers and the culture of prostitution in India and why they have kids in the first place and if the girls think it’s okay to become prostitutes and stuff like that because that is what interests me. Instead, the interviews with the kids were mostly focused on taking photos, their friends and like, doing their chores. The few interviews with the parents or grandparents were not revealing at all of their culture or their social mores except to get across the point that most of the mothers didn’t really like their kids all that much. It’s true, Briski helped get some of the kids into good schools (which most of them quickly left or were removed from, we learn at the epilogue), but until then, she really thought the best, most important thing to teach them was about lighting and flashes and loading film? I don’t know, I find it difficult to agree with that logic. I get it, art is important and they learned self-esteem and creativity and all of that junk but maybe she could have least tried to, you know, teach them to read or something.

Then there were moments that seemed so contrived. Like, she takes the kids to a zoo and just about hits you over the head with the fact that THESE ANIMALS ARE TRAPPED JUST LIKE THESE KIDS ARE TRAPPED. Yeah, ok, I get it. Congratulations, you know how to use similes.

The impressive thing about this movie (besides that it won an undeserved Oscar - I think there is something flawed with the Documentary Feature category at the Oscars, but that’s for another post) is that the kids take some pretty fucking good photographs. Actually, I don’t know if that’s impressive or if it just proves what I have suspected all along - anyone can take good photographs. Photography absolutely can be art, but people like Zana Briski who invest a bunch of time and money in studying how to do it don’t really need to. I know what a good photo looks like. I think this movie would have made a better website/art exhibition than movie with the photos the kids took and bios about them. And then I wouldn’t have had to look at or listen to Zana Briski.

Permalink