Personally, I think it's pretty cheeky for the filmmakers to claim to be part

of the homeless.  The one thing we documentarists have to remember is that we

have the option of leaving any situation we're shooting; a choice that may not

be available to the participants.  I'm sure many of us feel very close to our

subjects, and may render their stories in insightful, useful, and sensitive

ways, but ultimately we have to face up to the fact that in most cases, we are

NOT the subject of the piece and that on some level, we are exploiting the

subject. (hopefully what we are doing is the lesser of evils and will ultimate

benefit the subject).

 

This became very clear to me when I was shooting my MFA thesis in Appalachia.

One of my subjects (Still a close friend now) who had put up with me living in

their house--underfoot with my camera--for about three months, grabbed my video

camera away from me, sat me down and started grilling me about personal things.

When one is in control of the means of representation, one is not part of the

subject. A similar thing happenned to me in Russia because the subjects did see

me as a participant (the subject was life during perestroika), but as a

participant, their reasoning said I had to be on camera too. So I am a concrete

character in that piece.  But I would never claim that I had become "part of

the Russians".  I got to go back to supermarkets, a predictable pay check and

dependable hot water after 6 months.

 

That's my opinion...

 

Carol Beck

Film Studies, Keene State College