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