Story behind the story of for Born into brothels

[Guest guest]

Did India really `gain' at the s?

By Frederick Noronha

The -winning documentary, Born into brothels, about children

from Kolkata's Sonagachi has stirred a hornet's nest amongst film-

makers about the ethics of film-making. But the award also raises

disturbing questions about western filmdom's way of seeing India

You couldn't miss out on the irony of this situation. Here's India,

struggling to get somewhere closer to an . Why an ? That's

a good question. The second-largest country in the planet, the

numerically largest film industry in the globe, and yet seen as

unworthy of wider film recognition. Along comes an alternative film

that snatches this status in the field of documentary.

To complicate the situation, the documentary is one that hardly

shows India in a positive light. It's unlikely to be screened back

home, and early reports also suggested that even if the film – in

its present form – were to be showed back home, it would probably

have " a major problem with the censors as it contains profane

language " .

Adjudged the best documentary by the American Motion Picture Academy

(in early March 2005), Born into Brothels, features children of

prostitutes from Kolkata's Sonagachi, the infamous red light

district. Now playing in the West, it will not be seen in India,

because the producer says that she had promised the prostitutes that

their identity would not be revealed.

Born Into Brothels earlier won the documentary Audience Award at the

2004 Sundance Film Festival. It was promptly picked up by `indie'

(independent film) distributor ThinkFilm for distribution in North

America and the latter had proclaimed it would be released `in

association with HBO/Cinemax Documentary Films, the same partnership

used to release Spellbound and The Agronomist.'

Born Into Brothels takes an in-depth look at seven children who were

born into the red-light district of Sonagachi, Calcutta, where each

of their mothers worked as prostitutes. Their " unique upbringing "

gives them an " entirely different eye " to the world around them,

says a promotional for the film.

India's own battle for recognition has also been getting more

determined; even if there could be questions on whether this is all

worth it. The national award-winning Marathi film Shwaas, about the

relationship between Keshav and his grandson who is in danger of

losing his eyesight due to cancer, has been India's official entry

to this year's s. 'Shwaas' director Sandeep Sawant recently

said: " I think the reason why the film has drawn so much attention

is its simplicity. "

Earlier, India's entry for the s was Lagaan. The film, dealing

with the struggle of villagers to fight an unjust 'lagaan' (taxes)

levied by the despotic Captain Russel ( Blackthorne) by

playing, and winning a cricket match!

But 'Lagaan' didn't make the grade, not just because it was

a 'film about cricket' – a game that is hardly understood in the

North American continent. Clearly, the film also is Indian, and,

when seen from a Western perspective, doesn't perhaps talk the same

language that Hollywood does.

" Born Into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids " has been created by

photographer Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman, her collaborator, who

went to Calcutta to film prostitution. They found that while the

subject was 'invisible' to their camera, they were being followed

around by fascinated children. As one account of it explains how the

film evolved: " Briski hit upon the idea of giving cameras to these

children of prostitutes, and asking them to take photos of the world

in which they lived. "

Kids in " Born Into Brothels " take photos with zest and imagination,

squint at the contact sheets to choose their favorite shots, and

mark them with crayons. Briski takes photo classes and meets some of

the parents.

Explains one review of the film, giving an idea of the perception

created by the film: " Prostitution in this district is not a choice

but a settled way of life. We meet a grandmother, mother and

daughter all engaged in prostitution, and the granddaughter seems

destined to join them.

Curiously, the movie does not suggest that the boys will also be

used as prostitutes, although it seems inevitable. The age of entry

into prostitution seems to be puberty. There are no scenes that

could be described as sexually explicit, partly because of the film-

makers' tact in not wanting to exploit their subjects, partly no

doubt because the prostitutes refused to be filmed except in

innocuous settings. "

Briski gets determined to get several of the children out of the

district and into a boarding school. This, she believes, will give

them a chance to lead different lives. There's " opposition from

their parents " and " roadblocks from the Indian bureaucracy " which,

we are told, " seems to create jobs by requiring the same piece of

paper to be meaninglessly stamped, marked, read or filed in

countless different offices " . There's even the hassle with getting a

passport for Avijit, the talented winner of a trip to Amsterdam.

A strong critique of this mode of film-making was presented by

Partha Chatterjee, who was associated with the film (See Box).

However, his arguments were questioned by Chandler of the

New York-based Barefoot Images, in a e-message relayed via

Ahmedabad, argued that " all the children are now in boarding school

which of course contradicts everything the person (Partha

Chatterjee) said. "

It went on to argue: " All the money raised by Kids With Cameras has

purchased land in Calcutta where they are going to build a boarding

school. Funny, Zana was actually with the kids when the letter was

written. Ah, the irony. Zana said that they met the guy while

filming but he did not play much of a role in the making of the

film. "

But Vijay S Jodha saw the issue differently. Jodha

commented: " Regardless of what role Partha Chatterjee played or

didn't play in the making of the Born in Brothel film, Chandler

's letter does not answer most of the issues raised about the

film including the larger issues of representation, since the

filmmakers have decided to make the film in India but not show the

film in India. "

Swapna Gayen, secretary of the Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee in

Kolkata, sent a protest to the local newspaper The Telegraph. She

argued that " the film is a one-sided portrayal of the life of sex

workers in Sonagachi. It shows sex workers as unconcerned about the

future of their children. This is not true. "

Swapna Gayen went on to argue that as a sex-worker and a mother, she

could say that they " are more protective as mothers than can be

imagined " . She added: " The documentary does not shed light on the

valiant efforts of the sex workers to unite in order to change their

own lives as well as that of their progeny. In this sense, Born into

Brothels is biased. "

Gayen questioned the use of hidden cameras to shoot " intimate

moments " in the lives of sex-workers and their work-zone. " We fear

the global recognition of such a film, giving a one-sided view of

the lives of sex workers in a third world country, may do a lot of

harm to the global movement of sex workers for their rights and

dignity. It can even have an impact on their hard-won victories for

rights, un-stigmatized healthcare and access to resources, " she

added.

We have a story that throws up debates at three levels: Can micro-

level 'boutique' solutions (that look good in presentation, but are

simply not scalable) bring about change and affect a problem that is

obviously prevalent at a large scale – even if the awareness created

is welcome? Secondly, should Third World problems be seen in

isolation of their wider causes, and do we need a new form of the

White (wo)man's burden to address such a serious social malaise?

Lastly, can the world of film at all relate to diverse cultures, or

will they get looked at only from the perspectives of those who

dominate the process of image creation?

________________

An insider's point of view

To,

The Executive Director Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

8949 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills California, 90211,

1 February 2005

Subject: Nominations for the 77th Annual Academy Awards: Born Into

Brothels

Dear Executive Director,

Your announced nominations for the upcoming 77 th Annual Academy

Awards include in the Best Documentary Feature section " Born into

Brothels " (THINKFilm, A Red Light Films, Inc. Production, by Ross

Kauffman and Zana Briski).

I have been actively involved with the making of the documentary

especially in its post-production stage. As a documentary filmmaker,

a Columbia University-trained journalist-turned-activist and an avid

admirer of the medium of film and motion pictures, I am deeply

concerned that the nominations committee has perhaps overlooked some

of the probable, serious flaws contained within the film – both

ethical and stylistic.

In your official synopsis, the film is described as follows: " While

documenting the experiences of prostitutes in Calcutta's red-light

district, photojournalist Zana Briski befriended many of their

children and decided to provide them with a chance to record images

from their own lives. Supplied with cameras by Briski, the children

present a portrait of their harsh world that is both unique and

insightful. "

The above is indeed true. And I don't have any problems finding

credit for Ms. Briski and Mr. Kauffman for the time they took to

live with and befriend the poor children. However, I take issues

with the often-explicit presumption by both the filmmakers and the

U.S. media personalities (including the nominators at AMPAS) that

the efforts by Ms Briski and Mr Kauffman were able to uplift the

children from the poverty and destitution they live in. In fact,

that presumption is not true.

I visited these children a number of times during the last couple of

years and found out that almost all the children are now living even

a worse life than they were in before Ms Briski began working with

them.

The children's despair has exacerbated because they'd hoped that

with active involvement in Ms Briski's camera project, there would

be an opportunity for them to live a better life.

At the same time, their sex worker parents believed that with so

much unrestricted access to their secretive lives they had provided

to the filmmakers, and that too, so generously (were their written

consent ever requested and received by the filmmakers?), there would

be a way their children would also be sharing some of the glories

the filmmakers are now shining in. Alas, very likely, they don't

even know that their misery, helplessness and traumas are now being

widely exposed and exploited to find fame and prosperity. Further,

the film forgets to mention that Calcutta is a city where its red-

light district is a safe refuge for its sex workers and their trade.

With help from hundreds of Calcuttan activists, social workers and

medical practitioners, Sonagachi (the district depicted in the film)

has become synonymous with many struggles won by its inhabitants

(for one, the HIV rate among sex workers in Sonagachi is remarkably

low: 5% compared to 80% in Mumbai).

These sex workers and their activist comrades have set up – however

rudimentary – financial institutions, health clinics, sex education

schools and blood banks in that labyrinth of alleys that would

otherwise be ignored and rejected by the other side of Calcutta and

its elite doctors, artists, poets, filmmakers and politicians (and I

must say, I was one of this other side for more than twenty five

years of my life before I moved into U.S.).

The conjecture drawn by the makers of Born into Brothels that it was

only them that were responsible for any humanity and benevolence

doled out to these children and their parents is simply absurd.

Stylistically, the documentary is in fact a mix of real and

fictitious shots and scenarios, the latter being abundant throughout

the film. This makes me question the legitimacy of the film being

labeled as a documentary and not a fiction.

A plethora of glitzy, Bombay-film-industry (i.e., Bollywood) music

has been used to editorialize the film, which is troubling.

The most troubling, however, is the use of the final piece of music

that ends the " documentary " with an apparent melodramatic note. This

piece (it was in there at the time the film was premiered at New

York City's Museum of Radio and Television in 2004) has been

directly " lifted " from the celebrated Calcuttan film maestro, -

winning Satyajit Ray's Apu Trilogy finale. Is Ms Briski or Mr

Kauffman aware of this serious digression?

It is not my wish to personally tarnish the directors and producers

of Born into Brothels and I apologize profusely in the event my

assertions are found untrue. However, I am troubled by the

nominations and eulogies heaped upon the film without some serious

re-examination. We Calcutta-born Americans who crave for high art

and creativity are already much-undermined by many other attempts to

relegate our beloved city into ignominy. My opinion is that the

present so-called documentary is the latest addition to that series

of gross misrepresentations.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sincerely,

Partha Banerjee

M.Sc. (Journalism), Ph.D. (Biology)

_________________

Frederick Noronha is a freelance journalist based in Goa.

http://www.humanscape.org/Humanscape/2005/April/didindia.php