AKA Don Bonus and Audience
I felt conflicted watching this, because even though in some ways it appeared to be an outlet for Sokly aka Don and a way to process his life, it also seemed to further isolate him by positioning him as an intruder with a camera, especially in scenes with his family. This film feels very immediate and personal due to the way it's filmed, with Sokly documenting his surroundings and providing commentary. Even the interviews feel very casual and have a home video quality. There appears to be very little mediation, although that idea is called into question upon reading the article, where it's understood that so many hours of footage was cut in order to create an hour long documentary. Of course that's something that can naturally be ascertained, since Sokly filmed this over the span of his entire senior year of high school and of course there's things that had to be cut out. But it does bring into question the documentary as a truth telling source. What had to be cut out so that the narrative seemed the most real? I was shocked that the voice over monologue of the essay was cut out, since that seemed like it add to the critique of the situation Sokly and his family was forced into, and "the limits of US humanitarianism in supporting Cambodian American refugee youth" (Heyang 135). I don't think this documentary was necessarily created as a critique though. Naturally, it is one, but it's weirdly centered around Sokly's graduation as if that is the main event of the film which will stop the bad things in his life.
I found myself wondering who the intended audience for this documentary was for. It felt very personal, but I didn't even think it would be seen by Sokly's family or community, since he says that his family is very private and probably didn't approve of him making it at all. Yet it didn't seem to have the high brow PBS style aesthetic, mostly because it was from an insider's perspective, and was way more vulnerable. I'm glad it received the larger audience is has, but I think the concern brought up in class of "poverty porn" is really valid when questioning who the audience is and who is to gain from larger viewership. Sokly isn't making money from us watching his film on YouTube.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point about the camera further isolating Don from his family by "positioning him as an intruder." I also wonder if his family was against the idea of Don making a video diary, or if they just felt uncomfortable being in it themselves. The question of who the intended audience is is a really important one. From what I can remember, I'm pretty sure Don said the video diary was for a school project, and I wonder if he would have been as open / natural / unfiltered if he had known just how large his audience would be.
DeleteI think that if he did have an intended audience, it would be for the people with the same living circumstances as him. I feel like he wanted to give his community a voice and also give himself an outlet through his recordings.
ReplyDelete"Even though in some ways it appeared to be an outlet for Sokly aka Don and a way to process his life, it also seemed to further isolate him by positioning him as an intruder with a camera, especially in scenes with his family." This is such an important point! No one can truly be unaware of the camera's intrusive presence in contemporary society and it is obvious how his family feels it as a tool of surveillance. I also wonder about whether or not he was aware of the film's potential reach and that people might still be watching over 20 years after he made it. All of these seem like ethical issues that I wish would be addressed by either the filmmakers or the film's distributor.
ReplyDelete