Oct. 21
In the movie Human Flow directed by Ai Weiwei, the life and struggles of a refugee are shown to the viewer. It seems like Weiwei wanted to show the refugees as normal people and also victims of oppression. A lot of time in the movie is spent on refugees just standing in the frame not saying anything. One after the other pops onto the screen not saying a word and staring right into the video camera. The viewer is just left one on one with the refugee staring at them. Does Weiwei want the viewer to question the thoughts of the refugee? Is it meant to ponder why nothing is happening or does he just do this to leave it up to the viewers interpretation? He also shows how the refugees are being oppressed. Turkish (I think. It doesn't specifically say.) citizens were being shot at with gas canisters. You can see the effect the brutal gas has on the adults and children. People were coughing and laying on the ground in need of medical attention. People were trying to cover up the gas by laying blankets over the canisters when they landed. I think Weiwei purpose for the film was just to show what refugees are going through and bring attention to their situation to the public.
“The system is not designed to foster intimacy. Emotion can be dangerous.”
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really stood out to me throughout this reading is this question of emotion and its effectiveness. A main part of the UNHCR portion of the reading was the concept that creating a sense of intimacy between the potential refugee and the interviewer is detrimental to the interview process. The danger comes from the idea that the claimant might use this emotional connection to manipulate the interviewer or hold them responsible. Therefore, they must remain emotionally detached, even through horrific, heart wrenching accounts. According to UNHCR workers, this challenge of remaining objective is one of the most taxing and stressful elements of the job, even more so than the danger of retaliation, as noted on page 86. This sentiment is in direct opposition to that of Mehmet and others in the HRA. While the UNHCR claims that emotions are purely detrimental to progress in their organization, Mehmet states that emotions, mainly anger and empathy, are what keep him going despite all of the opposition he faces. This leads to the question: would this outrage and other emotion cause burnout if relied on long term by an organization without the aid of being officially recognized as legitimate? Can using solely powerful, aggressive language to achieve what they have set out to? As seemingly distasteful as it is, is being forcibly detached as the UNHCR has to be regarding the horrifics that they are required to face and analyze on the daily an overall more beneficial structure in the long run, as their legitimacy and this emotionless nature are both anchored in the law and are therefore widely accepted?
I agree that the purpose of this film was to show what refugees go through in their everyday life and pull attention to them. There many sensitive scenes in this film that absolutely caught me off guard. Just some stuff that I didn’t think was actually real in a sense. It made me feel much more appreciative too for my life and what I have. The scene where it takes us into Iraq and it begins showing text on the screen, then the first sound you hear is explosions and gunshots. Then it shows the surrounding area and some people. Then it shows a dead and rotting corpse of what looks like to be a young woman. Just seeing that and wondering what that person went through to end up there dead in the middle of a desert is rattling. Another topic I found significant about this film was how the scenes were filmed and the aspect of them. I recall a scene where it just looks like a train of refugees; men,women, and children just walking along a border with a fence and barbed wire. I had to pause the film to really focus on the picture and what was being shown. I really thought it was cool how you could interpret based off this scene what these people have gone through and now what their currently seeing in front of them. I was really impressed with the angles and views in this. I believe the filming points and views really help the viewer see what these refugees are seeing too. Clearly we the viewers aren’t experiencing it but seeing a big barb wire fence for miles basically protecting nothing but keeping people from the outside from getting in shows a lot.
DeleteWhile I was reading Interrogation a main theme stood out to me. The main theme that stands out to me is how the United States only accepts refugees who are going to benefit them in the long run. This document also explains very well what a refugee is. A refugee is a person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. I never realized the point of how a illegal refugees children can't go to school because it's illegal. During the film I truly began to realize why we should help refugees. They aren't leaving because they just want to or choose to. They are leaving because they are facing real danger. The rise of drug wars and cartels are a big problem for most refugees. They also are leaving because they could be facing persecution. The refugees need our help to survive. Why don't we help all of the refugees and save them? The United States always is the first to help out in the world, but why when it comes to refugees we only decide to help if they will benefit us? No one in the United States actually realize what they are going through. All they care about is paying for them to live and how they take our money. This is where the United States need to become less selfish and try to help out in anyway. A perfect example of how we don't help is the Haitians. We only let half of them in. Why is that?
ReplyDelete