14 - The power of Art

By Keven and Liam

Introduction

Throughout the striking images of those people living in such a poor conditions the impact on the viewer can be shocking. The Power of Art as a great impact all around the world as we see it in Waste Land and Born in the Brothels where both of the main characters let go of their own lives to be able to better understand the living situation in Jardim Gramacho situated in Rio de Janeiro and in the brothel of Calcutta in India.

Part-1

Waste Land

--> The documentary Waste Land winner of 42 awards was filmed in Rio, directed by Lucy Walker and released in 2011, goes beyond looking and understanding how the pickers earn their living by gathering recyclable matters; it is also about Vik Muniz giving back. Ironically, he was very fortunate to have gotten shot because the person who shot him was a wealthy man. By being shot, he got the money to go study in the USA and become an artist. His goal: use what those pickers live off of to create art. Once completed, these pieces of art are then sold at auction. In the end, those pictures produced an amount of $250 000 U.S. This adventure was beneficial on both sides. The pickers were given the opportunity to leave the Gramacho’s  landfill and start a new beginning with the money gathered from their portraits. On the other side of the camera stood a wealthy man and one of the greatest artists alive; Vik Muniz, who was completely changed from experiencing 2 years of life with the catadores. At a first glimpse they all seem pretty happy on the outside; living an honest life and earning their money legally. Yet, as we enter their personal life as we follow them home we can se that on the inside most of them wished they could leave this place and have a better job. This is where this week’s course topic comes in; us and others. Sometimes we take action in order to help our surroundings yet it is upon us that the biggest impact occurs. After experiencing such a life-altering event, Vik Muniz now sees everything in a much simpler way. He now has everything: money, a house, a wealthy lifestyle and tons of superficial objects yet he says, “I’d rather want everything and have nothing than have everything and want nothing because at least when you want something your life has a meaning”. This is the second most powerful of two sentences that stayed embedded in my mind after watching this documentary, because everybody would like to get the new iPhone, or the latest summer clothes collection however once we will all be standing in the same position as Vik: owning all these meaningless object, what will we thrive for? Luckily for the pickers, Vik used his social position to raise awareness through the arts created with recyclable matter about Jardim Gramacho.
This cinéma vérité documentary has two rhetoric meanings, the first one being ethos, where right from the beginning the viewer is believing in the documentary due to the social position of Vik Muniz. The second one is pathos, as the film appeals to our emotions by showing piercing shots of people living with practically nothing. The power of art created by Vik Muniz’s creativity in this documentary has helped the workers by improving their lives and the ones of others, such as Tião. In expanding the ACAMJG, Zumbi finally opened a library with 15 computers and Magna is now working in a drugstore. Valter, this wise man, who did not even posses primary nor secondary education, is the one who said the most influential sentence that could be given to describe why so many people take part into picking up recyclable matters. In this man’s eyes we could see the passion and proudness he had in being a catadore and he said, “99 is not 100”. These people live with practically nothing yet through this short phrase this men shows he has lot more knowledge then many people from richer countries, Valter knows the importance of recycling because as he says that one can has a great important and if the catadores were not there, 200 tons of recyclable matters a day it would be buried with the garbage, pollute their rivers and clog their sewers. At the end of the documentary we see that Valter died shortly after meeting Vik, he his still missed and remembered for his contributions to the landfill and to the pickers.

Part-2

Born into Brothels 

“Born into Brothels” documents the story of a group of young children living in the red light district of Sonagchi, Calcutta. Directed by Zana Brisku, the 2004 documentary shows how difficult it is for any scrap of innocence that the children who are filmed have to survive, and how hard hoping for a better future can be for them. They are invited to learn about photography by Brisku, and immediately fall in love with it. They run around the dilapidated buildings and dirty streets finding beauty in every nook and cranny. The movie is interspersed with the pictures the children have actually taken, which shows the viewer how talented some of them are, without even knowing it in some cases. There are two children that are followed more closely than the others: the young boy, Avajit, and the adorable girl, Kochi. They show not only the most promise over the course of the film, and retain their hope for a better future, but are very well spoken and strong. Brisku tries desperately to get all the children in her documentary into schools, for she knows what will happen to them if they don’t. The boys will grow up to be just like their fathers, addicted to hash like Avajit’s, and the girls will be forced into prostitution and become callous and lose all innocence, just like their mothers. Brisku was a photographer who originally went to the red light district of Calcutta to photograph the prostitutes there, but when she saw the children living there, she became enthralled by them. The two themes of this week were “the Power of Art” and “Us and Them.” The power of art is clearly visible in this documentary, as it shows a group of otherwise hopeless children that anything is possible, and that beauty can be found in anything. Once given their cameras, these young ones realize, slowly at first, but at an exponential rate, that art can be found in anything. This realization is the fuel for their second epiphany: even they, poor daughters and sons of prostitutes, can do beautiful things. In terms of “us and them,” the lives of these children, who are insulted by their parents and don’t strive for anything other than the life in front of them, show us opportunistic our lives are, and how well off we are, just by being able to attend school.

http://www.lightstalkers.org/images/show/824481

Part-3

Our Opinion

 

Both “Waste Land” and “Born into Brothels” carry a strong message: that art, and the beauty born from art, can be found anywhere.

http://www.kids-with-cameras.org/kidsgallery/

Both films transport the viewer to a corner of the world known for its filthiness, and how alien the lifestyles of its inhabitants are. There is a moment in both films where we realize that our initial assumptions, whether they took place upon hearing the title “Born into Brothels,” or hearing Vik’s explanation of the part of Rio he is going to, are totally wrong. In Zana Brisku’s documentary about the children living among the prostitutes of Sonagchi, we realize how beautiful the minds of these children are the moment they first talk to the camera. They are well spoken, bright-eyed and full of hope, and it evokes an emotion in the viewer: you want to protect these kids. In “Waste Land,” we realize how wrong we were to assume all the pickers are drug addicts and broken people when Vik first arrives at the landfill. Everybody is smiling, and they all take pride in their jobs. This moment, in both movies, makes us realize how well off we are, and even all the way over here in North America, we can learn from the example of these people. The pickers show us that happiness does not have to directly relate to money or material possessions, and the children in Calcutta show us that even in the dirtiest places, where hope seems impossible, a dream can grow and thrive. The goal of both these films is to change our perception of what is the “right” way of life. Personally, I don’t think I am HALF as happy as Tiao is shown to be in “Waste Land,” and the man picks up garbage for a living. The same goes for Kochi, the small, sharp toungued girl in “Born into Brothels.” Kochi makes me feel like I am completely spoiled and don’t deserve anything I have ever been given, because she has more fun with a disposable camera taking pictures of dirty building than I do with my iPhone. The message in both films is a positive one, and is conveyed artfully by letting the people in the movie speak for themselves, instead of trying to show us what we should be seeing. 

Conclusion 

In both documentaries are showing what the power of art is. Throughout true shocking reality of living in poor conditions the two protagonist are resigned to bring some help. Vik Muniz was changed from this experience, he now sees things in a simpler way. Meeting all these catadores and thinking that if it wasn't from being shot he might have been a this very same place picking up recyclable matters for 20 U.S. dollars a day. Brisku the main character of Born in to Brothels, has tried to save these children lives through art. By taking photo's the young children were given the power to capture the moment and but they were also given an opportunity to change their lives. Both documentaries were meant to expose two different situations yet, we see those as devastating but they don't, at least from what was shown form the screenings. We have to start acting like them, enjoying the little things that are given to us in order to enjoy the bigger ones.

13 - Activism

Dy Devin, Parinaz, and Gustavo

Part 1: How to Survive a Plague  

   David France is a well known American author, reporter and filmmaker. In 2012 he released ''How to Survive a Plague'', a documentary about the early years of the AIDS epidemic. David received The John Schlesinger Award from the Provincetown International Film Festival for this documentary. This documentary follows the struggle of two coalitions, ACT-UP and TAG (Treatment Action Group). In order to develop effective HIV/AIDS medication, these two AIDS activist groups challenge the United States government and its medical establishment.

    

   In 1987, the gay activist organization ACT-UP was formed in New York. Shortly after, they forced the government and drug companies to develop new treatments and speed up their release into the market, as the AIDS epidemic was spreading amongst the gay population. The activist organization TAG ( Treatment Action Group) originated from ACT UP. In 1992, members of the Treatment and Data Committee of ACT UP left the group. They created TAG which was a non-profit organization that focused on accelerating the treatment research. TAG members collaborated with drug company researchers and U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials to speed up the development of new HIV therapies. AZT was the first drug approved for people with H.I.V. It appeared almost six years after the apparition of the illness that was killing gay people. A demonstration staged on Wall Street by ACT-UP protested the high cost of the drug. It cost roughly $10,000 a year, per patient. This demonstration eventually forced the company that manufactured it to lower the cost. It was one of the many victories that Act Up was going to accomplish.

  From the very beginning, these organizations used the media in order to get their message across. ACT-UP used very artistic and meaningful visuals to raise awareness of their cause. For example, their logo was the words “Silence = Death” printed below a pink triangle on a black background. This is a historical reference to Nazi Germany, where the pink triangle was used to single out the gays, who were killed in concentration camps.

  Furthermore, they protested at the National Institutes of Health, at the Food and Drug Administration, and at the St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The groups produced an influential report on the government's investment in the AIDS epidemic, which increased funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and furthered the national AIDS research effort. After the approval of several effective drugs, TAG pressed the government and the industries to conduct research to understand the long-term effects of the new drugs. In 1996, it was the arrival of protease inhibitors, a class of  antiviral drugs. It's effect is explained in the documentary by an animated segment. This allowed the death rate to slowly decrease. Increasing pharmaceutical drugs have since made AIDS a chronic yet manageable disease, for those who can afford the protocol. According to the film, seven companies manufacture the drugs today and they have helped save six million lives.

  

  This documentary is mostly made up of footage shot by regular people (31 videographers are credited) and told in their voices. Many of whom were the group’s leaders, H.I.V. positive men who faced imminent death. They taught us that global activism must be something that concerns us all. In many cases, it plays an important role in our lives, even though we do not participate in it. In class, we learnt that we must stand up for our beliefs and one way to do it is by taking control. We need to be well informed about what we are fighting for and understand the systems affecting the issue. We must fight for it, without weapons, because a shocking slogan can cause more damage than a weapon. The pink triangle is a good example of this. Also, courage is the key. We should never take ''no'' for an answer and not be afraid of fighting back, just like Peter Staley.  We also must stick together. We live in a society, therefore we need to create a community despite our individual beliefs and our different cultural backgrounds. Gays and heterosexuals stuck together to fight against the Aids. The success of Act Up can serve as an example for other movements.

Part 2: We Were Here

   

   The supplementary film for our group was "We Were Here", by David Weissman. The movie documents different aspects of the AIDS pandemic from the perspective of five people who lived in San Francisco during that time. The movie focuses on the social impact of AIDS, it's affect on the people and more specifically, how it affected five different individuals: Guy, Ed, Eileen, Daniel and Paul. They talk about the gay community and how there were a lot of free spirited gays. Additionally, they talk about how AIDS came very quickly and infected 50% of San Francisco's gay population, by 1976. Then followed the mass deaths, the homophobia, and the fear. As a solution, the government decided to shut down the "Tubs", known as places where gay men went to have sex. Targeting the centre of the gay community on Castro street, where most of these tubs were located.

   

  The pandemic had caused the lives of the interviewees to drastically change. Ed had joined the "Shanti" program, which taught him how to care for AIDS patients without family. Eileen was a nurse who had to start treating a lot of AIDS patients, who were otherwise constantly mistreated by medical professionals. Guy owned a flower shop in San Francisco. Many of his friends had died and when interviewed, he spoke about how he stopped asking who was still around, out of fear of finding out that they had AIDS and were going to die. Out of generosity and respect, he would give free flowers to people who wanted to bury their friends. Daniel is an artist, who had stopped working at the time because he was infected with AIDS. Him and his partner Steve got into one of the first experimental trials for AIDS drugs. However, he could not put up with the side effects and backed out. Everyone else in the trial died, including his partner. Paul had started a small AIDS group called mobilization of AIDS.

  

  The San Francisco gay community was very strong and they had a considerable impact on the AIDS pandemic. Their response to the AIDS pandemic was called "The San Francisco Model", because of how well they dealt with their precarious situation. Their care giving attitude changed people's outlook on the gay community. This movie is closely related to "How to survive a plague", which focused on the group ACTUP and their actions against AIDS. Activism is a strong theme in both these documentaries, but they also focus on what the people experienced and how they dealt with this pandemic. In general, there was very little violence in their actions and a lot more of people helping each other. In other words, the community was coming together to support one other. They created the steps for concrete activism: learn, fight,  and love. The gay community learned about the pandemic, the different ways it could potentially be treated, what caused it, and how to handle it. They fought against the closing of the tubs, they held meetings, and protested the lack of care that was given to them by the government. Most importantly, they loved each other, worked together, and took care of each other in those desperate times.

For anyone interested in this very informational and personal documentary, here it is:

Part 3: Personal Reflection

  

  Learn.Fight.Love. The simplicity of this slogan is contrasting to the true reality of the issues these movies portrayed. Despite the gravity of their situation, the gay communities of San Francisco and New York put their heart into making a change. Their courage, thoughtfulness and resourcefulness allowed them to succeed at what seemed like an impossible task. By doing so, they have set an example for years to come for all our communities. Any sort of global activism can use their work as a model of conduct.

   

   In general, our societies have lost their sense of communal togetherness. We tend to fear others and forget that we should promote working together as a group in order to achieve our goals as a society. Both these films portrayed how communities in vast cities such as New York and San Francisco managed to organize protests that allowed saving the lives of millions of people. It was interesting to see how far people will go in order to survive, when they were left to die. What was an even more relevant discovery was how people will do absolutely anything in their power just to help their community, even if they themselves have no chance of survival. When interviewed, most individuals in both movies claimed that they would die before a cure is found. However, their efforts did not falter because they hoped to save others. This is why their actions were selfless, extremely touching and also very surprising. In other words, when facing a common goal, people become apt to give, share and love one another. Although some people may be skeptical after having watched this movie, the major change they have made in the world is proof enough of the effectiveness of their methods.

   

   Another incredibly eye-opening idea to consider is the fact that even though the gay community was so discriminated against and completely shunned out of society, they still found innovative ways to get their message across in a peaceful manner. They used art and science to further their cause. With art they managed to spread awareness and with science they managed to give factual evidence, which helped convince those who were skeptical. Most people believe that violence is the only way to make their voice heard, but these AIDS activists managed to prove otherwise. They changed the general perspective from a stereotypical gay man to a dignified human being just like any other. It would've been interesting to see the same use of art in the Montreal student protests. The students could've been taken more seriously if they had taken more time in order to organize their movement. The following is a video that shows some of ACTUP's interesting modes of demonstration.

  

   

   Finally, we can not only take away their effective techniques of activism, but also the fact that a small group of individuals can still make a concrete difference in the world. This is often the case in many high schools and colleges in Montreal. For example, in College Beaubois, there is a program run by a few dedicated individuals and students that raises money for a school in Senegal.  Despite the odds, when there are at least a few people that are willing to do whatever it takes, change is bound to happen. We must not forget that nothing can possibly happen with inaction. More precisely, nothing gained, nothing ventured. As mentioned in the films, there is something liberating and fulfilling in helping others and making a positive change in the world.  Even a small a change as when volunteering at the hospital, has proven to me how this is indeed very true. Nowadays, we live in a primarily ethnocentric and egotistical society. This is why it has become very difficult for change to be made. Additionally, this also explains how the government is more empowered, when everyone is so dispersed.

  

12 - Portraits of the Self

By Étienne and Étienne

Introduction

If there is one thing that society as yet to really understand is "differences". In our present days, we are proud to say that we are more open than ever and that discrimination barely exist anymore. Sadly, the truth is far from that. Let's think about it. Whether it is an homeless person to whom nobody dare to look at or a kid at school that hardly makes any friend due to his cultural origins, we still judge people too quickly without knowing them properly. The two screenings we had to do this week offers us us a better understanding of two social groups that are judge unfairly by society: gleaners and homosexuals.

The Summary of the film: The Gleaners and I

The Gleaners and I is a wandering road documentary that describes how many people are either forced to glean or do it by choice and then compares that description the perception we, the more fortunate folk, have of the general act of gleaning. The purpose of the documentary is not only to raise awareness about the potential value of gleaning, but also to emphasize the ways that our perceptions of people and objects influence the portraits we create of them and of ourselves. Filmed and Directed by Agnes Varda in the year 2000, this documentary takes place across all of France and serves to create multiple portraits of both the people interviewed and the filmmaker herself.

Agnes Varda begins by taking us to see La glaneuse de Jules Breton, a painting that illustrates the how gleaning was once done only by women and strictly in a harvesting/Farming purpose. She then turns the camera on herself, illustrating her age but in a creative way. Much like the portraits we prematurely make of the gleaners we see, her age is superficial and independent of her values and motivations. The documentary then travels to "La Beauce Francaise" where one potato farm can have up to 25 tons of leftover potatoes a season due to the strict commercial criteria. It’s here that Agnes Varda interviews homeless men and women who rely on gleaning for basic nutrition; homeless men and women who are often perceived as idiots who spend their day trash collecting. In the same region, she interviews soup kitchen volunteers who collect about 300 kilos of potatoes a day to sell to restaurants and to feed the less fortunate. Some of the volunteers are also homeless people trying to make themselves useful. Varda also engages in the gleaning, filming with close attention the heart shaped potatoes, as if to express her unique perception and appreciation of the situation. This documentary demonstrates that you don’t have to be homeless to participate in gleaning. Even 2 star chefs like Edward Loupé obtain most of their ingredients from gleaning in vineyards and farms.

As the movie progresses we start to understand that gleaning isn't only material. For the filmmaker it’s a gleaning of images, facts and actions while for us viewers it’s a gleaning of knowledge and emotions. With each different type of gleaning illustrated, the different laws are explained. For muscles, grapes or apples located on farms, the gleaners are allowed before dawn and after dusk all while following the guidelines put in place by the owners. The same rules apply on the city, but the gleaning of food is more frowned upon by market owners, who sometimes bleach the left overs so they cannot be used. In the final section, Varda interviews a few gleaners from the city who aren't quite who they seem to be. She first interviews the man who always wears rubber boots. This man has a job, steady income, social security number and a residence, yet he gleans in an effort to reduce the excess waste created by modern society, that can harm nature and its creatures in so many ways. Later she encounters a band of gleaners who proceed in removing the copper wiring from T.Vs in order to sell it and have a minimum income. Finally she interacts progressively over many weeks with a young man named Alain. Alain has a Master’s degree in Chemistry and spends his time between selling papers and teaching French to immigrants. He gleans only for his survival, which to him isn’t the hardest life to live because he has food, friends and a shelter to stay in; all he needs.

This movie is reputably known for its use of the handheld camera and the unusual camera angles and techniques that come with. A few times Agnes Varda uses her camera to film herself filming, symbolizing her reflection onto her actions.  Later, Varda forgets to turn off her camera. As the camera hangs to her side filming, the viewer can see the shifting ground and the dangling lens cap with a jazz music background. Varda calls this shot "The Dance of the Lens Cap". This shows the diversity in the filming techniques. Throughout the movie, Varda films herself, using these techniques, combing her newly discovered gray hair, and there are many visuals of her aging hands, of which she realizes she portrays without completely understanding them. She frequently "catches" trucks on the freeway, making a circle with her hand in front of the camera framing the truck and then closing her hand as she drives past them.

As all the scenes are woven into this documentary, gleaning becomes illustrated as an act with purpose. Whether it is to feed yourself and your family, reduce waste or simply to acquire knowledge, emotions and ideas like Agnes Varda has done, gleaning has a goal that is unique to each individual and isn’t always for the strict necessities.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/19299550/central-virginians-take-part-in-commonwealth-day-of-gleaning

The Concepts

With this week’s topic being Portraits of the Self, Agnes Varda's methods for her interviews allow for the best and the truth of her subject to come out to the camera. Agnes Varda takes the time get to know her subjects and gives them the freedom of expression. Much like with Alain, the one who had a master’s degree, she went to see him for a few short minutes for a few weeks before he felt comfortable enough to reveal what he does and why he does it. She does the same with others like Salomon and the homeless men who gleaned the potatoes at the beginning of the movie. She first began by speaking with them while they were gleaning and subsequently they should her and explained how they lived. Agnes Varda interacted with her subjects without judgement or preconceived notion in mind and without applying any exterior pressure. As a result the subjects felt at ease and confident enough to reveal the complete and honest truth about themselves. Her interviewing techniques allow for the creation of complete Candid (Honest, truthful) portraits of herself, her topic and of her subjects.

Our understanding of the concept of waste is often questioned in this documentary. Why is it that what most of us call trash, both food and material, is often taken to be somebody else’s treasure? When we throw out potatoes that are too big, broken televisions or potentially (according to the wrapper) post-dated food, we often do it in neglect of not only the consequences but the potential that this "waste" still carries for others. It takes someone who has nothing to appreciate the value of something he doesn't have while we viewers often forget what value certain objects can have. It’s a matter of habit, where we are surrounded by something for so long that we almost forget its significance, that it even exists.

If we combine these 2 concepts we realize that filming the other, is figuratively filming the self. This is when we define the self to be built through intense self-reflection, and the other to be built by a series of portraits. When Agnes Varda filmed and documented the reality of the gleaners, both rural and urban, it pushed both her and us, the viewers, to reflect on the reality we live in and on whom we are as individuals. Her film, composed of only candid portraits, allows for a concrete comparison between us as viewers and them as gleaners and witnesses to a different reality of living. As spectators we glean these images in order to produce a meaning and questions for us to reflect on. We could say that a documentary film can be used as a mirror for the spectator to observe and reflect on.

We as spectators, as gleaners, often compare ourselves to those presented in documentaries or movies. We try to understand the portraits filmmakers make of their subjects in order to make our own portraits, both of them and of ourselves. This allows us to establish relationships between us and concepts such as waste, consumption, art, humanity, etc, as well as relationships with the people featured in documentaries. It becomes essential that documentaries take the role of true portraits of humanity if it is ever to change and improve.

Small steps are being taken:

http://www.cuesa.org/article/get-out-and-glean

Additional Film: Silverlake Life

The additional screening we did was the movie Silverlake Life. Published in 1993 in the United States, this 100 minutes documentary, directed by Tom Joslin, shows how his life changed when he and his lover Mark Massi were both diagnosed with AIDS. At that time, the number of death related to that disease was enormous. In fact, 1993 marked the highest point of AIDS with more than 80 000 cases in the United States only (Centers for Disease Control statistics). Therefore, it is without great surprise that many films related to HIV, AIDS and homosexuality were released at that time like Philadelphia (featuring Tom Hanks) and And the Band Played On.

Despite the fact that the movies mentioned above were highly acclaimed by the public, they were nothing more than fiction movies and that’s what makes them less touching and realistic than the documentary Silverlake Life.

This film shows the principal struggles and difficulties that the couple must face as they live their final moments before an inevitable death.  The disease they must live with drains them completely from their energy and this becomes more and more visible as the film progresses. Simple tasks quickly become nearly insurmountable. For example, at some point we see Joslin trying to go shopping but he must always take breaks and go lie down in his car because, for him, the amount of work required to accomplish this task is too important. However, this documentary is not necessarily depressing and macabre. In fact, it delivers a fantastic message of courage, compassion and true love. In the couple’s daily life, we see that they take care of each other and they learn how to appreciate every moment together despite the fact that it is far from easy. It shows to the world a whole different aspect of gay couple in society and it proves that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. As a matter of fact, one of the important messages of the film is that love has no frontiers, whether it is gender or illness.

Sadly, the world they live in has yet to understand this fact. Even though the film doesn't show political facts, we clearly see that, at that time, homosexuals were left alone facing this “gay cancer”. For example, Mark Massi gets ask to put on a shirt when he swims at a public pool because the manager is afraid that the marks on his back might scare the clients. He finds it pretty insulting because he doesn't see his body as disgusting. This kind of emotion is visible at few occasions throughout the movie and it is interesting and eye-opening to see how the couple reacts to it. Also, at one point of the movie, the couple visits Joslin’s family and we see that it is hard for them to accept Massi in the life of their son. They tend to judge him because of his sexual orientation and his disease.

The structure of the documentary is very interesting. It is a "point of view" kind a movie filmed with a handheld camera by the couple itself. No third parties are asked to emit an opinion on the subject and this helps the audience to get an intimate bound with Joslin and Massi.

Also, in the montage, the syntagmatic axis is very well done. One of the best links that are shown is when the couple go see a marathon in their village and they talk to one of the runners. When she gets ask if she thinks she will make it all the way, she replies: "With all the wonderful people and entertainment, even if it is long, I'll make it all the way". I found it very interesting because this simple answer resumed perfectly the combat that the couple was facing and the that fact that they were there to take care of eachother was what was helping them to survive all the way.

The film ends with the death of Tom Joslin. The editing was left to Peter Friedman. He did an excellent job in delivering a product that is both thought provoking and interesting. He truly understood what the couple was trying to accomplish by doing this film and a result allows the public the view them under a new, positive light. Friedman had a strong bond with them and the respect he had towards them is visible in the structure of the film for it is a truly candid portrait of both Tom Joslin and Mark Massi

In this short interview, co-director Peter Friedman sums up the nature of Tom Joslin and Mark Massi:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/silverlakelife/video-interview.php#.UYQamqJSiAg

After the release, Silverlake Life won many awards and forced many people to change their opinion on homosexuality. This documentary film was a major tool in the fight against homophobia and the lack of knowledge regarding AIDS. In a way, their deaths were not in vain.

The Personal Response

We live in a world where we tend to judge people without knowing them. The two films presented separate groups of people discriminated by society for being different on multiple levels. However, when we see them through honest, candid portraits, we are able to compare and find resemblance with them and their lifestyle. The opinion we made of them is then based on facts and testimonies instead of popular opinion and preconceived ideas.

When we see the world through their eyes, it forces us to have a second look on the world we live in and how we react to difference. For example, in Silverlake Life, we quickly have a sense of attachment with Joslin and Massi. We see their relationship as something completely normal and it is hard to understand why their family cannot see it this way. It forces us to think on how society as a whole can judge them if their close ones can hardly accept them. In The Gleaners and I, the gleaners are seen and treated as filthy, homeless outcasts only because they pick up and reuse what we see as trash. However, as an over consuming society, we throw a lot away only because we don’t want it and not because it isn’t useful anymore. While society takes its wealth for granted, gleaners act responsibly and evaluate the consequences before they act. Yet we place them in a degraded, separate social class.

Its movies like this that make us realize how we take things for granted and also create opinions on subjects we aren't necessarily properly informed about. I for one learned that forming an opinion based on rumor and biased ideals makes me less objective. During last year’s student strike, I wasn't informed on the arguments and points up for debate and as a result I portrayed the Quebec government as an abusive force of power. I later found I was wrong. The actors in these movies were misunderstood and degraded just the same as African American’s were in the 20^th century, just the same as Chinese immigrants in the 1800’s and so on (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/ChineseImmigration). These documentaries are meant to teach us and allow us to reflect on our attitude and approach to people and concepts we don’t quite understand. Therefor they are critical to our society’s proper development.

Conclusion

It will take a while before every form of discrimination and unfounded believes about different social groups stop. As humans, "difference" is something hard to accept. However, the situation keeps on getting better. If we learn to open our mind and learn from people before judging them, maybe that someday the problem will be solved. However, to acheive such a goal, every person counts.