Enjoying Poverty?

Poverty art is of course already part of the mainstream arena. Meanwhile in documentary cinema, depicting poverty environments has become a genre in itself. In imagining a script to guide your povermentary, poor people in their raw way of living (illness, violence, ripped dirty clothes and victimized expressions are the common elements) are the basic material. If there’s a house to be shown, better make it a dirty one - it all turns out fantastically on a photograph. The only problem is that seeing this as graceful might be a telltale sign that something is not working as it should.

This kind of image exploitation can be found in several documentaries that will be screened at IDFA; Rough Aunties is a good example. British director Kim Longinotto shows a group of South African women caring for young victims of sexual abuse. A lack of proper education, no food and unhealthy living conditions can turn a human into an irrational beast, and we become the visitors to this exotic zoo. Our consciences are challenged, our heartstrings are pulled, but above all we experience a sense of enjoyment.

In the same style, the African country of Malawi, with its frightening non-stop HIV/AIDS epidemic, is in the spotlight for the documentary I Am Because We Are. In a partnership between pop-star Madonna and director Nathan Rissman, the film tries to touch the viewer through similar problems. Like Madonna said, “the only relief is not living that kind of life”. She then admits to finding a strange and somewhat pleasurable interest in watching movies on the subject.

Dutch filmmaker Renzo Martens decided to turn the tables by shooting Episode 3: Enjoy Poverty. In it Martens teaches a group of Congolese photographers to take advantage of their own penury just as visiting foreign journalists and artists do, instead of only recording celebrations like weddings and birthdays. It might sound contradictory, but his idea is that the poverty of a land can be a source of income for its natives. However, despite Martens’ efforts to help these naïve artists create masterpieces out of their harsh surroundings, “some kind of happiness” from these locals trying to get out of their own precarious situation is not present in the movie. Interestingly though, Martens’ documentary is itself purely composed of the poverty aesthetic.

Behind the povermentary, there is also vanity. Poverty-based artistic products are only there because the artist creates them. No problem with that, but when you mix this with a philanthropic attitude, the river changes direction. Madonna and Renzo Martens did this: the pop singer by helping one child with his studies, saying that it’s a small step, but nevertheless a starting point (let’s not forget that she is one of the richest artists of the world).

If povermentaries are to be truly sincere in their concern for the less fortunate, then sequels should be produced. Many documentaries use texts at the end of their films to inform the viewer about what happened after the shoot, yet when it comes to poverty, the results don’t come fast. It takes more time to show the impact of the work. As for the Sudanese toddler; Carter avoided the bird, but could not do too much for the child. One year later, he committed suicide. Close friends said that he was disturbed because of the poverty-ridden images in his head. Let’s hope that these 2008 features will help more according to their intentions: that it’s not the end, we want more.

Arturo Mestanza