PROJECT INSPIRE'S VIDEO "ONE SOUL" a turnoff to m

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

1 2 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 8:50 am

http://www.kiruv.com/toolsForS.....l.asp

My entire family watched this video on Tisha B'Av, and we were more inspired by the forcefulness of the 12 year old than all the frum Kiruv people. How do they have the gall to show the enslaved children as an example of how one person can make a difference in the world, and then make no mention of these childrens' suffering throughout the entire rest of the video? I thought it was only me that was nauseated by that, then one by one all my family members who watched it, agreed.

While I understand the beauty/neccessity/importance of Kiruv, I saw these children "chained to looms"... the unsolved murder of the dissident child, and heard of their all being tortured and immediately all I could think of was Jews during the Holocaust, and how we constantly bemoan the fact that outsiders just let the torture and murder of Jews continue...

I was shocked. Why is childrens' torture less important than spirituality of non-frum Jews, in that it was a "side" point of the video?

tato

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 9:26 am

I think you misunderstood the readon why the story of the 12 year old/slaves was there...
In my opinion it was not there to compare the suffering of them w the non frum ppl but rather to inspire you that one person can make a difference..

EsaEinai

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 9:28 am

I only watched the first few minutes of the video, so I dont really understand what youre getting at, but ill just tell you that a chunk of the video was taken from aish inspired's kiruv video called aish inspired, too (inspired across america). maybe that helps you understand why a main focus was kiruv and not necessarily the holocaust, or whatever youre getting at? in any event, I dont know if its so appropriate to make a thread bashing a video thats out there to do good. seems a little vulgar to me. and if you're going to give a good project a bad name, at least do it under your own name.

merelyme

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 9:35 am

It was created as an internal film for the people who work in that organization. They later made it available to the public. It says this clearly as the video opens.

Your point being, amother op?

amother

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 10:23 am

tato wrote:

I TOTALLY REALIZED THAT, BUT WAS MORE EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE SUFFERING CHILDREN.............AND HOW THE PRODUCERS OF THE VIDEO TOTALLY IGNORED T-H-E-I-R- PLIGHT.

Mrs.K

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 10:27 am

amother wrote:

tato wrote:

I TOTALLY REALIZED THAT, BUT WAS MORE EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE SUFFERING CHILDREN.............AND HOW THE PRODUCERS OF THE VIDEO TOTALLY IGNORED T-H-E-I-R- PLIGHT.

But it wasn't a movie about child labor it was a movie about Kiruv.
If they did a movie about child labor, would you wonder why no one spoke about the plight of intermarriage?

amother

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 10:46 am

Mrs.K wrote:

amother wrote:

tato wrote:

I TOTALLY REALIZED THAT, BUT WAS MORE EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE SUFFERING CHILDREN.............AND HOW THE PRODUCERS OF THE VIDEO TOTALLY IGNORED T-H-E-I-R- PLIGHT.

But it wasn't a movie about child labor it was a movie about Kiruv.
If they did a movie about child labor, would you wonder why no one spoke about the plight of intermarriage?

I hear you, but once it was brought up, and footage was shown of children chained to looms and tortured, and not EVEN one tiny voice of concern at all from even one in our community? I think it doesn't reflect well on us.

Would you feel comfortable and not nauseous if a film were made specifically on labor ethics of the 1940's which, to the producers' advantage showed Jews- those naked skinny bodies, being tortured and killed (just to make a point) and then totally ignored by the film-makers?????? I think NOT. (Not when it's your blood relatives' personal experience). C'mon.

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 10:46 am

I don't get the problem. There's plenty of information on suffering children and child slavery and poverty, etc, out there if you're interested. Why do you think this movie should have been the one give you whatever information you don't have? Or do you just think movies in general shouldn't mention extreme suffering if they aren't going to pursue the topic to the end?

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 11:01 am

also:

- This video is long and in my personal opinion, not very fun to watch. So can you be more clear about the problem? Because I don't think most people will want to watch the entire thing, just to figure out what you mean.

- I don't think I'd have a problem with the Holocaust or terrorism in Israel or something like that being mentioned as part of a different point, although of course it depends on the point (the Holocaust being mentioned but not explained in a film on genocide in Rwanda - fine, the Holocaust being mentioned but not explained in a PETA campaign - not fine).

- I did find the first part of the movie, where they use footage / audio from intermarried couples and their children to be in bad taste. I don't think they needed to use specific people as examples of the "silent Holocaust," at least not when the people filmed seem totally unaware that the footage will be used for such a purpose.

shalhevet

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 11:01 am

I watched part of it - it's too long to see it all, but I am past the section you mentioned. I really don't understand what you are saying, OP - the story about Craig was to make a particular point; that one person, even a young teenager, can make a difference and change how people think.

The last part I watched was about a landscape gardener - do you think they should have included his tips on which flowers grow best in Monsey?

I edit words, not movies, but part of editing is sticking to the point.

amother

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 11:14 am

shalhevet wrote:

The last part I watched was about a landscape gardener - do you think they should have included his tips on which flowers grow best in Monsey?

I edit words, not movies, but part of editing is sticking to the point.

Would you feel comfortable and not nauseous if a film were made specifically on labor ethics of the 1940's which, to the producers' advantage, showed Jews- those naked skinny bodies, being tortured and killed (just to make a point) and then totally ignored by the film-makers?????? I think NOT. (Not when it's your blood relatives' personal experience). C'mon.

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 11:48 am

amother wrote:

shalhevet wrote:

OP - it is really not clear what you're trying to say here.

What do you mean "totally ignored by the film-makers"? What would you expect them to do about it? Make yet another Holocaust movie, instead of what they set out to do? Send money to Holocaust survivors? What?

And the comparison doesn't seem very accurate, if I'm understanding it correctly. This video isn't showing gratuitous footage of torture. With one brief exception, it's showing relatively "clean" footage. And footage clearly from a news story, not something specially selected for shock value.

I don't think the footage used was very inspiring, as the children's extreme poverty makes the situation they describe (assimilated, comparatively well off Jews marrying out of their free will) look less urgent, IMO. But I still don't get your problem.

creativemommyto3

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 12:16 pm

shalhevet wrote:

I totally agree, this young boy made such a difference in child labor and if only we would think the same way about bringing other Jews back into the fold we would save more Jews.

I have this non frum friend of mine that I am really good friends with since I am 14. I don't pressure her on anything. I respect that she is she and she respects me for me. She does ask me questions and I gladly answer. I took it on myself to daven for her no matter what. I davened that she would marry a yid, she did . I just keep on davening for her at every step of the way.
Maybe one thing we should all be davening for is for the yidden to come home to yiddishkeit and just maybe they will.

amother

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 12:20 pm

ora_43 wrote:

And the comparison doesn't seem very accurate, if I'm understanding it correctly. This video isn't showing gratuitous footage of torture. With one brief exception, it's showing relatively "clean" footage. And footage clearly from a news story, not something specially selected for shock value.

Specifically because this video is supposed to portray us as caring, sensitive, G-d loving, G-d's creations loving Jews, the use of footage of tortured children, and no mention made of their plight from a Jewish perspective, grates on me.

OK, so it's only me.

What

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 1:03 pm

amother wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

You do know that the footage you're talking about is more than a decade old, right?

I think for me that's why it's not such a big deal -- because I heard about this kid and his work with child labor when I was 12 or 13, so it's not really shocking to see it now.

The footage does not show children being tortured. I don't think it's so shocking to show a picture of a child with a voiceover saying "this child was hit." But again, maybe because I'm familiar with the story already.

Like I said I agree that the footage doesn't really make the impression they were going for, at least in my opinion -- it is too shocking + disturbing for the point they were trying to make, especially when compared to the previous footage. But I don't think it was so horrific (compared to what everyone hopefully already knew about child labor well before watching this particular clip) that it couldn't be used to make their point (you too can make a difference!) in a sensitive way.

sarab

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 2:21 pm

Ok, I want to teach you something that my daughter has taught me. When she was in eleventh grade
she learned a Sefer called "Misheleii." She learned a concept called "Leitzanus" which really means laziness
but what is was referring to in the book is someone who kills the mood uneccessarily. Like a "Leiz" is that someone who comes out of a speech and goes "well that was lame" and suddenly a light diminishes on so
many who had just walked out inspired. I have to tell you that though I 100% agree with you on that point
and in the back of my mind I was distracted by that video, I was in the mood and was very moved by the
source of the movie which was to be an inspirer, etc...but when I read this thread that nagging guilt
about the child laborors whom I know I can never actually do anything to help was brought to the focus
of my attention and I am very frustrated that you set up a whole thread on this point because you
are currently killing the mood of the inspiring movie. Don't you know that you are supposed to help your
own people before anyone else. We in the world for us and Hashem is using these children to distract us
and play with our mercy to waste efforts on trying to save these children before ourselves. What can we
do halfway across the world, with no money to spare and a voice that unlike the twelve year old boy, no one
wants to hear. So really, though I've got a soft spot for children in pain as well we have to learn our duties
where we can actually help and get the most Schar from our ultimate creator...not waste our efforts where
we are not wanted, which is among the non jews...So please pm me on this message or something but don't
continue to uninspire others who might've watch that movie and gone out and saved a couple more jews...

amother

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 2:40 pm

sarab wrote:

So please pm me on this message or something but don't
continue to uninspire others who might've watch that movie and gone out and saved a couple more jews...

I'm not bashing Kiruv people. I think they're noble and holy. If only you'd know what I do day and night, you'd be surprised. I probably speak to and try to help more Baalei Tshuva than most here. I still feel the film portrays us poorly.

sarab wrote:

Don't you know that you are supposed to help your
own people before anyone else

AGAIN, I'm not bashing Kiruv people. I'm just unimpressed with the producers of that film for their poor choice in inserting footage of children chained to looms to prevent them from running away, with no mention of it. It doesnt matter if it happened yesterday or 20 years ago. I believe it shows a degree of apathy.

ora_43

Sun, Aug 02 2009, 5:06 pm

OP, you're still not saying how you think the footage should have been handled. You're not saying they shouldn't have used that footage at all, just that they should have... what? Taken a moment to say "By the way, Judaism, which we are trying to preserve, does not support chaining young children to looms"? Isn't it obvious that we all think that what was and is done to child laborers is horrific, isn't that the entire point of using that specific footage?

Davka if you were saying you don't think they shouldn't have brought in the issue of child labor at all, or that the whole segment with Craig Whatever wasn't really suitable, I would understand. But given that you do seem to approve of the "Craig helped stop the really big awful problem that is child labor and you yes you can help solve the really big awful problem that is Jewish assimilation" connection, what else is it that you were looking for the video to do/say?

amother

Mon, Aug 03 2009, 12:37 am

ora_43 wrote:

OP, you're still not saying how you think the footage should have been handled.

I'm not sure what they should/could have said about the issue, that would have made senseor belonged, so I wouldn't have used it at all. But, TO ME, using the footage, made the Rabbis/Kiruv people's mission that much less serious.

Fox

Mon, Aug 03 2009, 2:22 am

I deliberately did not see the film being discussed, so I can't speak to the specifics, but I do want to defend the OP somewhat as well as frame the issue somewhat differently.

There is a subfield of study in the academic field of communications called rhetorical analysis -- the study of how words, images, arrangements, sounds, etc., serve to persuade people. Rhetorical analysis examines the multitude of ways in which communication takes place -- both intentional and unintentional -- in ways that persuade people to adopt particular attitudes, ideas, or even take particular actions.

It is very concerning to me that many of these film "events" contain material that has significant rhetorical resonance. The fact that a particular scene or statement isn't germane to the point of the film does not mean that it is not affecting the audience, generally in such a subtle way that they are unaware of it!

Let me give you an example from another recent popular "event" on tznius: a wonderful speaker attempted to explain a pricing strategy used to sell luxury goods. Her example: a $2000 handbag. I brought this up on a thread shortly afterward and was told by posters that "it was just an example; it doesn't mean most people buy $2000 handbags."

Well, of course it was just an example. but I strongly disagree with the position that it was beside the point. And more importantly, serious research on how people form opinions disagrees! When an "example" is introduced by someone presented as an authority, it sets the stage for the redefinition of "normal." Now, most of us are level-headed enough that we aren't going to run out to purchase $2000 handbags. But hearing/seeing that film with that specific example has literally changed the synaptic firings in our brains. Whether we realize it or not, "normal" has been ever-so-slightly redefined. Perhaps you've seen the tagline, "What has been seen cannot be unseen"? It's not just about [filth].

These film events are, IMHO, very, very dangerous. Unfortunately, the films are generally not reviewed with a critical eye for these kinds of issues, and anyone who takes issue with any element is often criticized for wishing to deprive others of inspiration. I agree that these films can be very inspiring, but they are often emotionally manipulative and they use highly charged rhetorical devices to evoke responses from people who may not be savvy enough to realize that not every scene, quote, or comment reflects daas Torah.

OP -- I have no idea whether I'd agree with you on the specifics of this case, but yasher koach for taking the stand that images, sounds, and words that enter our brains are not pareve. They carry meaning even when we're unaware of it. No one doubts the good intentions of the producers of these presentations. But allowing someone relatively unfettered access to parts of your gray matter that you can't control? Well, that calls for a bit higher standard than "good intentions" in my book!

What would make me more comfortable about these kinds of inspirational films? One thing: critical conversation. I don't mean "critical" in the sense of "condemning," but in the sense of analyzing, dissecting, and discussing. Swallowing these films whole without pausing to consider or reflect on their subtleties emanates from the same type of laziness that allows people to watch hour after hour of, say, reality TV. Whether these critical conversations come in the form of articles, reviews, organized panels, online responses . . . it doesn't matter. The key is that watching the film becomes a starting point rather than an ending point.

Page 1 of 2

1 2 Next