the offense caused by a film showing rape and violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is worthwhile if it leads to action
was a buzz around a new short film, appropriately titled impossible to see where an English family is attacked by the army. It is surprising, because honestly, shows the type of rape and terror that takes place in the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere.
point (not very subtle) is that they allow this sort of thing happening in England. The spectators witnessed the rape of a teenage girl, the murder of his father and feeding their genitals to the mother, happened to a Congolese woman who inspired the script. The graphic nature of the film has caused outrage among some analysts think it has gone too far, that the filmmakers are "absolutely crazy" and that "meaning must stop." The Guardian has a piece to make some useful questions that are worth reading.
The movie is horrible, but those who have rejected as unacceptable are wrong.
Two things are important in the defense: truth and effectiveness. In moral terms, the truth is always good. I remember a discussion with a friend in a political struggle in Colombia, which had lost many relatives. When I suggested the plan of the organization of action did not look like a very good strategy for change, he said, "It is a strategy for change is a moral position." Some people have been demoralized by the power of the status quo, but they have lost faith in the ability to change that just up and say the truth is that they feel called to do
As for the campaign, however, there is no need to be right is not recognized in an active way to improve things, the message must also be effective. Sometimes it can be tempting to give priority to the efficiency of the truth. I know that the campaigns that have been deliberately exaggerated the grim statistics and cause a reaction. Sometimes it worked, but in the long-term strategy wrong and may lose the support and legitimacy.
out the truth and effectiveness, sometimes there may be ethical considerations with respect to the image of people. Some images are both efficient and effective (for example, babies who die of hunger), but its overuse can victimize rather than empowering people. If the Congolese victims support of this film (and the interview with a rape victim at the site of the film, which seems to be the case), which is a strong argument in its favor.
Very few people see the film will be less likely to act on behalf of rape victims, but quite likely to be more likely to act because of this. Of course, it will not be for everyone, but it is likely to reach people who have never considered the question.
If the critics are right, and the film is ineffective, why are they so angry about this? Many advocacy is ineffective, but do not cause such strong reactions. Some film critics have suggested that their images are unacceptable because they make you feel uncomfortable or bad. However, the sensitivity of the viewers of the film are of particular interest when the subject is so important. It seems that some people prefer just the realities of war home to a life of Western public life on a planet apparently relaxed different. I think it should be - we must remember what is happening in other parts of the world to get us out of our daily routine, and to stimulate the answer