Distance really does change things...

I must say the first thing that I noticed from the film was that the filmmaker/narrator and the founder of the school were both white and from the west, outsiders to Nepal. Thinking of the discussion in class over traditional and organic intellectuals, sympathy and empathy, and Mr. Coats and Ms. Bernie, I couldn’t help but think that the filmmaker and Ingo were sympathetic intellectuals pursuing to better the world, while perhaps doing the opposite. On the other hand, if we look at the current situation the organic intellectuals could be identified as the Maoists which the filmmaker presents from a western point of view. In this instance, I could admit that a polarity exists in my expression and interpretation of the traditional and organic intellectual. Assuming the filmmaker is from the US, why doesn’t she sponsor a black child living in urban poverty right in her own backyard? Where do the rest of the students the Riverside school get their funding or sponsorship? Is the filmmaker and the founder exercising their ‘exotic’ perceptions of Nepal that Silverman discusses, distinguishing the ‘exotic’ from that which is considered ‘familiar’.

Is there a theoretical framework at work here? Or is the filmmaker taking a naturalistic approach, trying to tell it like it is. What is going on here? The camera and the white filmmaker, the lady who sponsors children is asking these young people questions, questions about the school and their future. Does this interaction immediately produce a different response from the young people? I believe it would. Take this school and put it in the context of the US. Imagine taking impoverished students from throughout the country and placing them in some rural school. This takes away some of that exoticism of what we view in this film? Would this work? I don’t know.