Well it is so easy to criticize, sitting at your desk in an office somewhere.
Had you done more research you would have realized that once Zana Auntie was at the brothel to photogragh her original project, the kids started to ask for help, she did not come swooping in to 'save' them.
The film and Kids with Cameras project evolved from being in that environment. The kids have also seen the movie, and said it was truthful. As for wether it improved the lives of the kids, yes I would say it did, at least four of the girls avoided going into the line, which was their path before Zana showed up. Two of the kids are getting an education in US, Two are in school in Kolkata, two have married and have different lives. Some of them may be apart from their families which in Indian society is not ideal, but neither is child prostitution, but now they have an opportunity to move up in the world where they never would have had the chance before. Thus being able to help their families in the future.
They all had a chance to have an education paid for by the money made from the photos they took, some of them because of family politics and circumstances chose not to go to bording school. The organization was set up to support them in getting an education, not to support them for the rest of their lives. With an education they would have the means to change the circumstances of their whole family.
As for as Zana basking in the glory of her success with out the kids, that is completely false, she gives full credit to all of them for their photography, and
each one of them had the same opportunity for an education.
The next time you decide to go spouting off at the mouth I suggest you educate yourself first, most of what you wrote about is simply speculative from your point of view nad not based in reality.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

I did not see "Born into Brothels" as a movie applauding a particular intervenistic mode, but as a story of encounter with a human condition that is remote from our consciousness. It is also about hope and courage. I liked it a lot.

I have just seen the film - a year after Seema Sirohi did -- and I have to say that its one of the best documentaries ever made. To the charge that a foriegner should be coming to India and winning accolades for her effort, I can only say: who has stopped Indian film makers from doing the same? But do they have the commitment of Zana Brinski? Brinski spent 3 years in Sonagachi, our documentary film makers want to travel first class and not dirty their fingers!

But more important than the racist charge against Brinski, one should be talking about the shocking poverty in India, which the film reminds us of. The debate should really be how we, comfortable middle classes are responsible for this poverty. How can one find fault with anyone - Indian or foriegner - trying to do some good? And how does Brinski's effort become less sincere because there are others doing the same? And pray, why is Brinski obliged to talk about the others doing great work in Sonagachi, when her film is not about the social workers of Sonagachi but about her and her chosen 8 children? And who is Sirohi to suggest that documentaries should be about social themes and not personal ones?????

Seema, Outlook's American Political Analyst, takes a whack at being a movie reviewer with predictable results. Apparently, its relevant whether Briski was wearing a backless gown to the Oscars or something else. She implies that the filmmakers were exploiting the children. Look at the loaded phrases such as "knight-in-shining armor," "missionary zeal" which are designed to evoke a pavlovian response than provide insight. She points out an apparent hypocrisy that "Born into Brothels" won't be shown in India; that being on the festival circuit makes the children lose their anonymity. Its no skin of the producers' nose to screen the film in India. However, the kids requested it and the producer honored it. The brutes who would use the kids' brothel origins against them are not on the "festival circuit." She gratuitously opines that "it tugs at the heart but leaves the head relatively untouched." Speak for yourself Seema!!! She also betrays a guilty conscience and observes "no one wants or is trying to improve the squalid scenario, that Indians are unaware and blind to the cancer within." So, Seema is worried about potential bad public relations. Although she never devoted a single column to the plight of these kids, she wants to be thought of as part of the crowd who cares. Partha Banerjee complains that others are incensed that the tireless work of other concerned citizens gets not even a fleeting mention. So, its recognition that they desire. He also claims the children are "worse off." How? They don't bother explaining. The parents want to share some of the glory. He claims that he doesn't begrudge the filmmaker's fame. Sure sounds like it that he does. Our Seema ends "But do Briski and Kaufmann (filmmakers) have time to look back and analyze this? Not really." Neither does Seema.

kamphorst03@yahoo.com