Video

A section from the paper I have been working on:


Here, we would like to switch directions and analyze the video section of the MF website. From the home page one can click on a small link toward the bottom of the center of the page that has an image of a man with white text. The text states “Speaking Out” and “Video Interviews.” After pressing the link, the user is sent to a much different looking page. This page uses much darker colors including grey, black, and red. At the top center the page it titled “Speaking Out” in large grey text. Below this are several sections of black and red tiles, and in the center is a large rectangle where one can play videos. The red tiles are all different videos of people who work at the Medical Foundation, victims of torture, doctors, etc. Interestingly, since starting this project, the number of red tiles has increased significantly, meaning that recently much more attention has been given to this section of the website. Also, in clockwise order from the left top corner, the following titles are placed around the main video box; “Treatment,” “MF Chief Executive,” “Arrival,” “Stories,” “Issues,” and “Funding.” There seems to be no order of how the links to the videos (red tiles) are placed other than being near one of the aforementioned titles. As there are red tiles strewn in different patterns, one can assume that eventually many more will be red.
Because of issues of limited space, we only examine two of the twenty videos posted. While there are many interesting videos with testimonies from different faculty at the MF, we instead would like to examine the ones that highlight the survivors of torture. These stories are most important because they represent the nature of the organization. When a donor is searching the website one of their primary concerns is to see that their money is going to some use. The stories of torture victims are incredibly important toward earning new capital for the organization. In fact, the website itself is littered with different stories of the survivor’s testimonies, treatments and fundraising events that are put on by the MF. However, this portion of the website is the first to have video testimony. We argue that audiences relate to videos differently than images or text. Also, in terms of representation, these testimonies are the voice (for the most part – I will talk about this in a bit) of the actual survivors without mediation. However, one must ask if these portrayals are empowering.
The videos offer different experiences of torture through sit down interviews. Under the story section of the videos there are only four videos of torture testimonies, but it seems that more will be added in the future. The reason for this, according to the website is; “We are in the midst of a major initiative in the ‘survivors speak out’ series and will have many more client comments over the next month”.. Each interview consists of an individual sitting (either in a room or outside) with an interviewer off camera. While the interviews are conducted, one can hear the unseen interviewer asking questions. This technique seems to be problematic in the sense that it could be mistaken as the same sort of interaction between torturers and tortured, but here we will give the MF the benefit of the doubt in terms of intentions. Also, some of the survivors are out of focus so that one cannot determine their true identity. Obviously, this is important so that the individual can feel safe in revealing their story to the world, but in a sense, this makes the experience even worse to listen to. When one cannot look at the person who is talking, there is a sense of foreboding added to the already tense environment.
The first survivor’s story is that of activism and torture. The video begins with a black screen that has the following text: “Jonathan was a teacher in the Democratic Repbulic of Congo. At the school where he taught he witnessed soldiers forcibly abducting children in conscription. Jonathan spoke out about the issues of child soldiers – for which he was imprisoned and tortured.” This text fades away and we see Jonathan, who is out of focus in the frame. We can just make out his shoulders and head, but his identity is well concealed. The first voice one hears is actually the interviewer who is off camera. She starts the conversation by asking him about how he spoke up against soldiers who were forcibly kidnapping children. In particular, she is interested in a specific night and she asks him to recall his experience. To paraphrase, Jonathan spoke on the local radio in protest the kidnapping of the torture. Later that night he was abducted because of his actions and taken by van to an undisclosed location. He was stripped naked and, according to him, he was physically abused. Jonathan explains that many people attacked him and eventually he was forced to perform oral sex on the strange men. The video abruptly ends with him saying that his experiences were ‘really awful’. While this is obviously a very hard story for him to recall, the scene is a bit problematic. There is not a lot of context given to these stories and the viewer simply becomes the voyeur. The clip is only about three minutes long, so there isn’t much time to really get to know Jonathon. We are privy to his torture, but not much else. Without more contextualization this depiction borders on a revictimization. We argue that there needs to be more information for this to be helpful to those who have been tortured. However, this may be the perfect small tidbit of information that a donor may need to decide to pledge aid.
The second video is actually not of a torture survivor. Instead, Mary Raphaely (coordinator of the Natural Group Project), tell us the story of one survivor. The text at the beginning of the video is as follows: “Working with nature often unlocks memories and resources that survivors can forget they had the traumatic experience of torture. One of the core beliefs of the MF’s Natural Growth Project is the healing power of nature. In the words of one client: ‘Nature cannot hurt you like man can’”. In this case, Mary (the background is the garden at the MF – in sharp contrast to the first video) tells the story of one of the torture survivors that she has assisted over the past several years. A young woman from an African country was imprisoned with her newborn baby who was killed in front of her. She was raped and eventually fled the country. When she was brought to London, she was again raped for several weeks by the man who helped her to the country and became pregnant. Eventually, she went to the Medical Foundation for help because of her depression. After many weeks of therapy, Mary assisted her in choosing her favorite plant for the garden (as part of the Natural Growth Project) in the back of the MF to represent a memorial for the child she lost. In doing so, the survivor believed that she could finally let go of her grief and move on. Her child is now two years old and Mary claims that the patient is going to University and is leading a much more healthy life. This story is incredibly important in the sense that one can see the true progress of someone who has been tortured. However, it is problematic that her voice is shown through the voice of another. One is to assume that she was asked if her story could be shared, but even then this story being told through the eyes of another is problematic. Even if this is actually a positive act that allows for survivors to gain control, these issues are never discussed and there isn’t much space for further context. The audience is left with these incredibly short clips that have the potential to be empowering, but often fall short.