I would recommend anyone interested in this documentary's subject matter to watch an earlier short documentary named "Bridge the Gap to Pine Ridge," which was filmed by a director out of New York. Not Denmark.
This documentary was obviously shot by an affluent, outside perspective that took the "hands off" and purely observational approach as to authentically record her findings. My question to her would be:what was your objective in making this film? You are not American, native or otherwise. Your own country is dealing with opposition to refugees, another systemically oppressed society. Why would a danish person from Sweden choose to follow these teens of the reservations? What has been your relationship to them after, other than when you were releasing? Do you care? Or give value to life? Even the smallest life, like the toddler and kittens. Or are you just trying to shock your viewers and evoke emotion for emotions sake? We are aware of the atrocities that happens to minorities across the country. To say the least, it was outside of your scope and rather pretentious to film these kids in that manner. Because after the shock has subsided, people still don't care. Documentaries are made to give unknown information to the masses to evoke change by means of emotion. Only one side of the coin was displayed in Pine Ridge. There was a clear depicted difference in power/intelligence levels that was tangible even though the director never showed her face. Where was the connection between director and the human subjects? That connection is what truly makes a profound documentary. There was nothing but a cold lens between the two. This wasn't a documentary about wildlife with strict codes of no intervention. Nor was it a film about a mass killer. It was of kids navigating life between old and new worlds and trying to do what all children do:find meaning, power, answers and attention.
I work with these communities as social worker. And preserving the dignity of their heritage is high on my priority list. They don't all abandon their kids, abuse animals and drink all day. And the other documentary I mentioned before, highlights the resilient youth and amazing social work being done in that location.
This was obviously filmed by a young director, not in age, but in her work. The way it is shot/edited and the way the content is delivered outs her. Natives are heavily documented in the states, even with these particular peoples that she claims "have never been heard." My recommendation is to always document subjects you have personal vestments in. Otherwise, the feelings you're trying to display, will never genuinely translate. Knowing your subject is loving your subject. And challenge makes that message ever stronger. But in my experience, Scandinavians are rather Germanic and passive. That void is definitely felt in this film.
"It's my people. We ain't all depressed, we ain't all oppressed, we ain't all alcoholics. We all want something out of life. We're just like you."- Martin Bad Wound of Pine Ridge (Bridge a Gap to Pine Ridge)
This documentary was obviously shot by an affluent, outside perspective that took the "hands off" and purely observational approach as to authentically record her findings. My question to her would be:what was your objective in making this film? You are not American, native or otherwise. Your own country is dealing with opposition to refugees, another systemically oppressed society. Why would a danish person from Sweden choose to follow these teens of the reservations? What has been your relationship to them after, other than when you were releasing? Do you care? Or give value to life? Even the smallest life, like the toddler and kittens. Or are you just trying to shock your viewers and evoke emotion for emotions sake? We are aware of the atrocities that happens to minorities across the country. To say the least, it was outside of your scope and rather pretentious to film these kids in that manner. Because after the shock has subsided, people still don't care. Documentaries are made to give unknown information to the masses to evoke change by means of emotion. Only one side of the coin was displayed in Pine Ridge. There was a clear depicted difference in power/intelligence levels that was tangible even though the director never showed her face. Where was the connection between director and the human subjects? That connection is what truly makes a profound documentary. There was nothing but a cold lens between the two. This wasn't a documentary about wildlife with strict codes of no intervention. Nor was it a film about a mass killer. It was of kids navigating life between old and new worlds and trying to do what all children do:find meaning, power, answers and attention.
I work with these communities as social worker. And preserving the dignity of their heritage is high on my priority list. They don't all abandon their kids, abuse animals and drink all day. And the other documentary I mentioned before, highlights the resilient youth and amazing social work being done in that location.
This was obviously filmed by a young director, not in age, but in her work. The way it is shot/edited and the way the content is delivered outs her. Natives are heavily documented in the states, even with these particular peoples that she claims "have never been heard." My recommendation is to always document subjects you have personal vestments in. Otherwise, the feelings you're trying to display, will never genuinely translate. Knowing your subject is loving your subject. And challenge makes that message ever stronger. But in my experience, Scandinavians are rather Germanic and passive. That void is definitely felt in this film.
"It's my people. We ain't all depressed, we ain't all oppressed, we ain't all alcoholics. We all want something out of life. We're just like you."- Martin Bad Wound of Pine Ridge (Bridge a Gap to Pine Ridge)
