Power and the Screen – Reviewing BBC’s Our World: The Marriage Breakers of Bangladesh with Angus Crawford
Image by BBC Radio 4.
Television media is one of the most powerful tools for information gathering at our disposal. Incorporating color, sound, motion, and emotion, television media holds a certain power to storytelling that other forms of media do not. With this power, however, comes great responsibility, especially when approaching what some may consider vulnerable topics. The BBC is a world-renowned broadcast network that invests in telling stories that may not otherwise be told. In 2012, BBC Correspondent Angus Crawford traveled to Dhaka, Bangladesh to tell the story of child marriages and their effect on young girls. With the help of a translator, Crawford conducts several interviews with the people of Dhaka, and even intervenes in the arrangement of a child marriage, with the intention of providing adequate information to the audience about the context of child marriages in Bangladesh, and why they should end.
When reviewing development documentaries, such as The Marriage Breakers of Bangladesh (2012), it is important to have a critical eye. It is an emotional story about the “global south” being told by the “global north” for the audience of the “global north”. This is problematic, as the White Savior Complex is essentially jumping off the screen. There are aspects of the documentary, however, that are not so obvious to the untrained viewer which perhaps unintentionally perpetuate the “us and them” point of view, as described in President Truman’s 1949 inaugural address, yet were intentionally added for a specific emotional appeal – a pity appeal. These aspects include camera angles, music selection, and interview strategy.
The camera angles used to tell the story of the tradition of child marriage in Bangladesh are specific and intentional. When Crawford is included in the shot, the cameraperson typically takes a wide angle. By including scenes of Crawford surrounded by young children and villagers, he, the white, Western reporter, appears as the superior character. This is reinforced by the shots that are taken of the villagers and girls themselves, where the camera is zoomed in on the faces of the individuals who look more vulnerable. This is most present when Crawford and the BBC team visit Dhaka Medical College and Hospital, where young women and girls who experience fistulas, as a result of child marriage and premature pregnancy, go to receive care. The camera angles here zoom in on the faces of the patients, who, as Crawford says himself, are experiencing a “humiliating and degrading condition” (‘The Marriage Breakers of Bangladesh’, 2012, 10:24). During the time spent at the hospital, the camera crew zooms in on bugs on the wall, reinforcing the perception that Bangladesh is poor, dirty, and in need of Western assistance.
Adding to the imagery of the camera angles comes the music selection. When highlighting the work of 11-year-old Ali, the young boy of the village working to end child marriage with his peers, the viewer hears upbeat, fast-paced music in the background of the scenes. However, the scenes of the young girls and women immediately being affected, most specifically in the hospital, have slower and “sadder” music, with the intention of drawing sympathy and pity from the viewer.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the perpetuality of the “us and them” perspective is interview strategy. Throughout the documentary, Crawford interviews many different people, including young girls, families, Ali and his friends, medical professionals, and registrar officials. During these interviews, Crawford neglects to tackle the root causes of childhood marriage. He gets people to admit that it is bad, but he does not get to the root of why it still exists, which is crucial for an educational documentary. Crawford never interviews government officials (outside of the registrar officials), and even if he did, would they give him an answer with cameras in their faces? The audience is left with a lot of unanswered questions by the end of the documentary, which is a direct indication of the power dynamics at hand – Crawford is in control.
That last point is the unintentional message being driven home in this specific documentary. Crawford being in control translates to his attempts to make change, or his savior complex, which is evident in his intervention of the marriage arrangement of a young girl. Yes, the audience sees that the young girl does not get married in the end, but what happens to her after Crawford leaves? Does she stay in school? Does she get married once the crew is gone? Does she get hurt as a result of not getting married? The forced intervention and lack of follow-up are quintessential elements of Western imposition on the “global south”. A nuanced issue it is, but accountability is crucial when these stories are being told by those to whom which they do not belong. Crawford and his team, though maybe well-intentioned, may have only added to the problem.
