Failed Systems: Two documentaries explore religion and poverty

thank you for your beautiful and thoughtful review of our film "The End of Poverty?"...just as a note, we did not interview Jeffrey Sachs or Bono - though I certainly made enough calls pursuing them both. But we did end up interviewing Sachs's second in command who valiantly defended the Sachsian worldview.

What piece of accurate, pertinent information was not given by these films, or what falsehood was conveyed?

There must have been some absence of truth, or some presence of falsehood, that causes you to complain about the inequity of male and female voices.

All acknowledge that it is easier (on average, and with exceptions) for women to be aware of certain truths than for men, and likewise that it is for common for men (on average, and with exceptions) to be aware of certain other truths, than women.

But a statement does not become more or less true because a man says it, or a woman. And the purpose of communication is to convey truth, that the truth may be known.

So your concern about the lack of female voices must, to be reasonable, stem from a belief either that some truth was not communicated because a woman who would likely have communicated it was not interviewed, or that a falsehood was communicated by one of the men, which would not have been communicated had a woman been speaking.

So, in the interests of arriving at truth, why not just tell us: What missing truth, or included falsehood, concerns you?

"What piece of accurate, pertinent information was not given by these films, or what falsehood was conveyed?"

All the facts in "Oh My God" may be correct, but the film is incomplete because of the dominance of a male world view - males are (almost entirely)interviewed as the only experts or people with a point of view. I would bet that this did not even occur to the filmmaker - a male. It is precisely this lack of cinematic empathy that deserves questioning.

How can we arrive at a solution to war and violence if the only people talking (given voice) are men?

The situation is not only about objective facts, but human beings.

I heard on NPR today that the single cause of the death of children in the world is war. If women were given a voice, I have a feeling the parameters of this debate about religion and war would change.

Reality and truth are often expressed by what is missing.

R.C. is articulating a thought that was in my own mind. The mere absence of an equal number of women's voices is not significant. If it were, then we would be saying that truth is to be found not in what is said but in who says it. The particular becomes more important than the individual.

Whether it is Mother Teresa, Bono, a Muslim cleric, an agnostic car salesman, a fervent Palin-ite or Obama-ite -- the content of their message is what ought to count for we who receive it, not their gender, status, religion, political belief, or other facet of their individuality.

I think R.C.'s comment bears repeating, for it seems eminently reasonable: "...a statement does not become more or less true because a man says it, or a woman. And the purpose of communication is to convey truth, that the truth may be known."

One reason I abandoned the fervent feminism of my youth was what I saw as the unreasonableness of elevating the gender of the messenger over the content of the message.

I feel a need to defend Sr. Rose here. Any given statement needs to be judged on its merits, not its gender source, I agree. But men and women do bring different perspectives to life and to “truth.” And a documentary that largely ignores one of those large perspectives in its cumulative statements is the less rich because of it. This doesn’t mean a given message or the whole message is wrong. (And you can be sure it’s deficient in some aspect of perspective in any case.) But it’s a valid and helpful reminder to producers of documentaries, as they seek (if they seek) to get the most inclusive perspective they can in making a case or telling a story, that when women have been overlooked as observors or commentors, that the richness of their presentation has been diminished. The same is true when observations are dominated by only the majority population, or the wealthy, or…

I feel a need to defend Sr. Rose here. Any given statement needs to be judged on its merits, not its gender source, I agree. But men and women do bring different perspectives to life and to “truth.” And a documentary that largely ignores one of those large perspectives in its cumulative statements is the less rich because of it. This doesn’t mean a given message or the whole message is wrong. (And you can be sure it’s deficient in some aspect of perspective in any case.) But it’s a valid and helpful reminder to producers of documentaries, as they seek (if they seek) to get the most inclusive perspective they can in making a case or telling a story, that when women have been overlooked as observors or commentors, that the richness of their presentation has been diminished. The same is true when observations are dominated by only the majority population, or the wealthy, or…

I hear you, Frank. It is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained. As a documentary filmmaker, you have a closer perspective on this than I do. But I have also seen artists struggle with a pressure to be inclusive. I am thinking in particular of a writer whose screenplay I read. It was a horror movie. The protagonist's best friend got slaughtered by the monster. In my comments, I pointed out that because the best friend was African-American (the protagonist was Caucasian), this death was leaving the author open to the accusation that dark-skinned folks always die in horror movies. His reply was that he realized that, but he wanted to write a significant role for a minority into his work. But also, for dramatic purposes he had to let someone be killed in whom the audience was invested emotionally. The hero's best friend was the obvious choice. I gave him a suggestion for how he could have it both ways, but I was struck by the fact that he was caught in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. An artist cannot be shackled by the need to please an audience's social sensibilities.

Sr. Rose and I have both had to defend our liking for the television show "Dexter" against folks who think that it is unconscionable to present a serial killer as the protagonist of a drama. That's someone of a similar situation.

Nobody can cover all voices. But a plurality of artists, each following their own vision, can cover a plurality of voices. I am uncomfortable critiquing what this filmmaker does not say rather than what he does.