The cellist struck me the most because I am a person who expects to see quick results amongst practical reasoning. The cellist on the other hand would go outside and play his cello for the purpose to mourn the dead , and eventually became a symbol. People were trying to kill him, but he continued to play. I expected someone rushing into danger and rescuing people or someone taking physical action to end evil, but he did so peacefully. From doing so he was able to inspire many, he was able to give hope, and people would protect him as he played. His actions showed how far people would go to save others.
“Welcome to Sarajevo” on the other hand attempted to show how the media, and the life Sarajevo truly was. By watching the media, it revealed the multiple perspectives on how people view them entirely. There is the man who is out there for the fame, there is the guy who focuses on the smaller picture (the orphanage) and there is the group who looks at the entire picture. As they do so people are being killed, murdered, and captured because of who they are. The UN struggles to get involved because they fear to take the risk of going against or upsetting a group’s beliefs. Some people think if you continue to show the same thing they will get results, filming the orphanage. Some think if they show people dying on the way to a wedding, or people starving and barricaded behind bars that they will get results. Then there is the guy, who doesn’t care and does what sells. In this case, the man appears to be a hero, but really is not. The film leaves it up to the viewer to decide, how they should view the media.
Although the film didn’t show a lot of it, the viewer is able to see the terrible actions that were taking place in Sarajevo. We see people starving and being starved on purpose. We see people capture and being withheld against their will. Children are unable to leave the country because of who they are or where they have come from. In the film, we learn that the mother of the girl simply abandoned her child. So it is easy to consider that she wasn’t the first. Then there are those that are separated against their own will. All these things are difficult to take in.
The question that comes up is “why we have never known about this war?” The UN kind of answers it by telling the media how their problems are ranked. This draws up an interesting theory or question. What is the best course of action to handle problems? Should people watch and report the problem? Should people focus on all the problems as a whole, or focus on one problem at a time? Maybe do they simply need a hero to rise up? The hero basically reflects back upon the other questions.
“Welcome to Sarajevo” on the other hand attempted to show how the media, and the life Sarajevo truly was. By watching the media, it revealed the multiple perspectives on how people view them entirely. There is the man who is out there for the fame, there is the guy who focuses on the smaller picture (the orphanage) and there is the group who looks at the entire picture. As they do so people are being killed, murdered, and captured because of who they are. The UN struggles to get involved because they fear to take the risk of going against or upsetting a group’s beliefs. Some people think if you continue to show the same thing they will get results, filming the orphanage. Some think if they show people dying on the way to a wedding, or people starving and barricaded behind bars that they will get results. Then there is the guy, who doesn’t care and does what sells. In this case, the man appears to be a hero, but really is not. The film leaves it up to the viewer to decide, how they should view the media.
Although the film didn’t show a lot of it, the viewer is able to see the terrible actions that were taking place in Sarajevo. We see people starving and being starved on purpose. We see people capture and being withheld against their will. Children are unable to leave the country because of who they are or where they have come from. In the film, we learn that the mother of the girl simply abandoned her child. So it is easy to consider that she wasn’t the first. Then there are those that are separated against their own will. All these things are difficult to take in.
The question that comes up is “why we have never known about this war?” The UN kind of answers it by telling the media how their problems are ranked. This draws up an interesting theory or question. What is the best course of action to handle problems? Should people watch and report the problem? Should people focus on all the problems as a whole, or focus on one problem at a time? Maybe do they simply need a hero to rise up? The hero basically reflects back upon the other questions.
Otto - Comment on Weed Blog: Media
ReplyDeleteIt is horrifying to think that the UN could just choose who was more deserving to live and then act on such decisions. Although they could have stepped in, the UN feared the consequences and instead gave excuses as to why they were not helping save lives. Although there are many other problems in the world that need help, when lives are being lost it is important for someone to stand up and stop it. The UN could have done this but did not. They were not the heroes of these stories, instead replaced by The Cellist in The Cellist of Sarajevo and many characters in Welcome to Sarajevo(1997). These works emphasize the point that even a little bit of effort can change an entire society’s mindset about the war and bring hope to those who are suffering. The UN just stood by and did not participate, they brought nothing to the table. Instead, the victims were only able to rely on those who tried, those who made passive-aggressive attempts to help others.
Watch The Whistleblower and see what else the UN troops did and did not do!
ReplyDelete