The documentary Through a Blue Lens, effectively reflected a strong message against drug abuse by shining a light on the personal and compassionate elements of the addicts. For the purpose of our Arts Studies Course, my classmates and I analyzed this film with questions along the lines of “Whose narrative is showcased? and to what extent?”. But here, I analyzed some of the patterns of the general viewers’ criticism on the IMDb website towards the documentary and what it meant to the narratives of the addicts in the film.
“Before you make any stupid choice to try any drug, watch this movie first.” –mark_rules_all898 (one of the critics)
The most obvious and most commonly understood message of the film to the general viewers was “DON’T.DO.DRUGS”. The film’s emphasis on transparency in representing the everyday situation of the Downtown Eastside and, more importantly, their focus on the personal narratives of the stories such as that of Randy or Nicola’s seemingly give viewers a chance to humanize the subjects and detach them from the labeling as “unwanted people of Downtown Eastside”.
However, as much as the critics commemorate the effort of the film’s job in highlighting the stories of addicts as well as the personal reflections of police officers, there is a concern for what the film does to these narratives. In other words, although the critics often mentioned how deeply explored the film was, only one of them brought up the actual names of the addicts and their current well being. The critics, possibly unknowingly, received the “commodified version” of the “narrative of the addict”. The documentary frames these addicts’ narratives starting from a “zone of degeneracy” and develops in a way (as mentioned above) that viewers are given a “packaged version” of the addicts’ narratives. We are to be compassionate, sympathetic and be conscious about what drugs do to us. Although the film fulfills its purpose of exposing to the rest of the world what the Downtown Eastside looks like, it inevitably exploits the personal narratives (such as that of Randy and Nicola) to create a collective addicts’ narrative that is suitable for the audience. As viewers, it reminds us to be attentive to what the film is trying to portray and to go beyond the “packaged narrative” we are fed. Essentially, the question we must ask is, how can we maintain these personal narratives as more than a means of compassion and sympathy for the viewers?
Makoto, I appreciate your insight in viewing Through a Blue Lens as a possible collective narrative of the drug addicts in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I like how you brought in the reviews by critics from IMDB. My question is, do you think it was the audience’s problem that they didn’t individualize each of the addicts or did the film not do enough to separate each of the addict’s lives? In addition, how do we solve the issue of lumping or grouping in stories of victims? For example, with the TRC, rarely is anyone ever specified by name; we just refer to them as the Indian residential school survivors.
Allison, to attempt to answer your questions, I think it is in the viewers’ interest that we critically assess how the stories are packaged as a collective. If we theorize that the media caters to the audience, then if the viewers bring in a critical lens to this issue, the documentary will cater the viewers to the specific narratives that they prefer. On the other hand, it is important to note that these collective narrative serves even a bigger purpose as well. As seen in the TRC movement, one highlight of an experience would not come to represent the discrimination that happened to the First Nations people and would be a temporary social issue that people will most likely forget about. It is a very contradicting balancing act that consumers of narratives must think about.
Hi Makoto,
I think your idea of a pre-packaged narrative is very interesting and can be expanded on by looking on what we know of the “addicts.” We know their current lives, how they got their, and their struggle with the everyday. However, what do we know besides their label as “addict?” The film frames the people who have addictive personalities and it was only a matter of time they ended up in the DTES. They pre package the idea of the DTES resident as someone who chose to love there for the high. While yes this all serves the purpose of the film in telling kids not to do drugs, it like you say portrays these people as addicts that live with their identity on their sleeve. They are not mother, artist, compassionate. No the labels they get slapped with are: homeless, prostitute, crazy, physco, addict.