Day 4: Nikki--Shouting in the Dark

I like this documentary for several reasons.

First, it was filmed after the Bahraini government took control of the television stations and kicked out international journalists. So viewers get to look inside of (and potentially connect with) a situation that they would have been otherwise prevented from hearing much about.

I appreciate that there was a fair amount of interview footage in the documentary, which made transparent the assumptions driving the film's conclusions. This interview footage allowed me to feel like I was in conversation with some Bahrainis present during the protests, something I wouldn't have gotten given the deliberate censorship of opposition views by the Bahraini government and the consequent danger associated with speaking out.

Finally, I thought the filmmaker's choice to focus this documentary around the hospital, and thus around the concept of human health, was effective and smart. In the past, I have been drawn to the theoretical underpinnings of a movement called Peace through Health.

Peace through Health (PtH) basically promotes the idea of using health as a unifying concept, and the activities around health as unifying actions, amidst conflict. The movement has been fairly criticized for its lack of an evidence base, but I still think there are some potentially helpful concepts raised in discussing the feasibility of peace through health. One of the major tenets of PtH is using the neutrality inherent to the provision of health care as a platform for unification, an entry way for discussion between opposition parties. PtH-centered interventions, which have taken place in many spots on the globe, are known to struggle in the Middle east, the most commonly in the West Bank .

The focus on the bustling hospital, which progressively becomes the protagonist of Shouting in the Dark, presents a challenge to the tenets of PtH, bringing another example from the Middle East. What happens when health does not bring neutrality? Worse, what happens when the provision of health care is mobilized for political purposes?

I still think there are valuable conversations to be had surrounding PtH, and I've seen PtH interventions in other parts of the world that are working in small ways.

So. If the provision of health care can be used a litmus test for the respect of human rights, then I am not sure the investigations into the torture of protesters is really needed to inform the decision around the arms sale. I mean, is the evidence not already written on the wall?

It is worth noting, however, that there were certainly critiques of this documentary, namely that it presents a one-sided view (see comment 1) of the Bahraini Spring. The Bahraini government also came out against the documentary, but I can only seem to find the details of their response in Arabic. (Maybe Mark can help here!) From what I could read in English, the ruling family suggested that the documentary was a political tool used by the government of Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. One of the reasons cited is the fact that the documentary was shown on the English channel of the television network, said to be less influential in the Middle East and more influential in the West.

While it could be argued that the documentary is dramatic and sensational (conforming to the demands of the medium), I still think it plays an invaluable role in understanding the current situation in Bahrain--if only for its display of some raw footage (analysis can be biased, but can footage be biased?) from the protests, and from the television channels where Bahraini government officials spoke, during the protests.

Maybe I would have had a different reaction if I was able to eat popcorn during the show...