WPS6491


Policy Research Working Paper                    6491




             The Projection of Development
          Cinematic Representation as An(other) Source
                 of Authoritative Knowledge?

                                David Lewis
                               Dennis Rodgers
                              Michael Woolcock




The World Bank
Development Research Group
Poverty and Inequality Team
June 2013
Policy Research Working Paper 6491


  Abstract
  Popular representations of development need to be                                 and interpreted the efficacy of interventions (whether
  taken seriously (though not uncritically) as sources of                           of a military, diplomatic or humanitarian nature) at a
  authoritative knowledge, not least because they are                               particular time and place. The authors argue that the
  how most people in the global north (and elsewhere)                               commercial and technical imperatives governing the
  encounter development issues. To this end, this paper                             production of contemporary films, and popular films
  presents three clusters of films on development: those                            in particular, generate a highly variable capacity to
  providing uniquely instructive insights, those unhelpfully                        accurately render key issues in development, and thereby
  eliding and simplifying complex processes, and those                              heighten their potential to both illuminate and obscure
  that, with the benefit of historical hindsight, usefully                          those issues.
  convey a sense of the prevailing assumptions that guided




  This paper is a product of the Poverty and Inequality Team, Development Research Group. It is part of a larger effort by
  the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around
  the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be
  contacted at d.lewis@lse.ac.uk, dennis.rodgers@glasgow.ac.uk and mwoolcock@worldbank.org.




         The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development
         issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the
         names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those
         of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and
         its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.


                                                       Produced by the Research Support Team
                             The Projection of Development:

     Cinematic Representation as An(other) Source of Authoritative Knowledge? 1



                                       David Lewis

                                      Dennis Rodgers

                                    Michael Woolcock




JEL: Z11

Key words: authoritative knowledge, cinema, popular culture, representation

Sector Boards: SDV
Introduction



The wide-ranging and intrinsically public nature of development means that coming to grips

with broader, more popular understandings of the concept is critical to improving the way

development policies are conceived, debated, implemented, and assessed. Partly for this

reason, we made a case in an article entitled “The Fiction of Development� that novels ought

to be considered potentially valuable sources of information about development, since they

both supplement and challenge more familiar forms of academic or policy knowledge, and

may also qualify or even overtly challenge mainstream thinking about knowledge authority

(Lewis et al., 2008). In that paper, we limited our discussion to literary fiction, but we

recognized that other forms of fictional representation, such as films and plays, also

constituted important communicative mediums for addressing key themes in development.

Building on some of the insights of our earlier article – and as promised in one of its footnotes

– this paper extends our arguments to the interface between cinema and development.2

       This paper aims to introduce the subject of cinema and development as a potentially

fruitful area for future research, and using some brief and selective examples, to draw out

some preliminary insights. In recent years, for instance, relatively popular films such as Blood

Diamond (2006) and The Constant Gardener (2005) have told stories that attempt both to

entertain and to engage audiences with important global development issues. What is

distinctive about how development issues are rendered in such films, as compared with

scholarly publications and policy reports? We do not attempt to be comprehensive and – as

was also the case in our previous paper on literature – make no claim to be drawing upon a

“representative� body of films about development.3 Rather, the paper draws on a range of

personally selected historical and contemporary examples, which include both Western and

some developing country films, in order to explore the power and limitations of



                                                                                               2
cinematographic representation as an(other) authoritative source of development knowledge.

        Our focus is principally on drama rather than on documentary forms of film.4 We

write primarily from the perspective of development studies and we do not engage in any

depth with film theory in this paper, but we hope that this exploratory work can help to

stimulate such a conversation. We are also acutely conscious that our selection is drawn

primarily from popular films that have been influential in the global north. We hope to

encourage further work that can give due coverage to films from India, Nigeria, South Africa,

South Korea and elsewhere, many of which explicitly address development issues. These

clear limitations notwithstanding, for present purposes we focus on three key issues, namely:



(i)    The nature of film as a representational medium for development concerns;



(ii)   Some of the potential pitfalls associated with film as a representational medium for

       certain specific development-related issues and contexts;



(iii) The way that cinema shapes, but also fundamentally reflects, popular conceptions of

       development in the West.



        What we hope to show is that, like any form of representation, film brings both

strengths and limitations to the ways that it conveys complex issues.5 Although we argue that

films can be a legitimate and potentially important medium for representation, both

intrinsically and instrumentally, we also highlight issues and problems in the underlying

nature of their particular representational power, as well as the inherent ambiguities

associated with films as fundamentally contextualized forms of representation. Awareness of

these strengths and limitations is especially important for teaching development, given the



                                                                                                3
increasing incorporation of film into university classroom discussions and online debates.



Film and development



Few feature films have been concerned directly with agency-led development interventions or

projects. One exception is Martin Campbell’s feature film Beyond Borders (2003), which

stars Angelina Jolie as an aid worker who abandons a comfortable socialite life in London to

become an aid worker in Ethiopia, participating in events reminiscent of the Ethiopian famine

of 1984-85 and the international humanitarian relief effort that followed. It was marketed with

the rather dismal tag-line “In a place she didn’t belong, among people she never knew, she

found a way to make a difference�. The film was neither a critical nor a box office success,

but it did attempt to raise some important issues about the politics of aid along the way.

       More common, however, are films that engage tangentially with a variety of broader

development issues – war, conflict and violence, humanitarianism, commerce, poverty,

politics, and more – as part of their setting or plot. One trope that emerges very frequently,

however, is contentious interaction between people from rich and poor countries. Indeed, the

divide between rich and poor – or more precisely, between Westerners and “locals�, as most

of the films we discuss tell their stories from a Western point of view – is arguably the key

concern in most films that can be categorized as “development films�.

       Recent films such Blood Diamond (2006), The Constant Gardener (2005), The Hurt

Locker (2008), or even Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008), fall into this

category.6 At the same time, in addition to focusing on the divide between rich and poor and

outsiders and locals, their narratives are soon complicated by additional storylines that center

on exposing and exploring the tensions within certain key groups – such as pharmaceutical

companies, the military, the media, aid organizations, governments, or citizen groups – on one



                                                                                              4
or both sides of the divide. So while the initial focus may be a deadly conflict in a developing

country – whether it be a “civil war�, a humanitarian intervention, an outright invasion, or

drugs trade-related violence – the central drama concerns the deep moral ambiguities,

personal misgivings and overt power struggles that the protagonists, whether as reluctant,

accidental or noble heroes, find themselves navigating. Indeed, much of the narrative animus

turns out to be driven by the crises, contradictions and greed among those (at least nominally)

on their own side.

        This kind of narrative arc, done carefully, bears repeating, and as a depiction of

“reality� may improve on what passes today for news coverage of such events, where a two-

minute (at best) loop provides viewers with estimates of body counts and property damage,

and explains the carnage as an outcome of a contest between the two most proximate actors

(see Chouliaraki, 2010). Despite being generally plagued by an audience-appealing

imperative to juxtapose relatively clear fault lines of good and evil, the best films in this genre

seek to complicate these categories. They suggest that the very fluidity and ambiguity of

virtue and vice at any given time and place may itself be a factor driving human tragedy, even

as it can also, occasionally, provide narrow windows of opportunity that the fortunate, the

persistent or the deftly strategic can exploit. In the acclaimed film Hotel Rwanda (2004), for

example, one might initially think the distinctions between good and evil would be relatively

clear and straightforward, but the film does a careful job of showing that there was plenty of

blame to go around, the atrocities initiated, sustained and intensified by a complicated storm

of local, national, regional, and international factors.

        If moral ambiguities are well-worn tropes in commercial films, much less so are

themes seeking to convey how highly educated, mostly well-meaning people come to preside

over vast technologies of decision-making that, by privileging certain forms of knowledge-

claiming over others, become complicit in perpetuating (sometimes intensifying) widespread



                                                                                                 5
human suffering. Beyond the world of familiar contests between good and evil people

(doctors, drug lords) engaged in good and evil practices (saving lives, money laundering)

there exists a more pervasive everyday reality in the international aid business, one in which

billions of dollars must be mobilized and dispersed with a minimum of fuss in the service of

“projects� that strive to meet objectives such as enhancing access to education, water, jobs

and justice, among others. Countries and companies have a mixture of motives for engaging

in such activities, the efficacy of which is (for the most part) inherently uncertain, and

mediated via (even as it actively sustains) a complex political economy of domestic and

international actors. How this pervasive uncertainty is resolved – and what imperatives it

generates among constituent actors to sustain the system’s legitimacy and validate one’s

contribution to it – is rarely the subject of cinematic attention.7

        A second general theme often found in development films is “commerce�, where

confusion, prejudice, indifference and exploitation drive human suffering through the

dynamics and imperatives of market exchange. Here, the central argument is not just that the

powerless are shamelessly coerced or manipulated by the powerful, but that these differentials

are compounded by, or even directly premised on, the qualitatively different ways in which

various groups involved understand the transactions taking place. The introduction of money

– an abstraction that is alien to many groups – as the basis of exchange erodes the integrity of

social relations and sometimes alters entire cosmologies (Gauri et al., 2011). A classic film in

this genre is The Gods Must be Crazy (1981), in which a Coke bottle, nonchalantly tossed

from a passing airplane only to land at the foot of a perplexed San tribesman in rural Africa,

becomes the fulcrum around which turn multiple confusions between colonizers and local

populations.8

        A more recent rendering of the deep ambiguities and contestation surrounding

commercial exchange is También la Lluvia (Even the Rain) (2010). This is a film about a



                                                                                              6
documentary about a movie depicting the brutal manner in which the (Christian) Spaniards,

led by Christopher Columbus, conquered and then suppressed the (“heathen�) indigenous

populations of Santo Domingo in the sixteenth century. Making this film, however, are an

ambitious but struggling young director and producer, whose careers turn on completing the

project and making good on the considerable investments that have been ploughed into

making the film; should it fail, they face professional and financial ruin. The film is being

made, however, not in coastal, tropical Santo Domingo but mountainous, temperate Bolivia

(because the local actors are much less costly) and against the backdrop, so everyone learns to

their consternation, of an increasingly violent dispute in the area between the government and

community groups over the privatization of water, an actual event that took place in

Cochabamba in 2000. “Even the rain�, it seems, can be commoditized, bought and sold.

Weaving his way into this contentious mix is Daniel, the film’s lead indigenous actor but also

high-profile critic of the government’s policies, who for his efforts is repeatedly beaten and

imprisoned, thereby jeopardizing the film’s tight production schedule.

       Even the Rain has many messages, but a central one is that while the characters and

contexts may change, powerful people fueled by appropriate combinations of ideas (progress,

efficiency, aspiration), interests (money, fame, salvation), and material resources continue to

wreak havoc on the less powerful. These tumultuous processes, however, are not just driven

by those with money, connections, and guns against noble, innocent villagers, 9 but are also

grounded in orthogonal cosmological and epistemological understandings of the purpose(s)

and mechanics of life. In a particularly powerful scene, an episode from the sixteenth century

encounter is being re-enacted wherein a band of indigenous women and their children are

chased into a river by Spanish soldiers and their attack dogs. The director, Sebastian, explains

to the actors how, facing a certain and gruesome death, the women chose to drown their

children, preferring the trauma of murdering their own flesh and blood over experiencing the



                                                                                              7
even greater trauma of watching their innocent children be mercilessly butchered by swords

and teeth. In order to be faithful to the historical account, Sebastian informs the women

actors, they should run into the river carrying their children, at which point filming would

momentarily cease while the screaming children are replaced by dolls, and the women would

then simulate the drowning of their actual children. “Don’t worry, nothing will happen to your

children – they won’t even get wet�, Sebastian reassures the mothers, “but we need you to do

this because this is how it happened�. Unable to even conceive of taking such actions, let

alone willing to “act� it out for monetary gain, the indigenous cast members simply walk off

the set, leaving unfinished a pivotal scene in Sebastian’s steadily unraveling film.



The potential pitfalls of cinematic representation



The popularity of cinema as a form of entertainment is often assumed to derive at least in part

from its specifically visual form, or put another way, from the power of the moving image to

touch and influence viewers’ minds in a manner unmatched by either the spoken or the

written word. The visual element of a film’s narrative ‘goes well beyond what can be

expressed in words’ (Suber, 2006: xxix-xxx). This power imbues films with the capacity to

represent particular types of situations or events – such as, with regard to development,

poverty, conflict, or a specific context – much more immediately and empathetically. But the

representational power of a film with regard to development issues also lies in the extent to

which the audience has a prior knowledge of the contexts and events being depicted. Films

that have explicitly sought to make developing contexts central to their content have only

become popular in the West since the advent of mass tourism and travel. Although Western

films set in the developing world go back a long way, prior to the 1990s these rarely made

such contexts a central element, generally offering them as backdrops to a more universal



                                                                                             8
story. Compare, for example, two Academy Award-winning films set in India: Gandhi

(1984), which clearly focused on a particular individual’s political trajectory but offered little

of wider Indian society and context; and Slumdog Millionaire (2009), which explicitly offered

a grittier neo-realist depiction of contemporary Indian society.10

         At least part of Slumdog’s success was due to the reduction of global distance.

Western audiences today are more familiar with Indian society than they were 25 years ago.

From this perspective, we need to consider critically how films reflect specific development-

related societal trends and issues. Indeed, one could even argue that it is misleading to view

such popular films as authoritative repositories of knowledge.11 Two films that center on

urban violence in Latin America highlight this issue particularly well. The first is City of God

(2002), a Brazilian film directed by Fernando Meirelles, which was a surprise global hit and

garnered a number of critics’ prizes, as well as four Oscar nominations in 2004. The second is

La Yuma (2010), the first full-length feature film to emerge from Nicaragua in over 20 years.

Directed by the Nicaragua-based Frenchwoman Florence Jaugey, it has not been distributed

as widely as City of God but has been extensively lauded in the media and at independent film

festivals all over the world, and was Nicaragua’s submission for the 2011 Best Foreign Film

Oscar.

         City of God was one of the first films to bring the critical development issue of

Brazilian urban violence into the Western mainstream, and has without doubt helped put the

subject on the public agenda. Such is the power of the film that it is frequently shown in

North American and European university settings as a quasi-documentary, despite the fact

that it makes no claims to being a veridical depiction of Brazilian urban violence. As

Armstrong (2009: 85) has pointed out, “American and European reception of creative art from

the developing world is usually framed by the assumption that it has a testimonial value and

points to a collective condition�, and it was in this way that a short excerpt was used (without



                                                                                                9
forewarning) at an academic conference attended by one of us (Rodgers) in 2003 in order to

introduce the general theme of the paper he was presenting on gang violence in Nicaragua.

       The problem, however, is that the film is not a documentary. Although City of God

draws on a semi-autobiographical novel of the same name published in 1997 by the Brazilian

author Paulo Lins,12 and its basic storyline plausibly depicts the evolution of organized gang

violence in the Cidade de Deus suburb of Rio de Janeiro between the 1960s and the 1980s,

the film is also riddled with stereotypes that both project and confirm certain critically flawed

ideas about gangs and gang members, that have moreover long contributed to preventing

sensible public action being taken to tackle gang violence all over the world. 13 For example,

Little Zé, a central character who is presented as the driving force behind the growth of crime

and violence in the Cidade de Deus suburb, comes across as a psychopath. This implicitly

places the blame for his brutality on individual characteristics rather than the structural

circumstances that the overwhelming majority of gang research has repeatedly highlighted

ever since Frederick Thrasher’s (1927) ground-breaking study of gangs in Chicago.14

       This issue starkly highlights the potential pitfalls associated with seeing films as

authoritative representational forms. More so than any academic or policy text, the credibility

of a film derives squarely from its narrative structure, and cinematographic imperatives being

what they are, facts frequently have to give way to dramatic effect. 15 This is also evident,

though in a different way, with regards to La Yuma. This film tells the story of a young girl

struggling to escape a life of poverty in the barrios of Managua through boxing. It chronicles

her relationships with family, the local street gang (to which she belongs), as well as with a

middle-class journalism university student. Issues such as domestic violence, abuse, gangs,

inequality, and class difference are all tackled in a way that offers an unusually realistic

representation of the difficult nature of life in poor urban neighborhoods, and part of the

film’s appeal clearly derives from its realism. At the same time, however, although much of



                                                                                              10
what is depicted in La Yuma rings true, the overall effectiveness of the film is paradoxically

based on significant simplifications of a complex reality, to the extent that they are actually

extremely distorting.

       Most blatantly, although the film is set at some point after 2006, it depicts gangs as

they existed in the 1990s, ignoring the dramatic and messy consequences that the widespread

emergence of crack cocaine in the early 2000s had in poor urban neighborhoods in Nicaragua.

Previously semi-ritualistic, vigilante-style gangs became more brutal and more predatory of

their local communities as a result of both crack consumption and trafficking (see Rodgers,

2006), but depicting this would have no doubt confused the relatively straightforward

overarching narrative of the film, which manages to remain appealing despite its dramatic

subject matter by offering generally positive representations of unsavory phenomena. Gang

violence, for example, is portrayed almost comically, while depictions of other forms of

everyday chronic brutality, such as domestic violence and abuse, are kept to a minimum, and

generally implied rather than explicitly shown.

       Similarly, inequality is tackled by bringing together the film’s eponymous heroine

with a university student from Nicaragua’s very small – and not terribly significant, at least

from a sociological point of view – middle class rather than juxtaposing her life with that of

an individual emanating from the country’s shockingly venal elite (see Rodgers, 2008). As

such, the film can be said to offer an incomplete and indeed rather particular consideration of

what is perhaps the most fundamental dynamic of contemporary Nicaraguan society.

Although critical of the yawning gap between rich and poor, in representational terms it

arguably misses its target, as the film’s central protagonists all tend to correspond to

exceptional rather than archetypal characters within Nicaraguan society.

       At the same time, Jaugey obviously plays hard and fast with the fabric of social reality

in order to bend it to the needs of crafting a clear and deeply empathic fictional narrative, and



                                                                                              11
succeeds very well in this respect, for the film’s storyline is both engrossing and empathy-

inducing. Its nature is however slightly off-putting for anybody who has a prior knowledge of

Nicaragua – and more specifically of the country’s poor urban neighborhoods – due to the

underlying distortions. Seen from this perspective, it is perhaps unfortunate that the film is

being actively promoted by the French film association as a means through which schools can

teach youth about Nicaragua and Central America, although admittedly in explicit contrast to

more commercial films that involve highly sensationalistic depictions of Central American

gangs, such as Cary Fukunaga’s widely acclaimed Sin Nombre (2009), for example.16

       The power of film as a particular representational genre is clearly a double-edged

sword. There is no doubt that films can convey a visceral sense of a given situation or issue

more vividly than any academic text or policy report. For example, David Wheatley’s film

The March (1990), a serious and ultimately tragic satire about famine, humanitarianism, and

the West’s relationship with the South, is a brilliant teaching tool to shock romantic students

into realizing that the primary imperatives guiding the development business are rarely

idealistic. Although by no means a new point, it is one that is rarely discussed explicitly in

academic – and even less policy – texts, and The March provides excellent dramatic insight

into the issue. But this power is extremely seductive, and in the same way that the narrative

sleights of anthropologists – “I’ve been there and you haven’t� – and the mathematical

mystification of econometricians enable them to authoritatively bulldoze over underlying

deficiencies in their academic texts, it means that cinematic representations of issues and

situations are often not challenged, especially when films are popularly acclaimed.17 In this

respect, The March sometimes verges on caricature. Many of the details that it offers – such

as those concerning the workings of the European Union, for example – are plainly wrong,

but have been clearly modified in order to tighten the narrative structure of the film. But then,

as Mark Twain (in)famously put it, one should “never let the facts get in the way of a good



                                                                                              12
story�, of course.



Films as popular representations of development



This final section discusses some of the ways that film has both represented and shaped ideas

about the development encounter in the popular realm. Film, we argue, like literature, has

played a role in the ways that public understandings of development have been historically

constructed. This is of course a very large subject, and we choose to approach it selectively

through a short case study of a sub-genre of films within a moment of Western cinema during

the first half of the 1980s. From the work of Edward Said (1978) on “Orientalism� onwards,

we have become aware of how the construction of the colonial “Other� is inherently tied to

the construction of notions of selfhood within the colonizing “Self�. This idea continues to

resonate with those wishing to understand how Westerners encounter and view the rest of the

world, and films can clearly help us to understand how the framing of North/South

relationships has evolved and changed, reinforcing or attempting to challenge dominant ideas

and stereotypes among their audiences. Smith and Yanacopulos (2004: 660), for example,

argue that the “public understanding of development� is a difficult area for study precisely

because development itself is a contested subject, and “the fact that there are multiple public

faces of development reflects a complex situation about which we have relatively little

understanding�. Film, we would argue, is a useful place to start in order to see such

complexity in action.

       We find it significant that during the early 1980s, a crop of left-of-center yet

mainstream popular action thrillers started appearing in cinemas. These all shared a common

but arguably new set of anxieties about the changing relationship between the West and the

“Third World�, and took as their central narrative the idea of a Western citizen (normally a



                                                                                            13
journalist) thrown into an unstable or threatening situation in the developing world. 18 Three

notable examples of the genre include Missing (1982), set during the post-Pinochet coup

period in Chile, Under Fire (1983), on the last days of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), which takes place during the failed 1965 communist

coup attempt in Indonesia against Sukarno.19 The central Western character – respectively

played by Jack Lemmon, Nick Nolte, and Mel Gibson – initially has little interest in the

situation around him, but is slowly forced by events to engage more fully and even to take

sides in the struggle for justice within the conflict encountered.

       Missing (1982) was directed by the Greek film-maker Constantin Costa-Gavras, who

shared a screenplay adaptation Oscar for the film, which was also awarded the Palme d’Or at

the Cannes film festival in 1982. Katz (1994: 295) describes the film as “a piercing, factually-

based drama about American-sanctioned political atrocities in post-Allende Chile�. Under

Fire (1983) was directed by the Canadian film-maker Roger Spottiswoode, who began his

cinematographic career as a film editor for Sam Peckinpah, the well-known director of classic

Westerns such as The Wild Bunch (1971) and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973). The film

tells the story of a US journalist who becomes drawn into helping the Sandinista

revolutionaries in Nicaragua maintain their momentum for the final push of their struggle by

taking a bogus picture of their fallen leader that makes him appear to be alive, thus denying

the government both a propaganda victory and its final consignment of US weapons. Finally,

Australian director Peter Weir’s The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) follows an

inexperienced Australian journalist called Guy Hamilton as he becomes caught up in the

turbulent politics of Indonesia in 1965, and has his indifference to his surroundings

challenged.

       All three films enjoyed significant popular and critical acclaim. In general terms, they

can be seen to form a sub-genre of “Westerners lost and found in Third World conflicts�.



                                                                                             14
People are caught up within the local realities of global conflicts and forced to reassess their

attitudes and their place in the world. As Hettne (2009: 84) writes in his overview of

development thinking, “the 1970s was a decade of crisis and rethinking, paving the way for

significant discursive change. The shift to a new development discourse, which was centered

on the concept of globalization, came around the year 1980�. Although the end of the Cold

War was still some years away, the seeds of a new reality were becoming increasingly

evident. Hettne in particular draws attention to a specific set of factors that contributed to the

new development paradigm of “globalism� at this time, including the rise of the New Right, a

neo-liberal “counter revolution� in development economics, the collapse of communism, and

the rise of post-modernism. All three of the films touch directly on these issues, and in doing

so both reveal aspects of this period of change, whether in terms of national level

transformation in relation to global economic and political interests, or the level of the

personal, through the narratives of individual actors caught up in events.

       In Missing, for example, Charlie, the idealistic “anti-establishment� young American

writer – naïve, but curious about the world about him – is living in Chile with his wife Beth.

Traveling outside Santiago, Charlie is trapped by the coup, and the film retrospectively

follows his efforts to get back safely through the maze of Chilean army check points and

encounters with dubious US undercover agents. We know that Charlie did not return, and is

listed by the authorities as missing. Eye-witnesses report that he was arrested by the military,

but the US embassy denies any knowledge of this and insists that he is more likely to be in

hiding since he had supposedly been associating with radical students. The film then traces

the efforts of Beth, and Ed Horman, his businessman father, who flies to Chile to uncover

what actually happened. The setting of post-Allende Chile is an environment that first

challenges, then traumatizes and eventually transforms, Ed Horman. He begins the film as a

conservative Christian Scientist with complete faith in the integrity of the US government, but



                                                                                               15
his worldview is shaken when he finds out the truth about the extra-judicial killing of his

“disappeared� son during the recent US-backed coup. The film exposes US involvement in

the coup in support of companies operating in Chile’s markets, and Ed Horman’s narrative arc

depicts the questioning by ordinary citizens of what is being done in their name in the Third

World. Ed initially refuses to see the evidence of US complicity in the terrible events that

have just taken place in Chile, but is eventually persuaded by the weight of evidence that Beth

shows him, by the callous double-speak of officials who claim to be trying to help him, and

eventually by the hundreds of bodies that he sees in the local morgue. At the end of the film,

when Ed confronts the US Ambassador he is told: “If you hadn’t been personally involved in

this… unfortunate incident, you would be sitting at home complacent and more or less

oblivious to all this�.

        Missing makes the personal political, but the neo-liberal ravages of Thatcherism and

Reaganism during the 1980s – the part of the ideological foundations that had been laid in

Chile under the authoritarian Pinochet regime – highlight how such a distinction is ultimately

spurious. Certainly, this is one of the messages contained in Under Fire, which explicitly

shows how individual personal experience comes together with wider global issues. In this

film, the central character, photographer Russell Price, has flitted from war zone to war zone

until he finds himself taking pictures in Nicaragua just before the 1979 Sandinista revolution.

Events however lead him to abandon his position of cynical detachment when he is forced to

take sides, after witnessing what he eventually comes to see as a collision between heroic

local struggles and malign global forces. The opening scene of the film takes place in Chad,

where Price bumps into an American mercenary, Oates, who is used to changing sides

regularly in local conflicts, and often does not even know if he is with the government or the

rebels. The narrative then moves to Nicaragua, the next global trouble spot, where we meet

boozy press man Alex and his journalist wife Claire, who are separating. When Russell is



                                                                                            16
later taken to meet renowned guerrilla leader Rafael, Claire pointedly tells him that “the world

is not divided into East and West any more, it is divided into North and South�.

       On the one hand, the Cold War period is spelled out through the idea of journalists and

mercenaries moving from one war zone to another, indifferent either to the human suffering

or the politics in which they are implicated. On the other hand, however, the film depicts a

changing world order, in which the power play between East and West is becoming

characterized by growing tensions between rich and poor areas of the world, a new

geopolitical turning point. Its vision is intimately tied up in the individual personal epiphanies

of the Western bystander characters in the film, but the film also reveals the indifference of

global American power to poverty and social justice. When towards the end of the film Claire

sees her husband Alex’s filmed death at the hands of the military on a television screen at a

hospital for a second time, she looks away in pain. A Nicaraguan medical staff person tells

her: “50,000 Nicaraguans have died; now perhaps Americans will be outraged by what is

happening here. Perhaps we should have killed an American journalist 50 years ago�.20

       The film also brings a strongly cinematic view of development because it attempts

consciously to be a film about “seeing�, and tries to “sync� the visual medium of film with

some of its ideas. The power of the visual/representation is revealed through the main

character, a photographer, whose pictures are central to both the storytelling and the structure

of the film, and issues of representation are framed in moral and political terms. Russell says

at one point to a radical Nicaraguan priest he meets in a police cell, “I don’t take sides, I take

pictures�, and is told by the priest to “go home� if he can’t do more. The film also relies on

the power of Russell’s photographs for much for its impact. We are often shown significant

events through the roving, obsessive lens of his camera, with the action suddenly frozen in a

still that turns from color into black and white. This stylistic freeze frame technique recurs

throughout the film, forcing us (and the characters) to look more closely at the details of



                                                                                               17
poverty, injustice and violence, and perhaps at the same time revealing (and challenging?) the

implicit exploitation within our gaze.21 Here, the potential for connecting the study of

development films more tightly with film theory, and what Narine (2010: 120) describes as

‘cinematic looking relations’, becomes particularly apparent. The key themes of power,

seeing and representation are in fact given center stage in the central dramatic turning point in

the film, where during the Sandinistas’ final push Russell is asked to take sides and stage a

photograph that makes the recently killed rebel leader appear to still be living, to prevent new

US arms shipments to Somoza’s regime. As a guerrillero puts it, “you’re a great

photographer, make him alive�.

       The Year of Living Dangerously similarly engages with relationships between the First

and the Third Worlds. An important contrast with the other two films, however, is the

different narrative point of view, insofar as the story of The Year of Living Dangerously is

mainly told from the point of view of Billy Kwon, a Chinese-Australian photographer who

has formed close relationships with local people and is highly sensitive to events going on all

around. As in Under Fire, Western ways of seeing are both problematized and politicized

within the film’s narrative. We see Kwan’s photographs being developed in the dark-room,

and they help to reveal the human and political stories of poverty and underdevelopment that

are lost on the other Westerners.22 He adopts and tries to educate Hamilton, feeding him

contacts and telling him “you have got to listen harder�. Hamilton becomes more sensitive to

his surroundings, meets and falls in love with Gill who works at the British Embassy, and he

begins filing hard-hitting news stories about what is going on, including a passionate report

on the Lombok famine.

       The film’s main narrative turning point occurs when Hamilton is presented with an

ethical challenge in the form of information that an arms shipment from China has arrived

that will make a Communist uprising possible, but unlike Russell in Under Fire, he fails the



                                                                                              18
test. He decides to turn the information into a good story that will further his career, but

instead of remaining discrete as his source had requested, he asks questions and puts others in

danger. For Billy, this is nothing less than a betrayal, and he rebukes him: “You have abused

your position as a journalist … I made you see things; I made you feel something about what

you write�. Hamilton’s inability to fully alter his worldview, beyond a superficial concern that

serves his career, can be read as a metaphor for the indifference and collusion of the West in

Third World poverty. One way this is expressed is through Hamilton’s relationship with his

loyal driver and Communist sympathizer Kumar, whose life becomes threatened after the

ensuing PKI uprising fails. ‘Tell me’, Kumar asks him, ‘Am I a stupid man? … Why should I

live like a poor man my whole life when stupid people in your country live well?’ When

Hamilton says that this is a “good question�, but that he has no answer, Kumar replies, “So

why do you condemn those in my country who try to do something about it? … Mister Billy

Kwon was right. Westerners do not have answers any more�. The world, and the West’s

position within it, has changed within a shifting global order, but only a few are yet able to

see it.

          These films both reflected but also arguably contributed to shaping several important

strands of changing development thinking during the 1980s. The onset of globalization, in

which the distance between individual Western lives and the “masses� of the developing

world suddenly seemed to become shorter, is clearly reflected in all three, for example. The

complacency of Western citizens to poverty and oppression is highlighted.23 Missing and

Under Fire explicitly question Cold War assumptions about the West propping up

authoritarian regimes irrespective of the human consequences of this policy, and arguably

herald the re-birth of an ethically and human rights-driven approach to development (see

Little, 2003), in stark contrast to the technocratic vision that predominated during the 1960s

and 1970s. Another issue that emerges clearly from all three films is the growing distrust of



                                                                                             19
the state, and in particular, of what the Western state tells its citizens about the wider world –

a critical view of the state which was already beginning to feed into the new neoliberal

orthodoxy. It is difficult to separate cause and effect here, of course, but the popularity of this

particular genre suggests that it captured something of an epochal zeitgeist, both reflecting

and most likely influencing people’s hopes, fears, and assumptions. Although The Year of

Living Dangerously is set in the 1960s, and Missing and Under Fire in the 1970s, the

concerns of these films are fully those of the mid-1980s.



Conclusion



In this paper we have tried to open up a range of themes within the “projection of

development� in order to promote further engagement with the idea of film as an important

but as yet under-studied medium for development knowledge. We began our exploration with

a discussion of the nature of film as a representational medium for development concerns, and

noted the ways that a number of films have explored key themes within the landscape of

global inequalities and power relationships. For example, films have shown a particular

capacity for exploring a range of disjunctures24 between policymakers and the impact of their

decisions upon people, the neglect of history and context by decision makers doomed to

repeat their mistakes, and the dynamics and morality of market exchange between rich and

poor groups. And as Even the Rain shows us, we can even draw a potentially useful analogy

between the production of a film and a development intervention. It is no accident that a film

is normally described as a ‘project’, and is a venture that requires the top-down directed

organization of a mixed group of insiders and outsiders into meaningful action and outcomes.

When they were asked to act out scenes that they found objectionable, the indigenous cast

members of the film portrayed in Even the Rain simply walked off the set, just as community



                                                                                                20
members may exit development projects which fail to meet their needs and resist policy

decisions over which they have little say. There is therefore a fairly straightforward argument

that can be made concerning the power of films as additional and legitimate forms of

development knowledge, both because film is a popular medium, and because films are

documents with a capacity for dealing with certain types of complexity and offering

distinctive insights.

        Yet there are also potential pitfalls and limitations that are apparent within this brief

review. As both La Yuma and The March show us, powerful visual storytelling all too easily

comes at the cost of factual detail and historical accuracy, raising the question of whether the

gains made by the medium of film within one area of the representation of development

knowledge may all too easily become weakened or even invalidated by the losses within

another. There is also a constant and often unhealthy tension between the emphasis on

individual actors and their moral and political dilemmas and the wider structural and societal

factors that conditions the social settings in which these stories are told. And while films that

focus on Westerners engaging with their own consciences, dilemmas and contradictory

feelings towards global conflict and inequality doubtless provide instructive insights that can

feed usefully into public understanding of development issues and may even (at best)

contribute to raising awareness and even politicization, there is often a high cost paid in terms

of the relative lack of local voices.

        In short, many of the films we have discussed here raise important problems that will

need further elaboration than the brief treatment we have been able to provide: including the

over-reliance on particular narrative imperatives, the seductiveness of film as a medium, the

personalizing of politics, the selectivity of issues that are focused upon, the inability to

address structural complexity, and the tendency for trivialization of serious issues within star

actor vehicles. Despite this double-edged sword, the way cinema plays a role in shaping and



                                                                                              21
reflecting popular perceptions of global development issues in the West cannot easily be

ignored. Films set at particular historical junctures such as La Yuma may, as we have seen,

display jarring anachronisms, but the film itself is of its time and speaks to its own present.

Similarly, The Year of Living Dangerously says as much about the growing awareness of a

moment of globalization in the 1980s as it does about Sukarno’s Indonesia in 1965.

       As we attempted in our earlier paper in relation to the development novel, we have

tried to argue in this paper that there are important opportunities for a closer engagement with

film as a medium for discussing the ideas and processes of development. If it sometimes feels

that the boundaries of acceptable development knowledge are being significantly narrowed by

the current emphasis on quantification (e.g., the formal measurement of “impact�,

“effectiveness� and “results�, the heightened attention to randomized controlled trials), it is

instructive to recognize the value of films as an archive of popular ideas about the vicissitudes

of development, as reflections of the prevailing societal zeitgeist, and last but not least, as

powerful teaching tools for bringing alive and humanizing important, if inherently vexing,

global issues.



Suggested Films on Development Issues



The following list represents a personal and idiosyncratic selection of films that we hope will

constitute a starting point rather than an endpoint for anybody interested in exploring the

cinematographic representation of development. With the exception of a couple discussed in

this paper, we have limited ourselves to English-language films.



ï‚· Apocalypto (2006)

ï‚· Avatar (2009)



                                                                                              22
ï‚· Bamako (2006)

ï‚· Beyond Borders (2003)

ï‚· Black Robe (1991)

ï‚· Blood Diamond (2006)

ï‚· Cannibal Tours (1989)

ï‚· Casino Royale (2006)

ï‚· Circle of Deceit (1981)

ï‚· City of God (2002)

ï‚· Critical Assignment (The Guinness film, 2003)

ï‚· Dirty Pretty Things (2002)

ï‚· Entre Nos (2009)

 Even the Rain (También la lluvia) (2010)

ï‚· Gandhi (1984)

ï‚· Gangs of New York (2002)

 Gangster’s Paradise: Jerusalema (2008)

ï‚· Hotel Rwanda (2004)

ï‚· In the Loop (2009)

ï‚· Johnny Mad Dog (2008)

ï‚· Journey to Banana Land (1950)

ï‚· Jungle Drums of Africa (1953)

ï‚· La Yuma (2010)

ï‚· Men with Guns (1997)

ï‚· Missing (1982)

ï‚· Salaam Bombay (1988)

ï‚· Salmon Fishing in Yemen (2011)


                                                  23
ï‚· Salvador (1983)

ï‚· Sin Nombre (2009)

ï‚· Slumdog Millionaire (2009)

ï‚· Tears of the Sun (2003)

ï‚· The Beach (2000)

ï‚· The Constant Gardener (2005)

ï‚· The Constant Gardner (2005)

ï‚· The Day after Tomorrow (2004)

ï‚· The Fog of War (2003)

ï‚· The Gods Must be Crazy (1981)

ï‚· The Hurt Locker (2008)

ï‚· The Killing Fields (1984)

ï‚· The Last King of Scotland (2006)

ï‚· The March (1990)

ï‚· The Mission (1986)

ï‚· The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)

ï‚· The Painted Veil (2006)

ï‚· The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)

ï‚· Tsotsi (2005)

ï‚· Turistas (2006)

ï‚· Under Fire (1983)

ï‚· Viva Zapata (1952)

ï‚· Volunteers (1985)

ï‚· White Material (2009)




                                          24
References



Armstrong, P. (2009) “Essaying the real: Brazil's cinematic retomada and the new

       commonwealth�. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Studies, 15(2): 85-105.

Chouliaraki, L. (2010) “Ordinary witnessing in post-television news: Towards a new moral

       imagination�. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4): 305-319.

Diken, B. (2005) “City of God�. City, 9(3): 307-320.

Eitzen, D. (1995) “When Is a Documentary?: Documentary as a Mode of Reception�. Cinema

       Journal, 35(1): 81-102.

Gauri, V., M. Woolcock, and D. Desai. (2011) Intersubjective Meaning and Collective Action

       in ‘Fragile’ Societies: Theory, Evidence and Policy Implications. World Bank Policy

       Research Working Paper no. 5707, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Herrera, E., G. A. Jones, and S. T. de Benitez. (2007) “Tears, trauma and suicide: Everyday

       violence among street youth in Puebla, Mexico�. Bulletin of Latin American Research,

       26(4): 462-479.

Hettne, B. (2009) Thinking About Development, London: Zed Books.

Jameson, F. (1992) Signatures of the Visible. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

Katz, E. (1994) The Macmillan International Film Encyclopaedia, 2nd edition. London:

       Macmillan.

Lewis, D., and D. Mosse. (2006) “Encountering order and disjuncture: Contemporary

       anthropological perspectives on the organisation of development�. Oxford

       Development Studies, 34(1): 1-13.

Lewis, D., D. Rodgers, and M. Woolcock. (2008) “The fiction of development: Literary

       representation as a source of authoritative knowledge�. Journal of Development

       Studies, 44(2): 198-216.



                                                                                        25
Little, D. (2003) The Paradox of Wealth and Poverty: Mapping the Ethical Dilemmas of

        Global Development. Boulder: Westview Press.

Narine, N. (2010) “Global trauma and narrative cinema�. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(4):

        119-145.

Rodgers, D. (2006) “Living in the shadow of death: Gangs, violence, and social order in urban

        Nicaragua, 1996-2002�. Journal of Latin American Studies, 38(2): 267-92.

Rodgers, D. (2008) “A symptom called Managua�. New Left Review, 49: 103-120.

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Sengupta, M. (2010) “A million dollar exit from the anarchic slum-world: Slumdog

        Millionaire’s hollow idioms of social justice�. Third World Quarterly, 31(4): 599-616.

Smith, M. and H. Yanacopulos. (2004) “The public faces of development: An introduction�.

        Journal of International Development, 16(5): 657-664.

Suber, H. (2006) The Power of Film. Studio City: Michael Wiese.

Thrasher, F. (1927) The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago: University of

        Chicago Press.

Wolseth, J. (2009) “Good times and bad blood: Violence, solidarity, and social organization

        on Dominican streets�. In G. A. Jones and D. Rodgers (eds.), Youth Violence in Latin

        America: Gangs and Juvenile Justice in Perspective. New York: Palgrave, pp. 63-82.

Zaniello, T. (2007) The Cinema of Globalization: A Guide to Films about the New Economic

        Order. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.




1
  Lewis is a Professor of Social Policy (London School of Economics), Rodgers is Professor of Urban Social and
Political Research (University of Glasgow), and Woolcock is Lead Social Development Specialist (Poverty and
Inequality Unit, Development Research Group). A longer version of this article is forthcoming in the Journal of
Development Studies. We are grateful to Dan Brockington, Veronica Davidov, Peter Lanjouw and an anonymous
referee for useful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. The views expressed in this paper are those of
the authors alone, and should not be attributed to the organizations with which they are affiliated. Email
addresses       for      correspondence:       d.lewis@lse.ac.uk,     dennis.rodgers@glasgow.ac.uk,        and
mwoolcock@worldbank.org.
2
  Some of the books discussed in our original article, such as Graham Greene’s The Quiet American or Monica


                                                                                                            26
Ali’s Brick Lane, have been made into films. While it might be worthwhile to compare themes across different
media, we mainly focus here on a fresh selection of development-related films.
3
   For example, Zaniello (2007) summarises over 200 films on globalization. While Zaniello’s stance is one of
explicit critique, our focus here is on the distinctive contribution that films bring to development debates.
4
   Although our main focus is on dramas, many of the points that we raise are clearly also applicable to
documentaries, even if there also exist numerous differences between films and documentaries (see Eitzen, 1995,
for further critical discussion).
5
   We acknowledge that considering the nature of the audiences for which these films are produced is also an
important issue, although for reasons of space we have chosen not to focus on this particular topic in any depth.
Many of the films that we discuss in this chapter have been made specifically for Western audiences – even if
they also circulate globally – and that this conditions their general tenor, which tends to be critical but overall
offers a non-radical perspective on “development�. At the same time, to a large extent this is very much an
organic process, and we would not want to suggest that the contemporary “development film� business is
(necessarily) a propaganda machine in the way that the Colonial Film Unit, which produced instructional films
for African subjects of the British Empire, for example, was in the past.
6
  Many of the popular (Western) films on development are adaptations of books. We are unable to say whether
this is the result of a wider trend within the film industry to reduce risk by filming books (and making remakes)
or whether it reflects a distinctive point about development film making.
7
   While the narrative demands of a “development drama� structurally lend themselves to a portrait of
development focused on individuals rather than structures, this may not be the “fault� of any particular film but
an inherent issue affecting the genre as a whole. We are grateful to Veronica Davidov for pointing this out to us.
8
  The film was also criticised at the time for itself reinforcing racial and cultural stereotypes.
9
   One of few representational missteps in Even the Rain is the overly noble and internally unified manner in
which indigenous populations are portrayed. A more realistic account would surely depict the deep divisions
within such communities, and the further unhappiness that flows from capitulation – whether driven by
reasonable or selfish motives – by indigenous elites to external commercial or political pressures.
10
   The extent to which Slumdog Millionaire is realistic is open to question (Sengupta 2010). Furthermore, Mira
Nair’s Salaam Bombay (1988) offered a much grittier depiction of urban deprivation to Western audiences a full
two decades earlier.
11
   One could argue of course that the veracity of cinematic representation is not the point. The popularity of the
medium may still serve to promote a concern for development issues more widely than is generally the case with
academic or policy outputs, irrespective of whether the film is “right� or “wrong�.
12
   Although Paulo Lins grew up in the Cidade de Deus suburb, his writing drew much more on his experiences
as research assistant for Alba Zaluar, one of Brazil’s foremost anthropologists (personal communication with
Dennis Rodgers, 19 October 2009). It is also important to note that there are major differences between the book
and the film.
13
   More generally, as Bülent Diken (2005: 311-12) points out, the film also represents the favela (slum) in a
particular way, based on “the logic of oppositional differences between normality and perversion, law and
despotism, mind and body, reason and desire. Through a power –knowledge nexus, the …favela is frozen in
stereotypes. … In other words, the favela is constituted as a fantasy space that both conditions and escapes the
‘social’. Fantasies create objects of desire, but they create these objects as being out of reach�.
14
   In a related manner, the scene in the film where a street child is made to choose and kill one of his peers, an
act that is depicted as presenting him with an extreme moral dilemma, may lack plausibility. Much research on
street children has highlighted how they are generally bound to other street children by rather weak and often
very temporary ties that mean that they often betray each other with little thought or remorse (Herrera et al.,
2007; Wolseth, 2009).
15
    Armstrong (2009: 92), for example, notes that City of God mixes an “MTV style� with “neo-realist
technique�, and that it is very much this eclectic cinematographic style that enable s the film to live up to Frederic
Jameson’s (1992: 1) famous aphorism that “the visual is essentially pornographic, which is to say that it has its
end in rapt, mindless fascination�.
16
   See http://www.cinelangues.com/wp-content/uploads/Dossier_La%20yuma.pdf [accessed 10 June 2011].
17
   This issue is not just limited to film, but also applies more generally.
18
   An alternative type of film about Western citizens in danger in the “Third World� has emerged during the last
decade, perhaps reflecting new anxieties about the exploitative relationships between the West and “the Rest�.
For example, the 2006 film Turistas (also known as Paradise Lost) portrays a group of Western tourists who are
kidnapped in order to have their organs harvested. The physician who performs the operations explicitly frames
his actions in developmental terms, explaining to his victims that “rich gringos� exploit Brazil and have done so
for years, but that by harvesting their organs and sending them to urban hospitals to give to poor Brazilians, “it is
time to give back�.



                                                                                                                  27
19
   Other films in this mini-genre include Volker Schlondorff’s Circle of Deceit (1981) about a disillusioned West
German man in a barren marriage who goes to work as a war correspondent in Beirut, and Oliver Stone’s
Salvador (1986), about a US journalist who leaves behind his problems to drive to El Savador.
20
   The broader point being made here relates to the relationship between authority and one's position within
development contexts writ large. The value of being a white Westerner is presented as offering a comparative
advantage in drawing attention to a specific issue. It is interesting, however, to note that more recent films, such
as The Last King of Scotland (2006), make a similar point somewhat differently, insofar as the film ends with a
Ugandan doctor sacrificing himself to save a Scottish doctor's life so that the Scottish doctor can tell the world
about the brutality of the Idi Amin regime, explicitly saying that because he is white, people will listen and they
will believe him.
21
   Such themes are of course reflective of the post-modern concerns with representational issues that were
beginning to gain influence within anthropology, development studies and other fields of the social sciences
during the 1980s.
22
   The role of the figure of “the photographer�, who recurs in City of God, Under Fire and this film, is a central
device in development films that requires a more detailed analysis than can be provided here, bringing an
apparently neutral gaze that enhances the proximity of the viewer. We are grateful to an anonymous referee for
this point.
23
   These films perhaps prefigure what Narine (2010: 120) analyses as the way Western film viewers are made to
feel implicated in ‘the promulgation of the global traumas our leaders have been impotent to prevent’.
24
   See Lewis and Mosse (2006) for a discussion of ‘order and disjuncture’ in development.




                                                                                                                28