Daily news

 
Mogilino, lost in translation
16:00 Fri 14 Mar 2008 - Rene Beekman
 

Ever since the film premiered in September 2007, Bulgaria’s Abandoned Children by British director Kate Blewett has provoked strong reactions – in the UK, across Europe and in Bulgaria. Bulgarian reactions have repeatedly accused Blewett of being unfair and manipulative.

The Sofia Echo reviewed the 88-minute version of the film that is available online at Google video, which appears to be a recording of the BBC4 broadcast to try and make an assessment of the Bulgarian claims.

The film opens with a 19-second-long shot of one of the children in a foetal position, rocking back and forth, while humming: "Mmm-mm-mm-mm-mmmmmmm. Mmmmmmm mmmm.”

In an interview with Belgium television Kanaal Een (Channel One), Blewett says she asked her interpreter what the child was singing. According to Blewett, she was told it was a children’s song called Dear, Dear Mummy.

The song she is referring to is Мила моя мамо (My Dear Mummy), which Blewett uses several times in the film. It, though, has a different melody, intonation and rhythm from what the child is humming. My Dear Mummy has a structure of six syllables per sentence, while the child hums in what appear to be five and two syllable sentences.
Two shots later, we meet Didi, one of the girls in the home. Didi says: “Тука са само увредени деца, не могат да говорят” (Here are only children with disabilities, they cannot speak). The film’s subtitles however, translate this as “This is a sanctuary for the damaged.”

Fifty four seconds into the film, the opening title starts.

What follows is 87 minutes filled with mostly monologue by Blewett. By presenting the entire story only in her own words, Blewett gives the viewer no way to verify what she presents as facts.

At two minutes and 40 seconds into the film, we meet Vaski. Vaski is, we are told, blind and diagnosed with cerebral palsy, “a condition many are labelled with here”, Blewett says.

At eight minutes into the film, Didi, who is “mildly autistic but otherwise normal”, according to Blewett, describes her relation with the other children in the home and why they don’t play with her.

She says: “Тук никой не може да говори. Тука са само увредени деца и не могат да говорят” (Here no one can speak. Here there are only children with disabilities and they cannot speak). This is translated as “The other children here are not like me, they are disturbed”. For the full duration of this specific subtitle, we see three of the other children in a row, rocking back-and-forth in their chairs.

At 23 minutes into the film, Blewett has asked for the medical record of one of the boys, Milen. Unthinkable in any medical institution in the UK, but Blewett appears to find it normal and shares the content of the record with the viewer.

Milen has oligophrenia. According to Blewett, oligophrenia is “not a diagnosis that is used in the West. It is a very broad label (again the use of the word label), created in the Soviet era. It ... was often used for the warehousing of dissidents in mental asylums”.

According to US-based Center for Cognitive-Developmental Assessment and Remediation, oligophrenia is the Russian medical term for congenital mental retardation, with three severity levels and further classification into different types.

At 72 minutes into the film, Blewett interviews the nurses. In a dramatic shot she has 11-year-old Stoyan sitting in her lap, she says “I’ve come to see Stoyan six or seven times now. And when I look at him and I see, he is, he is dying, as far as I’m concerned.” Blewett’s word were translated into Bulgarian for the nurses by the interpreter who sat next to Blewett and Stoyan. Stoyan was blind, but not deaf.

The nurses tell Blewett that they are expected to feed and wash the children, so this is what they do. Later Blewett told Kanaal Een “I can understand how a member of staff would feel, well, I’m not being paid for this so I just do the minimum I need to.”

Is the film slanted or manipulated? Although the film contains only small pieces of Bulgarian text, it does contain several mistakes which can hardly be accidental. In Bulgarian “увредени деца” is the normal politically correct term for handicapped children. To translate it as “damaged” and “disturbed” could be interpreted as manipulative. Repeated reference to Bulgarian diagnoses as “labelling” and the association of the diagnoses with dissidents in Soviet asylums is misleading and shows contempt.

Though nothing can justify what has happened to these children, the film would have made more impact if Blewett had just shown the images.

Rene Beekman has been a video editor, mainly for reportage and documentaries for television in the Netherlands, for more than 10 years.

 
Printer friendly version
 
 
 
Comments
 
Comments by Yana - 17:02 02 Apr 2008
The term "Oligophrenia" is a label by virtue of how it has been and continues to be used. As an insult it compares to "идиот". It's common for Bulgarians to insult someone as "олигофрен" when they perceive him/her as especially stupid. As a medical term it implies that the child is sentenced to no life, it's gone, it can develop no more, it can achieve nothing, it's useless.
Comments by rene beekman - 20:38 02 Apr 2008
Yana, you will find that in many languages medical diagnoses - especially those for mental illnesses - are favorite sources of inspiration for all sorts of name-calling and insulting. It is true that "олигофрен" in contemporary Bulgaria is used in that sense outside the medical profession. However, this name-calling or insulting of course only works if the term really is a medical diagnosis. My argument was that Blewett claims it was "not a diagnosis" but "a very broad label, created in the Soviet era ... for the warehousing of dissidents in mental asylums”. Nothing could be further from the truth and she is deliberately creating parallels that do not exist. If the "label" had been invented for the purpose Blewett says it had, its contemporary use would have been completely different. You might find the Russian-language entry on the subject over at wikipedia interesting to read; http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Олигофрения. For those who don't speak Russian, in translation via Google translate; http://google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FОлигофрения&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8. I'd recommend especially the sections on Treatment and Social Adaptation as it clearly shows the distinction between the "label", the diagnosis and the social reaction.
Comments by Yana - 23:39 02 Apr 2008
Rene, Blewett says "it's not a diagnosis used in the West" and that's true. I don't know if this specific diagnosis has been used for Russian dissidents, but as far as I know locking up dissidents in mental hospitals and giving them fake diagnoses did happen with the sole purpose of disabling them, taking away their credibility and eventually taking away their mental health. I can see how Blewett's parallel is simplistic and manipulative, but I don't think the damage is great. But then again, I am not the average audience which faces the problem for the first time. I grew up hearing олигофрен way too often as an insult. It was not until I studied psychology that I saw that it is (a legitimate?) medical term. And I can see the stigma that Blewett points to. In the Wikipedia article you directed me to, under Социальная адаптация you can see with what sort of treatment this diagnosis is associated. The term itself is representative of the thinking that locks children away. I can't imagine anyone who would use "олигофрения" and believe in any sort of future for these children. The term has so much negative bagagge, in and outside of the medical field, that again, it's a terrible label.
Comments by Marina Colozzi - 12:37 14 May 2008
I have just watched the documentary. I cried from the begining to the end. I am currently in the process of writing a letter to the Bulgarian Embassy in Australia. The images said it all. It was appalling to see how those children were being treated not just by the carers but by the state! There was nothing lost in translation. The childrens faces said it all.
Comments by Steven Maron - 05:58 21 May 2008
Rene - this documentary did not have to rely on distortions of fact for its impact. There can be no excuse for such treatment of children. These children were starving to death before their 'carer's' eyes.
Comments by Susan Smith - 19:05 02 Aug 2008
Have you been paid by the bulgarian government or something? What you wrote in this article was completely irrelevant. Translation or no translation, it's plain to see that people were suffering. No one sane believes it was manipulated. Shouldn't this type of exposure be encouraged?
Comments by Don Bishop - 19:09 02 Aug 2008
You are obviously losing sight of what it is important. It's not about your ego, it's not about Bulgaria or even the country. It's just about putting an end to suffering. Do something useful and stop being blind in the name of patriotism.
 
 
more from News
Custom Search
Free Daily News Alerts
BNB Fixing 21 Nov 2008
EUR1.2542USD
EUR0.795GBP
EUR1.95583BGN
USD1.55942BGN
GBP2.32256BGN
 
 
 
 
Download first page