VIRUS: I review a CSULB student documentary

SUMMARY: This CSULB student documentary makes an effort to challenge a city that treats homeless as a virus; it shows heart, but lacks discussion of a realistic fix. I feel it mutes concerned city officials and ministry leaders, limiting a full and realistic hearing – as it may counter the thesis. Police are neutered without the voice of their Quality of Life Team’s heroic efforts. Hopefully, a final edit may correct this vacuum.

VIRUS (2010)
Directed By: Neil Corbin
Produced By: Abina Anthony-Davis
Website: http://virusdocumentary.wordpress.com/
Plot Outline: An experimental documentary chronicling the lives of the homeless in Long Beach, CA, as well as the director's own stints with homelessness.

REVIEW: I was invited to view a student documentary at the art deco Art Theater in Long Beach. Having been one of those interviewed, as was our program director, I was quite hopeful for the outcome. I usually tread carefully when asked to be interviewed on the subject of homelessness; not knowing the angle of the interviewer. But this time I had been impressed with the questions and thoroughness of the videographers. Not being an art or film critic, I hesitate to comment on the technical aspects of a film. Some edits and transitions seemed to lack overlap and continuity – scenes reflective of chronic street and occasional homelessness of a family could be restructured. But these are postmodern times and such dissonance is not necessarily error. Perhaps the view here is that homelessness is dissonant with society. Although feeling it has shortcomings, it definitely has an artistic flavor. Even being a service provider to the homeless myself, its reality brought emotion to me at times.

That short attempt at a review aside, I will comment on what is for me an unfortunate lack in reality. Several persons of the chronic sort of homelessness are interviewed. Those serving this community will recognize them as long-term guests of numerous programs and “targets” of our outreach for over four years – and are ones who fight against assistance that would bring them back into society. Living on the river, under bridges or occasional places of normal habitat, their stories are similar; law enforcement issues, lack of relief, and the implications of their choices. Knowing them, it is hard to feel sorry for them (but I do anyway – just don’t blame it on the city).

Prefaced very appropriately with my narrative of seeing one’s neighbor as potentially homeless, is the story of a family who experienced an off-the-street bout with near-homelessness during a rough patch. Living in their business location kept them from the street. It reminded me of spending close to a year traveling with my family of six in our 1974 VW Camper van as we traveled across the country during our missionary training. No, living like that was not our training; but, as the family in the film, we learned a lot from that time.

A local pastor shares the situation of the homeless sleeping outside his church being harassed by law enforcement and the church being cited by the city. What he doesn’t explain is why he didn’t open his doors to the homeless – and improve the quality of life for both them and the church’s neighborhood.

Clips of city staff, a council person, and ministry staff are merely that – clips . . . which are literally merged into white noise. I know the hearts of these persons and the concern they carry for the need of the homeless people in this city and the efforts to which they extend themselves to meet needs. I know the awesome efforts of the LBPD’s Quality of Life Team over the last three years, as they have tirelessly, and from their heart – and their own pockets – reached out farther than most to see people reconnect with society after decades of being on the street. That story needs to be told – but it would conflict with the director’s thesis.

Yes, indeed; some treat homelessness as a virus – holding these people at arm’s length. But many of us in the community are doing extensive outreach and attempting to develop reciprocal services that will reconcile people back into society. If the issue here is one of personal liberty and the implications of the choice in how one may wish to live – which conflicts with the mission of a city or agency of getting people off the streets – that would be a valiant effort to investigate and expose biases and perceptions of a community attempting normalcy. But this film does not do that. Such as it is, it falls short. However, it gives impetus for thought and consideration as to the humanity of homeless people, as well as drive discussion on what individuals and a community may do in response. For that, I give it a thumbs up.

Note: profanity and simulated drug use.