concerns on visual (mis)representation

Dear ones,

I beseech your advice and food for thought and will try to leave my post as succinct as possible.

I've gotten some 'typical' anthro footage of the girls: doing washing, cooking, their 'lived experience'. But ultimately it doesn't say anything about these girls: They are orphans, their families were murdered in a genocide, and they have little hope for a successful future because of it. There is no one to talk to about their problems, so they carry on as if nothing has happened.

The tourist reaction to Rwanda is "Wow the country has totally rebuilt itself, Rwanda has really healed from the genocide." It frustrates me so much because it suggests that people have low expectations for the country, as if the progress from mud homes to cement homes is good enough. There is proverb here that loosely translates, 'what is the point of a good house with no food inside?" Ultimately, such attitudes about economic and structural growth don't leave room to consider the ripple effects of genocide.

So when I film the girls, you don't see what is really going on "below the surface", beyond visual representation. I was thinking of contrasting voice over from interviews over the 'lived experience' footage I shot, but the interviews are so difficult for them I can't help but feel guilty asking such intrusive questions that have already caused them to break into tears.

I also tried lending them journals, but claudene, the very sensitive one shown in the above picture, is illiterate. So I'm thinking of asking her to draw some things for me, but I don't think it will get around the fundamental moral and cinematic problems here:

The girls' footage and work is conveying the same things as mine: playing with friends, going to school, doing chores. How much can you ask a person to demonstrate and share things if she wants to leave them unspoken?

Hope the filming is going well, I can't wait to see what y'all have done!

Sincerely yours,
Elisa