SHELTER: A LOOK AT MANCHESTER’S HOMELESS (Documentary Review)

Shelter is a British documentary which uncovers the reality behind the homelessness issue that is continuously  affects major cities. In this documentary, the filmmaker (Mike Staniforth) only focus on Manchester's homeless residents. Not only does this documentary raise aware of the issue in Manchester, but also does a great job at getting insight on how the homeless feel about the city and their situation. Because of the government budget cuts, the homeless shelters are shutting down leaving more and more people on the street. It's not that these people just don't want to work, the issue is that they don't get the opportunity when these shelters are supposed to aid them shut down. It is clear that the Staniforth wants to set an emotional impact on the audience, which is does. By showing that these people are not the stereotypical "drunkards," but good genuine human beings who feel and are afraid of their situation, Staniforth is able to get the audience to his side. He is out to make people be aware of the situation and do something about it. At the end, Staniforth doesn't just write to donate food, money, or clothes. He also adds to just "Donate Something" which further drives home to point that doing anything to help others in need is doing enough. For this reason, this documentary is meant for anyone and everyone who is willing to do anything no matter what the age. Although it focuses on Manchester, the message clearly applies to nations all of the world. 

The filmmaker makes full use of the material presented in front of him. For example, he doesn't just sit in one location with with interviewee. There are multiple different locations showing the many different lifestyles of the homeless he has encountered. The locations range form a dark isolated deteriorating building to an open street filled with lights and people. Both of these locations show that they are definitely not the ideal place to even walk by at night. That threat of the unknown is always present. From an interview with one unnamed man, we can see that the filmmaker took advantage of whatever that was present in front of him. In the interview, we learn in detail how the man who never drank or did drugs ended up being homeless because he had no family and his company went bankrupt. This whole story was explained by the man in one continuous shot while he was walking, which really does add to the connection the audience makes with this man. You really get to feel for the guy. 

This documentary makes critical choices of what is being recorded in relation to the direct observation by the camera operator. For example, in multiple interviews the camera is set on the interviewee's hands while he talks. This doesn't take away from anything being said by the interviewee; instead, it adds to the weakness we should see in them because of their constant struggle. The hands represent the hard work these men and women on the streets have to do everyday just to keep living when all hope for their future seems to be deteriorating. Even the cover of the video shows a hand laying on what looks to be a rolling bag. Another thing the filmmaker focuses on are the locations. Not only does he show the filthy areas these people have to go, but it also juxtaposes them the beautiful imagery of Manchester. This shows just how much people tend to avoid reality. During interviews, the filmmaker constantly shows clips of police officers standing around the homeless people. This actually creates a powerful image that shows that the police, the men and women who are supposed to protect the people, are turning away the ones who need them the most. This image doesn't just apply to police officers, but also the rest of society as well.

This documentary film does not really combine recorded material with voice-over commentary too much. If there is any commentary, the commentary comes directly form the interviews and never from the filmmaker himself. However, the commentary begins at the very end of the footage which then leads to the interviewers being shown and completing his interview. When raw footage of the city or any other location is shown, there is almost never anyone talking over it. This helps the audience absorb the environment without being bombarded with new information.

For the most part the film keeps everything literal, but there are some examples of symbolic imagery in the film. One shot that I can think of is a low angle shot of light shining from above at night and affected the leaves on a tree. This shot is immediately followed by a light lighting up a sign reading "Caution Hazard Ahead." To me the light represent the future. The future is clear, but the road is not. The leaves being lit up at night symbolize the homeless trying to not just go through the day but also through the night towards an unsure future. The sign shows that the goal if evident, but so are the challenges that need to be faced. Accomplishing something like end of homelessness is not easy, but it could be done one step at a night.

Apart from one shot, the film mostly focuses on individuals and not on interactions. The only example interaction is between the same man who talked about loosing his job with another homeless man sleeping in a corner of a dark street. This is very brief. As he walks and sees a man on the floor, he yells out "Hello stranger" and smiles. There is a wheelchair behind the man sitting lying in the floor. This interaction does not show if these two are friends, but it does show the concern for one another. Although neither can do much to help with other with the situation they are in, the least they can do is show concern, which is all that matters. If we showed some concern, maybe we would be able to do something about it when they could not.

The documentary offers touching information from the subjects. There are no experts, just homeless people struggling to survive and all with a smile on their faces. One man in particular admits to being scared everyday. He believes one day someone will come in at night and just kill him. Through his facial expression, it is clear to the audience that this man truly believes in his heart that someone will kill him at night when he is sleeping. He begins to cry. One interviewee says that there really are good people who have been forced to live on the streets when they have done nothing to deserve it. Some talk with a smile as though they enjoy their life everyday, but that adds to the fact that they know and we know that life isn't so simple. The filmmaker gets his main point across simply through the people he is trying to help. With real life stories and real emotions, the filmmaker completes his job.

This documentary does not have any sort of illustration or any other form of suggestive material to get his point across. There is also no direct to camera address or voice over. The only direct message it does have is at the very end. The text simply explains the situation and pleads the audience to do anything they can to help the homeless shelters and therefore help the homeless live a better life.

Nothing in the film seems staged. The only directed part of the film is probably the man showing the place where he goes to at night to sleep. Other than that, everything is recorded how it was present. The editing of the footage also has not affect to the overall message. Although the interviews are intertwined rather than having one long interview, there is no real connection between the interviewees other than the fact they they are homeless. There is almost no sound when no one is talking as to further emphasize the isolation from civilization. There seems to be no overall aim to guide the choices the filmmaker makes in editing the film as he did.

The camera movement is very minimal. For the most part, the camera only moves when the subject is moving. What the filmmaker does do is change not only his lens, but also the camera for the scenes. For example, there are multiple perspectives of a subject in one interview. While one camera stays on the interviewee's face, the other moves around to get interesting positions and a different view of how others look at the homeless. The lenses are only changed to math the location. During most of the interviews, the camera is very up tight and personal and the interviewee and this is probably when a lens with a long focal length was likely chosen. This creates a deep connection with the audience. As for focus, the only time the interviewee is out of focus is when he is talking and the camera is focused on something significant like his hand. Also, the filmmaker doesn't want to distract the audience with his cinematography skills or his use of color in any way which is why they don't vary too much which keeps the attention on the people being interviewed. This keeps the tone to be serious and shows commitment to this field.

Evaluating this film, I feel it did its job to spread the message it was trying to with great efficiency. The interviews played a major role in getting the audience to get attached emotionally. What I would have liked to see are some statistics or maybe an interview with the normal public to see how they feel about the homeless and what they have done. Although the film got its message across, it did not emphasize it as much as it could have. I know it succeeded in doing what it sought out to do because it made me think of how little I have done to help those who really need help and it motivated me to do something. For this reason, I feel this documentary can affect individuals not only in Manchester, but also in other cities and countries around the world.