In Keenan’s reading, “Mobilizing Shame”, we read about the concept of photography as a way of allocating guilt, with the end goal of justice. He says “Mobilizing shame presupposes that dark deeds are done in the dark, and that the light of publicity—especially of the television camera—thus has the power to strike preemptively on behalf of justice,” (Keenan, 446). However, by this ideology, action is only linked to shame and guilt due to imagery/video being unavoidable through publicity. Therefore, is mobilizing shame a “correct” or ethical way of activism? Does it come off as performative? Does our gaze of the photographs and videos of tragedy being shown act as the main factor of action and activism? (Hannah)

“The Viewing Booth” is a film that portrays how personal bias can impact our views on controversial issues. During the film, Maia discovers how some of her beliefs have largely been contradicted by video evidence. Despite this, she finds herself denying video proof, claiming that the Palestinians are acting to exaggerate their living conditions under Israeli rule. However, she still states that: “I view it [B’Tselem videos] from an objective standpoint.” With these reactions in mind, why is it difficult for people to believe in video evidence when it contradicts their beliefs? How much does shame influence our beliefs to change? Is it more likely to change to a more open mind or have our beliefs become more deeply ingrained? When our beliefs do become more deeply ingrained, does this mean filmmakers are not reaching their audiences through the right medium (ie: videos)?(Vicky)

The film “The Viewing Booth” explores a student named Maia’s viewing of pro and anti Israeli soldier/military clips. Her initial reaction to watching 11 clips is interesting and hesitant. She often recognizes the fact that the clips shown depict Palestinians being treated harshly by Israeli soldiers. However, she often feels the clips are staged or lack context. Upon returning half a year later to “the viewing booth” to rewatch videos of herself reacting to the aforementioned clips, she maintains these hesitant perspectives. She often mentions that it seems those behind the camera are in control, selecting what is in frame and what is absent. At the end of the film, she tells Ra’anan that maybe these clips/films are simply not good enough, or not convincing enough, to change a fundamental value or belief system. Knowing this, is it reasonable to believe in the power of film to influence an individual's beliefs despite all of film’s flaws and limitations? What can filmmakers do to make their films more trustworthy in the eyes of viewers? How can we, as viewers, find truth within films despite our preconceived notions? (Valentina)