Strangely I think that I get more from stills than video, even though in theory video offers more of a linear and sequential narrative. The images themselves say quite a bit about the kids and their lives. In looking at the 2009 presentation and now the more up to date one, I would say the main difference is that it is better produced. The images interspersed with film and interview give a quite full sense of a presentation of the theme. One thing that occurred to me is that as he is working with children, there is a more candid approach to their photography and interviews. There is not a sophisticated layering of thought processes and therefore it is all very convincing and believable.
Does the work challenge stereotypes? I image so. It seems at least to give a richer perspective that these are individuals and not just groups of immigrants that are somehow problematic for society. I think that the main merit of the project perhaps is this: that it will give the viewer a chance to see that these are simply people like ourselves with basic aspirations and desires, such as we have. There were even some surprising elements in the film, such as the young girl who is a catholic and goes to church. Compared to the images that I saw in the photovoice project, they seem more stylised and well composed. In general a better quality of image is being portrayed here.