When reading Detroit’s thoughts on Lev Kuleshov’s essay, his example made me think of a YouTuber who documents drug users in California. As mentioned, @RawRicci415 uses a pessimistic tone in his videos, shaming his subject’s behaviour. Since he is the sole voice/creator behind these videos, he gets to influence his audience to see addicts in a negative light.
In contrast, @SoftWhiteUnderbelly, also known as Mark Laita, takes a more humanistic approach in his videos. He approaches struggling people on the streets and asks them for an interview. Laita films these interviews in a studio, removing the subjects from their harsh conditions and thus giving them a safe and respectful space to tell their stories. The interviewer asks them questions about their childhood, family lives, worldviews, and their history with drug abuse. The interviewees often have very tragic stories, but many still retain a glimmer of hope. The comments on these YouTube videos are very empathetic, some users even state that Laita’s videos help them stay clean. In other cases, viewers are adamant to help the subjects by finding family members to connect them to. Mark Laita also created a GoFundMe to help the 7,000 people he has interviewed. The Soft White Underbelly fund has now raised over 45,000$.
So, as Detroit mentioned, Kuleshov’s argument that montage reflects the worldviews of the creator is clear in these two examples. The manner in which Ricci and Laita edit their videos on similar subjects is dissimilar and therefore influences their audiences differently.