Between 2016 and 2020, family YouTube stars Myka and James Stauffer chronicled their journey to adopt a boy with special needs from China. The couple’s story of welcoming a baby boy, whom they named Huxley, to their family of five has ushered in a new era of success for the Ohio-based bloggers, whose video of Huxley’s adoption alone garnered 5 Got over a million views.
But their burgeoning business, where Huxley was a star, came crashing down in 2020, when the couple released a video revealing they had found a new home for the boy. He said his termination from the adoption stemmed from his realization that he could not adequately care for Huxley and his medical problems – which led to a massive backlash that resulted in Micah’s public Disappeared from life. (“Huxley” is no longer a baby name, and James still has an active YouTube channel focused on car maintenance, with over a million subscribers.)
That story is now the subject of a new three-part documentary by filmmaker Rachel Mason (), which premiered Thursday at the Tribeca Film Festival. I, which will eventually air on Max, looks at Mason Stauffers’ story from several angles. She talks with other family bloggers, adoption experts, journalists and adoptive parents, some of whom offer critical views of the staffers and others who are more forgiving. “I think it’s important to empathize with people, even though there’s a lot of judgment and maybe some valid reasons for that judgment,” Mason explained in an interview Tuesday. “I want to expand the story to understand more.”
In his interview with , Mason also discussed the initial media coverage of Stouffer’s story, the lack of regulation of the family blogging business, and the status of his documentary on the late cinematographer Halina Hitchens, who was a close friend of Mason’s.
Vox Media Studios
What initially interested you about this story?
What drew me to Stauffer’s story was that he represented a world in great demand for content. His harrowing story was interesting, but it also made me think, wow, I wonder how many other stories there are that we’re just on the verge of learning about? Staffers [are] An example that our series challenges on some level: Are they examples of people who are terrible parents or are they working to meet audience demand in an industry that has spiraled out of control? Which is unorganized? When you’re an amateur and your show is your family and you don’t have a producer or someone giving you a guardrail, a lot of things can go wrong. The story of what they did to Huxley is very much the tip of the iceberg that we’re beginning to learn exists within the circle, which continues to this day.
Hannah Cho, a Phoenix, AZ woman who was a fan of the Stauffers and an adoptee herself, is a recurring character in your series that sets up the story. What was behind the decision to cast him in this role?
Hannah is such a miracle of a personality for us because she really encapsulated the three tracks we needed to help the audience understand the depth and nuance that was important to her. Hannah herself was someone who created her own content with her daughter for a while, so she was, in essence, a participant, she was a mommy blogger. And she was also a huge fan of Family Channels and Staffers, which she admitted. But then she’s a biracial adoptee from Korea who was adopted by white parents in America—that’s where the depth of her storytelling comes into focus. Many original biographical details of his story track with Huxley. She could speak actively on some level to the experience of a child from this background. These three things made it the most valuable story to tell. But at the same time, she was very forthcoming in talking to us about every aspect of her feelings towards Staffers and her feelings are very important. They highlight many dimensions within the Stauffer story, including the good side.
While many Family V logs don’t blur the faces of the children they feature, your documentaries do in many cases. Tell me a little bit about that choice.
We decided the kids were fine. [to show] Because children exist on a spectrum where they are unrecognizable as adults if you saw them as children. But whatever content we found on the internet with children that we were using, we blurred out the children’s faces. Choice [was] One of consent: If the children and their parents did not specifically consent to be included in the film, the film is relying on fair use arguments, and even though we may indeed use it fairly. , we decided. [that] Adults we trust have given consent for us, but we cannot assume this for children.
On the other hand, anyone [family channels] Like Earls And Every day Whomever we worked with directly, we had a lot of engagement with them and a lot of specific dialogue about what we were going to do and how we were going to film their children to get their consent. Look, we felt okay using their faces in a very limited amount. It didn’t have a lot of tilt. We also wanted to be clear that we are not trying to exploit these people. They are helping us understand what they do, in a really meaningful way. He also helped us understand the reality of what this decision really means to work with your family and deal with all the ethics of it, which I believe is an ongoing and meaningful effort to make. are doing
The Stauffers have largely appeared as villains in the media, but the film shows some sympathy for their plight. Why did you want to complicate or add shades of gray to the family portrait that was there?
It was really important for me to challenge the idea that it was a simple case of “these are the bad guys, let’s condemn them” and do exactly what the media outlets have done, which is to say that this How bad are they? people are. Because the more I understood not only the staffers, but the staffers’ overall situation, the more I realized that it was important to know the truth about what they had been through, which no one had ever provided. What is it like to adopt a child and then dissolve that adoption? And what is really like for one who does this?
We fully ensured the shield [Huxley’s] Identity, of course. But those who embarrassed Stauffers, including many writers and journalists, felt no compulsion to do so. He shared his face in many articles and many videos. So when you hear from people who claim to care about this child but don’t care enough to hide their identity, it begs the question, well, what’s your real concern here? Is? To me, having genuine concern for children means you care about the Stauffer children as well. They should be equally in your mind. There is also a question about monetization that is never explored in depth. What is the responsibility of companies that continue to push people and encourage them to do even stranger things with their children and their content? And so in some ways I was thinking about questions that weren’t being asked by other journalists, very obvious questions. Despite the fact that we can say that trauma was definitely an element of their story, Staffers ended up providing a lot of information and a lot of useful dialogue.
Did you come away from the filmmaking process with any particular ideas about the guardrails or regulations placed on the industry?
Actually, from the time we started. [this film] By now, YouTube has started expanding checkpoints. They’re also very careful when you’re posting content, asking if there are children in the content that weren’t there. [before]. So I feel like YouTube is at least trying to make some changes, but I definitely have concerns about content that might get through. The biggest concern, really, is child abuse. It can be psychological, verbal, things that promote a channel and exploit a child in a way that, I would say, is sometimes hard to see. And I think that’s the place. The story of Ruby Frank That’s what I think probably blows Stauffer’s story completely out of the water.
That being said, the flip side of this is that I definitely feel that the good guys make content that isn’t really that different or that different from what we see in the mainstream. So if we live in a culture where we trust parents to make decisions, why censor it? And yet Kogan [Law] And laws protecting children exist in the mainstream entertainment industry. Should there be something like this for YouTubers? Probably. And that’s where I think we need to figure it out. We have not stopped children from joining the mainstream. [entertainment]. We’ve found ways to make it work.
You are currently working on a documentary about your late friend, cinematographer Halina Hutchins, in collaboration with your husband, Matt Hutchins. What is the status of the film at the moment, and will you be on the Alec Baldwin trial?
Yes, Halina was a really, really close friend of mine and I was commissioned to do this film by her widower Matt, who is also a good friend. And basically where that project is right now is we’re in editing. We have completed many of our primary interviews. And yes, I will be on trial with Alec Baldwin. I don’t know exactly what day, but we were in Hanna. [Gutierrez-Reed]is a trial and as a filmmaker, but also as his friend, it’s important for me to be there.
Filmmaker Rory Kennedy is also making a documentary, apparently focused on Baldwin. Did the two of you discuss or bump into each other at all about your approach to the material during the filmmaking process?
I would love to meet Rory. I’m actually a fan of his work and I’m really fascinated by him and I’m very curious to talk to him. I haven’t yet, but I’d love to. It’s probably safe to assume I can meet him at the trial if he’s there when I’m there.
Credit : www.hollywoodreporter.com
