This item is only available as the following downloads:
ETHNOGRAPHIC CINEMA IN THE 21 ST CENTURY BY JACQLYN BENDER A THESIS Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelors of Arts in Anthropology Under the sponsorship of Maria D. Vesperi Sarasota, Florida May, 2012
i Acknowledg ments Thanks to my advisor and thesis sponsor, Maria V esperi for helping me to find anthropology. H er challenging expectations have enabled me to become the student I am, and her kind support guided me through months of thesis writing. The visual anthropology tutorials have b een invaluable. To Erin Dean for being my interim advisor and offering a thesis tutorial in the Fall of 2011 her classes have pushed me to develop more complicated critical thinking toward an anthropological vision of s ocial and environmental justice. To Tony Andrews for teaching me the adventure of hominid dispersals and early cultur es. To the New College Foundation, the Anthropology Department, and the Council of Academic Affairs for their generous grants in suppo rt of my endeavors. To my parents for their understanding, and to Kristie for being a wonderful sister and friend. To my friends, especially my housemates, who offered companionship while I only offered a blank stare at the computer screen. Finally, to Fuji for being the best.
ii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Ethics in Visual Anthropology Chapter 2: Authority in the History of Et Anthropological Chapter 4: Film Festivals Media Networks and the Organization of Ethnograph
iii ETHNOGRAPHIC CINEMA IN THE 21 st CENTURY Jacqlyn Bender New College of Florida, 2012 Visual anthropology has been in practice for over a hundred years, but has been seriously considered as a sub discipline only in the past few decades. In this thesis, I examine the changing academic and social contexts of ethnographic filmmaking t hrough several strands of inquiry based on my experience attending the Royal Anthropological th International Festival of Ethnographic Film in L ondon, 2011, and the at the 2011 American Anthropological Association meetings in Montreal I explore notions of ethics for visual anthropology and the broader discussion sur rounding a codified ethics statement for the use of images in ethnographic research. I review the history of visual anthropology through the lens of ethnographic authority, demonstrating how changing ideas of the uses of images influenced various movement s in ethnographic and documentary film during the 20 th century. Taking up the question of ethnographic film and its contribution to anthropological knowledge, I then explore more recent theoretical concerns including the embodied, sensory, and experiential dimensions of film. Finally, reflecting on the RAI Festival of Ethnographic Film in addition to indigenous media networks, I look at the larger narratives and political discourses emerging from visual anthropology situated globally. ________________________ Maria D. Vesperi D ivision of Social Sciences
1 Introduction There is a lot at stake in any discussion of visual anthropology. People feel passionately about images. They constitute near perfect copies of life, yet subvert technological precision by developing ethereal lives of their own what the surrealists called photognie (MacDougall 2006:17). They accumulate meanings, change with historical context, spark endless conversation and controversy, and become indelibly yet mutably inscribed in both conscious and subconscious thought processes, replicating memory and o ften becoming inextricable from it. Visual anthropologists have invariably expressed strong personal connections to the images they create; at the same time they have attempted to channel their enthusiasm toward a rigorous academic program for the use of film and photo graphy in anthropology. This led some early visual anthropologists to promote images as scientific depictions of reality, while others increasingly came to understand that photographs and film were constructed as much through the subjective lens of the observer as through the technological lens of the camera. In either case, visual anthropologists struggled to establish their work as anthropologically valid within the larger discipline. Today visual anthropology is a prominent and flourishin g subdiscipline, attracting multitudes of scholars with varying approaches from around the world. Major factors in its growth in the United States include the Program In Ethnographic Film (PIEF) created in 1966 at Harvard University the annual Conference in Visual Anthropology at the American Anthropological Association (AAA) meetings initiated by Jay Ruby in the 1970s, and Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication (SAVICOM), which
2 became the Society for Visual Anthropology in 1984 and began the publication of Society for Visual Anthropology Review (now simply Visual Anthropology Review ) (Ruby 2001). In Europe, the Royal Anthropological Institute began holding biennial ethnographic film festivals in 1985. Of course, these institutional developmen ts were combined with the efforts of individual filmmakers such as Margaret Mead, Jean Rouch, John Marshall, Robert Gardner, and Judith and David MacDougall. not a substitute for ethnographic film, as visual anthropology encompasses a wide variety of visual studies incorporating anything from textiles to architecture (Durington and Ruby 2011) Ethnographic film constitutes a specific yet wide ranging subset of visual anthropological practice; broadly, it involves the use of motion picture technology in an anthropological encounter. A further complication is the difference between visual anthro pology and the anthropology of the visual. Visual anthropology generally refers to the use of visual implements to study culture whereas the anthropology of the visual encompasses the study of any visual aspects of culture. Howe ver, these approaches are so closely entangled that the distinction is hardly warranted and is, therefore, not discussed in this thesis. I became involved with visual anthropology based on an interest in cinema that I did not know how to bridge to anthropology. Fiction films such as Au Hasard Balthazar Pather Panchali (1955), Jean Vivre Sa Vie Wanda (1970) seemed to connect on a level of individual human experience that could not be sustained within an anthropological
3 framework. However, I was able to take a visual anthropology tutorial in 2010, my third year at New College and learned how such repre sentations can be relevant to anthropology by reading authors such as David MacDougall (1998) and Laura Marks (2000). Moreover I learned how ethnographic filmmaking can bring out a variety of individualistic experiences that cannot be fully articulated in written text. I made a short ethnographic film called Over birdening Sarasota (2010) for this visual anthropology tutorial. I focused on urban chicken keeping in Sarasota, Florida, which was illegal at the time I made the film. I compared stock footage of a City of Sarasota planning board meeting where the issue was discussed with observational only a minor infraction resulting in a $50 fine, but I made sure to prote ct their location). I attempted to bring out the viewpoint of those opposed to chickens, using their testimony before the planning board as audio while using visuals to show what chicken keeping might look like. The result was humorous: headstrong comments about the perils of chicken keeping juxtaposed with images of chickens that had become backyard pets. My supportive view of chicken keeping was made clear through the use of playful footage of my friends taking care of their small chicken flock in additio n to an interview with the owner of a farm store in Sarasota who described her experiences growing up with chickens and the connection to the earth they offered her. 12 th Bienn ial Festival of Ethnographic Film at the University College of London. There I viewed submissions and participated in the dialogues surrounding visual anthropology. Much of my research stems from this experience since the films I viewed are some of the
4 mos t recent materials produced within the subdiscipline. In the fall of 2011, I attended the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Meetings in Montreal, where I sat in on part icipated in a few roundtable sessions on ethics in visual anthropology, and viewed several films. In this thesis, I focus on the processes rather than the parameters of ethnographic film. Many have argued over what constitutes an ethnographic film; my wor king situated knowledges of the world. A certain level of critical, methodological involvement with the people represented is necessary: filmmakers should underta ke a sustained engagement with subjects, allowing people a vocal platform to express their identities and offering an ethical and well contextualized portrayal of their daily lives. However, I do not find it productive to label only those films made by ca rd carrying anthropologists since many documentary films take on these methodological concerns and there is much interplay between documentary and ethnog raphic filmmaking. The dynamic exchange between film studies and anthropology should not be ignored, and I find that this interdisciplinary interaction delivers important new insights to anthropology. Although much can be said about the different technologies and mediums through which ethnographic film can be made (celluloid, video, dig ital video), I use the term in my first chapter on ethics, as it has specific properties that allow for quick, widespread dissemination via the Internet. Aside from my second chapter on ethnographic authority
5 in the history of visual anthropology, I do not discuss photography, as the theoretical implications of photography and film are quite different, and my research mainly focused on the cinema as a sensory, shared spa ce. My first chapter reviews the ethical implications for ethnographic film in the 21 st century, calling into question the role of an institutionalized ethics statement for visual anthropology and discussing the lack of control visual anthropologists face when using the Internet as a platform for dissemination. This discussion stems from the several panels on ethics I attended during the 2011 AAA meetings. In my second chapter, I discuss the history of ethnographic authority as it relates to specific documentary and ethnographic film movements and conventions, framed within the broader discip line of anthropology. Moving to more contemporary theoretical strands, I explore the idea of a sensory, embodied cinema that might foster new levels of experimentation and critical engagement in the future of the subdiscipline. Finally, I reflect on the RA th Festival of Ethnographic Film in addition to indigenous media outlets to consider the larger discourses produced by visual anthropology on a global level.
6 Chapter 1: Ethics in Visual Anthropology It is my firm belief that all anthropol ogical fieldwork begins and ends with ethics. At every step of the ethnographic process, anthropologists must make ethical decisions in gaining access to a site, getting informed consent, developing and maintaining relationships with subjects, and finally, representing the encounter. The same applies for visual anthropology, although the added dimension of imagery changes the applications of ethics in ways visual anthropologists do not yet fully understand. ng a notebook and a voice recorder into a remote area of the world and emerging with data to be packaged into a written report which then would only sometimes be read outside the academy. Even though this is an essentialized version of old er ethnographic practice, it is useful in contrast with including collaboration, activism, and experimentation. Although cameras have been used for ethnographic fieldwork since its inception, the innovative, subjective use of the camera in the se cond half of the 20 th century created an entirely new type of encounter between fieldworker and subjects. In the 21 st century, producing anthropological images in an increasingly interconnected world brings about new or amplified ethical considerations such as a lack of anonymity, wider possibilities for dissemination, added complexities of interpretation, the possibility of visual materials being appropriated and used out of context and the political impact arising from the sheer power and pervasiveness of images. These dynamics created by image making technologies will be some of the focal points of my discussion of visual ethics.
7 In order to introduce visual ethics, it will be useful to consider the general backdrop of ethics in anthropology as a point of reference. The 2009 Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association and other similar ethics statements have become crucial documents for all anthropologists. Because of my familiarity with the Society for Visual Anthropology (SVA), I will follow their work in deconstructing the here image making fits in to the larger schema of anthropological ethics. In this chapter I will review the recent discussions of ethics in visual anthropology spearheaded by Jonathon Marion, Sara Perry, and other active members of the SVA, while providing some of my own insight into the process of developing ethics guidelines based par Ethics relations in visual anthropology. ethi cal behavior in field site interactions, while allowing room for nuanced interpretations arising from dynamic and changing circumstances. No field circumstance is the same as aking n 4). The goal of the SVA Ethics Committee has been to formulate a similar set of guidelines specific to visual anthropology yet accountable to the larger di scipline. Marion and Perry (2010 ) acknowledge the resistance
8 been seeking guidance in ethical issues with few resources at hand. The primary cha llenge of identifying the role of images in creating ethical guidelines is to articulate clearly the powerful emotive effects of film and photography. 1988). Because film can evoke these feelings, there has been a tendency both in and out of academia to equate images with an objective, truthful, external reality. Image ethics hinge on the fact that instead of being constructed through writing, anthropological subjects can now physically appear in front of a camera, to be captured in film form where concrete actions and events can be analyzed visually. Unless experimental techniques such as illustration, haptic images or partial images are used, subjects cannot remain a ominent without the cushion of written context. Keeping this in mind, the ethical obligations of anthropologists change substantially when they begi n to use filmmaking technologies; they become responsible for the representation of specific individuals within a cultural context, through a medium that Now that visual anthropology has begun to establish its foothold as a viable subdiscipline, the SVA has been taking more initiative in engaging with the complexities of image ethics. For the past five years, Jonathon Marion and Sara Perry have held roundtables to discuss ethics at the AA A meetings, and I had the opportunity to attend two sessions dedicated to ethics in Fall 2011. The major tension illuminated by these sessions was that although the fluidity of field interactions discourages codified ethics,
9 members of the SVA generally ag ree that some framework needs to be developed in order both to help fieldworkers and to continue establishing the credibility of visual anthropology as a serious, methodologically and ethically sound endeavor in anthropology. Marion and Perry have identifi ed their predominant goals in these think about the ramifications of imagery, and consider potential means of managing such ions of case studies, informal conversation, and reaching out to other ethics committees in different parts of the world, Marion and Perry, along with other members of the SVA, have been complicating and enriching the discussion around visual ethics. Doe At the 2011 SVA Business Meeting, Karl Heider opened with the joking refrain: all the SVA has been pushing fo r acknowledgement of the unique dynamics of ethnographic filmmaking so that anthropologists can think critically both in making films and in analyzing them. At the 2011 AAA meetings, Jonathon Marion hosted a lunchtime ace of Visual Anthropology in the Principles of Marion provided a summary of key points from the code, and the group debated how film or photography would affect ethical decisions differently than a written report would. The
10 following discussion reflects the questions raised during this conversation as they relate to these key points, in add ition to some relevant literature and examples. harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the p eople with whom they work. .or who might 3). The use of film complicates this rule, based on the lack of anonymity discussed before: safety, privacy, and dignity could all be violated if spe cific individuals were recorded engaging in unseemly or illegal behaviors, or if they were portrayed in an otherwise uncomfortable or embarrassing circumstance. I would add that the use of film could violate the privacy of a whole community: images of plac e and landscape could be compromising if the film contains controversial information. The political ramifications of such images could range anywhere from shame within a community to reinforcing negative stereotypes at the policy making level, sometimes re sulting in political violence against cultural groups. Written texts can protect individual identities through pseudonyms, composite character s, and a vagueness of context, offering the anthropologist more flexibility in discussing sensitive subjects witho ut causing harm to informants. The second thread of discussion Marion brought up was the notion of balancing competing obligations between collaborators and affected parties. The fact that films are often collaborative endeavors complicates this to a degr ee, and various stakeholders in the production process may have differing ideas about how to represent the people i n question. Visual media factor into ethical considerations especially when an anthropologist is contracted to work for the National Geograph ic channel or other
11 network media productions. Rachel Robertson describes her experience with film There was a rapid erosion of the relationship of trust with the contributor, once that relationship had serv ed its purpose in anthropologists need to seriously consider the goals of production companies for whom they work in order to assess whether or not the final visual product wil l be an ethical representation of the subjects involved. It is important for ethnographic filmmakers to maintain relationships and ongoing dialogue with all groups implicated in the filmmaking process. This last point of maintaining relationships resonates particularly with the ethical requirement of informed consent. The AAA Code of Ethics recommends that the the project design and continue through implementation by way of dialogue and only willing, but able to give their permission to be studied. In visual research, subjects must be aware of the consequences of having their images eng rained on a film strip, Carpenter describes his journey to New Guinea in the early 1970s to photograph people who had never encountered a camera (or even, he claims, a mirro r) in their lives. When s world; we can safely say most people have encountered images of themselves in one way or another.
12 filmmakers special access to the lives of their subjects, particularly in culture s where films were little understood. The spread of communications is now putting an end to that privilege. People are becoming increasingly aware of the risks and potential benefits of sts to ensure that they gain initial consent to film, but also continue the discussion throughout the process as the film develops, changes, and becomes solidified in its intent and focus. Visual anthropologists are in a unique position when it comes to m aintaining continuous informed consent. Ethnographers using writing as their primary medium may share their notes and drafts with subjects in order to get feedback, but there are still many may not be able to read at all. With film, visuals provide a language that nearly all subjects (with sight) can understand, facilitating the feedback process. Even in the earliest days of ethnographic cinema, Robert Flaherty made a point to share his reel s with his subjects in Samoa during the filming of Moana (1926) (MacDougall 1995:125 126). Although some filmmakers may not wish to share foo tage with participants, the AAA code of ethics states that from research participants when arch results can be challenging. A t a question and answer session at the 2011 RAI Festival of Ethnographic Film in London, I heard Anja Dresk e explain how fearful she was to show her film, The Tribes of Cologne (2010) to her subjects. The film was a lighthearted and humorous exploration of a small league of German citizens obsessed with reenacting historical cultures such as the Huns or the Anc ient Romans. After setting up a public
13 else because they felt they were on the i nside of all the jokes Dreske crafted through the editing process. Her success was the result of the quality of the informed consent she maintained from initial contact to the ultimate dissemination of results. There are, however, conflicting ideas over the meaning of informed consent in ethnographic filmmaking. Jay Ruby warns that subjects will not be fully capable of giving informed consent if they do not have a thorough understanding of filmmaking: ers themselves who are in a position to judge whether the people in their films might be adversely affected. Unless one plans to spend the time and money training subjects to become filmmakers or even reasonably competent critics, subjects will continue to lack the skill necessary to gi ve informed consent dialogue is a process that teaches both subjects and researchers to take a more critical approach to materials at han d. Ultimately, the choice of how to disseminate lies with the anthropologist, which is why the nex t point of the AAA code of ethics has been a central focus in visual anthropology: balancing the obligation to share fieldwork results with potential conseq uences that might arise in doing so. Because film is more of a shared language, it is more easily transmittable across disciplinary boundaries and outside of the academy in general. Thus, visual anthropologists should take extreme caution in deciding how t o curate their filmed materials. Since the Internet, television, and other media outlets allow for the viral spread of information, anthropologists can easily lose control of the images
14 with the likelihood that those images will be taken out of context in damaging ways. For he distributed the photos to ballroom industry media and costume desi gners as ways for dancers to promote their images. However, he is frank about how he unwittingly placed some of these images in unsafe hands: he obliged a local newspaper in their request for a photograph of a ballroom dancing couple, only to wake up the n ext day to see the image 2010:98). Aside from images falling into nefarious hands, visual anthropologists must also consider the life of the image as it is separate from the life of the subject portrayed. For hile an individual may be happy for a specific ima ge of them to be made public at one point in their lives they may be less so in the future as their circumstan ces change yet once an image enters the public domain it may be difficult or impossible to remove it of dignity coupled with the permanence of images once released to the Internet or television proves to be distressing for many visual anthropologists, as I noted at both ethics discussions at the AAA meetings. Several researchers in attendance said this f ear became paralyzing to their work, asking the question: Is anything completely safe to distribute? The obligation to protect images of subjects can conflict with the desire to share and circulate films and photographs they are, after all, personal, artis tic testaments to the power of the ethnographic encounter. A
15 statement on visual ethics should encourage ethnographic filmmakers and photographers to consider all of the possible ramifications the dissemination of images might incur, but should also recogn ize that this is a reflexive, dynamic process not amenable to blanket recommendations. It is important to note that the conversation surrounding an ethical guidelines statement for visual anthropology has been largely separated from formal, institutional ethical regulation. Regardless of anthropological ethics for filmmaking, anthropologists often have to undergo systematized ethical review in order to carry out research with human subjects. Wiles et al. (2010) undertook a qualitative study of scholars using filmmaking as a part of social science related research. Based on interviews with the ir The danger of the current system of ethical review, perhaps, is that the preoccupation with gaining ethical approval shifts debates away from genuine discussions of ethical dilemmas, negotiations and difficult decision m aking (2010:13). Those seeking to lay out ethical guidelines should, therefore, be careful about the institutionalization of codes that are nuanced and situational, especially since review boards are geared toward providing a standardized, non process bas ed treatment of research ethics. s an ethic session annually at the AAA meeting; here scholars can present their work, raise difficult questions about ethics and get feedback to help with decision making. Developing ethics guidelines for the SVA, or mentioning the use of film in the AAA code of ethics w here it is appropriate
16 would be a starting point for visual researchers. It would further solidify visual encouragement to those whose visual work has been hindered by apprehension and anxiety about the volatile nature of images. Personal Reflections on Visual Ethics In this section, I would like to explore some of the facets of ethics that are more abstract and encompassing, and therefore difficult t o delineate in the type of point by point guidelines previously discussed. Much of this will be based on my understanding of ethnographic films that focus on structura l inequalities, violence, and suffering. Although many ethnographic films are celebratory explorations of culture, there are often points of contestation and struggle in even the most lighthearted films. Many anthropologists have made it a goal to focus on those who are marginalized, experiencing a historical silence, or being exploited by an ever emerging global economy, and ethnographic filmmakers naturally follow in this vein, working with people facing various hardships. However, in such circumstances, do anthropologists detach themselves from their subjects by receding behind a camera? How can anthropologists avoid aestheticizing suffering, and instead show support and solidarity in filming? There are no easy answers to these questions; therefore, anthr opologists need to critically assess the ethics of such filmmaking Film has the capacity to be a tool for social change based on its popular appeal, and this has strong imp lications for anthropologists seeking to give back to the communities they
17 study. I will look at the ethical quandaries facing those who film among people who have few resources and recourses to justice, assessing the nature of these types of representatio ns with regard to the possibility for advocacy and engaged anthropology. Bringing a camera into the field radically changes the ethnographic encounter. Although it can engender new forms of knowledge and enrich field relationships, it can also be a sourc e of anxiety or discomfort, as anyone who has ever been filmed might understand. A camera heightens the problematic construct of the anthropologist as spectator someone who observes and documents from a detached distance. Placing a camera between anthropol ogist and subject can be an opportunity for engagement, but can also become alienating if the subject is in a state of suffering or despair : the pain becomes inadvertently aestheticized as the camera rol ls. I distinctly remember feeling uneasy at this type of encounter as I watched a recent film by Tommi Mendel and Brigitte Nikles, Birth Practices (Bunong Guu Oh) (2010). The film focuses on the medicalization of birth practices in the northeast o f Cambodia amid economic uncertainty, and the film crew interviewed several expecting mothers about their anxieties over the birthing process. One mother had a complicate d pregnancy and experienced physical discomfort on a daily basis; during one interview she stated that she was in too much pain to be filmed and would have to lie do wn. However, the camera lingered at the threshold of her door for want to be filmed? Was point? Material on pain and suffering should be treated with a critical eye; one should
18 never look at a person suffering on film without wondering about the decisions the person behind the cam era was making. When suffering is a daily reality for people, ethnograp hic filmmakers need to consider seriously their reasons for taking up the camera. Visual anthropology can be useful as a method by which to emotively convey a social problem, especial Farmer notes (2005:31). Farmer struggles with the tension between the experience of suffering are readily observable and the subject of countless films, novels, and poems structural Farmer, suffering must be contextualized ethnographically in order to be u nderstood, yet even such an analysis is removed from personal experience (2005:41). Film, I argue, can more readily convey this experience, but only if people are ethically represented and historically situated. The question becomes: how can visual anthrop ologists ethically represent structural violence? How can the filmmaking anthropologist escape the role of a spectator hiding behind a camera lens? Brian Winston argues that documentary filmmaking in general began with a focus on suffering, first with Rob survival in Nanook of the North (1921) and then shifting to the victimhood of the urban Housing Problems (1935) (1988:42 43). According to Winston, Flaherty aestheticizes suffering in the romantic tradition of in a film about the struggle between humankind and nature. Elton and Anstey aestheticize suffering in Housing Problems by turning the troubles of working class Londoners into
19 an emotio nally appealing narrative structure. Winston suggests that this latter approach, but it is one that does little to address the social issues in actuality. He writes th at normally as types of deviance, such treatment scarcely diminishes the number of victims This last notion is parti cularly apt as it points out the fact that the documentary film industry thrives monetarily on portraying Because the narrative of v ictimhood is so prevalent, if ethnographic filmmakers wish to escape it, they must engage with it head on and creatively address the ways people negotiate their circumstances through Stranger with a Camera (2000) is a good example of a film that challenges narratives of victimhood among the people of Appalachia. Barret went to the town where 33 years about poverty in the region. Once the re, she explored perspectives on the way Appalachia She found that the people were sick of media crews coming through to document their squalid conditions, creating re presentations that only served to perpetuate negative stereotypes, thereby worsening their situation Since the pub lic is familiar with news media narratives of poverty, famine, and war, ethnographic filmmakers have to contend with such bankrupt approaches and resensitize viewers to the contingencies of suffering. As Lucien Taylor aptly asks:
20 of departure for an ethical treatment of suffering in film. Because good ethnography will elucidate the nuances of the local amid global structural injustices, filmmaking should attempt to do the same. Moving beyond the narrative of victimhood, ethnographic filmmakers sh ould also consider the lives of subjects beyond their frozen images on film. As MacDougall giving filmmakers a gift by allowing them into private spaces, confiding in them, sacrificing their anonymity, and trusting that they will be faithfully represented to other people in the world. Engaging with the social and political concerns of these subjects, to me, seems like the ethical way to reciprocate. Arguing for an e ngaged anthropology, Nancy Scheper Hughes questions those who bear witness to suffering yet hold on to relativism: As writers and producers of demanding images and texts, what do we want from our readers? To shock? To evoke pity? To create new forms of narrativ e, an "aesthetic" of misery, an an thropology of suffering, an an thropological theodicy? And what of the people whose suffering and fearful accommodations to it are trans formed into a public spectacle? What is our obligation to them? (1995:416). Subjects of ethnographic films are generally of lower class status than the person making the films: it is taken for granted that anthropologists have more access to those with fewer nge, I believe, is a prominent avenue for the future of visual anthr opology. Ethnographic filmmakers can take multiple approaches to meet this goal: collaborative filmmaking with subjects aimed
21 at raising awareness about injustice, using experimentation to bring out a historical erasure in a visually striking way, working with indigenous media producers to secure avenues for broadcasting as Faye Ginsburg (1995) has done there are many methods yet to be explored which use film to help promote the well being of film subjects (some of these will be discussed in Chapter 4 of this thesis) benef it to the people portrayed. In later chapters, I will continue to deconstruct documentary devices that essentialize, stereotype, or otherwise unfaithfully portray people. I find that if ethnographic film is to be distinguished from conventional documentary filmmakers should seriously engage with alternative modes of representation, including but not limited to collaboration, formal innovation, and experimentation. Ethical engagement will be an ongoing theme in this discussion there is little room for error in representation when the stakes are high and information can be circulated transnationally without constraint or delay.
22 Chapter Two: Authority in the History of Ethnographic Film The short yet complex history of visual anthropology can be recounted through the story of ethnographic filmic authority a story that sometimes reflects, sometimes diverges from that of anthropology proper. Toward the end of the 20 th century, anthropologists began to reconsider the ways authority has been us ed and sometimes (1983), the edited collection Writing Culture (Clifford and Marcus 1986) and Clifford Works and Lives (1988) prompted an explanation of the devices and conventions early ethnographers used to convey their knowledge and expertise in describing a given culture. Furthermore, the late 20 th constructing ethnographies. Science and objectivity as a bastion for ethnographic authority faced increasing scrutiny as notions of reflexivity, multivocality, subjectivity, and the politics Ethnographic film presents an important locus for the historic debate between objectivity and subjectivity in anthropology. Because film provides images of the exterior world captured directly through technology without the representational mediation of a paintbrush or pen it can be mistaken for a scientific rendering of reality. However, the choice of what to film and how to arrange it leaves ethnographic filmmaking open to the same critiques of constructedness and authorship as written ethnography. This c hapter will not debate the scientific merit of ethnographic cinema, but will instead explore its changing claims to authority throughout the 20 th century.
23 First, I will consider connections among science, racism, and the colonial gaze, demonstrating that visual anthropology at first used images to corroborate the racial hierarchies invoked by early anthropologists. The 1920s saw the formation of techniques such as voic e control over their subject matter. As I will demonstrate, the romantic notions which underscored the narratives of these early documentaries participated in the colonial project of salvage a movement attempted to do away with standard documentary conventions in order to 1980s, anthropologists and others began to toy with documentary conventions, creating reflexive, genre defying, and experimental accounts of intercultural encounters. Science and Visual Authorit y Science is directly implicated in the troubling past of racism in anthropology, especially in the context of visual anthropology. Visual anthropology can trace its photograp traditional rituals and daily activities, all in the name of academic anthropology. At the bian Exposition in 1893, Franz Boas curated an anthropometry room replete with photographs of various Indian groups compared with people of European
24 descent Brenda Farnell notes that bodies organized and presented as such were used to corroborate anthropo descriptive, empirically focused, positivist natural science, the recording of new facts about human physical variation that could be interpreted according to a racializing evolutionary theory wa s predicated upon describing, classifying and distinguishing (2011:140). Moreover, such ideas were widely disseminated to the public, a of the evolutionary ladder that these scientific photographs collectively suggested was reinforced by the many booklets of commercial photographs of Indian peoples that were Although this thesis focuses on film, t he scientific ethic of the exhibition and the diorama in particular delivers important insights into the early anthropological preoccupation with understanding the p ublic sphere. Living ethnological exhibits sought to establish a hierarchy of humankind, using the tenet of scientific categorization as a buttress to validate artificial notio ns of Euro American supremacy (s ee Stocking 1983). The goal was to display upro oted indigenous specimens for observation. These exhibits were enormously damaging to the people represented, as the curators invited the analysis of non Western c ultures as less than (1998:72). Visuality was crucial to this analogy; for example, in 1906, Congolese pygmy
25 Ota Benga was forced into an orangutan cage at the Bronx Zoo as a promotion of evolutionist ideas of race. Such displays exploited academic notions of classification l. Another popular form of visual anthropology in this time period can be found in picture postcards; as David MacDougall points out, in 1909 es overtly political agenda was superimposed on images purporting to be scientifical ly valid allowing colonialists to justify their project and garner support among the public, who consumed the postcards voraciously. The advent of motion picture technology created a new avenue for these types of colonial and waveringly scientific repre (1990:13). In the 1920s and 1930s, the popular safari films of Martin and Osa Johnson featured various groups of unna med African natives as a part of the landscape of elephants, lions, zebras, and so forth. Now instead of bringing indigenous bodies to ethnological exhibits in the West, camera equipment could be brought to remote, exotic locations to film people in their
26 in the early decades of the 20 th century persisted in the development of ethnographic film, perhaps creati dimensions to the evolutionist theories that underpinned anthropological and popular thought, as Westerners could now be exposed to a plethora of non Western cultures connected to a wild landscape and subordinated by racial discourse and colonial domination. prominent ways anthropology and anthropological subjects were presented to the public. However, anthropology also developed specific uses for images in an academic context as it sought to es sanctioned s garnered from long periods spent in the field, visual materials were often used as Photographs and illustrations were included in some early ethnographies such as E. E. Evans The Nuer (1969, orig 1940) Pritc hard constructs his written description in primarily visual terms, and his images seamlessly bolster his claims in a confidently packaged, objective ac count. In this way, photographs, illustrations, and diagrams were used to place a visual stamp on the not
27 images were used as an affirmation of representation. Early anthropological styles of filmmaking reflected the predominant psulation of reality. The camera was most often set up to film the exterior world as though it were a stage. The Masks of Mer (Eaton 2010, orig, 1898), considered by some to be the first ethnographic film, features several Torres Strait Islanders performing a sacred dance before a camera that budges not an inch. The prevailing attitude toward ethnographic film was that it was a demonstration or evidence, of a different cultural way of life which had previously been confined to written descriptions. the person who had studied them, and one accepted his anal ysis largely because one accepted the scholarly tradition that had produced him. Ethnographic films were rarely The Masks of Mer the ethnographic films of the early 20 th century were generally compartmenta lized examinations of either specific concept film of ceremonial, crafts, 1995:20). As such, these films are rarely circulated as features today, but remain as archived footage. Carrying on and indeed revolutionizing the project of scientific validity in ethnographic film were Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, who, according to Karl
28 in particular put photography and video forth as systematic means of recording cultural processes. She photographed Balinese infants in various developmental stages, emphasizing bodily and proxemic fact ors in childhood socialization as a part of her famous cross cultural personality studies (Lakoff 1996). Mead attempted to create laboratory conditions for the use of film in studying culture, promoting the idea that hypotheses could be tested and proven w ith the use of a camera, given an adequately controlled environment. The scientific research agenda in ethnographic film has a lasting legacy. When Paul Hockings put forth the first edition of the seminal publication Principles of Visual Anthropology (197 5), Mead was asked to write the introduction. In it, she urges scholars of visual anthropology to adhere to a rigorous methodological program, suggesting that replicate o functions as a tool for pure observation and that increasing the precision of the instrument will incr ease scientific validity. Although most visual anthropologists today reject the idea of ethnographic film as a scientific endeavor (MacDougall 1998, Henley 2000) seen as an important moment in the history of visual anthropology since it helped to establish the utility of film in anthropological research. As MacDougall suggests, the roots of documentary film and ethnographic film are variety of documentary forms, ranging
29 from didactic to observational to interview based. At the same time, ethnographic film 85). In 1922 came the film that perhaps launched the docum entary tradition proper while sparking an Nanook of the North m. Although it is held by many film critics to be a factual depiction of native life, most of the scenes in Nanook were staged and acted for example, Flaherty had his subjects build a fake igloo twice as large as normal so that there was room for his camer a equipment perhaps causing it to be among the most contended (and over discussed) films in documentary history. However, Nanook demarcates the beginning of a few important ideological strands in both documentary and ethnographic film. First of all, it featured prominently the age old tale of man (and sometimes woman) struggling against nature. Flaherty contact indigenous people. In this way, salvage anthropology took hold of the mainstream documentary tradition, an effect that still lingers in a huge body of films featuring olonial and post colonial hegemony Films such as Nanook derive authority from 1) the anticipation that the very moment of fi lming could be the last of its kind; therefore, it is crucial to record traditional lifeways before they are lost forever, and 2) the logic that the film being made will be held as true, factual recording of a culture because the filmmaker was one of the f and see it for himself. T he National Geographic network defies these notions by, for
30 years (Strong 2011). Salvage ethnographers often invoke d romantic notions, since their work was almost always a premature elegy to a still The Hunters (1957 ) features a grandiose giraffe hunt among the !Kung San that was in actuality an amalgamation of a dozen small er hunts. The necessity to first of all hold the attention of Western viewers coupled with the desire to preserve the idea of the Kalahari Bushmen as the last living testaments to hunter gatherer society is probably what propelled this decision. The use of an authorial hand in structuring events creates a narrative whole that presents a romanticized view of the people. It is important to remember that almost all of these early ethnographic films were silent. As Allison Griffiths suggests, it was necessary mute ethnographic body represented as a moving image enunciate its cultural The earliest ethnographic and documentary films thus used inter titles or voiceovers to describe the events on screen. perhaps the singular icon of ethnographic film in the twentieth century, was adamantly against the use of voiceovers in ethnographic films, stating that a film with a commentary d was not widely used until the 1960s, inter titles and voiceover were often considered necessary; they were received uncritically, as though they were adequate substitutes for the voices and sounds lost to the silent film.
31 Once synchronous sound became available, the interview became another prominent strategy for commanding authority in documentary and ethnographic film. If the filmmaker needed to demonstrate privileged knowledge, what better way than to feature the voice of an expert on the subject? In terviews are one effective way to allow ethnographic subjects to speak for and represent themselves, and the implications of this will be discussed later However, interspersing footage with the monologue of someone with credentials or someone who is in a position of importance has become another became a documentary clich the boring mainstay of television news and 991:54). Appealing to the logical mind, such voices of authority cloud documentary filmmaking with further claims to truth which are often more polemical than not. This tactic is used to present a tightly ngs rather than letting them see for themselves (MacDougall 1998:118). An early critique of this type of directorial control came in the form of a surrealist Las Hurdes ( Land Without Bread ) (1933). Usin g an overbearing, pedantic voiceover containing useless facts, false claims, and dark humor, Bunuel and Dali constructed a representation of the impoverished Hurdanos of Spain that provides a biting critique of ethnographic and documentary conventions. As Land Without Bread exploits our gullibility and the one of the first to chip away at the fortified authority of the traditional documentary, recogn
32 instructional voice and deceptive editing process had the negative effect of preventing viewers from achieving new levels of engagement with filmed subjects. Observational Cinema and the Question of the Invisible Camera Realizing the false constructedness cultivated b y documentaries claiming to provide an objective view of reality, a group of filmmakers in the 1950s began to experiment with new styles to arrive at a portrait of humanity seemingly without interference on the part of the filmmaker. As Anna Grimshaw and A manda Ravetz assumption of directorial authority, there was now an attempt to cede control of the film to render it a fluid process shaped through the intervention of subj ects, the interruption of unexpected or spontaneous events, and the empathetic or imaginative both direct cinema in the United States and cinema vrit in France and Fre nch Canada. It was espoused by prominent filmmakers such as Albert and David Maysles, Frederick Wiseman, Herb Di Gioa, and Judith and David MacDougall. Two paramount essays in the 1995 edition of Principles of Visual Anthropology discuss the insurgence key role observational cinema played in establishing ethnographic film as a valid observational cinema] was obsessed with the idea that
33 we could get, for the first time, real people in front of the camera, talking to each other camera to prevent misl eading cutaways, employing the long take to allow the natural dynamics of human activity to carry the narrative along, and drawing influence from the films of the Italian Neorealists and La Nouvelle Vague were prominent characteristics of this approach. Yo on the the subjects under the circumstances, including, but not exclusively, the fact that they are observational filmmakers might be hiding behind the camera, attempting to become invisible in order to elicit the most uninhibited behavior from subjects. Young, in this sense, does not articulate fully how observational filmmakers should be careful to make he has developed w orking within the movement: By asking nothing of his subjects beyond permission to film them, the filmmaker adopts an inherently secretive position. He has no need for further explanation, no need to communicate with his subjects on the basis of the thinking that organizes his work. There is, in fact, some reason for him not to do so for fear it may influence their behavior. In his insularity, he withholds the very openness that he asks from his subjects in order to film them. (1995:124) Thus, the authenticity of the material provided by observational cinema may come at the high price of ignoring the valuable encounter between filmmaker and subject if the
34 filmmaker chooses to cut off the inte raction by receding behind the camera. MacDougall identifies this encounter as the locus of all anthro pological insights into film: observation in itself i s unimportant, but that as a governing approach it remains far less singular film that brought this interactive, exploratory notion to the fore was Jean Rouch and Edgar (1960). In one summer, the two filmmakers shook documentary out of its complacency by openly asking the implied question of observational cinema: can humans behave naturally in front of a camera? Rouch and Morin walked around Par is asking members of the working class whether they were Algerian war, showed their footage to the subjects to get feedback, and then appeared in front of the camera to reflect on the entire process. Although no one could prove that the subjects had acted naturally, the interactions at the core of the film allowed the subjects, filmmakers, and any invested viewer to understand the new platforms of insights generated by f ilmic sociological inquiry. Observational cinema that valued the encounter between filmmaker and subject ended representations subject to multiple interpretations, and taking into acco reaction and sensory responses to the material. In his introduction to Writing Culture ated over the evidences of
35 observational films manifest as visual, yet by substituting a sustained focus on subject voice and behavior for authorial voiceover or inter titles th ey can evoke a sensory complexity unavailable to traditional written ethnography. As Paul Henley suggests in ays of visual The images which on their own were thin and shallow, even if th ey turned out much better than hoped, would someh 8:54). The visceral effects of sound can draw the viewer closer to the sensory experience of the subject, and the textures and moveme nts of the film evoke more than sight and sound alone Observational cinema thus disrupts the Cartesian visual authority e vident in observation, data collection, and cultural description, all of which presuppose a standpoint outside looking at, objectifying, or al rather than allowing viewers to produce their own responses and identifications. Participation, Self Representations and Experimental Approaches Notably, MacDouga of the future possibility of a participatory cinema. The 1975 version of the essay the very conception a nd recognizes common goals. That possibility remains all but unexplored a filmmaker putting himself at the disposal of his subjects and, with them,
36 Principles of Visual Anthropology, MacDougall not es that this previous conclusion had been somewhat nave: multiple authorshi p leading to a form of intertextual 30). Although MacDougall ultimately rejected the notion of a shared cinema, the spark of visual anthropologists to articulate more clearly their modes of authority and level s of collaboration with subjects. author: what textual independence do these voices actually have? In one sense, all texts used in this way are subordinated to the ultimately makes the decisions about selection, cutting, and arranging in sh ort, representation. Jay Ruby suggests that collaboration calls for the filmmaker to share the decision making process with subjects extremely rare in visual anthro might have a certain appeal, there are few documented cases. Without more concrete information the notion of sharing authority remains more of a politically correct fantasy than a field tested actu collaboration to be ethical, subjects need to have the same level of training in both
37 become knowled geable as filmmakers in order to be collaborators, why would they need 58). Indeed, many groups of people who had heretofore been connected to anthropology only as subjects have taken ho ld of cameras to create self representations, opening up discussions of authority in ethnographic film to new universes of possibility. Several anthropologists have utilized their scholarship to back these ventures, and prominent media outlets have arisen in the process. Faye Ginsberg has done work supporting Aboriginal media centers in Australia such as the Warlpiri Media Association. Anthropologists taking the role of facilitator or activist can help indigenous media groups to secure the resources that en able self representation through film or television. Ruby expresses concern over indigenous media producers who enter the mainstream your own image may cost you the cultura (1991:60). Ginsburg, however, presents a more nuanced idea of the social process of interest in the processes of identity construction, creating and asserting a position for the present that takes into account the inconsistencies, contradictions, and complex subject tradition and modernity can be subverted from the unique standpoint of a self representing group invested in articulating a cultural identity for themselves. Atanarjuat, The Fast Runner (2001) is a good example of an indigenous media association, Isuma Igloolik Productions, participa ting in mainstream film practices to tell a story about their own mythology through their own narrative conventions.
38 The growth of indigenous media presents major challenges to the traditional structure of ethnographic film. The proliferation of non pro fessional anthropologists or even non anthropologists making films sometimes about others, sometimes about themselves led to new concerns of authority relating to genre. Which type of films have graphic film be made by a non anthropologist? These questions have been a source of unresolved deba te among visual anthropologists; there are no defined criteria as to what makes a film ethnographic. Some, such as Jay Ruby (2000) and Karl Heider (2006), in sist that ethnographic film must be made by a professionally trained anthropologist. However, for many professionals in the field, it is little more than a problem of nomenclature: the Royal elects films from anthropologists and non anthropologists alike. A more inclusive definition allows room for indigenous media producers and documentary filmmakers who work with a sustained focus on culture and lived experience. Moreover, ethnographic filmm aking in this sense has become more fluid in the past two decades as visual anthropologists increasingly turn their focus to applied and interdisciplinary studies (Pink 2006; Ginsburg, Abu Lughod and Larkin 2002). The endeavor toward a less hegemonic app roach to ethnographic filmmaking also includes a resituation of visual anthropology within the framework of the feminist movement. A 2001 interview with Patsy Asch, Sarah Elder, Jean Lydall, and Judith MacDougall reveals that in the e arly days of ethnograp hic film, as in the early days of anthropology (see Rhode 2004) women were marginalized. The female ethnographic filmmakers interviewed seemed to agree that they felt responsible for filming women and
39 children since these groups had been largely ignored b y men (Kiener and Meiss 2001:61 62). Furthermore, when working with male partners, all women expressed that they had reconsideration of ethnographic filmmaking, women became mor e prominent as both filmmakers and subjects. However, the feminist paradigm became apparent in ideological and not simply demographic ways as new approaches to subjectivity in ethnographic film led to a more critical, exploratory model that countered the d idactic, male dominated ethnographic filmic tradition of the early 20 th century. These innovations will be examined in the following chapter. As the discussion above demonstrates, the turn away from traditional ethnographic forms of authority in film is perhaps the most notable trend in recent decades. Although some have attempted to engage in more participatory and collaborative ventures, many visual anthropologists now seek to be honest and reflexive about their authorial control over filmed materials. At the 2011 SVA Visual Research Conference, Paul Henley showcased some recent creative work being produced at the Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology ( http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk ). He suggested that films that claim to be participatory ha authorship allows visual anthropologists to express their intentions more freely and to take responsibility for filmed materials. Although histo rical modes of authority should continue to be reassessed as visual anthropology attempts to move forward in the 21 st century, developments of reflexivity and the potential for self representation through the democratization of video technology
40 has allowed for a more fluid, inclusive definition of ethnographic film. The didacticism of early documentaries has given way to a variety of innovative approaches that call into question modes of authority, furnishing more subjective engagements with the filmmaking process. In The Skin of the Film (2000), Laura Marks looks at a body of experimental works that provide a critical challenge to hegemonic authority structures, demonstrating that a more exploratory idea of cinema is necessary to achieve complicated, nuance d portrayals of daily life, cultural identity, and political struggle. By both disrupting and reflecting critically on the objective anthropological voice in film, a more illustrious representation of inter cultural encounters can be developed. In the next chapter, I focus on the sensory, experiential and embodied strands of theory in ethnographic film to further reveal the potential for providing new conditions for the production of anthropological knowledge.
41 Chapter 3: Making Knowledge As visual anthropology moved beyond debates of science versus subjectivity, what took hold as a prevailing concept was the idea that ethnographic film generates new forms of intersubje ctive anthropological knowledge. Building on the modes of authority I discussed in the previous chapter, I will explore current discussions around knowledge, (2000) important work on embodiment, sensory experience and ethnographic cinema. I will first review the relationship between ethnographic film and writing to identify how images contribute to anthropological knowledge in ways unavailable in written text. I will then examine current strands of sensory ethnographic theory and the ways visual anthropology can further their development. Moving toward an integrative approach to the senses, I look at sensory visual anthropology in the context Through a discourse that attempts to break down standard, hegemonic knowledge in the academy, I will focus not on what one can learn from ethnographic film, but rather how one can learn. Sensory and embodied approaches to eth nographic cinema open new avenues for anthropological insights, but only if traditional, didactic documentary techniques are eschewed in favor of innovative and experimental practices that invite viewers to engage critically with the cinematic medium and i ts potential to offer progressive modes of inquiry. I will then raise the question: to what ends should anthropologists employ these notions of sensory, embodied experience in furthering the anthropological endeavor? I argue that evoking an embodied sense
42 can contribute to larger political discourses. Finally, I discuss three films that explore the boundaries of the intersubjective encounter Chronique t (1956), Trinh Minh Surname Viet, Given N ame Nam (1989) and Diana Terrace of the Sea (2009) with the intent of drawing out elements of possibility for ethnographic film that focus on the transmission of embodied and emplaced knowledge on both a personal and political level. Perhaps the most difficult question to grapple with is: What is anthropological 1990s critiqued the conditions for the production of cultural knowledge, leading to a near paralyzin about their subjects. However, ethnography has endured as the predominant method for compiling cultural anthropological materials, and anthropologists have worked consistently to impro ve and experiment with its structures in order to reaffirm the value of ethnographic research for both academic and applied purposes. Similarly, ethnographic filmmakers have built their own foundational strategies for producing images of value to the disci pline and to humanity in general. In this sense, I will inquire into the conditions of knowledge production in ethnographic filmmaking rather than its epistemological limits. Writing and Film A major presiding factor in conversations surrounding ethnogra phic film is its relationship to ethnographic writing. In terms of building anthropological knowledge, film achieves different ends; it is neither a substitute for writing, nor does it function
43 solely as a complement to written ethnography. However, one of the most promising effects of ethnographic film is the way it can influence academic writing. David the direction of completion (of a sentence, of a narrative), whi ch in academic writing focusing on causation, explanation and assertion, he suggests, film can make room for exploration and experimentation. Realizing an exploratory rathe r than argumentative approach in his own writing, MacDougall demonstrates how film, due to its capacity to project the outside world in a composite, sinuous, and affecting flow of movement and time, offers anthropologists a more flexible and inquisitive mo de of thinking. From the outset, ethnographic film has presented anthropologists with a considerable conceptual challenge: film is not reducible to language, nor can it encapsulate certain written concepts. The main problem that emerges from this differen ce manner. Theoretical framing is important to anthropology, and most ethnographers are contradictions between generating written and visual texts, involving such basic anthropological issues as description, theory formation and verification? If so, there may well be an inverse relation between the two ways of approaching society and culture difference between writing and film does not inhibit the flow of ideas betwee n them but, rather, promotes it. Film, in its immediacy, is a process of discovery, whereas writing, in
44 its reflective capacity, can be seen as a process of recovery. Although both film and ethnographic description attempt to evoke the situated experience of an anthropological encounter, the physical, observable qualities of film can work in dialogue with the complex abstract processes developed in ethnographic writing. The context for both written and visual anthropology is, however, shared. In general, t he ideal of holism in anthropology has been exploded, and anthropologists have found that working with the resulting fragments is much more rewarding in terms of quality, depth, and honesty in the intersubjective encounter. This can mean dealing with a sin gle element in society, a particular intersection of different cultures, an area of contestation or an innovative practice. Ethnographic sites are no longer bounded, complete, and isolated entities, and failure to ack nowledge that all people have specific relationship s to global system s is negligent and dishonest. While ethnographic writing has the ability to expound upon a wide range of nuanced political and historical circumstances, ethnographic film often (but not always) focuses on representing the indi vidual, embodied, and experiential elements of these larger processes. The Feeling Eye: Ethnographic Cinema, Experience, and the Senses The term experience is difficult to define anthropologically or otherwise; yet much visual anthropology is preoccupied with the idea of experience, and often in a vague manner. It is improbable that anthropologists can ever define experience as such ; howev er, its manifestations can be channeled through the anthropological encounter and representative process in a complex, entangled way. Making sense of the different intersections of experiences possible in the ethnographic filmic encounter is difficult.
45 Wha When in dialogue with the filmmaker, how is lived experience transformed (or performed) as a vocal or gestural expression experience reflecte evoke a collective experience? In the 1980s there was a small but significant discussion of the an thropology of experience, perhaps achieving its height with the 1986 publication, The Anthropology of Experience edited by Victor Turner and Edward Bruner. This body of works focuses ethnographic format. The discussion of experience has been revived by visual anthropology since the movement did away with didactic, expository documentary conventions (MacDougall 1998). The idea that experience lends itself to being filmed has underpinned visual underline what anthropology is all about. They evoke the life experience of s ocial actors, and also the experiences of fieldwork that always remain prior to anthropological visual anthropology is difficult unless it can be grounded in a palpable way of understanding and relating to the world. Based on her research in sensory anthropology, Sarah Pink (2006, 2009) encourages visual anthropologists to take a multisensory approach in order to conceive of making. Using a multise nsory approach, however, is not as simple
46 as evoking a particular s ound, smell, or texture on film. A knowledge, may be difficult to access, and are n ot always dominated by vision either in describe another culture (1986:11 12). Although f ilm is an inherently visual medium, a number of elements such as speech, sound, texture, and movement can evoke something beyond a strictly optical sensation. David MacDougall notes that vision especially when combined with sound in a filmmaking context ca fingers rubbing across the surface of a balloon evokes more than the actions and sounds involved: it suggests the way the balloon must feel, and even an imminent explosion. Sound and image together can generate powerful s ynesthetic responses, creating a concrete and material surpasses a merely visual perspective, offering a more tangible understanding of humans in their built and lived en vironments. Some anthropologists have not found this to be the case. Kirsten Hastrup however. While ethnographic films have plenty of virtues and may satisfy part of o ur thirst for knowledge that during her fieldwork in Iceland, she could not capture with photography the effusive research methods] do not record touch, taste, smell or emotion in the same way that they record
47 Pink suggests that the conditions under which sensory knowledge can be understood through visual media should perhaps be situated in an interaction between text and image: I suggest the most viable solution is to explore further how writing and video might combine to represent sensory experience theoretically and ethnographically. This would involve producing multimedia texts that use both metaphor and theoretical argument to make anthropological statements about sensory experience knowledge and memory that take advantage of the benefits both of ethnographic fil m and anthropological writing to represent sensory experience and make explicit the anthropological theory that informs our This idea leads Pink to hypermedia, or media platforms such as the Internet which allow for the combination of image and text in an interactive process. However, this combination of image and text is a step away from the idea of a contained, coherent short shared between subjects and filmmakers, fortifying visual anthropology as an academic people. Watching a film is an inherently social experience one that is a source of leisu re enjoyment for many whereas reading a hypermedia site is generally a solitary activity requiring literacy and a knowledge of a particular language. In this capacity, the theoretical imperative to explain experience through both image and text should be w eighed against the potential for film alone to function as an accessible, communal engagement.
48 Two important critiques of a sensory approach to filmmaking have arisen in the past decade. First, sensory information is not readily transmissible just becaus e a film the sensorium, the sensuous geography characteristic of one culture will not be Dougall risks creating further fragmentation instead of a more integrated approach to sensory he emphasis of one sense might eschew a complex understanding of the interconnections among the senses. Therefore, I suggest, an embodied approach to ethnographic cinema accounts for the entire body, relationships between bodies, and the senses that enable the development of a knowledge of culture and place. Embodied Images and the Senses As Bill Nichols notes ethnographic cinema should not seek to convey the world that i s not reliant solely upon thought or the mental concepts; as previously discussed, people experience reality through vision and tactility, sense and materiality. bodies imp licated in film, but also those of filmmakers and those of the audience not to image is affe
49 responses, identifications, and identities across audiences should be considered. Film can th us be seen as the relationship of various bodies vis vis one another; in this way it is embodied xture of a particular fo od could be represented on film, yet its relationship to an integrated cultural sensory experience on the micro scale into larger cultural narratives. Vi sualizing a piece of fabric, a domestic animal, or an item of furniture draws out colors, textures, and possibly smells, seamlessly incorporating multiple sensory input to construct an idea of place and experience. Like MacDougall, Marks argues for an inte grated approach to the senses, but she also acknowledges differences between (2000:24). These differences can produce strong reactions: for example, food, scents, and music are all culturally conditioned and are therefore not readily relatable across cultural bo undaries The commingling of the senses should be explored ; however, since one sensory image can produce varying sensory responses cross culturally the differences among sensory frameworks subverts the conception of a wholly integrative approach to sense knowledge. MacDougall (2006) takes his aesthetics of management: an ordering of the elements of life for the balancing of physical needs, comfort, time, space, power relations, and sexuality. The aesthetic sense
50 109). In order to draw out these complex ele ments of a culturally organized environment, the subject itself that is, a language operating in visual, aural, verbal, temporal, and even (through synesthetic associatio Northern India, MacDougall explored how young adolescent boys developed their cultural identities in the regimented space at the Doon School through a visual examination of their material surroundings. M acDougall suggests that ethnographic cinema is of anthropological value because it has the potential to furnish cross cultural identification. Along with Marks, I suggest that both identification and inaccessibility produce important anthropological insigh ts. In The Skin of the Film films that incorporate two or more cultural identities, often one minority culture negotiating with a dominant Western culture. A large part of this is the idea that the untranslatability of experience or silenced histories can be obliquely hinted at through a sensory, embodied approach. In such narratives, there may be a sense of withholding of academic description in favor of a more experimental and exploratory type of inquiry that often leaves unresolved questions in its wake. In Chapter Three of The Skin of the Film, Marks discusses haptic images, which viewer realizes what she or he is b can be abstractions, close ups, or otherwise unclear images that challenge dominant cinematic conventions (Marks 2000:132). They constitute a technique that engages head on with
51 objectifying ethnographic filmic practi ces discussed in the previous chapter, urging cinema, haptic images are often used in an explicit critique of visual mastery, in the search for ways to bring the image 52). An example of recent ethnographic filmmaking that makes use of haptic is Karen Manenberg (2010), which won the Basil Wright Film Prize at the RAI Ethnographic Film Festiv al, a prize that emphasizes the use of innovate film techniques. Long segments of interview in the film were conducted in complete darkness painful struggle of living in poverty. The inaccessibility of these images spoke directly to anthropological understanding. Although sensory information cannot be translated directly through film, the idea of var iability of responses to sensory material should be explored. Marks suggests: memory of the senses, a nontransparent and differentially available body of information, is important to everybody as a source of individual knowledge. For cultural minoriti es, it is an especially important source of cultural project focuses on developing methodologies and analytic techniques to derive academic accounts more fully for the insights produced through sharing and circulating intercultural films. Watching a movie, after all, is an experience in its own right. Much ethnographic film reflects the challenging intersections between cultures, and it is use ful to continue
52 audience reception. A primary concern of this dialogue is that people who share the always be considered as a part of the audience. Different sensory engagements produce different responses; a heterogeneity of RAI Festival of Ethnographic Film had a quick anecdote about showi ng their film to subjects; however, there has been little in depth research into this type of experience. Since photo elicitation is a popular technique for ethnographic work, it should also be employed with ethnographic film. Accounting for different vie identifications with ethnographic filmic representations is an avenue that has yet to be addressed in writings on ethnographic cinema. In the sections below I will explore some elements of embodied, sensory experience in ethnogr aphic films that challenge hegemonic documentary techniques. historical moments of frame shifting in anthropology that were not necessarily disciplinary intersections between anthropology and art, I feel the same principle can be applied to anthropology and film, especially since some of the more radical approaches to intersubjectivity discussed below have been appreciated but not fully carried forth as a part of visual anthropological practice.
53 and the Filmic Inquiry into Experience (1956) was a groundbreaking documentary in many respects. It shook off the voiceover approach, allowed people to engage with the camera, and even featured the filmmakers on screen as a part of the filmmaking process. It is touted as the beginning of cinma vrit and is used as a prominent example of reflexivity in ethnographic filmmaking. It is also known as one of the first films to take advantage of synchronous sound technology which gave filmmakers more flexibility in filming on loca tion. Yet was more than just an exercise in new technology or in breaking the so called fourth wall; it presented a whole new mode of filmic inquiry that set a challenging tone for the second half of the twentieth century. The film tak es on the ambitious task of seeing whether or not people can be responses are surprising. some disclose personal information such as old age or a death in the family that has led to a state of deep unhappiness. The initial experiment gives way to more in depth interactions, as the film makers enter the homes of subjects and observe them carrying out their daily routines. Several subjects discuss their lives as members of the working class; many express discontent. The filmmakers then focus on one man, Angelo, as he wakes up in the mornin g to have bread, soup, and a cigarette for breakfast. They then walk with him to his factory job. An emphasis on the materiality of the morning the watch on the nightstand, the simple meal, the cigarette, a boy handing out newspapers on the still dark
54 stre et, the grinding sounds of the factory and quick takes of hands performing mechanical tasks about based approach, it focuses on process instead. This is not to say that does not have a coherent narrative it actually progresses toward a refined political portrait of France in the early 1960 s as Rouch and concurrent war in Algeria. A disturbing visual articulation of personal experience within larger historical and political narratives occurs when Rouch and Morin initiate several discussions among subjects. In one conversation Marceline describes her fear that she has corrupted her younger partner, Jean Pierre, by exposing him to people experiencing extreme discontent with society, including herself. As she says th is, the camera moves slowly, cautiously down her body and lands on her arm where a concentration camp number has been inked, revealing what she has been alluding to. Later, Rouch and Morin attempt to elicit perspectives on the colonization of Africa by fac ilitating a dialogue between several young French adults and two African immigrants, Landry and Raymond. Marceline is in attendance, and she begins to discuss a prejudice against African immigrants Rouch suggests she is a sexual racist. He then asks Landry and Raymond if they knew where her tattoo was from. She explains to them. This particular moment could not have been recreated in a text; the intersection of gazes is impossibly complex. ipants: for the African
55 men it is their skin color designated as racial other by the colonialists; for Marceline it is the number that permanently invokes genocide on her body. As one embodied memory gives way to another, Marceline is found in the Place de la Concorde, speaking her thoughts as she walks along. In this familiar location, Marceline describes the feeling of a place memory, of having walked through the square when it was empty 15 or 20 years ago, during the Second World War. She remembers her her monologue, describing a few memories of the concentration camp, but the camer a which has been tracking her from the front pulls forward, leaving her behind. This, as them, but the subjects continually slip out from beneath the images they lea ve behind on be abandoned in this frozen image. Her physical self continues living beyond the frame, but there is no further evidence of this. At the end of the film, Rouch and Morin gather all the participants to screen a cut artificial. Two people state that the film is embarrassing and indecent. Angelo claims that At this point, the question of truthfulness gives way to that of significance: were the images o f value to the subjects? One woman claims she is dying to meet Mary Lou, an subject who professed a personal transformation in her life after having been interviewed
56 by the filmmakers. Another man claims that Mary Lou offered important insights because she film by walking through a museum, discussing their feelings about the film. Morin worries that if the people in the film are perceived as actors, the film will be a failure. Howe ver, he stipulates, there is no way to actually know what type of performance it experience. Ideas of pre fi lmic lived experience, filmed experience, and memory intersect and overlap as political violence and historical narratives are layered throughout the interactions between subjects and filmmakers. The process of filmmaking is made reflexively clear througho m screening within a film adds presents new conditions for subjective inquiry in ethnographic and doc umentary cinema. Indeed, it tears at the fabric of the previous didactic documentary styles, perhaps Trinh Minh Ha: Female Subjectivity and the Question of Documentary Truth Trinh Minh arked a host of dialogues and critiques mainly in print among visual anthropologists beginning in the 1990s. Her films develop critical perspectives on female subjectivity, the slippery and shifting nature of images, and the complicated politics of transna tional movements and encounters between cultures. Surname Viet, Given Name Nam (1989) is directly relevant to ethnographic cinema as it challenges common notions of the interview, the ethnographic
57 site, the ethnographic subject, and scientific truth in doc umentary. Moreover, Trinh uses innovative techniques to demonstrate that like language, images are subject to multiple interpretive revisions as a film unfolds in time. The film begins with images of Vietnamese women dancing and walking, images which are slowed down, frozen, blurred, paired with sounds of a thunderstorm (or mortars?) and a flashing light thus, rendered haptic. Two of the images are cropped, revealing that the women are carrying rifles and flags. Trinh hints that this will be a film about the Vietnam War. There is then an image of a woman pushing a large paddle boat down a river paired with the sound of a woman singing a Vietnamese folk song; by conflating this particular image with the song, Trinh creates a sense of mythic place fad ing into the background. Faces from an old black and white photograph are scanned one by on e, the distraught expressions of the women and children indicate that the viewer is indeed being taken to rural Vietnam during a time of war. This collage of images and sounds then gives way to a series of interviews with Vietnamese women The first woma n is shown chopping vegetables on the floor, .We live in constant suspicion between husband and wife, between children and parents. Suspicion is everywhere. The reinforced by an English subtitle to the left of the screen, even though she is already conducting the interview in English. This is followed by more haptic black and white images of women preparing food and da ncing, set again to music. Another interviewee
58 appears on screen; this time the camera focuses on her mouth with a close up, then a slow tracking shot down her clothing to rest on her expressive hands. The roving camera ce of the war as she describes her diminished hips and chest, her dry skin from undernourishment. However, the intense close up shot only hints at what this might look like. The film carries on, pairing slowly paced black and white imagery with a voiceov er discussion of the political and poetic lives of women in Vietnam after the war. The interviews become increasingly abstract as Trinh challenges commonly held notions English), the initial folk music of the film returns with a translation in subtitles. At this point, viewers are confronted by conflicting avenues of communication: should they he bottom of the screen? It is difficult to do both, and some of the information is inevitably lost. Blocks of English subtitles then appear in front of the interviewees (who all speak in English), confronting the viewer with the contradictions of watching and reading. In doing so, Trinh counters the idea that image, sound, voice, and text can all be interchangeably understood in documentary film. Soon, there is a rupture in the film: the images presented are no longer those of rural, war torn Vietnam. Rat her, they are images of Vietnamese American women dancing at a beauty pageant, going out to a restaurant, presenting in front of a classroom. Two of the same women are interviewed as before; this time they discuss their jobs in the United States as enginee rs. Then, they talk (this time in Vietnamese) about why they decided to take part in the film project to represent the experiences of Vietnamese women
59 viewer has not stepped out of the frame of a scientific, objective understanding of documentary, then probably yes. However, what Trinh offers through this experiment in subjectivity is an articulation of a multiplicity of intersecting identities, which she discusses at length in Woman/Native/Other (1989). (1991:10). Attempting to further the work of feminist anthropologists Trinh confronts imaginaries of women and Otherness. She juxtaposes images of Vietnamese women working as engineers in the United States. Rather than constructing a hierarchy o f mutually constitutive of multiple, fragmented ways of ways of being a Vietnamese life and the cultural hegemony experienced during modern day contact with the West. War, in this sense, moves beyond physical territory to occupy metaphorical realms; as the female narrator of Surname Viet, Given Name Nam warns, this culminates in a repres shot. .If war is a continuation of politics by other means, then media images are a stimulatio n, and haptic images thus become the new fabric out of which to craft a version of media that reflects mediated experiences.
60 Terrace of the Sea (2009) Most of the submissions I viewed at the 12 th RAI Film Festival did not utilize techni ques for a sensory, embodied engagement with film their representational Terrace of the Sea (2009) is a formally innovative approach to notions of memory and place for Palestinia using techniques to create an embodied sense of the world that is fully realized through the process of place making. Pink describes how this p that is video recorded can be interpreted as place making on a second level. In the first instance, place is made through the coming together of social, material and senso rial encounters that constitute the research event. However, additionally, place is Allan creates this sense of place by focusing on temporality, drawing connections between the natural an d built environment, using long, minimalist takes in order to suspend a didactic narrative in favor of a more contemplative engagement with the visual materials. David MacDougall suggests that the long take can bring focus to the lived experience of subjec interpretive space a closing off of the legitimate areas in which the viewer is invited to supply meaning a loss of the sense of encounter takes, Al lan gives a sense of the temporality of the daily life of the fishing community, as end of the film that this group of people had been living as refugees on the coast of Tyre,
61 South Lebanon for more than 60 years, and were now facing displacement from the land end of the film that allows the viewer to revisit the previous sequences with an entirely new sense of meanings and memories evoked. As Pink suggests, the interview can be a locus for embodied engagement with subjects, especially as these relate to place r oughout interviews, whether sitting, standing or moving, both ethnographers and research participants continue to be active participants in their environments, using their whole bodies, all their senses, available props and the ground under their f eet, to narrate, perform, communicate and represent especially in one instance where the interview takes place on a boat with a male participant. Avoiding the tradit ional face to subject, watching him as he performs routine fishing tasks, allowing for lulls in surroundings the sea, the boat the su the likely displacement of Palestinians from this area, this emplaced interview reveals a ion demonstrates that the sensory can be political. In Terrace of the Sea, long take to create a sense of temporality all work together to register an embodied sense of experience. Avoiding the typical shock tactics and polemics of political documentaries, Terrace of the Sea carefully crafts a space for an emotive understanding
62 of refugee identity, complicating notions of displacement and forging a new reading that encourages viewer s to engage more critically with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Conclusion An embodied, sensory knowledge of film should continue to be examined in visual anthropology. Although it is not necessarily easy to conceptualize, it provides a of an encounter. The interstices of filmed experience are the most interesting for ethnographic purposes. Since ideas of subjecthood in anthropology continue to be developed, a multifaceted exploration of embodied identity through experimental filming techni best when it is used to emphasize the individual experience for which visual media have demonstrated expressive affinity in particular, By sharpening an anthropological focus in these realms, film has proven its elf to be a different yet worthy companion to ethnographic writing and theory. Furthermore, an well be some of the most important registers of global shifts in power and the emergence of new individual experience as it relates to both the lived environment and larger political
63 processes, demonstrating the potential for continued innovation in sensory and embodied area of anthropological knowledge building.
64 Chapter 4: Film Festivals, Media Networks, and the Organization of Ethnographic Cinema This chapter focuses on how visual anthropology develops discourses and ideologies throug h organizing principles, namely film festivals and media networks Film festivals have become some of the primary venues for the exposition and discussion of v isual anthropological materials, yet there have been few anthropological writings on film festivals. During the summer of 2011, I attended the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI) 12th Biennial International Festival of Ethnographic Film in London. Prominent and well established, the film festival featured five days of s creenings in four to investigate the dynamics of film festival space, including the sense of community developed, the politics of representation, and the way the film festival structure contributes to visual (198 6) concept of heterotopic spaces I will examine how global informational flows and temporality in the materials. To do so, I will draw on my experience attending the RAI Festival focusing on narrative s created through structuring, curation and categorization of visual materials. Early film festival s were born out of the European narrative film tradition, with the first international film festival held in Venice in 1932. Other regional festival s arose in Europe such as Cannes (1939), Edinburg (1947), and Berlin (1951). In the Americas, Toronto (1976) and Sundance in Salt Lake City (1978) followed several decades later. Today, nearly every large urban center feat ures some sort of film festival m any of which
65 festivals, bla ck film festivals, and regional/ cultural film festiva ls have become prominent venues featuring cinematic narratives outside the dominant Hollywood film industry. Therefore, it is not surprising that visual anthropologists began to use film festivals as early as the 1980s to gather together, showcase work, and discuss future directions for the sub discipline. Film festivals create specific typ es of political discourses, institutional ideologies, and spatial dynamics. Surprisingly, there have been few in depth studies of their impact on visual anthropology. Notable exceptions include Penny Harvey (1993), who examined the politics of self represe ntation in indigenous media at the fourth American Festival of hic Film in 1992, Nancy Lutkehaus (1996) who looked at documentaries screened at the 1996 the Sundance Film Festival, and Kaarine Cleverly (1997) who briefly explored the history of the Nordic Anthropological Film Association Conference and Festival. Most visual anthropological film festival re views are structured as short form reviews of individual films appended to journals such as Visual Anthropology Review From a film and media studies perspective, more in depth theoretical writings such as Marijke de Film Festivals: From European G eopolitics to Global Cinephilia (2007) explore the historical and political implications of film festivals. Still, the vast majority of writings on film festivals are found in popular media outlets such as blogs, newspapers, and Internet forums. Be cause of their connection to the larger history of popular film festivals, it is interesting to explore ethnographic film festivals in relation to what de Valck calls de Valck explains thematic film festivals arose once
66 had been the case in the early days of film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, and Venice (2007:167). The French New Wave greatly contributed to the break with national i dealism, using innovative styles and engaging with controversial subject matter. The ly ere a major factor in these new thematic festivals and their overtly political agendas. However, as Valck ve all Western) audience and part of the original, local relevance of political cinemas or aesthetic new waves was lost international film festivals strive for diversity in programming, an audience of predominantly cinephilic fil m goers might not know how to engage politically with the films that are screened. In this sense, an ethnographic film festival presents a unique viewing milieu Whereas a popular film festival attracts members of the public interested in a genera l idea of cinema, at the RAI film festival, most people in attendance were affiliated with anthropology as a discipline in some way. Their careers were invested in both repres entations on screen and living people off screen many were engaged politically wi th the subject matter Thus, I understand the RAI film festival a serious expression of anthropological values and a reflection of the various interests of a community of visual anthropologists from around the world. Ho wever, as I discuss below, the film festival had no unifying principle other than its presentation of an amalgamation of different cultures, localities, and modes of
67 thema tic festival is therefore derived from its ability to connect many disparate elements of a subdiscipline for a communal viewing and discussion. I de cided to attend the RAI Festival of Ethnographic Film after conducting my ethnograph ic methods cour se project at the Sarasota Film Festival in early 2011 There, I positioned myself as a volunteer, participating in activities in various departments, attending the festival and its promotional events, and conducting informal interviews with programmers, o rganizers, volunteers, and one filmmaker. I was able to get a sense of the fostered. I had initially planned to model my thesis research on this process by conducting inte rviews with ethnographic filmmakers in order to get an idea of future directions for visual anthropology. However, it was exceedingly difficult to secure any interviews at the RAI Festival of Ethnographic Film because the viewing schedule was packed and ma ny attendees were using the festival as a networking opportunity. Moreover, I decided after watching a good number of films that I wanted my focus to be representation based rather than perspective based. I ended up conducting one informal interview with t profile a nd highly private interworkings. Sherry Ortner, who has done ethnographic research in Hollywood, describes interface ethnography as: any opportunities at all revelations about in )presenting themselves
68 surrounded by discourses, I tried to gain an idea of the public presentation of the festival. I us ed a similar strategy when I attended the 2011 American Anthropological Association meetings, but there I focused mainly on the circulating dialogues since I attended mostly academically framed conference sessions. The festival took place from June 23rd to 26th at the University College of screening 24 films. The festival featured 91 films which were generally feature length, running from 50 to 90 minutes, with several short films running from 10 to 30 minutes. There were four different venues for the screenings, organized into the following categories: RAI Film Prize and Basil Wright Film Prize in competition screenings (26 films), W iley Blackwell Student Film Prize screenings (21 films), Material Culture and Archaeology Film Prize screenings (15 films), Intangible Culture: Music, Dance, and Performance Film Prize screenings (12 films), Anthropologists at Work: Ethics, Politics, Field work (9 films), and Special Interests: Migration Film Day screenings (8 films). I tried to sample some films from each category, but focused mainly on the films in competition for the RAI and Basil Wright prizes as these were the central awards of the fest ival. Indeed, coming up with a program of films to see became difficult: with three different screenings happening simultaneously, I would often go to one screening only to hear about how great ano ther one was. I tried to plan a balanced film scre ening schedule only to change my mind several times at the last minute. My main criteria for film selection was to choose films that dealt with questions of representation; however, this
69 was difficult as the synopses in the film guide were all the informa tion I had to make my decisions. These synopses dealt almo st entirely with topical issues. F or example the Law and War in Rural Kenya revisits a vigilante movement that arose to combat cattle raidi ng and gun crime among I therefore attempted to choose films that had some indication of the representational issues at hand. F or example in the last chapter I discussed Te rrace of the Sea (2009), a film about Pa lestinian immigrants in Lebanon. The synopsis for this film Terrace of the Sea is a meditation on the processes of memory that explores the distances between photography and film, past and present, land and sea and between seeing and being I also asked several people wh at films they were going to see. W hen I told one what part of the in on one geographical area. Thinking about it further, the festival program allowed viewers access to 72 countries across six continents; the sheer diversity of films was astounding. However, this question prompted me to think critically about what type of space was being created at the festival. Based on the premise that ethnographic film the audience was able to embark on a multitude of transnational film in this light, it can perhaps be compared to the Epcot Center at Disney World! The compression of time and space facilitated by these media is an example of the problem of globalization for anthropologists working in transnational networks with unknowable boundaries.
70 of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side by (1986:22). In order to grapple with the conglomeration of time and space at an es as though they were curatorship is at work in an ethnographic film festival: films are screen ed, programmed, organized, and scheduled. At the RAI, the wildly disparate film subjects were unified Foucault takes up the idea of the discord created by multiple type s of space presented as d rectangular room, at the end of dimensional screen, one sees the projection of a three dimensional multiplicatory effect as it presents a series of very different three dimensional spaces sequentially on the same two dimensional screen. T he organization of the extensive festival program is a reflection of the heterotopic space created. Foucault describes the effect of a heterotopic space using the myself in the glass at once absolutely real, connected with all the space that surrounds it, and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to pass through this virtual
71 for visual anthropology? I think it is likely. The individual endeavors of ethnographic filmmakers exist in their own context, yet when combined in a fi lm festival become part of a larger representational process. Moreover, the RAI festival selects from what its committee judges to be the best ethnographic films produced within the previous three years; therefore such film festivals can be regarded as an indication of the status of visual anthropology. As I mentioned above, the film categories were organized broadly according to prizes. However, each individual screening sessions consisted of anywhere from one to four different films. These screen ings often featured films from the same region, for (2010) and Ella Pugliese and Nou We Want (U) To Know (2011) were both films made in Cambodia; David Awareness (2011) and H a T he Golden Beach (2008) were both made in India. Sometimes films were paired based on similar anthropological The Lover and the Beloved (2010) and Olesya The Last Dervish of Kazakhstan (2010) both focused on shamanism. On th e website for the film festival (http://raifilmfest.org.uk/ film/festival/2011), all films were cross included Africa, Australia, Central America, India and Anthropologis ts at Work, Anthropology of Health and Well being, Indigenous and Community Media, Migration, and Music, Dance and Performance. A lthough the films were organized based on regional affiliation or subject matter, they did not take up the same representationa l concerns. Moreover, not all of the films could be paired up according to this scheme.
72 Thus, some films that did not have much in common were inevitably grouped together. Because the idea of viewing ethnographic work from all parts of the world wa s so prominently featured, a comparative perspective was subtly invited. The larger narratives at work were both apparent and concealed: geographical variation and anthropological topics of interest could easily be pointed out, while more inconspicuous eth nographic filmic tropes silently underscored the festival program. One screening in particular emphasized this for me. At the time, I could not figure out what had made me so uneasy about it; topic Bitter Roots: The Ends of Kalahari Myth (2011) Arctic Spleen (2010). The first film was feature length, second was a short film made by a documentary film maker inquiring into high suicide rates in a town of 3,500 in East Greenland. Made in a traditional documentary sty le, Bitter Roots featured interviews with anthropological experts and Ju/*hoansi people along with stock footage to construct a critical history of representations of peoples in the Kalahari Desert while raising the question of what the future holds for th subjects discussing the troubling experiences of the small community. I could not help but feel disturbed after viewing these films together, not only because of the difficult subject matter, but also because of the underlying narrative s they invoked Both films presented people living in harsh landscapes: the Kalahari D esert and
73 The Hunters ( 1962 ) Nanook of the North (1922 ), two of the most prominent early ethnographic films that were shot in the same geographic regions as Bitter Roots and Arctic Spleen. These intertextual associations are inescapable (See Huang 2002) Bitter Roots attempted to engage with historical context, demonstrating how romanticized misrepresentations led development workers astray from the realities of 21 st century life in the Ka lahari. A clear distinction between stock footage and footage of current circumstances facilitated the articulation of the social and political consequences of anthropological representations. Arctic Spleen by comparison was a horrific represe ntation: Caso tti opted to digit ally render his footage black and white, effectively aestheticizing both the subjects and the landscape of the film Furthermore, sorrowful music played on top of still photographs of suggest that the outlook for this group of people was hopeless. This type of representation is not new; as discussed in Chapter 2, salvage anthropology laid the groundwork for early ethnographic films. Geographically nthropology of the 21st century. O ther films at the RAI film festival in this category include The Bagyeli Pygmies at the End of the World (2009), Shooting with Mursi (2010), and The Last Dervish of Kazakhsta n (2010) The pairing of a film like Bitter Roots with Arctic Spleen created a type of superimposition whereby the narrative of the latter film was discussion of the Ju/*hoa
74 The overtones of salvage anthropol ogy in many of the screenings are reminiscent ercise, in the sense of gathering and curating all of the diverse cultures of the world before they go extinct. As Foucault suggests, this can be an element of heterotopic space, especially in the context of a museum: [T]he idea of accumulating everything, of establishing a sort of general archive, the will to enclose in one place all times, all epochs, all forms, all tastes, the idea of constituting a place of all times that is itself outside of time and inaccessible to its ravages, the project of organizi ng in this way a sort of perpetual and indefinite accumulation of time in an immobile place, this whole idea belongs to our modernity (1986:26). The theme of the RAI Film Festival enabl es this idea all places. Time, although less easily identified, is a related problem. Narratives of salvage anthropology in ethnographic film lend visual credence to a notion This colonial desire for authe Cannibal Tours (1989). Negotiating the concept of authenticity in ethnographic film is difficult, especially since many anthropologists would like to focus on visual aspects of culture which most readily speak to tradition, such as dress, art and adornment, dance and ritual. However, holding on to ideas of authenticity in such narratives ignores people's current realities a nd the complicated ways they experience "modernity" in an ever expanding global economy. At the same time many films at the RAI Film Festival offered a more
75 complicated engagement with how cultures negotiate their identities in the face of shifti Unity Through Culture (2011) depicts a contested cultural festival on Baluan Island, noting the ways young Baluans reinvent dance and costume in reaction to colonial hegemony while also repr esented as a site for dialogue and innovation rather than simply loss. Similarly, Karen Manenberg (2010) portrays subjects facing extreme impoverishment in post apartheid South Africa in a space where they discuss both their st ruggles and hopes for the future. In this film, the encounter was dialogic: the sometimes in total darkness enabling them to constitute their experience through these performative outlets. As Pink suggests (2009:87). An awareness of the constantly transforming nature of the field site and an ethical and nuanced manner. Ethnographic films that create a cinema of loss therefor e do a disservice to visual community. However, a discourse of loss alone cannot explai n the transformations and new productions of culture and consciousne :195). Not only do narratives fixated on loss create a regrettable liaison to salvage anthropology of
76 the past, but they also neglect to highlight a sense o f agency among subjects. In doing so, The heterotopic dissonance I experienced at the RAI Film Festival was perhaps due to my inclination to understand the film festival as a larger, co constructed narrative. from critics who found the practice to be unscientific or non academic, and therefore developed as a sort of community attempting to wor k toward the common goal of establishing ethnographic cinema as a serious discipline. With the development of Visual Anthropology Review numerous visual anthropology programs in institutions throughout the world, and a prolific amount of writings and film s over the years, visual anthropology has defended its place in anthropology. However, this does not mean that filmmaking disenfranchisement. In illustrating the heterotopic nature of film festivals, I am not suggesting that ethnographic filmmakers work toward a unified vision in visual anthropology and attempt to erase discordant elements. Film festivals of any type will by def inition constitute heterotopias; it is impossible to escape this spatial dynamic. However, visual anthropologists can engage more critically with the types of space they are privy to at a film festival. What larger goal or purpose exists behind an amassment of films from all over the world? How can film screenings be organized to best reflect an anthropological perspective? How can anthropological discourses be carried forward at such an event? In the last chapter, I suggested ways that v isual anthropology can participate in the project of developing new forms of intersubjective knowledge. Yet the experimental
77 techniques that allow viewers to engage with film as a medium, to understand its unfolding in time as a critical discourse, and to discover new methods of conveying human experience through images, were largely absent from the program of films that I screened. Most were made in a traditional documentary style, using interviews, cutaways, stock footage, and fast takes. The focus was pl aced largely on content, with many people attending screenings featuring areas of the world in which they had worked as would be expected. However, visual representation did not form the crux of their concerns. At a screening of Aadesh Bab a : Ainsi Soit Il (2010), one audience member commented on his discussion whereby anthropologists would discuss the activities presented in the film without questioning what filmic techniques were used to represent them. As Susanne Hammacher the film festival organizer, recounted to me, the festival is kgrounds in visual anthropology. Yet the RAI Film Festival is not exclusively related to visual anthropology: Each festival tends to attract certain films. looking toward more ethnographic films at one end, and becaus e we have such a tradition here in Britain with film in television, we always had this kind of presence of films maybe different from other film festivals. .And not this time, but in past festivals, we normally had actually a special discussion forum for discussing the role of anthropology in film or anthropology on television, because in the past
78 there was several series and recently. .like Tribe and but as well if you look further back with Disappearing World and Strangers Abroad. kind of we try to use the festival as a kind of meeting point for people from the industries and the anthropology community. This partly explains the major differences I en countered in terms of representa tions. While visual anthropologists should favor interdisciplinary endeavors over a cloistered, self congratulatory community, they should be cautious about the types of filmmaking they promote. As Jay Ruby has insisted, fi lms about anthropology are not necessarily anthropological films (1975:109). Visual anthropologists should leverage criticism against representations that are unfair to subjects or perpetuate a mythologized idea of partnership between television documentary and ethnographic filmmaking could be particularly fruitful if anthropologists utilized venues such as the RAI Film Festival to work toward deconstructing colonial practices such as salvage anthropology which deny agency to filmed subjects. There is potential for this, but unfortunately it was underutilized at the RAI Film Festival. Indigenous Film Production and Ethnography of Media Networks Inquiry into the structure of a film festival leads to larger q uestions of the circulation of ethnographic filmic materials. Visual anthropologists are currently working towards a more engaged model for production and distribution. When discussing film festivals, anthropologists should be aware not only of the dynamic s of the contained festival space and the ideologies produced, but should also consider the ways these ideologies can exceed the boundaries of the festival and participate in a wider
79 dissemination of images. To do so, other media outlets must be considered Film festivals are one type of space for curated representations, social interaction, and discourse building, but other modes of media circulating such as television networks achieve similar ends Since film is an inherently social, shared experience i t should be promoted as such; as I discussed in Chapter 3, the accessible, communal nature of film should be analyzed as a part of anthropological discourse. citing that Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi be released from prison (2 011: 171 72). Film international film and debate festival embodies engaged cinema as no other film festival http://www.moviesthatmatter.nl). The Movies that Matter Film Festival also operates the Human Rights Film Network based in Amsterdam, which acts as a liaison be tween other activist festivals by offering a comprehensive map and directory of film festival information on their website (http://www.humanrightsfilmnetwork.org). As I have demonstrated above, film festivals as media outlets actively promote the circulati on of discourses thus various human rights festivals chan nel this capability to promote social justice initiatives around the world. Indigenous media factors heavily into these discussions, as indigenous groups often experience displacement, exploitatio n, and economic disenfranchisement. In this sense, a global awareness of these issues is entwined with its sister concept of the local: discourses emerge from a specific locality to be presented on a global platform, with the hopes that this awareness will be then bring an increase in resources back to the locali ty and perhaps others like it. Livia Hinegardner (2009) describes this as a
80 especially in Central and South Ame rica. However, Hinegardner also notes that the act of filmmaking in and of itself is another channel for organization and activism, especially since it is difficult to enact legal or political change through filmmaking. She suggests: that seeking justice in the social imaginary is impractical a social and political field that is accessible and in which citizens may take action and 09:182). Filmmaking anthropologists should thus consider the new networks and ethnographic mise en scnes that emerge from these types of practices. Indeed, many already do. Faye Ginsburg has worked with Australian Aboriginee media networks for years, and focuses on the cultural reproduction and visibility of Aboriginee identity that result from indigenous media. She argues: [W]hen other forms are no longer effective, indigenous media offers a possible means social, cultural, and political f or reproducing and transforming cultural identity among people who have experienced massive political, geographic, and economic disruption. Th e capabilities of media to tran scend boundaries of time, space, and even language are being used effectively to mediate, literally, historically produced social ruptures and t o help construct identities that link past and present in ways appropriate to contemporary conditions (1991:94). Visual representations have strong effects on the way communities reflect upo n their identities and how they actively assert their roles in conceptions of nationality and national history; in this way indigenous media networks can be seen as distinct communities of practice. Indigenous media communities are related to other such
81 c ommunities as well as to more mainstream film production networks, creating a more interconnected ethnographic setting that offers new theoretical challenges to anthropologists. In order to further break down barriers between Western and non Western peoples in ethnographic cinema, Hollywood and other major loci for popular, fiction films should be examined with a similar ethnographic perspective on cultural production. Gordon Gray has initiated a project on this, identifying a disparity in the way ind igenous Indeed, there is almost an inverse ratio between how well known the particular film/film industry is and whether that film/industry will be analyzed through [a film studies perspective] or w hether they will be discussed in terms of cultural or sociological specificity. Films from Africa or Indonesia, for instance, are much more likely to be analyzed via the latter, 05). An ethnographics of all types of media networks would not only offer a truly global tream media that dominates the United States and elsewhere in both an economic and ideological sense. Furthermore, the relationship between indigenous media and more commercial representations can be an important locus of interaction. For example, Sabra Th orner (2007) discusses the complicated processes at work in Rabbit Proof Fence (Noyce 2002) and Whale Rider (Caro 2002), where indigenous youth were recruited to play the parts of empowered fictional characters, revealing the multiplex ways indigenous iden tity can be inscribed in dominant cinematic practices.
82 Moreover, a broad anthropological project focused on media outlets helps visual indigenous media. Although many anthropol ogists refute the distinction, it crops up in the still lingering indigenous media networks knowingly cede control of notions of authorship to the people making decisions about how to represent themselves. Building community media resources ensures that indigenous filmmakers develop expertise within the network. As Ginsburg notes, programs such as the National Indigenous Media Association of Australia or the Central Australian Aborigin the creation of a group whose synergy and influence have the capacity to reshape their institutions and cultural worlds, generating the talent, skills, resources, and creens, providing forms of mediation in which Aboriginal people are active cultural players in the marking of representations about their Access, ownership and the social control over media making in na tional and international contexts all have the potential to create a more equalized and decolonized future for visual anthropology. Working alongside but not presiding over these endeavors can be a prominent avenue for future visual anthropological studies Visual anthropology is not simply a practice of documentation, but one of representation, identity construction, and the circulation of discourses within, between, and among cultures. Attention to networks such as film festivals, indigenous media outle ts, and mainstream film production will continue to produce anthropological insights in an entangled global configuration and circulation of images. These form as much a
83 part of v isual studies as singular films; contextual c ategories can add new layers of complexity self aware about the spaces they create through film festivals and other organizational activities so that they may discover new types of engagement among filmmakers, subj ects and audiences. A critical approach to the way knowledge is framed and shared both within and outside of visual anthropology, I believe, will continue to be explored.
84 Conclusion The process of ethnographic filmmaking creates a multiplication of anthropological insights. Simply put, when visual anthropologists film people, they learn new things about them. When they watch the film, it becomes an embodied social document that turns into a new subject of study. When they show the film to others, it garners further meaning. When films circulate, the global transmission and organization of ideologies presents a new level of theoretical inquiry. Different loci of filmmaking offer platforms through which to examine the ever elusive processes of globaliza tion as they relate to the production and reproduction of cultural identities. When I made my short film Over birdening Sarasota I discovered new ways of thinking about the meaning of chicken keeping in an increasingly urbanized nati on. I screened it seve ral times for different audiences and each time I learned more about myself as a neophyte academic and non academic contexts. As such, film should be a multi tiered locus of knowledge building. The chapters of this th esis range over a wide spectrum. E thics, authority, sensory and embodied experience, and global networks are all very broad elements of anthropological discourse. However, I believe they are the most rel evant in terms of about the creation and dissemination of sensitive images, es pecially given political entanglements on a global scale. A review of modes of authority in the history of visual
85 anthropology reveals entrenched conventions that may not be completely ethical for representing people today, and may not encourage viewers to take a critical approach to film viewing. An understanding of the senses and experience requires a serious reconsideration of dominant filmmaking techniques, but results in entirely new conceptions of the cinematic medium and the types of knowledge it can produce. Finally, an organizational perspective of visual anthropology through film festivals and media networks offers a broad, global understanding of visual anthropological discourse that can be gleaned through a focus on the social experience of filmm aking and film sharing. The relationality of narratives within the organized framework is an important aspect of ethnographic cinema; visual anthropologists should be aware of the type of heterotopic space that is created at a film festival and the types o f discourses that are forged through a larger compilation of materials. I maintain that a film festival should be a critical space, not simply one of celebration. It is my belief that visual anthropology can only continue to be integrated into the larger discipline. Anyone studying with a culture and taking an interest in their unique narratives should take a look at any films made about them, or hopefully by them. With improved digital technologies, taking a camera into a field site is now convenient and commonplace. Keeping in mind ethical and representational concerns, anthropologists should consider the new types of intersubjective encounters that might emerge with ethnographic filmmaking. Perhaps in the future, it will be commonplace to see DVDs append ed to written ethnographies. The stakes are high when it comes to visual representations. Television, which was largely undiscussed in this thesis, remains one of the primary ways most people learn
86 about cultures different from their own along with popul ar cinema There is a key tension between the desire for anthropologists to produce ethical, creative ethnographic representations and the idea of a wide, popular dissemination of these materials. Could hnographic cinema away from films such as The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980)? The challenge seems daunting. Visual anthropology seems to be in a double bind in this sense, whereby failure to achieve a wide audience for ethnographic films is a disappointment, bu t striving for public circulation through outlets such as television networks and mainstream cinema would However, the outlook is not so grim. As I mentioned in my fourth chapter, indigenous groups have alrea dy seized opportunities for media representation, and it has not gone unnoticed. Take for example, Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001). Produced by Igloolik Productions, an Inuit media company, Atanarjuat was the top grossing Canadian film of 2002, and is i 10 Canadian films of all time. Although financing indigenous media on such a large scale is a struggle, activist visual anthropologists can channel their efforts toward such endeavors as a form of repr esentational justice within hegemonic cinematic traditions. It is important to emphasize that ethnographic cinema is only one part of visual anthropology; many important visual anthropological projects are carried out in realms of photography, art, archi tecture, and other visual manifestations of culture. However, with increasing attention being paid to visual anthropology in the context of sensory ethnography, Banks and Ruby raise the question of whether visual anthropology reifies f which anthropology has been accused in all of its representational
87 can convey embodied understandings of the world; however, the focus on the visual might conti nue to be a plaguing problem Further integration of the sensory and the embodied in visual anthropology could result in a broader conceptualization of the subdiscipline. This thesis hinges on the notion that the cinema is a shared, social experience. Fu rther study of the cinema space, including film festivals, will continue to build the ethnographic film community, both within and outside of academia. The social context of viewing suggests that ethnographic films should be treated as intertextual and dia logic entities; varying responses to films should be considered. Moreover, critical debate during question and answer sessions should be valued and encouraged, with more time allot t ed to post film discussion which should focus not simply on content, but on the way it relates to representation. In this way, viewers and filmmakers might develop better ideas as to how ethnographic film can become distinct from the traditional documentary styles that continue to be utilized in visual anthropology. Although television media has specific regulations and parameters for documentary film, structured, critical discussions could also help filmmakers to work through questions of ethical, nuanced representation in the fac e of dominant, constraining television practices. Such film viewings and discussions should also be promoted within educational settings. Ethnographic film will continue to be of pressing concern to anthropologists for the same reason that cinema is impor tant to leisurely movie goers: once screened, an image becomes part of a consciousness, a discourse, a social imaginary, and a memory. I have examined filmmaking in a speci fic context; the films I have discussed are all
88 re edited, constructed, and packaged for consumption. These narratives are crucial: a lthough many anthropologists use footage as analytic material, the socia l l y constructed and emotive nature of films should be continually considered Narratives of history memory, transformation, and even comedy can be crafted through an anthropological approach to filmmaking, ensuring that f ilms remain some of the best ways to forge a shared, engaged visual anthropology. Being mindful of ethical and structural concerns of ethnographic film while maintaining an enthusiasm for the intersubjective insights constantly emerging from the medium, visual anthropologists should proceed into the 21 st century with what I would call a critical fascination with filmmaking and the type s of encounters it wi ll continue to produce.
89 References TEXTS American Anthropological Association 2009 Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy advocacy/Code of Ethics.cfm, accessed November 23 rd 2011. Baker, Lee D. 1998 From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race, 1864 1954 Berkeley: University of California Press. Banks, Marcus and Jay Ruby 2011 Introduction. In Made To Be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology ( Ruby, Jay and Marcus Banks, eds ): 1 18. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brigard, Emilie de 1995 (orig:1975). The History of Ethnographic Film. In Pri nciples of Visual Anthropology (Hockings, Paul ed): 13 44 New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Carpenter, Edmund 1995 (orig: 1975). The Tribal Terror of Self Awareness Principles of Visual Anthropology, ( Paul Hockings ed. ): 481 492. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cleverley, Kaarina 1997 Ideology and Visual Anthropology: 18 th Nordic Anthropological Film Association Conference and Festival. Visual Anthropology Review 13(1): 72 73. Clifford, James 1983 On Ethnographic Authority. Representations 1(2): 118 146. --------1986 Introduction: Partial Truths. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clifford, James and George Marcus 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Durington, Matthew and Jay Ruby 2011 Ethnographic Film. In Made To Be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology ( Ruby, Jay a nd Marcus Banks, eds. ): 190 208. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
90 Evans Pritchard, E. E. 1969 (orig 1940). The Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farnell, Brenda Made To Be Seen: Perspec tives on the History of Visual Anthropology ( Ruby, Jay and Marcus Banks, eds. ): 136 58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 136 158. Farmer, Paul 2005 Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor. Berkeley: University of California Press. Foucault, Michel 1986 Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16(1): 22 27. Geertz, Clifford 1988 Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ginsburg, Faye 1991 Indigenous Media: Faustian Contract or Global Village? Cultural Anthropology 6(1): 92 112. --------1995 Mediating Culture: Indigenous Media, Ethnographic Film, and the Production of Identity. Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology, and Photography, Devereaux, Leslie and Roger Hillman, eds Berkeley: Univ of California Press. --------2005 Blak Screens and Cultural Citizenship. Visual Anthropology Review 21(1 2): 80 97. Ginsburg, Faye, Lila Abu Lughod and Brian Larkin eds. 2002 Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain Berkeley: University of California Press. Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology 2011 http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/discipl ines/socialanthropology/ visualanthropology/archive/mafilms/2008/ Accessed 1/24/2011. Gray, Gordon 2010 Cinema: A Visual Anthropology. New York: Berg. Griffiths, Alison
91 1997 Knowledge and Visuality in the Turn of the Century Anthropology: The Early Ethnographic Cinema of Alfred Cort Haddon and Walter Baldwin Spencer. Visual Anthropology Review 12(2): 18 43. G rimshaw, Anna and Amanda Ravetz 2009 Observational Cinema: Anthropology, Film and the Exploration of Social Life Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Harvey, Penny 1993 Ethnographic Film and the Politics of Difference: A Review of Film Festivals. Visual Anthropology Review 9(1): 164 76. Hastrup, Kirsten 1992 Anthropological Visions: Some Notes on Visual and Textual A uthority In Film as Ethnography Crawford, Peter Ian and David Turton, eds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Heider, Karl 2006 Ethnographic Film. Austin: University of Texas Press. Henley, Paul 2000 Ethnographic Film: Technology, Practice, and Anthropological Theory. Visual Anthropology Review 13(2): 207 26. --------Anthropology. Visual Anthropology Review 23(1): 54 63. Hinegardner, Livia 2009 Action, Organization, and Documentary Film: Beyond a Communications Model of Human Rights Videos. Visual Anthropology Review 25(2): 172 85. Hockings, Paul ed. 1995 (orig: 1975) Principles of Visual Anthropology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Huang, Yunte 2002 Ethnographers Out There. In Transpacific Displacement: Ethnogra phy, Translation, and Intertextual Travel in Twentieth Century American Literature : 26 59. Berkeley: University of California Press. Human Rights Film Network 2012 http://www.humanrightsfilmnetwork.org Accessed 3/24/2012. Kahn, Miriam 1995 Heterotopic Dissonance in the Museum Representation of Pacific Island Cultures. American Anthropologist 97(2): 324 28.
92 Kiener, Wilma and Eva Meiss, eds. 2001 Women Pioneers: An Interview with Four Founding Figures of Ethnographic Film. Visual Anthropology Review 17(1): 60 67. Lakoff, Andrew 1996 Visual Anthropology Review 12(1): 1 18. Lansing, J. Stephen 1990 The Decolonization of Ethnographic Film. Visual Anthropology Review 6(1): 13 15. Lutkehaus, Nancy C. 1996 The Sundance Film Festival January 18 28, Park City Utah. Visual Anthropology Review 12(2): 121 129. MacDougall, David 1995 (org: 1975) Beyond Observational Cinema. Principles of Visual Anthropolog y, Paul Hockings ed. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ---------1998 Transcultural Cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ---------2006 The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography and the Senses. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Marcus, George and Michael M. J. Fischer 1986 Two Contemporary Techniques of Cultural Critique in Anthropology. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences : 137 64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marion Jonathan S. 2010 Photography as Ethnographic Passport. Visual Anthropology Review 26(1):25 31. Marion, Jonathan S. and Sara Perry 2010 State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology. Visual Anthropology Review 26(2):96 104. Marks, Laura U. 2000 The Skin of the Film : Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment and the Senses. Durham: Duke University Press. Mead, Margaret 1995 (orig: 1975) Visual Anthropology in a Discipline of Words. Principles of Visual
93 Anthropology, Paul Hockings ed. New Yo rk: Mouton de Gruyter. Movies That Matter Film Festival 2012 http://www.moviesthatmatter.nl/english_index/over_ons_en Accessed 3/24/2012. Nichols, Bill 1994 Visualizing Theory: Selected Essays from V.A.R. 1990 1994 ( Lucien Ta ylor, ed. ): 50 63. New York: Routledge. Ortner, Sherry B. 2010 Ethnography 11(2) 211 33. Sage Publishing. Pink, Sarah 2006 The Future of Visual Anthropology: Engaging the Senses New York: Routledge. -------2009 Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage Publications Inc. Rhode, Joy Elizabeth 1903. In Significant Others: Interpersonal and Professional Commitments in Anthropology, Handler, Richard ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 261 290. Robertson, Rachel Production. In Visualizing Anthropology Grimshaw, Anna and Amanda Ravetz, eds. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. Rouch, Jean 1995 The Camera and Man. In Principles o f Visual Anthropology Paul Hockings, ed. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruby, Jay 1975 Is an Ethnographic Film a Filmic Ethnography? In Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication 2(2): 104 11. ---------1991 Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside An Anthropological and Documentary Dilemma. Visual Anthropology Review 7(2): 50 67. ---------2000 Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film and Anthropology. Chicago: The Un iversity of Chicago Press.
94 ---------2001 The Professionalization of Visual Anthropology in the United States: The 1960s and 1970s. Visual Anthropology Review 17(2): 5 12. Ruoff, Jeffrey Land Without Bread Visual Anthropology Review 14(1): 45 57. Scheper Hughes, Nancy 1995 The Primacy of the Ethical. Current Anthropology 36(3):409 420. Schneider, Arnd 2011 Unfinished Dialogues: Toward an Alternative History of Art and Anthropology In Made To Be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology. Ruby, Jay and Marcus Banks, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stocking, George ed. 1983 Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork. Madison: University of Wisco nsin Press. Taylor, Lucien 1998 Introduction. Transcultural Cinema David MacDougall. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thorner, Sabra 2007 Changing the Rules of Engagement: How Rabbit Proof Fence and Whale Rider Forge a New Dimension of Eth nographic Media Visual Anthropology Review 23(2): 137 50. Trinh, Minh Ha 1989 Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Turner, Victor and Edward Bruner eds. 1986 The Anthropology of Experience. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Valck, Marijke de 2007 Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wiles, Rose, Amanda Coffey, Judy Robinson, and Jon Prosser 2010 Ethical Regulation and Visual Methods: Making Visual Research Impossible or Developing Good Practice? National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/812/, accessed November 24 th 2011.
95 Wiles, Rose, Jon Prosser, Anna Ba gnoli, Andrew Clark, Katherine Davis, Sally Holland, and Emma Renold 2008 Visual Ethics: Ethical Issues in Visual Research. National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper, NCRM/011. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/421/, accessed November 23 rd 2011. Willmott, Cory 2005 The Lens of Science: Anthropometric Photography and the Chippewa, 1890 1920. Visual Anthropology 18(4): 309 37. Winston, Brian 1988 The Tradition of the Victim in Griersonian Documentary. Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film, and Television ( Gross, Larry, John Stuart Katz, and Jay Ruby, eds): 34 57. New York: Oxford University Press. Wong, Cindy Hing Yuk 2011 Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick : Rutgers University Press. Young, Colin 1995 Observational Cinema. In Principles of Visual Anthropology. Paul Hockings, ed. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. FILMS Allan, Diana 2009 Terrace of the Sea. 54 min. Harvard Sensory Ethnography Lab. Barret, Elizabeth 2000 Stranger with a Camera. 61 min. Appalshop. Bender, Jacqlyn 2010 Over birdening Sarasota. 9 min. Not distributed. Bondareva, Olesya and Mauri Pasanen 2010 The Last Dervish of Kazakhstan 27 min. Documentary Film Studio Mosaic. Bunuel, Luis and Salvador Dali 1933 Las Hurdes (Land Without Bread). 30 min. Ramn Acn. Casotti, Piergiorgio 2010 Arctic Spleen. 14 min. Unknown production company.
96 Dreske, Anja 2010 The Tribes of Cologn e. 90 minutes. Berlin: 58 Filme. Eaton, Michael 2010 The Masks of Mer 37 min. Potlatch Productions. Elton, Arthur and Edgar Anstey 1935 Housing Problems 16 min. British Commercial Gas Association. Flaherty, Robert 1922 Nanook of the North 79 min. Les Frres Revillon. --------1926 Moana. 77 min. Famous Players Lasky Corporation. Gallois, Francois Philippe 2009 The Bagyeli Pygmies at the End of the World. 56 min. Matango Productions. Heald, Susan 2010 Law and War in Rural Kenya. 65 min. Unknown Production Company. Kunuk, Zacharias 2001 Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner 172 min. Isuma Igloolik Productions. Laurent, Aurore and Adrien Viel 2010 Aedesh Baba: Ainsi Soit il. 77 min. Urubu Films. Lawrence, Andy 2010 The Lover and the Beloved. 70 min. Asta Films & GCVA. Marshall, John 1957 The Hunters 72 min. Documentary Educational Resources. Mendel, Tommi and Brigette Nikle 2010 (Bunong Guu Oh). 53 minutes. Documentary Educational Resources. 1989 Cannibal Tours. 70 min. Institute of Papua New Guinea Studios. Pugliese, Ella and Nou Va 2011 We Want (U) To Know. 54 min. Khmer Institute of Democracy. Rouch, Jean and Edgar Morin 1961 mmer). 85 min. Argos Films.
97 Strong, Adrian 2011 Bitter Roots: The End of the Kalahari Myth. 67 min. Suhr, Christian and Ton Otto 2011 Unity Through Culture 60 min. Moesgaard Films. Trinh, Minh ha 1989 Surname Viet, Given Name Nam. 108 min. W omen Make Movies. Waltorp, Karen and Christian Vium 2010 Manenberg. 58 mins. Wester, Hasse 2008 The Golden Beach. 58 min. Lila Film. Waltorp Vium. Young, Ben and Olisarali Olibui 2010 Shooting With Mursi 55 min. Unknown production company.