A Reminder of the Time capsule

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=315254474724200001

this video i found reminded me of Myeasha's presentation on bringing the person out of the time capsule. It is speaking about the Yanomami people but in the beginning it has a montage of people in their origins and "time capsule" and transfers them to a more mdoern world.

In thinking of more indigenous documentary...

We have already seen a work by Jean Rouch which was his Jaguar, an insight into his work in Africa. Jean Rouch was asked one day why dont you document your own, the Parisians? So he did just that.He made Chronicle of a Summer with Edgar Morin. He interviewed anyone living in Paris, and even got his subjects to interview other subjects. They were asked "Are you Happy?" and got a variety of answers.

Technological Advancement even Prevelant in Museums

I always looked to Museums as an archive of the past, especially the The Natural History Museum. I have done a study in ethnography on the Natural History Museum that reflect's the societie's constant technological gains and advancements that even an archive of History has to incoporate.



There are many massive television screens that people sit through and watch movies. I came across about fifteen of these massive screens. One is in the sea room or otherwise known as the "whale room". The biodiversity hall has many of these in which different movies play. The Dinosaur Wing has an entire movie explaining the history of the dinosaurs.


Most people seem to sit through the entire movie and settle down rather than manouver their way through the exhibit and learn the information and their own rather than just being told.


There are many different Computer stations that exist in almost every single wing, including the oldest, in the Dinosaur Wing. New technologies can be seen everywhere in this museum. There is even a thermal camera that you can walk by and it can read your body temperature. This reflects our culture and how we are constantly moving forward in the technological era. You can see it everywhere in the museum with new screen being placed in old halls every year.

The Underground Orchestra

This is a clip from The Underground Orchestra a film by Heddy Honnigman. It is a type of ethnography in that it explores the world of subway performers in Paris. Most of them are refugees forced to leave their country and start fresh in Paris. It is very much worth seeing!

Indigenous Media

Itam Hakim Hopi by filmmaker Victor Masayesva was a piece considered an Indigenous ethnography in other words a grassroots piece. It was allowing the director Victor Masayesva to turn the camera around on his own people. He had the chance to tell in a sense his story through the main character, Ross Macaya. This piece was original in that although in the native language of Hoopi there were no subtitles. He seemed to have on purpose, narrated over the main narration. His soothing voice and tone allowed to give a feel to the viewer this notion of oral storytelling.


The whole ethnography is in the narrative of Ross Macaya. He is telling stories of the Hoopi people and stories on how they came to be. What is also unique in this type of ethnography is that he seems to not necessarily make a direct connection with what is being seen and what is being told. Although symbolically and metaphorically there is some connection.

He draws many connections between the people and the natural enviornment, or their natural surroundings. He has a very poetic undertone in the way he cut and edited this film. With the words of Ross Macaya, he shows images of corn being collected and planted and as well in the beginning shows Ross himself weaving a type of traditional dress.

This ethnography was interesting in that it was the first look into "grassroots" media other than "Number Our Days".
"Number Our Days" was a very different approach in this look into indigenous film. "Number our Days" while not necessarily as poetic and metaphoric was still an interesting approach to indigneous media. She looked into a community that "one day she would be a part of".

It was revealing not only in the aspects of the culture but it was universal. Not only was it an insight into the Jewish culture but it was a revealing look into the world of the old. Sad and moving it was a compilement of different narratives from the different people in this Jewish Community Center.


She would cut to herself at times and put in her own two sense of her feelings and reactions to her findings. I think it was nice to see how she was reflecting on her own culture. Her being apart of this culture, or eventually to be a part of it, I found myself almost giving her the authority to iterject and give her own opinion because she herself is a pat of that community.


This film was also in a sense a means to communicate the social injustices that this community had to endure. With the scene of the people giving out free groceries and Meyerhoff explaining that there was not enough support of this center, it exposes the in-humane conditions that some of these older people have to go through. It opens the public's eye and shows how hard it is for some people to get by.

Both these films were unique in the ethnographic field in that it was coming from their side. Both these films reflected the film-maker's culture and where they come from or where they will go. I found myself listening to them more and trusting their input and opinions on the culture they were studying because in a sense they had an "in". They could both speak with authority on these cultures because they themselves are those cultures in a sense. I enjoyed both these films. They both offered very different insights into two very different cultures but were very telling, eye opening, and educational

The Museum of Natural History / Haraway

After reading the Haraway piece “Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908 – 1936" I was left with a lot of questions and thoughts on the museum. After having spent a lot of time there as a child, I never fully realized that the animals were in fact real at one point and taxidermed. I thought it was interesting when Haraway talks about Akley and his experience in collecting gorillas. She explains, "Akley and his party had killed or attempted to kill every ape that had seen since arriving in the area." (p.57) I thought it was interesting because Akley was trying to bring these Animals to the museum to preserve them however in doing so he had to kill them first. There is something ironic and troubling in the notion of killing off these animals just to put them behind glass in a museum.
Later Haraway tallks about how "Now it was time to hunt with the camera (p.57). I thought this was interesting in that he decided to start snapping a camera rather than shoot a gun to collect information and preserve animals forever in time.
And later on Haraway is explaining a photograph taken of a dead gorilla being photographed by a camera. She says "The contrast of this scene of death with the diorama framing the giant of Karisimbi mounted in New York is total; the animal came to life again, this time imortal." (p.58) I thought that this was interesting because through the epxierience of killing and then photgraphing, the animal was killed but born again. I thought this was a ironic and interesting concept she brought up that makes you question the museum itself and the way things were collected.
The hunting with the camera concept reminded me of Juan Downey's laughing alligator. Both seem to say that the camera is a tool, a weapon to be used. You can hunt with it and use it carefully as your weapon like a gun. However in the Haraway piece it was the alternative to a gun.
What is interesting as well is the dioramas in the museum and how the animals are dead but made re-born again. The scene set up is so forced but supposed to be made to look so real. After going there and re-examine what is being shown there was some sort of eerie presence. Espeically having know that these animals were killed for this purpose and then stuffed and placed in the position that they were in. There was a sad and creepy element to all these dioramas.
What I also noticed in one of the medicine man exhibits there were all these manicans of these men dressed in "taditional" costumes. There were a lot of maks, head pieces, and feathers. However what I noticed or realized was that on one of the manicans, their shoes were converse. It was a very updated shoe on these "traditional" constumes. I thought it was funny and intersting, and probably a slip-up considering none of the other manicans had antyhing like this on.
What also is interesting is the classification of the museum. We talked briefly in class about this and the names of some of the wings. "The African Wing" is just such a broad classification. I felt like i did not learn much because it was so largely sterotyped into one hall. Africa is made up of hundreds of countries so I found it bizarre that the wing was just titled Africa. As well one was titled "The Lure of Asia" which is also troubling and problematic because of how many different cultures and countries there are within Asia.
My favorite room in the museum is the sea room. It has changed since I remember it. There are a lot of new technologies incorporated into it. For example there are many computer stations set up, ones in which you can interact with, and ass well a huge new movie screen that plays a movie about an ocean. The cieling is lit up with blue lights to make it look as if one is underwater. The large wall is still a huge life-size length that makes the room so popular. One disturbing feature was that a lot of the maequins were faceless, and terrified me a little.

Our film...finally

We decided to play with the idea of identity... and when someone becomes a new yorker and why they consider themselves new yorkers....

"Art of Regret" and "The Birthday"

This film is about watermelons.

I found "Art of Regret" to be extremely interesting because it approached China's history through the medium of photography. It explored the difficult idea and elements of a city rapidly changing and modernizing. Through the progress of photography and what it has become in China, it was interesting to as well watch the progress of this city in China and its inhabitants. It was fascinating to watch how the Chineese inhabitants of the city of Kunming saw photography and their viewpoints reguarding this evoloving medium. It was a question of whether photography was a medium for which older tradtions and way of lvinging are preserved permanently and as evidence, or if photography in this country was a viewpoint of progress, trasnformation, and in a sense fantasy. Judith McDougall shows how photography in this city can be easily manipulated. Old people can become young again, and the plain and even less attractive can become beautiful.

After the Cultural Revolution in China, many pesonal photographs were seized by the government. Many people did not have their "personal histories" in a sense. They are lacking the physical proof or evidence of a world that was their personal world existing before the revolution. Because of this, the average person would think that a photograph in it's physical and original form is priceless and should not be tampered with. However you see quite the opposite in this movie. For example the translator goes to a photography store in which they re-store old photographs. She restors one of her aunt that has creases in it. It then become a whole new photograph, retouched and refinsihed. This further complicates the notion of a photography in it's pureset sense. You are combinng new age techonology with an old traditional photograph.

As well what was an interesting and complex issue in the movie was when they went to the photography exhibit and interviwed the photographer. He had shot the city years and years ago. He had black and white photos which were probably developed by himself in a dark room. It shows the city as smaller and quiet. However he shoots the city again years later, and all you see is buildings upon buildings. You see the small little market on the corner turned into a massive Supermarket. This part showed as well, that not only did the cty change, but the mode of photography as well. The pictures went from being black and white and probably manually developed to large color, which were probably taken on a digital camera.

Another opposing scene between traditional vs. modern was the photography studio in which family would go and get their portraits taken. What I found to be opposing was the use of the old wooden 4x5 camera. This is a very traditional camera used in which you must develop the film in a darkroom manually. However after this process this studio would use computer technology to re-touch the image, falsifying the reality.

Another powerful scene in this is when the old man tells Judith and her translator that he has preseved photographs from his grandfather. However they show up to find this man without photographs, but with a compelling story. His grandfather worked in a political realm, therefore the grandon never wanted to write a story about him based on the fact that he might get in trouble. But he did want his grandfather's memory and legacy to live on. So what else could he do? He told Judith and the camera about the life of his Grandfather. You could see how badly he wanted to preserved and embedd the history of his grandfather in some medium.
His photographs were gone, so there had to be another way to permanently preserve him. When Judith turned off the camera because the man started to cry, I thought as we have said in class, this was more powerful than leaving the camera on. It was acknowledging the pain of a man, but to a point where you had to realize it could not be represented through a camera. This was a very Susan Sontag approach. Recently I have read Regarding the Pain of Other, and Sontag believes that you can never convey a human's pain or suffering accurately through a photo. I guess Judith felt the same way, that you can not show the pain of a man crying without somehow exploiting him or doing it innacurrately.




"The Birthday" was fascinating in that it gave the viewers a look into a world of transexuals in Iran.
It revealed contradictions and bizarre ralities that this religion in Iran holds. Unlike sodomy and homosexuality, transsexuality is not mentioned in the Koran, and so is not prohibited. Therefore the transexuals in Iran do not have to worry about being executed. There is even a speicific law permitting sex change operations.

However this film was more about the complex notion of transexuals in Iran. It also was a film about the status of women in Iran. The mother of one of the transexuals did not necessarily have a problem with him being a transexual but the idea of giving up the freedom and rights of a man in Iran to become a woman. In another part, a brother of Afshin, was almost relieved because he explains that his sister is becoming a man, meaning he will have more rights and the brother will not have to worry as much about if he were a woman. Ashfin aslo at one point explains how unapphy he was as a woman. The stares and as well the liberties not expierienced as a woman.

This movie was powerful in so many scenes. There was one scene, where one of the transexuals Saye, feels so alone and abused in the world she lives, that she asks if she is even living. At one point someone says that Iran is a paradise for Transexuals, however it is hard to fully believe that. If such a paradise why do people still name call and why are parents still so against it? The way i see it being a paradise is the sensitivity and caring the doctors treat the transexuals. From my understanding the sex change operations were government or state paid. However this was the only real way i saw Iran to be a paradise for transexuals.

Jaguar

Jean Rocuh's "Jaguar" was a film like i have never seen before. Orignally I had wanted to simply place it not in etnography but in the genre of Journey documentary. The only reason I am so quick to want to place it into any category is the fact that I am currently enrolled in two different film classes, strictly titled Histories of Documentary in which we go over guidlines as to what exactly makes a documentary film
. As well obviously stating, that I am also enrolled in an Ethnographic film class. Because of this distinct seperation between the genres and what consittues each film, I always automatically want to be able to categorize a film as ethnographic or documentary. However, reguardless I realized that it can be both, or it is simply plain put, up to the viewer to determine what THEY themselves consider the movie, reguardless of literary work written on it. I think this is the best way to seperate movies, according to your own take on it,
...

Back to Jaguar, I thought it was extremely interesting how Jean Rouch showed he journey these different men took. It was the classic scenario of going away a boy and coming back a man. I thought it was unique in that Rouch showed each individual journey. This demonstrates Rouch's desire to focus on the individual rather than the whole tribe or clan.
Another complex and interesting approach Rouch took was the showing of the three men encountering an entirely new and different tribe. He shows the complications involved in trying to look at a tribe objectively. The three men kept yelling, "They are naked! They are naked!" This was an interesting because it showed how shocking and foreign a goup of people can be even to the people you yourself, as a film maker are studying.


I think what stood out the most in this film is that the three men were narrating. There was no overcasting shadow of the voice of the ethnographer. I thought it was interesting that we as viewers were allowed to hear the boys go over teh story, after the fact, almost as a reflection of their journey.

I think this is such an extremely and useful approach to ehtnographic film making because like the approach the McDougalls have taken in their films, its allowing the people to speak in the film. It allows the people to tell their stories without the editing or interpretation of it by the ethnographer. It gives those people their voice.

This film incorporated a lot of elements into it. It was a mixture of things in terms of what it represented and what it showed. It was a type of journey documentary, a reflexive docuemtnary, observational, and as well a genre that is fictional ethnography.

Land Without Bread

After having seen "Land Without Bread" I believe it is a satire on the way different anthrpologists had at least written about other people and other people's cultures. Considering "Land Without Bread" was made in 1932 it's hard to imagine what ethnographies Bunuel could be mocking. However it was said that he made the film after reading the ethnographic study Las Jurdes: étude de géographie humaine of 1927 by Maurice Legendre. With the narration describing the inhabitants of this region as disgusting and pitiful, it seems quite clear from this narration alone that it must be something mocking in the way anthropolgists conducted themselves.

In Introdcution to Documentary by Bill NIchols, Nichols mentions the film "Land Without Bread" and how it had a mocking tone, but to the average viewer it seemed a repulsive portrayl of the inhabitants of Las Hurdes in Spain. He says, "On the surface of it, Land Without Bread seems to be an example of the most callous form of reporting, worse even than the hounding of celebrities by paparazzi or the gross interpretation of others in "mondo" films such as Mondo Cane. But Luis Bunuels film gradually sugeests a level of self-awareness and calculated effect that might prompt us to wonder if Bunuel is not quite the insensitive cad we initially thought." (p.7). Here Nichols illustrates that Bunuel was innovative and cleverly mocking anthropolgists reasearch. The anthropologists had this voice that distanced themselves from the people they are studying as well spoke with a arrogant aire and authoirty over all the people.

Nichols later goes on to say about Land Without Bread, "Seen from this perspective, Bunuel sounds, in 1932 an early and important cautionary note against our own tendency to believe literally what we see and hear. We risk missing the irony of a Bunuel..." (p.9) The most important idea here is the important decsion to constantly analyze and question what we are watching. For the average viewer Land Without Bread seems like an insensitive accountof a real anthropological study. It seems that it is just from the point of view of an arrogant ethnographer. Luis Bunuel seemed to have wanted to change the tone that anthropologists were using at the time to define "the other".

Bunuel was extremely innovative in that he seems to be one of the first directors to truly mock any type of anthropological investigation. This idea was very advanced for his time, especially consdiering how new ethnography even was. Im sure he had many reactions to future "Serious" anthropological work such as Margret Mead. It would be interesting to see a more modern day movie made with this same concept and idea.

Shocking....Immediate Reactions

The surrealists sure know how to shock
I have tried to make sense of Un Chien Andalou but I cant seem to decipher any of what is going on. Im sure there is symbolism for some things that I cant quite understand although Im sure most of it is supposed to be irrational and illogical.

I enjoy Land Without Bread only because, at least in my opinion, it's mocking the way Anthropologists de-humanize their subjects and I think for his time that was really groundbreaking.

Emphasis on the individual....

Lorang has a voice and a lot to say......

Lorangs Way was unique in that it was all narration, and this time not belonging to some stuffy sounding anthroplogist or someone with a dull un-excited tone. It was Lorang, part of the Turkana tribe, telling about his life and his personal story. The MacDougals are in a sense "giving" their film to Lorang. Its almost as if they are allowing the people in the Turkana culture to really be heard without the over analyzing or sometimes racist sounding ethnographers.
Words have a power, and by allowing Lorang to speak directly to the camera without voice- overs was in a way giving Lorang power.

The film seemed very unfiltered and raw at times (even though we all know parts of it were edited). For exmaple, the part where Lorang is showing his home and where everyone lives. He is guiding the camera and you (as a viewer) are taken along on a trip with him while he uses his own, un-edited words to explain each place. The MacDougals also offer an interesting interview with Lorangs good friend. His friend is then "given the film" in which he speaks openly and freely in his own native language about his own friend. I think it is exdtremely effective in trying to portray an ethnographid film as objectively as you can.

There is virtually no ethnographer in the film. You do not see the MacDouals or really ever hear them. I think this film was a great example of what ethnography film should look like. It seemed raw and unassuming of a culture. As well MacDougal in his essay writes about how it is important to look at an individual. "In emphasizing the individual, visual anthropologists may be more likely to depart from the idea of culture as a set of discrete structures and approach it instead as a series of variations on a theme: a convergence of the personal, historical, and material at a particular time and place." (p.271)
Looking at a culture from an individual point of referencce is important because it shows that a culture is not just one huge representation. There are many voices withing a culture or group that need to be studied, in which you can grasp an idea of the larger culture through different ways such as personal stories and histories.



In Transcultural Cinema MacDougal clearly points out the differences in written anthropology versus visual anthropology. At times he seems to lean towards visual anthropology as more beneficial and rewarding. We went over this quote briefly but I think it is central to his idea overall. He says, "Although it would be mistaken to deny the possibiilty of access to sensory experience in anthropological writing, visual anthropology opens more directly onto the sensorium than written texts ande creates psychological and somatic forms of intersubjectivity between viewer and social actor. In films, we achieve identification with others through a synchrony with their bodies made possible in large part by vision..." (p.262).
This quote is showing that a written text does not allow us to phyically see "the body" or make a connection with whatever is being written about. It allows us to feel more emotional and relatable to what we see on the camera rathen than what we are just reading in a book.

I would have to agree with him. I think he has a very valid and legitimate point about how visual can evoke more senses and create more psychological connections with what is being seen. There is somethin in visually observing and watching a film about a culture that can not be realted in words. It forces us to look at something, as is, in the way it was supposed to be seen as (if the ethnography is done well). Written text can sometimes take away from learning about a culture. While vital and important it doesnt seems to give us a direct connection with the group or individual that is being talked about.


MacDougall later goes on to say, "The value of visual anthropology lies in its distinctiveness from ethnographic writing, including the transcultural properties of visual images. It lies in creating new conceptions of ethnography, rather than adapting vision to written froms." (p,271) Visual Ethnography is something innovative in which it is freed from constraints that are placed on writing. It allows a viewer to see images, which according to MacDougall, are much more open-ended and open to interpretation than words.

In class we also talked about how one of the authors felt that by using observation it allows for the ethnographer's real voice to come through. I would have to disagree also. Although it sometimes is very beneficial to use observation it is not the best means to allow an ethnographers view or point to come through.

What is Documentary??????

I have been trying to look at documentaries and ethnographies and trying to sperate them into two categories. Im curious what this film would fall into... is it strictly a docmentary? Can it be considered a realist docuemtnary? or can it even stretch into the boundaries of an ethnography because it is in fact a study of people, their culture, and their home.

Realism Incorporated into Documentary

I am finding it hard to fully understand what realism is and how to define it and the part it plays in making documentaries and ethnographies. According to the dictionary definition realism in cinema or art is "the interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative".
However I feel is harder to define in just those amount of words. As well I found an entry in Wikiepedia for "Ethnograhic Realism" which is a style of ethnographic writing that narrates the author's experiences and observations as if the reader was witnessing or experiencing events first hand." Wikipedia is not exactly the best source to go by, but I found it interesting that there was an entry for this.

Realism is a hard concept to define however is an attempt to show as a culture or a person as is, in their enviornment by allowing the viewer to see the experience as is; untouched and un-altered.

In "The Fact of Realism and the Fiction of Objectivity" by Bill Nichols he explains that with realism in documentary, "We are moved to confront a topic, issue or situation, or event that bears the mark of the historically real. In igniting our interest, a documentary has a less incendinary effect on our erotic fantasies and sense of sexual identity but a stronger effect on our social imagination nd sense of cultural identity." (Nichols, p. 178) This passage explains how a realist documentary and I suppose we can also say a realist ethnogrpahy forces a viewer to look at certain social aspects of it. The components of the film whether it be an ethnography or "realist" documentary makes a viewer pay attention to larger issues ones more focused on human rights and less about fantasy and the "eroticization" of a film.

Nichols also speaks largely about the idea of Objectification and how hard and touchy it is to achieve this. He explains that the term objectivity as well changes from group to group. Different people define and try to obtain the concep of objectivitiy in different ways.
Nichols defines objectivity as "reporting what was said and done in the historical world, and if it was said by or done by other major institutional apparatuses, most notably the state, objectivity means passing on official accounts with a minimum of skepticism or doubt." (Nichols p. 188) I think he touched very closly on how I would explain objectification. Although it is hard to accomplish its important to be done as best as possible.

One point that Juagaribe brings up is that he explains how due to the over spectacularized images of other palces and other cultures it creates a demand for a "real." People grow tired of seeing the eroticization of a certain city or culture and want to see the city orforeign place for what it is.
As well Juagaribe talks about what he means by the shock of the real. He is talking about the showing of a culture or people in the real but with a certain element that is interferring or disrupting the normal way of things. Anne brought up in her blog the idea that Harlan presented in class. It was the description of showing the Yanomami using advanced technologies such as a motor boat and how it is showing the reality of a culture but with irregual means incorporated into the "real" of the Yanomami.

I asked myself what are other examples of this that we have seen but came up short. I feel it would be interesting to talk about what other ethnographies we have seen in which we are observing the real but with elements that disrupt the "real".

I also find it hard to understand why a "realist" documentary is so different than an ethnography. I supose we can say that many ethnographies try their best to show the real, (realism" as much as possible.

Guns Germs and Steel

While watching Warriors of the Amazon, I was amazed to hear about the decreasing population of the Yanomami due to disease brought by the "white man". It made me think of a book written by Jared Diamond called Guns, Germs and Steel.

This book talks about how the modern world was shaped and how it was introduced to new technology such as guns, new weapons, and most important of all the disease and germs that the "conquerers" had brought to the new world which wiped out many of it's indigenous inhabitants.

Warriors of the Amazon/ Juan Downey

I foud this film to be particularly interesting due to the sponsoring of the film. I thought it was fascinating that the main sponsor of the film was a Pharmaeceutical company. Its always important to consider who is giving money to the film to see if that is relfected in the film. Soemtimes it is not always enitrely up to the ethnographer with what he or she wants to show.
This film seemed unique in that instead of showing the Yanomami as vengeful warriors, it shows them as making a truce with their neighboring enemeies. I felt like that was one of the first films we have seen that the viewer can viually see the Yanaomai as almost peaceful and forgiving. What I also found interesting that seemed to fit into the theme of concepts in this movie was that the idea of unity. You coud see in the movie, the notion that they all lived under the same canopy strucutre showing a visual unity and as well the idea of a mental unity.

The film focuses on a Yanomami woman that ran away from the village and became re-married in the neighboring tribe. After the two tribes reunite she and her husband owe her brohers a debt of work. Even though she remarried into a different tribe, the debt stll exists. During this part I found this ethnography to be interesting because when interviewing the woman and her husband the ethnographer directly asks the husband how he feels about the situation even though the wife was speaking for him. The ethnographer directly gave the husband his voice in the film instad of allowing his wife to talk for him. I liked that the ethnographer gave the Yanomami his own individual voice in this film.

Its interesting to see how th Yanomami see marriage as almost political. It is not necessarily falling in love with a woman, rather than trying to gain relations with the brother in laws. It is fascinating that with marraige, comes new relations that can help a Yanomami male out. It almost becomes a work relation rather than a romantic one or one invested with emotion. The in-laws must come and work for the sisters new husband. It is an interesting concept in which relationships become more complex. The biggest controversey was over the woman who gave birth without a husband. This is the part in the film where the idea of unity was contradicted. Because the woman had no husband no on helped. The Yanaomami did not aid her in any way, forcing her children to clean up the pregnancy and the baby. Within a couple days both the woman and child died. It is troubling and upsetting to see how the Yanomami people offered her no help however we as viewers from a dfferent culture must understand that it is how the Yanomami conduct themselves. It is another example however of the woman and their minor role in the Yanomami society.

Of course they are important to marry but a woman without a man seems to be nothing in this society. With the backing of a pharamaceutcal company I found it troubling that they gave the woman no aid or at least the option of aid. We talked about it in class breifly but I felt that with being an ethnographer comes the responsibility of helping others when they need it. At the very least they should have offered their help or services, reguardless of how the Yanomami conduct themselves. It is a touchy subject but important to establish moral codes of conduct and responsibility especially when conducting research in an area of the world where medicine is not easily accessible.

Juan Downey's piece was extremely interesting and different in that it offered a completely new way of looking at what ethnography is. It had this large undertone of satire. Juan Downey at times seemed to be directly making fun of ethnography as a whole and the idea of studying a different culture or group of people from such a foreign perspective. He made it clear to show the very different worlds they come from. WIth images of his wife in front of the statue of Liberty show how foreign these people are to him. However he talks like many anthropologists did at his time with a sense of authority over the entire group. He has an arrogant aire in his speech however I felt he had done it on purpose.

He makes a big point in the movie when he shows the camera as something dangerous. He shows it as being a weapon at one point. This is directly explaining that as viewers we can not always fuly trust the camera completely. We must always be critical and research as much as possible. The camera only shows you what it wants to show you it can manipulate and sometimes leave pieces out.

The Young One

My Subject's name is Andrew Yarrow Escaladas.
He resides in the county they call Westchester, of the state of New York. His rosey cheeks and blonde hair give me clues in that he might be of German or Irish decent. However his last name gives me a hint that he could be a mixture of things. Escaladas has a spanish sound, and i will look into this matter further once i can fully understand the child's ramblings and fragmented sentences. He is an interesting case study because he is of a child standing however is a good look into the insight of people that hail from Westchester.
I followed him around on a typical Sunday that he spent with his father. His father decided to take him to a zoo, where they find enjoyment in watching different animals that come from all over the world. He has to ride in a litlte strapped seat in the car in which he seems to find extremely uncomortable. Andrew planned his trip carefully, exaniming the little colorful map he was handed when walking in. He seems to take pleasure in figuring out his way around the carefully mapped out Bronx Zoo. He is smart and can recognize the different animals and the different names given to the animals. He is very talkative and is engaged with the people around him and his own thoughts.

We take a break in the day to snack on some food. I settle with basic piza and he interestingly enough finds sweets to be the most satisfying. His father allows him to indulge in a vanilla ice cream bar.
Later on he decides to break out in some sort of tribal dance in which he grabs his shin and head and begins to dance around the loud cafeteria. His father demands that he stops but he continues.
Here you can see the type of rebellion that resides in children his age. Only about six years old, he is already going against the words of his father. Eventually the father shouts, showing his dominance of the family, and little Andrew sits down.

His father than, as almost an apology, ebraces Andrew with his arms and hugs him tightly. It is a beautiful demonstration on the emotional ties and love he has for his son. He doesnt let Andrew go for about one minute, even though the little boy grows tired and annoyed of it.


Throughout the day he clung to his fake version of a what resembled a dinosaur. It was a soft fabric and as well was very multicolored. As well he took joy in his minature cars that he carried around with him. They had a logo called HOT WHEELS.
They were cars that he found in his "happy meal", a treat that his Dad allowed him to get from a MCdondalds restaurant from time to time. He ate fried potatotes called French fries, and as well fried chicken called chicken nuggets.

His mood tends to be erratic throughout the day. While watching Gorrillas he grew impatient after having been there for a while and demanded that we leave. However while at the Sea Lion exhibit he ws all smiles, and evetually on the car ride home he fell asleep.

Later on he watches the television with childish cartoons however he laughs thoughout the entire program. The father falls asleep on the couch as the young one continues to play with his toy cars and watch the cartoons.

He is a fascinating study because he goes from happy to sad in a matter of minutes and as well can go from being awake to falling asleep very fast. He resembles his father and his father's manerisms in many ways. It is a revelaing insight to what he will eventually become, and is very telling about his clan in Westchester.

Staged Ethnography

After browsing through a Richard Avedon photography website, it made me think, can an "ethngoraphic" study be staged? Or is it suddenly not considered ethnographic? As well can photographs such as Richard Avedon's be a type of ethnography? Avedon, well known for portraits, takes shots from people of the everday to celebrity status. Can this be a look into a day in the life of these people in front of the camera? Is it revealing about the people in any way, or is it simply art?





fraenkelgallery.com click on richard avedon

Olympia

i found her portrayal of the human body in atheletics to be similar to the way Vertov portrayed his athletes

Man With a Movie Camera

I was extremely impressed by the movie "Man With A Movie Camera." Dziga Vertov has a vision of the future and went where no other film maker had ever gone before. With his use of montage he amazed his audiences, with more visual stimulation than even seen before. His look into the day of common people in soviet cities with advanced technological production showed the progress of the world at that time. Even as a student living in the 21st century I was impressed and curious about these fast paced images that is "Man with A Movie Camera."
This "experimental film" is interesting in that it seems to be the first silent movie that really played with speeds and the camera. There were frozen frames,split screens,fast and slow motion. It played with size, like for example filming the camera man as just as large as an entire building.
I can only imagine what it was to be the first audience to see this movie. This was the first time people were seeing film in this light. This movie is full of clever manipulations to the eyes. Still showing the world as is, however with slight plays on the everyday.
His ideas of looking into the future are quite clear. He has many shots of technological scenes in which there is mass production of certain products. Especially in some of the scenes that are sped up, it seems the technological age is booming and is growing faster and faster. I can also see however his love for the everyday and for the people of his country. There are so many street scenes in which you feel like you are part of the enviornment. .
Vertov was unique in that in his film he allowed the audience to become part of his movie. The everyday scenes allowed for that. As well the every day people in his movie became the main characters, along with himself. He showed his love for film-making by allowing people to feel like at times they were looking right through the camera themselves, directing.You can see that he felt the camera was a more "perfected" eye. The camera could show all around an individual. The camera could capture the details of everyday life that the eye by itself might not notice, or at least might not appreciate.
I thought the shots of the athletes were very interesting. They all seemed very proud of what they were doing and the slow motion was beautifully done of the shots of the high jump. I also thought maybe Leni Riefenstahl might have been influenced by Vertov. Her films Olympia showed the Olympics and sports filmed in an extremely artisitc form. They were similar in that they showed the beauty and decadence of the human form and of the different sports people performed.

A day in the life of a struggling musician