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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
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.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
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.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
