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.