"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.