Turner- Defiant Images

In this reading, Turner analyzes indigenous films, discussing how they are made, what they represent, and what effect they have. He believes that indigenous films not only serve to define a culture, but also to show how different cultures relate to and differ from one another. He first focuses on the filming process itself. He notes that the indigenous people have complete control over the filming, including the editing process. Turner remarks that he never tries to influence them with western filming techniques such as camera angles and shots. He then notes that people of the Kayapo tribe, which he focuses on in this article, were much less concerned with clean editing and smooth camera maneuvers than they were with the content of the video. I think that Turner plays a minimal role in the filming and production because he wants the film to be purely a native account of an indigenous culture, without any outside influence.
Turner later discusses how the Kayapo incorporate political and social aspects into the video making process. For example, Political officials running for office would often be cameramen for these indigenous films because it showed that they were part of an inter-cultural project. Another example is the use of video by one Kayapo who took his followers and established a new village. He wanted video footage to show what he had built and his new role as leader. The Kayapo also used video to express important cultural values and activities, such as festivals, dances, and their grievance against the Brazillian state.
It is evident that the Kayapo tribe made good use of video to express their cultural and personal beliefs. We still use video footage for this in present-day America. When candidates are running for office they often come up with campaign slogans and promises, which they then broadcast on television to appeal to voters. Ads discouraging substance abuse are an example of video being used to convey social values because they reflect important feelings and beliefs within our culture.

Frantz Fanon- The Wretched of the Earth (selections)

Frantz Fanon- The Wretched of the Earth (selections): reading response questions

While reading these selections, pinpoint why Fanon sees violence as a necessary component of any anti-colonial struggle. What, in particular, according to Fanon are the insidious effects of colonization on the colonized individual?
-Fanon indicates that cohabitation is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and provides a few examples to explain this. One such example is the violence that takes place upon colonization. When the colonists first encounter the natives, they use force to take over the land and establish power and authority, and in doing so cause tension and aggression between them and the colonized people. Fanon also stresses that the interaction between the two very different cultures "infuses a new rythem, specific to a new generation of men, with a new language and a new humanity" (Fanon 2). Fanon is illustrating the vast differences between the two people, in all aspects, from lifestyle to language. These barriers make it difficult for the two groups to communicate and relate to each other; violence is the only thing that they both understand.
-Post-colonization, the lives of the natives change drastically, as they are no longer able to live the way that they want, but rather are forced to live by the colonists standards. While the colonists live comfortable lives in rich and prosperous areas, the colonized are forced to live in small, cramped, famished sectors. According to Fanon, the colonized are envious of the colonists and feel that "their cramped world can only be changed by violence" (Fanon 3).

Think about our discussions of the multiple relationships between the "West" and the "Other". According to Fanon, what happens to human subjectivity (sense of self, identity) through the close, sustained and violent encounter of "West" and "Other"?
-Immediately after colonization, both the colonists and the colonized find ways to distinguish themselves from each other. While the colonized remain loyal and dedicated to the land that they had lived off of, the colonists become concerned with establishing rule and power and settlements. The colonists would often view the natives as inferior and worthless. This, in a way, parallels our class discussion regarding orientalism, in which we talked about how some cultures undermine or criticize others in order to feel greater or superior by comparasion.

Finally, think about what self-determination means for Fanon.
-I think Fanon is trying to tell us that having self-determination is essential to living happy and peaceful lives, but it can also cause problems and tensions if it conflicts with another's self-determination. When examining different cultures we will always find differences in ideals and beliefs. If and when two different groups of people are forced to interact with each other, these different ideals will clash and cause conflict, often resulting in violence. As someone who fought in the Algerian revolution, which was violently silenced by the French, Fanon probably valued self-determination more than anything and would not have compromised it easily. In his case, he was being forced by French colonialists to change his lifestyle. I imagine that Fanon was bitter towards the French, and all colonialists, for that matter, because they impose their own values and beliefs onto others without consideration or care.

"On the use of the camera" response

In this article, Margaret Mead is arguing with fellow Anthropologist Gregory Bateson about the use of a camera in obtaining information. The two types of camera use that are being disputed are still photography(camera fixed on a tripod and not moved) and filming off a tripod(photographer holds camera and moves around). Mead argues that still photographs, taken in the exact same place for a set period of time, are most useful because they reveal things going on in the background as well as the foreground. She also believes that in order to capture the image of something interesting you have to wait for it. Bateson, on the other hand, believes that the photographer should move the camera to places of interest, where things are happening at that very moment. He states that the camera will not detect anything at all if it is held down by the tripod.
I agree most with Bateson in regards to this dispute. While I do admit that sometimes it is better to stay in one area and wait for something to occur, I think that the camera's true potential is severely limited when it is mounted on a tripod and stuck in one position. If the camera is sitting on a tripod then all it is doing is capturing light and displaying an image to be analyzed. If the camera can move around, however, then it is able to explore different viewpoints, environments, and aspects of the surrounding area. This means that the camera will view and interact with a lot more than it would if it were stationary.
Another reason why I support Bateson's viewpoint is because I think that having the camera move around freely can avoid making someone observing the images feel detached. By having the photographer move the camera around, you're not only seeing more of what's happening, but you're also seeing the photographer's point of view because he is the one deciding what to film and how to film it. This can make an observer feel like he is actually exploring the place within the photograph himself. Evidence of this can be seen from movies like The Blair Witch Project and other horror films, which use the camera to create an additional point of view for viewers to make the experience seem more realistic. This technique is used frequently in films today, thus demonstrating how effective it really is.