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.
7 comments:
The ways the videos are produced, with cameramen documenting political events, not only create something to bring back and show to the members of the Kayapo society who couldn't go to the event, but also creates an important relationship between the cameramen and the people being filmed. It is interesting to note that this all happens within the Kayapo community; some members will experience being filmed, others will get to view the final product.
Film to the Kayapo takes on many unique functions. On one level it is meant to document an event. On another the act of filming takes on a political message to the Brazilians and the world, a message the cameramen and subjects being filmed are aware of. The camera also communicates to the Kayapo being filmed that they are now representing themselves and the event, specifically for a Kayapo audience.
There are some connections to be made between the concept of a Kayapo filming themselves with the article "Ethnographic Filmflam" where the filmmaker is also a native of sorts. The difference in that case is who the film is being made for. It is made for an non-native audience. I think this difference makes a significant difference in the way the subjects act in front of the camera and the way it is received.
I found this article particularly interesting because of its contrast to the articles we read earlier in the semester on the simple positioning of the camera on a film subject vs editing and using different angles etc., to get a "true representation" of a different culture. Giving the camera to the indigineous peoples themselves is definitely the best way to achieve that representation, as they will represent themselves the way that they want to be represented. There will be no hard feelings towards the filmmakers about how they were presented on film. The fact that Turner didn't interfere in the Kayuba's filming/ediitng process shows that true stides are being made in showing a more truthful anthropological film.
I think that the most interesting idea presented in the article is the idea that these indigenous films are not only anthropological studies in terms of the content of the films themselves, but in the filmmaking and editing process. By looking at what the Kayapo cameramen chose to focus on, and what the editors chose to leave or cut out give great insight into what a non-western culture values and the ways they want to portray themselves. This is an extremely effective way of capturing a very important aspect of native life. There is simply no way for a western filmmaker to go in and create a similar film, since all westerners are familiar with developed filmmaking and narrative techniques.
I think ultimately this article goes along very well with many of the articles we read toward the beginning of the semester concerning the approches to ethnographic and anthropological film in capturing "reality" and giving a true portrayal of their subject. In this case, many arguments can be made against this type of film, considering the fact that in order to capture a more "real" depiction of native life a westerner is coming in and incorporating foreign, developed technology into their culture. However, in my opinion, I think that the best way to get to the heart of something "true" or "real" in a film is to stop trying to make your audience forget that they're watching a film. That way there is no inherant manipulation involved.
What I found the most interesting was the strong connection Turner made between the subject and the director due to the "mediator." I like the fact that Turner considers the camera to be a mediator between the subject and the filmmaker. This is one positive point as to why the filmmaker should give the subject a chance to take control, but this also makes me wonder as to what the negative effects would be in this situation. How would this change the subject's level of thinking? (In this case the indigenous people Turner refers to.) I also appreciate Turner's priorities. He considers the interaction between the indigenous people and the filmmaker to be more significant than the actual product.
i think that this article had a lot of relation to earlier articles from the semster that discussed the relationship of the outsider and how truthful their protrayal of the film subject is. what's interesting is that we have an opproturnity to the connections and the differences of the importance of who is the filmmaker and how their background plays a part in the protrayal.
the article also does a great job in connecting what we consider western and non-western fliming. as noted in the last paragraph, there are certain connection to what the Kayapo chose to film and what we in present day America also film. there's a connection there that i think surprises many people in imperialist societies, it's hard to imagine the "other" as really the same.
Turner's ability to have such a minimal role in the editing and filming is important because we see firsthand at what the Kayapo people view as important to their representation and i think that goes back to broader terms in the human condition of wanting to be self-defined and not being labeled by the outsider, not having wrong preceptions that lead to assumations. Turner's style is much different then those first noted in the beginning of the semster.
I found it wonderful that video production and editing is left for the members of the Kayapo. They have all control over the footage, over what the audience sees. We are being shown through their eyes how they seen their own culture. By Turner bringing in the idea of native anthropologist, it leaves very little room for foreign anthropologist to put their input. Tunrer does not introduce to them such film language as montage, flashback, etc all that he has taught them are the basics of video shooting and editing. Thus the Kayapo have the freedm to create new styles of filming, their own style, which is a bit rough and shaky.
I think that the idea of the other either always being an other or becoming part of the west through film yet always looked down upon is an important idea in this article. The indigenous people are intrigued with film and want to use it as a means of expression but they dont have the resourses to develop the films. the political and social genres of their films is interesting and shows a lot about how they think and feel about their culture, they are a voice unheard and are now heard through film.
Post a Comment