After reading MacDougall's The Film-As-Text, I kept going back to the one idea explained in Jaguar. As far as achieving ethnographic accuracy, this sounds like a really neat idea. They added a third element, which is the subjects adding commentary after the footage is shot. From here, you have the filmmakers perspective, the audiences interpretation, the subjects actions, but also the subjects commentary and their perspective.
Later, they go on to talk about an anthropologist adding commentary, as well as the filmmaker in the post production stage.
This may not be the most important point of the reading, but it does sound like a really interesting way to achieve a more sound ethnographic film that would be accepted more generally.
Imagine attempting to document a spiritual ritual. The subjects are dancing and sacrificing, and the camera rolls. Most of the documentaries I have seen would show this footage with whatever sound was captured, and have the filmmaker or narrator explain the actions. At most, it would have captions with what the subjects are vocalizing. Imagine this, but also with the subjects explaining what they were doing at that time as an overdub, and an anthropologist explaining how he/she feels about it. That's magic.
1 comment:
I agree with your thoughts on involving the subject in the post-production of films. It really allows the film to be fleshed out more fully and accurately. This is a wonderful idea that should really be utilized as it provides for a wide gammut of opinions which seems to be one of the main problems which ethnographic films. Bias could be largely solved by this idea and it could really further the study of other cultures and people through film. This also allows thoughts to be gathered afterwards to really be able to choose the right words to express just what has been seen by the audience. A process like this would in the end be much more honest to everyone involved and therefore create a truer experience.
Post a Comment