Ginsburg Media worlds

In Media Worlds, chapter 5-8, Lughod discusses the role melodrama has in constituting a part of modernity.  He describes how in Egypt  television shows include melodrama which is  intended to foster individualization for civilians thus connecting individual and social development.  I understand how through reflection and emotion we can better create ourselves as subjects in relation to society but I don't know if this rationalization goes so far.  Focus on the individual self can lead to neglect of social surroundings and the needs of the greater society.

I question whether studying internal thoughts can play itself out in the context of larger social roles but this is not important here as the article focuses on the type of individuation that might be happening.  All characters in these serials tend to be more emotional (though more so women than men).  The serials place emphais on the characters faces to "invoke interior worlds" Perhaps this regulates the culture values in the audience more than if individual ideas were expressed verbally by characters. 

The author suggests that melodrama played a part in individuals constructions of subjectivity.  Melodrama causes individiduals to see themselves centered within their life.  The elements of individuals' discussions and stories crystallize in the same fashion the the narratives on t.v. develop. 

The development of a rich interior or pysche for Egyptians is one that is politically charged.  For this reason it is important to remeber that the rich interior lives displayed in other countries such as the U.S. do not have  social/political/religious aspects.

The top photo has been photo-shopped, the second is the original in 2008 prior to his election into office, this was a hoax created to illustrate that Obama still smoked and is headed to the White House(health concern). The last photo was found on a Website with this title: "Obama And His Warmonger
Cabinet The Changing
Face Of WWIII"

Ruby

Ruby’s article “Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside- An Anthropological and Documentary Dilemma” addressed key issues within the realm of ethnographic film, but also with today’s media industries. The article outlines what our class has been discussing the entire semester- how can you fairly and objectively represent a culture? Ruby seems to think that it is not completely possible to represent a cultural identity without influence, even if the filmmaker is part of that community. Ruby discusses that documentaries used to be something that were taken as a fact, even though filmmakers have control of what to film, what to edit, what angle to shoot from, and who to portray. Every film has a statement whether it is intentional or not. Criticism soon made it clear that ethnographic films are not reality but are making a statement about something or someone. Morality in filmmaking turned from objectivity to openly making others aware of their point of view. The argument I found interesting was about television today. Television shapes culture, but television is dominated by upper class white men. While there is a small effort to make controlled diversity in the media, television forces other races to fit into a mold that the largest audience will accept. While TV is culturally shaping, it is also an industry focused on making money and therefore being least objectionable to those watching.

I Hate Reality TV with a Passion

The show Jersey Shore is a moneymaking powerhouse by embezzling our nation's time and interest. This is a reality TV show that most people in the Western world are aware of. But what is it? I'll spare myself and the reader from suffering to define it as anything more than insipid. One could label any number of merits upon the show. I condemn it. It is a show where self-obsessed people can watch and get romantic notions of affinity with the show's 'role models.' Other people who think they are better than these self-obsessed people watch in so that afterwards, they can look on with shaking heads and smug intellects. The show's audience lacks diversity, only self-congratulations to some, and the prescripts for a meretricious, alcoholic lifestyle to others. I find myself unable to do either, so don’t watch. I don’t even like that I am writing about it, because I am contributing to this continued dialogue. I don’t want to be confronted with the Jersey Shore anymore. MIT may be conducting studies on its importance as an occurrence in American popular media, but no matter how much I read about Jersey shore, I still find myself bored to death. It is a formulaic show that MTV, Discovery, and Bravo have been making for years and will keep making for years. Which means that I will keep getting confronted with the endless conversation on reality TV for probably my whole life. What did I do to deserve this? Writers will be talking about how this show has ruined Jersey for years to come and I will be laughing because I know what jersey was like before this show. (That last sentence was a joke that I hope people from the garden state will laugh along with me to.)

The stereotypes that are propagated in Jersey shore will certainly harm some people, but then again maybe a kid will see this show, start taking steroids, and get more action/ happiness than he ever dreamed of before he saw Jersey Shore. Who knows, but if you want to study how Italian Americans are affected by stereotypes, there are years and years of history you could draw upon. Yes, Jersey Shore has many aspects that lend itself to the label of ethnographic, but any academic would laugh in the face of MTV producing something of an academic merit. Anthropology is a discipline with guidelines that may be challenged, but which are very well established. The code of ethics is something that is all too often forgotten.

I have been on an MTV reality show called Silent Library. It was completely staged, and I received direction like I was a paid actor- because essentially I was, but the presentation of the show was a complete lie or abstraction from reality. It was fun and paid to fix my car, but I hope nobody starts analyzing the show for truths about me. I just hope people stop caring about reality TV soon.

Turner and Kayapo

It states that there are problems with Indigenous television channels because it relies heavily on the government because their channels are subsidized by the government, the satellites they have to use are owned by Western companies. This makes you wonder whether or not these people who are producing now have control over what they are actually creating. In the past the role of the anthropologist was to go to places where he had the power and authority, monetary and also publishing-wise. The anthropologist was the one giving them money which these people could use, but also he was the one who edited the film or the book and chose to include and exclude what he wanted, so these people he was studying never played a role or had a say in how they were being portrayed, with a few minor exceptions like Nanook of the North where he and Flaherty worked together to create the movie). One of the great things about them having their own camera, therefore, was to be able to finally be able to show their story from their perspective. However, if they have to depend on the government for money and then they have the their channels on Western broadcasting networks, there has to be some kind of censorship or regulation. They can't just show whatever they want to show, so in the end the question is are they still able to show exactly what they want to show and how they want to show it.

They point out that often indigenous cultures look to use visual media "for self-determniation and resistance" which I think is very true for the most part. We see this with the movie Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance because the Mohawks who live in Canada looked to put this film out to make other people aware of what was going, the messed up things that happened to them each time the govermnent tried to some of their land from them, and then finally their resistance and protest that occurred when they government tried to take it all away to build a golf course. They see it as their most powerful weapon. Indigenous cultures therefore have not really turned to it for recreational or artistic purposes.

This article was really interesting because it pointed out the effects the camera might have on a culture. It could affect the social dynamic because then one has to decide who is going to be the caretaker of the camera. The person who has this camera is therefore very important because they are the only one in that community who has one and holds it. This creates a new power dynamic. Similar social effects occur with the introduction of paper money. In Nai!, she gets into a fight with other people in the community because she makes her own money and is a star of the money. These fights/conflict and tension in the community occur because of this new sense of power. It could effect hierarchical structures as well. He points out that a lot of people agree that it is is important that these Indigenous groups do receive cameras so they can document their own cultures and themselves, but that "few discuss who ends up owning or controlling access to the films or videos at the community level." For the Kayapo, becoming the cameraperson or video editor is both a "prestigious role within the community" and also a culturally and politically important form of mediation of relations with Western society. In this respect and new hierarchy is created on a new basis separate from the dynamic they have within their culture. Ultimately, he states that giving a camera to these people seem like a good idea on the surface, but we often don't think of the implications of this action and how it can greatly effect that community (sometimes negatively).

The issue of whether an anthropologist's ethnography about another culture or one done by someone within that community or by that community about that community (Indigenous films about their indigenous culture) is better was also brought up. The anthropologist's ethnography can lead to "inaccurate" portrayals (voice- over narrations, text, or editing) of that culture, however, it is done from an outsider's perspective and often an outsider is best at noticing things that seem normal within that culture and something that someone within that culture might overlook. On the other hand, someone who is a part of that culture might be able to portray a more "accurate" portrayal of that culture because he understands and it and knows about it more than an outsider can because they experience the everyday life that the anthropologist is trying to show. However, he shows that the introduction of this new technology can have different consequences that can change their culture, like social aspects of every day life. When trying to see which one is better or more accurate, one cannot really compare the two in my opinion. They both offer something and show the culture from two different perspectives and the best would be for them to both be viewed as well as with supplementary texts. For Turner however, I think that he would ultimately say that the introduction of the camera to Indigenous cultures is because it gives them away to communicate within their own society and to record their present and their history and to communicate with other cultures to get their opinions and view across from their own perspective, but there are implications from that, but can be really bad if not done or introduced in the right way.

The issue of accuracy also makes me wonder if we can even decide or judge whether something is more accurate than the other. We would naturally say that the man from within the Indigenous culture's film is more accurate than that of the anthropologist's, however, it can be just as biased. Also, who says that once the camera is introduced they will make films that show us different aspects of their culture? They may just make films that are merely recreational, just as members of Western society do. There isn't a rule stating that they have to make educational films about themselves once they receive it, therefore, the role of an ethnographic film maker is just as important post-introduction as it is pre-introduciton of the camera. They are just different roles that they each play and important in their own respects.

Sally Ann Ness Trobiand Cricket

This article first begins by stating that it is important to view an ethnographic film along with supplementary materials. It states that it is the key to understanding them because repeated viewings will not give you a better understanding; only supplementary text will give you insight into what the film leaves out. I agree with this completely when looking at these films in class each week. I would have had a totally different reading of these people (they're crazy really or strange...especially if just going in blind and viewing Les Maitres Fous without knowing something) and the film. It helped to understand what was going on and the context in which it was going on in. Viewing these films without supplementary materials really gives the viewer a one-sided and often only side or insight into that culture they are viewing (which sometimes can be a bad thing). He points out that the two most important things when viewing ethnographic films and to do it properly is to have information" about the historical and contemporary background" of what is in the film and also information "that explains or clarifies action presented in the film footage."

For me, if I had watched these films, I would just watch them and leave baffled or intrigued, but would not really look into why it is that way or more about the culture, so for the general audience, this is the only exposure they get when viewing an ethnographic film, usually the only exposure as well. This is something I have become wary of when examining these films and the subfield of Visual Anthropology because I struggled with whether the films are better to support a more public and accessible anthropology, if literature is better because it is written even if it is not accessible to all, or if they can co-exist. Idealistically, I would like the two to co-exist and work with one another, but as a viewer most won't look at secondary sources/supplementary materials, especially literature, to get to know more about a culture.

He states that this film, Trobiand Cricket: An Ingenious Response to Colonialism, is not only a film that documents the "Trobriandization" of cricket specifically, but also about the "inventiveness of human adaptation, about the capacity of human groups to distinguish themselves from others." This really stuck out to me because its something that I had never really thought about and it really amazes me. We are forever changing no matter what culture you are a part of and this is one of the many examples that shows how we take one thing and we make it our own. In the film, instead of it being a certain number of set players, after the ball is hit, everyone runs into the circle and they dance and they hold their arms out like airplanes (evidence of colonialism). Dancing for them is particularly important and also the inclusion of everyone in the community in their culture so that is why they changed it.

It later talks about the dances that appear during the cricket game of the Trobriand and its resemblance to other ones they normally do. The naming of the dances can be misleading because it points out the movements done during other dances and only appear to look like a plane also appear in other dances and its significance is overlooked. Emphatic phrasing here is somewhat conveyed inaccurately in the film because it is not explained properly. When we see entrance dances in the film, its emphatic phrasing has not "functional purpose and is not imitative" and therefore shows us that its a really important part of the Trobriand culture, however, this is something not pointed out and instead the minor things in Trobriand culture are emphasized in the film. The descriptive commentary is misleading and because is focuses on the imitative aspects of the dancing, it "detracts somewhat from the film's overall instructiveness." We know this because of supplementary text and study of the Trobriand, however, the viewer would not know this and therefore get an inaccurate portrayal of this culture and its practices. Commentary or voice-over narration, which is often times written from the perspective of the anthropologist, is something we also have to be wary of when looking at an ethnographic film because it will persuade us and give up one perspective, so supplementary text really is important because then we can see what aspects were correct and what was more subjective or interpretive in the film we are viewing.

Sally Ann Ness; Movement Analysis

Analyzing culture can be a daunting task. Thankfully there is an entire field devoted to this task. The field of anthropology is often understood as having 4 branches, but these branches do not come close to all the areas of expertice present in the sea of anthropologists. There are those who study language, space, ritual, familial structure, history, and in the case of Sally Ann Ness, Movement.

She uses an analysis of Trobriand Cricket to show how film that is presented with little narrative can open up the content of the film, Trobriand culture, to be analyzed by anthropologists from different schools of thought and specialty. Her main point is that the film serves well as a teaching tool. You can show the film, discuss it as a film, discuss it as a window into Trobriand culture, show supplementary materials, discuss different schools of thought, etc.

This kind of film is what she calls “illustrative.” It is a fabrication of cultural performance. She takes this fabrication and analyzes the movements of the characters deeply.