For the record: documentation filming from innocent realism to self-consciousness

Loizos' chapter traces the evolution of ethnographic film from a genre concerned with representing the real, to one that recognizes truth and reality as social constructs created through negotiations of various perspectives. Influenced by social revolutions throughout the world, such as Marxist political theory and the feminist movement, filmmakers such as Tim Asch and John Marshall began to concern themselves more with  issues of representation in documentary filmmaking. For a long time, the traditional method had been the recording of particular cultural events, which appeared to occur in a sequence, and became units of representation, portraying the entire cultural identity through these events which occurred in patterns. This style did not, however, allow for the unusual occurrences to be part of the data, which are a major aspect to every culture. With new technologies such as synchronized sound, the ability to use recorded footage as a visual document changed the way filmmakers approached and contextualized the appropriation and execution of their data.

The ability to record subjects in both speech and movement changed the role of the filmmaker, especially in ethnographic filming. There arose a window of opportunity to give voice to those being documented, allowing them to explain their social roles from their own first person perspective. Filmmakers became aware of how every film was the product of the directors and producers own cultural bias. In editing footage and creating a cohesive narrative, those involved in the production of a film could very well create a biased view of reality for whatever culture they are concerned with. Rather than simplify the existence of tribal peoples to an epic struggle with nature, filmmakers began to incorporate various techniques, allowing their ethnography to shift away from the highly idealized and romanticized portrayal of tribal peoples. Anthropologists such as Chagnon focused on the role of warfare in dictating tribal life, a topic many people had distanced themselves from in the past. Rather than imbue their subjects with some sort of inherently ethereal nature, ethnographic filmmakers now started to capture people such as the Yanomami as entirely human, and closer to the modern human than once expected.

The issue of whether or not to include voice over, or to let the subjects speak for themselves in interviews, is still a conflict for filmmakers. Most would agree that any ethnographic film requires a textual analysis to coincide with its findings, along with several viewings and study guides. In the case of  extremely novel events caught on film, the viewing experience of dramatic events supplants any additional need to explanation: the capture of the vent on film manifests itself as an explanation of that groups cultural identity, with little need for further explanation from authoritative voices, such as that of the filmmakers. New technology, therefore, changed the voice of authority.

The self-consciousness referred to the in the title of the chapter implies that filmmakers became more aware of their role in the creation of documentary films, and that in order to lessen that role or make the presence of the subject of documentation more prevalent, there had to be a change in the way it was produced, and the role of those being filmed within the films production. This led to new practices, such as screening the film for the subjects, and distributing it so that it reaches a broader audience. It also involves practices such as including subjects within the films production, and giving voice to characters ordinary deemed powerless (women, children, etc.)