Loizos Week 7 Response

Loizos analyzes documentaries and ethnographic films, and tries to find the difference between the two. There is a difference in documentaries and ethnographic films because anthropologists are approaching their subjects from a social science viewpoint, while documentaries are geared to appeal to the public on a mass medium. Film can send many different layers of interpretations, which depend on the decision when to film, decisions in editing footage, the camera’s point of view, and the interpretation a viewer has of the film due to personal background and experience. Asch and Chagnon’s films were recognized as innovative ethnographic films because they had a sense of immediacy which made it seem like real world was unfolding in front of the camera. They also used stills to let the audience get to know the subjects and events before seen in live action. The films were meant to be taught in a classroom, and were intended to be analytically viewed numerous times. Dunlop had significance in his portrayal of the Australian Aboriginals because they suggested a respect for the individuality of the subjects filmed. They respected the culture of the people they filmed and respected their laws, ceremonies, and restricted materials. Leach filmed Trobriand Cricket, which to the uninformed viewer seemed like a fun game. The commentary of the video contextualised how cricket was brought by European missionaries to substitute for fighting between local groups. Asch was also innovative with his films in the Jero Tapakan Project because he wanted there to be no sense of superiority for Westerners, and he wanted the inner thoughts and reactions of subjects. There is no way to make a film objective, but all ethnographic film’s innovative ideas came from trying to state and explain the biases that existed, while also treating the subjects as human beings with thoughts and feelings.