response to Ness/Ruby

Sally Ann Ness discusses and analyzes the performance of the Trobriands in the film "Trobriand Cricket: An Ingenious Response to Colonialism." In her article, entitled "Understanding Cultural Performance," Ness analyzes the movements of the Trobrianders during the game of cricket which differentiates and separates their cultural style of playing from the British version of the game. This film is the opposite of a Margaret Meade film, because of the direct observation and concentration on visuals alone. Due to the lack of commentary, Ness discusses the fact that the focus is then placed on the patterns in body movements as performed by the Trobrianders. The film is unique in ethnographic work because of its lack of commentary, and the fact that "visually relevant information is presented almost entirely from the native informant's point of view" (137). The movement of the Trobrianders makes their version of cricket very unique and different from the British. Ness uses the LAM method (Laban Movement Analysis) to critique the performance of the Trobrianders. This system "focuses on the form, rhythm, organization, and sequencing of the performance of movement" (137). Ness analyzes the arrangement of the players in regard to spacial relationships on the field, as well as the continuous changes in patterns of positions, and the various shifts from playing to dancing. The author notes that the differentiating factor from the British is that the "Trobriand cricket styles reveal different models of organizing world full of people" (142).
Ness points out the focal point of the Trobriand dancing, which is known as "emphatic phrasing" which entails "a general type of movement patterning that occurs when a sequence of action is marked or accented at its end" (143). This specific type of movement is shown in the film to prepare the Trobrianders for their starting positions in the upcoming inning of the game, however Ness notes that "this phrasing serves no functional purpose" (144). Although Ness explains the fact that the film focuses on the visuals and body movements of the Trobrianders, I think she does a poor job at explaining purpose and meaning, or even representation or symbols behind the dancing, or emphatic phrasing, or any movements shown during the cricket game.

Jay Ruby's article, "Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside" discusses the various ways to represent the native in the documentary. Ruby compares the documentary methods of Vertov, in comparison to Flaherty. While Vertov strictly uses the vision of the filmmaker, as opposed to Flaherty, who made it a point to involve Nanook into his filming, as well as showing him footage and asking for commentary to make sure he was acheiving the goal of documenting with the subject's point of view. As Malinowski put it, the intention of the documentarians is "to grasp a native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of the world" (Malinowski 1922 (1961):25). Ruby confronts the problem of misrepresentation of a subject and their culture through filmmaking, often distorting the reality of the Other.

In reality, while the subject need their voices to be heard, if their voice is portrayed by filmmakers in a specific viewpoint, than it is not really the native that is being heard. The right of the subject in the documentary has been put into question, according to Ruby. Ruby also brings up the point that the documentary alone will not solve the social and political problems in a given society: "Socially concerned and politically committed documentarians erroneously assume that a compelling documentary automatically produces a desired political action" (Ruby 52).

It seems like the modern approach to documentaries and ethnographic film are to "give greater voice and authority to the subject" (Ruby 53). There needs to be a correct balance between filmmaker and subject as of power relations, and representations of reality, and truth in a given society.