Loizos- Jean Rouch

Loizos discussed the film experiments by Jean Rouch, which were innovative in the field of documentaries and ethnographic films. Rouch challenged the idea of documentation-realism by using improvisation and fantasy as methods to explore issues in a culture and people’s lives. Him and his colleagues collaborated with the subjects of the films, and saw themselves as agents of the documentaries. The camera and filmmaker were not seen as passive recording devices, but as an active interrogation of the world. Rouch believed that what happened on screen often would not have happened without the actions of the filmmaker. Moi, Un Noir (1957) is a film by Rouch that was innovative because of the “use of projective improvisation to convey something fundamental about real lives, combined with the use of the subject’s voice” (Loizos 50). The subjects were talking about their everyday lives, but would also include who they would like to be and how they would want to live. La Pyramide Humaine (1958-59) dealt with racial tensions in students of Africa by using a narrative, fiction plot line. There was no way to film the issue through reality because the political and social climate would force the students to put forth acceptable ‘official views.’ By making the story up, a message was revealed and the players in the film were all affected by it. Jean Rouch challenged the accepted cultural distinctions between real and fake.

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.

Oct 11-Loizos, Garland and Tomaselli Response

The Loizos reading, "Innovation in Ethnographic Film" he discusses the different ways in which one can create a sort of documentary/realism in portraying a specific culture. The idea of "cinematic truth" is brought up, as well as non-actors, in a way, acting in front of the camera. It is clear that there is a thin line between visually presenting a documentation of a given culture, and creating a work of fiction through film. As noted by Brian Winston, this occurs by "editing and selection. Both, wittingly and unwittingly, embody a viewpoint" (Loizos 6). Ethnographic films are distinguished from documentaries for criteria described by Jay Ruby, including "using an anthropological lexicon". The innovations of filmmaking techniques and technology allow for more ethical ethnographic films to be developed, and using realism.

Garland & Gordon's "Authentic (In) Authentic: Bushman Anthro-Tourism" regards margeting schemes to attract tourists to visit the area of Namibia. The tourism creates a loss of real culture as its reproduction results in the loss of authenticity. It is unfortunate that the tribe of people known as the 'bushmen' has been replicated in the form of logos and other uses for tourism and other companies. The business made out of exploitation of the so-called 'bushmen' is unethical and morally wrong, all for the name of creating money out of racism. It is noted in this reading that the Bushmen are considered to be the most famous example of the "Others," which of course means that their culture is made up of highly "marginalized and disempowered people" (Garland 270). This culture has also been objectified to the point where the people themselves have been tourist attractions, and the individuals have been made into characters in books, newspapers, postcards, and other media.

In the article, "Psychospiritual ecoscience: Ju/'hoansi & Cultural Tourism," Keyan Tomaselli discusses similar themes of tourism and preservation of a culture's authenticity as the Garland reading. As mentioned in the Garland reading in which tourists could not see the Bushmen wearing Pepsi shirts, instead insisted on presenting them wearing grass skirts to look more authentic, Tomaselli discusses the anthro tourism/ public's need to 'conserve' the culture of the Bushmen, despite the fact that their culture had modernized and was adapting to the new societies of the world. The manipulation and objectication/false realism of the Bushmen can be described as "commodification of the the "ethnographic" takes place within the context of the "mobilized gaze" that is part and pacel of the transnational media flows' (Friedberg 1995) (Tomaselli 189). In order for the tourists (as well as the Bushmen) to be properly manipulated, the Bushmen have to look as if they are poor. The look which labels them as the 'Other' will feed the appetite of the tourist, who come searching for what they think is the truth of this culture. The sense of what is authentic in regards to this culture from the viewpoing of the Westerners/tourists is strictly based on stereotypical mindsets set in racism. It is only successful tourism when the culture is manipulated into becoming the "Other" and being portrayed negatively, destroying the authenticity of the Bushmen.