Untitled

[exploremovies]

Chronique  of a Summer.

Chronique  of a Summer filmed in 1960 by  anthropolgiest and Filmaker Jean Rouch and sociologist Edgar Morin. Chronic of Summer show us middle-class French people including the foreigners who live in Paris, asking the question about happiness in society and introducing us to the sensitive questions of antisemitism and colonialism. Cinema verité the step to find the truth through showing us the truth. All movies build on informal interviews and conversations. The film starts with the conversation between the filmmakers and one of the protagonists, explaining what they want to film and discussing how Marceline would feel on the camera. There is always a doubt that even if it is a documentary you are not sure where is acting and where is a true person. As further she came up with an explanation that she acted in a scene where she has a monologue with her father, who was killed by the Nazi in a concentration camp. Why she acted it? Why did she confess that it was acting? I tried to understand it, and my conclusion was that maybe she agreed to be filmed in this movie only because of this monologue scene. Where she acting as an actress in a fiction movie, but she already replayed these scenes in her head so many times that it became her reality. The pain of loss needed to be documented, to be told even in a pretentious way to be free from it, to make it heard to masses because it was in front of the camera. For me, this monologue was an intimate scream to the public. Directors using Marceline for their so-called experiment to ask Parisians if they are happy? Her daily job is as a market researcher for the film industry who conducts and then transcribes the interviews, so she knew how to approach people on the streets. This street questionnaire about happiness also shows the diversity of people, some of them were willing to share private stories about why they happy or not, some tried to find philosophical meaning in this question, some just refused to answer anything. Some people were too honest on camera as a mechanic whose wife was complaining about the luck of money and he explains how sometimes you need to go against the system to survive and live better. Through all these interviews about happiness, I perceived that the main problem of Parisians in that time was money, or how to gain them enough to live good but not to kill themselves. Everything was returning to the question of financial well-being and only after how it can affect the quality of life to be happy. It reminded me of the similar but fiction movie of Godard “ Two or Three Things I Know About Her”. It was filmed 7 years later, but still covering the question of Fordist theory and how it kills the human being from enjoying life and not being only the slave of factories. For most of the work became so automatic and monotone that they lost the difference between days, they are unhappy with it. The way how simple factory worker describes their daily routine and attitude to it made me think that if so many people on this planet unsatisfied with what they do and it last for decades of our only existing life, why we do not do anything with it? We don’t. Most of the movies build on dialogues, when directors control the flow of conversation, exactly knowing what they want to know from interviews. However, most of the interviews have informal characters and mostly look like conversations between friends.

In the end, we were introduced to the scene of collective film watching with the protagonist and directors. What is truth and what is false in this movie? Who was acting and how? What was fake or is it cinema verité?  But is this scene full of criticism towards each other was true or full of acting? Pretending that they know better what is trues and what is not? French observing french, pointing out issues in society he knows good, showing us all sides of french life from inside, what is really bother these people. Opinions were different but directors were satisfied by the result of the movie.

[exploremovies]

Gandhi's Children. Mac Dougall movie.

From the first scene, we see the Indian children in some institution which reminds the prison. As Mac Dougall writes in "Environments of Childhood", it is a juvenile detention center in New Deli, the Prayas Children’s home for Boys. The first minutes of the movie introducing us to the life of the children in this institution. However, it is not clear from the beginning that is it an orphan or juvenile prison. We observe how the children built their daily routine in this institution, but we never see the adults. In line with the inside of institution representation we able to see the surroundings, neighborhood with rats, poor housings, toxic canal, where the balcony from the center opens the view. These utopic landscapes can bring only anxious feelings when you dream to blink eyes and open them in a better reality.  We see the tight relationship between these boys, it more like brotherhood with the hierarchy of elders ones, who still can control the attitude and discipline of the youngest. Mac Dougall with his camera managed to film the most intimate scenes in this center, how children sleep and making their beds, how they use the toilet and shower, how they eat and communicate with each other. Through this observation lens, we are introduced to their routine which does not have any privacy. At some point, I  perceived that these children more adults than I or my surrounding. Their communication and responsibilities sharing reminds me of a machine in some big production factory. I imagined if something goes wrong with one of them they are all in trouble until they do not fix it. This correlation between the boys established also patronage and hierarchy when the oldest one or most respectful one can decide how to attitude with others so they do what he needs. Until the part with children interviews, the conversations we do not perceive acting to the camera, the director managed to be an observer with this lens without provoking acting. As we know later most of these children or lost their parents, get lost on the chaotic streets or were working on the streets doing some “illegal” jobs to support their families. It also can explain that their attitude in the household is more adult than childish, they became independent much earlier than children should be, they lost their childhood. Through the movie, we start to be introduced to the adults in the center, who provides the food to the children, register newcomers, doctor, and hairdresser. Two scenes cached my attention, communication between children with doctor and hairdresser. Both scenes show that even at doctor and hairdresser visit, boys do not have any privacy. However, the doctor's approach was more individual, he remembered the injuries and sicknesses of children, he shoes also more care towards them. He even calls one of the new comings boys son, taking care of him and calming him so he can check up him properly. The scene with the hairdresser is the opposite. It reminds me of the sheep shaving on the farm when sheeps just standing in a line and the shepherd approaching them to finish his job as soon as possible.   The movie also shows the private conversations between children and filmmaker, when their share stories about their families, what is important for them and how they would like to run from this place. There is no one protagonist in the movie, few of the boys tell their stories and we follow them in the movie. I have bias feelings towards the people who work in this center, from one side they seem rude to children. In the final scenes, we see how they carefully checking the documents of people who came to take back children, not only to be sure that they give children back to family members but also to be sure that children will not be again on the streets, working and supporting their family members. They are trying to prevent child labor and be sure that they will be safe. The film has a happy ending when one of the protagonists happily able to return back home or becoming Homewala. He trusts to cameraman and he shares with him his feelings after the court, he felt that it is jail and he wanted to run from there, and now he is planning to study after returning home.  It is probably one of these rare scenes when we observe the childishness and happiness on the face of the boy, we see him again as a child.

[exploremovies]

Forest of Bliss The scene opening with the dog running on the desert of humans cremains in contrast with the changing landscape of floating in the riverboat. Director trying to introduce us to space, with the longshots of activities on the Ganga river, humans activities in the island of cremains, riverbank,  floating boats with dead bodies. All movie narration goes only through the changing scenes, the viewer does not have any text or narration voice that guides us. The movie built-in contracts of death and live in the Hundu tradition of Banaras people on the Ganga river. Even if the movie does not has the narration the sound landscape dives us to the place, we can hear how the dog is walking on the slopes of ash, or man murmuring from pain, ceremonial flowers cut off, sounds of floating boat and wood which used for cremation etc.  I suppose for the people who are not familiar with the culture the movie can provoke disgusting and nausea feelings.  Ganga river for  Banaras is used not only for the burial ceremonies, but also for washing clothes, bathing, and even drinking it's water, for spiritual self-perfecting purposes. The juxtaposition of scenes drives us through the step-by-step burial ritual with all the necessary tools for it. For example, we see the scenes of picking up flowers used during the ritual. Also, a medium shot of a man making at the first impression stairs from bamboo but then we see how it is used as litter for dead bodies transportation. In this sense, if in the written text the reader would get all information at once, Gardner shares with us it step by step, or feed us as a children spoon by spoon. What mostly took my attention is the narrow streets full of people, where life is bustling.  In the city of death streets full of life, with its beauty and ugliness, dirt and noise, even the death becoming alive there because it is physically moving through these narrow streets up and down. Also what caught my attention is the understanding of public space and private space in Banaras society, when you see that common street full of trash and animals excrements, where people walk with bare feet. With the big contracts of the private yards where people cleaning it and taking care to maintain it pure. I barely watched the scenes of dead animal bodies dragged down the stairs and on the floor. Do we need any extra explanation apart from what we see on screens in ‘Forest of Bliss’? I do not think this way, the whole narration of the story clearly showed how Banaras interact with death and live every day. But my question would be, why the director chose this topic, this city, this custom? How we, as people who are not familiar with this culture observe it and making our assumptions about it. Do we understand them? Do we have any empathy for it? I felt alien to this topic, I learned more about their burial tradition, but I do know yet who they are, how they live and I might be even judging them for the unsanitary.  The first what I checked after watching the movie was checking the sanitary conditions in the Ganga river, not how sacred it for Hindu people. What about you? What was your first thought after the movie?

[exploremovies]

Photo Wallachs

David MacDougall’s  “Photo Wallachs” movie starts with the scene in the photo studio when three schoolchildren posing to the photo camera by the direction of the photographer. As a movie viewers, we see the final result of this photo, a black medium shot portrait. MacDougall does not hide his existence to the public he film, people he film reacting on camera and trying to interact with it. However, the director still remains more observer than a participant. The narration of the movie builds from various stories representing the hierarchy in society through the photography importance and role it plays. Relation of Indians towards photography shows us the difference in social classes, the hierarchy between photographer and client, sometimes client photographer in the case if they are not satisfied by the photo they cannot pay. The movie starts with a variety of photos and photo studios in India. Even if it was filmed in 1991 when most of the people had their own small snapshot camera people here still use black and white studio family portraits, color painted photos, and staged photos. Depending on the social status people have access to different photographers, starting from cheap street photo studios with a textile background in the back to the in-house photo sessions. In the public film-watching scene when we able to see the reaction of the Indian crowd on one of the Bollywood movies they are empathetic to what is going on screen, through the close-up of facial expressions we see Indian people's correlation to fiction movies. 

Other scenes from the hill taken costume reenactment photography to open not only the power relationship between the photographer and client, while the first tries to direct the client to pose and act. This also reveals the real personalities of photographed clients, they want to be on a photo of someone they can not be in real life. For example H. S. Chadha, the photographer "all the emotions flow out in photography," and he has described how he discovered by taking photographs that a Chief Minister and an astrologer (who looked like a holy man) were both in fact thieves.[1]

Some of the photo studios prefer to stay old-fashioned using only black and white photos or hand-colored ones. For them is the only real one, the photo as an artwork! Depiction of a family portrait in one of these studios also shows the correlation of married couples. In most of the photo, husband poses more and prefer to look good, however on the most women faces we see tiredness and apathy. These photos can show the real correlation in the family when a woman not satisfied with her life,or maybe it is just my reinterpretation. 

 Through his movie, MacDougall’s also introduces us to photography's role in Indian society as a marriage tool. He portrays the young photographer, who explains the importance of a good photo, which young people exchange to find a wife or husband. We see how he tries to make his client look “saleable” by putting them in front of TV which is a sign of wealth so the future husband would be more interested in the bride.  Clients believe in him, and follow all instructions, apart from the power relations it also a sign that being a photographer can be a respectful profession.

On some point director also point on change of technologies, like photo replaced by video and it becomes more fashionable especially in middle-class society.

  [1] MacDougall, David. "Photo hierarchicus: Signs and mirrors in Indian photography." Visual Anthropology 5, no. 2 (1992) p147

[exploremovies]

"Nanook of the North"

Reading Flaherty depiction of how he filmed "Nanook of the North" I am reflecting if iconophobic anthropologists were right about “truth” in ethnographic movies.  My first question was is he a salesman, anthropologist, filmmaker, amateur cameraman, or all together? Even filmmakers here will have some doubts that is it documentary or this just enactment of imaginable Eskimo life by Eskimo people. His failure with burned first film or as he mentioned maybe luck was the starting point for “Nanook of the North” idea. He already built his scenario on the way back, he had expeditions there before and now he was returning to film what he planned. In the Robert J. Flaherty, "How I Filmed Nanook of the North,"  I like how he revealed the  “truth” about the filming process.  Most of the scenes are obviously staged at least for the people who have a sharper eye in a documentary. However, sometimes the beauty of the still unknown Northern world brings you from one scene to another, when you really what to be just an observer and know more and more about unknown culture, forgetting if it true or false, cause you have nothing to compare with. 

 What I like most about his “truth” revealed text is that that he was able to show to Eskimo people the footage. They saw how they were filmed, also from the test I had the perception that they collaborated as a  crew. I do know which team to play for now, should I support ethnographic filmmakers or iconophobic anthropologists? In the end, even if it was staged footage, it was true. The movie shows the attitude towards dogs which are the main transportation tool. Also, fish and seals which are only food resources, through the movie viewer see the correlation of hunting and surviving. Even if Flaherty waited for days and hours to film the scene he wanted for his movie, he could not control the hunting process, it was real. We really do know much about Eskimo life through this movie, but is in it the same of some researcher would do his job on a specific topic with his limited methodology? At least as viewers, we see the gab of what is missed for us and what we would like to know more, but then this movie would be a collection of short stories, with the direction of “god” voice. Even if we have text narration it is just a brief background introduction for the general context. 

How to categorize this movie, I do know. Let anthropologists decide, for me, it is a good documentary. Moreover, considering not developed technology, meters of film and even a small crew of assistants. Would you manage to do at least half under these conditions?

[exploremovies]

Iconophobia or Academiaphobia

The first class on visual anthropology, I was worried . Coming from Cultural Heritage Studies, experienced in documentary movie making I am started to doubt myself on my capacity to learn the new perspective on how you can produce and view movies. I am always afraid of academia, from one side it expands understanding of this world, from another it just limits it with the theoretical frames. And here we go first reading is Lycien Taylor text on “Iconophobia”, I was on another side “Academiaphobia”. Going through the text I started to understand that I am more protecting filmmakers here, even if it is ethnographic filmmakers. For example “Visuality itself becomes merely ancillary, illustrative rather than constitutive of anthropological knowledge.” My argument here is why the ethnographical movie perceived so superficial, and cannot compete with written text? It‘s the question of what filmmaker can miss in his or her work what anthropologists would observe?! Also, who are ethnographical filmmakers in a filmmaking scene are they academics or filmmakers? Why anthropologists afraid of visual evidence, as the documentary? Is it because when observed characters see the camera it turns to reenactment? It’s it like this only when they see a camera, or it is human nature that we change our attitude when someone observes us?! Or iconophobia evoked by fear that the director shows only what he or she wants to show? Why we are not considering that anthropological text can do the same? Even worse, reinterpret what he or she observed in his/ her way or capacity of knowledge in this field? There are too many questions why maybe because I am not an anthropologist and it’s hard for me to understand their iconophobic point. Or maybe they just afraid that someone who uses film as can reveal that they were wrong on some points? But with this sense, I also came up with more why questions. Why anthropology does not describe the feelings of people who observed, feelings towards being observed? Remembering myself now when I perfectly know than someone staring at me even if not directly to understand who I am. My attitude will change depending on who is this person and what I want this person to think about me. Is it the same with an anthropologist who spends years in his/she fieldwork to write a new masterpiece?! How objective can be this observation and framing of one who probably knows nothing about others, especially do not know how they feel about it. Yes, you can depict, grasp some way of living, tradition, social roles and ect. but how you can be sure that you get it right?! The example of "Them and Me", Stéphane Breton brings us to the other side of the anthropologist world, but we still do know how "They" really feel about it. Another point on the text: “Film, Hastrup goes on to say, consists of no more than concrete images of what-once-was, while text transcends the particular and conveys a more comprehensive truth, the truth of the "ethnographic present." It does not mean that the film does not provide us with the truth, maybe it is just limited by viewer knowledge, movie perception, and reinterpretation. It is limited with time and space, but it is can be true within its frames. It also can open the doors for the viewer to question what was not shown and described or how it was shown and described. So it gives more space for reflection. My last point will be on:” To me, the most striking quality of these examples is the extraordinary anxiety the academic authors evince toward images, especially film image. The fear that films will somehow destroy or discredit their anthropological makers and viewers.” For me this anxiety can come from two points: 1. Is it only about the truthfulness of the movie? How true is it in comparison with academic text? 2. Is it anxiety to reveal that Accademia also can be wrong and we do not need someone’s imposed knowledge on our way of living with theoretical restrictions and frames?!

First reading of the semester, too many questions without answers. Do anthropologists have the same questions, or its only me “outsider” pulling out my insecurities here?