the movie list, so far, which I have not yet seen:
Wasabi & Aimee & Jaguar from the wonderful snowballinhell;
& Orphee from the petal's petal, the charleymonster (cinema releases don't count!)
I want more!
Just to give you a hint of my tastes, this week I've watched:
Jules et Jim
triumph of the will
Grave of the Fireflies
Chihwaseon (or "Drunk on Women and Poetry")
Warm Water Under A Bridge (an odd, but cute romance about, in the parlance of our times, 'squirting'); and a bunch of nonfiction/ethnographic/documentary-type films...
... which brings me neatly to my current academic dilemma.
Title:
Are art and ethnography compatible objectives in anthropological filmmaking?
... Now this might be just a bit to obscure and bullshitty for most people, rendering the kind of "and?" response (or utter silence) that I get accustomed to, but, that said, I value your input in all aspects of my life (otherwise I wouldn't ask). Furthermore, I know that there are a great number of film-buffs and artists/art-lovers out there amongst the few who drop by; so ...
What do you think?
In an anthropological film, which is different from a documentary primarily in that it is more sensitive (postcolonial trauma/postmodern arsechasing) and less "look at this anthill of a human culture, I wonder how it works!" (or "what happens if we poke it?"), is there a place for art?
Now my feeling is that there is always a place for beauty in this world. Academic arguments about anthropological film have already raised the fact that "representing" is dangerous and biassed (think of the all-knowing narrator or expert, or even the how-do-I-know-this-is-right subtitle), and that hiding behind the camera is equally illusory (as someone, I think it was David MacDougall, once said, any documentary or ethnographic film is not a record of a culture, but of the collision/interaction between the filmmaker(s) and that culture)... But if you're going to show something, why not shoot it well? If you're going to tell a fact (already dubious - damn pomos!) about something, you may as well make it emotionally affective! No?
As Robert Gardner, the central focus of my current plan, has said (I paraphrase): if you ignore the processes and functions and techniques that render a film engaging, then whatever you are trying to tell your audience is most likely just going to fall out of the head as soon as they walk away from the screen anyway...
And besides. Can there ever be enough art? I mean: we (anthropologists, filmmakers, etc.) are hardly real scientists... Social scientists at a push, but only just.
I was told never to apologize for speaking your mind. So I shan't.
I'll thank you instead. Assuming you've made it this far...
Spanks and smooches to the deserving few.
Applications taken.
Wasabi & Aimee & Jaguar from the wonderful snowballinhell;
& Orphee from the petal's petal, the charleymonster (cinema releases don't count!)
I want more!
Just to give you a hint of my tastes, this week I've watched:
Jules et Jim
triumph of the will
Grave of the Fireflies
Chihwaseon (or "Drunk on Women and Poetry")
Warm Water Under A Bridge (an odd, but cute romance about, in the parlance of our times, 'squirting'); and a bunch of nonfiction/ethnographic/documentary-type films...
... which brings me neatly to my current academic dilemma.
Title:
Are art and ethnography compatible objectives in anthropological filmmaking?
... Now this might be just a bit to obscure and bullshitty for most people, rendering the kind of "and?" response (or utter silence) that I get accustomed to, but, that said, I value your input in all aspects of my life (otherwise I wouldn't ask). Furthermore, I know that there are a great number of film-buffs and artists/art-lovers out there amongst the few who drop by; so ...
What do you think?
In an anthropological film, which is different from a documentary primarily in that it is more sensitive (postcolonial trauma/postmodern arsechasing) and less "look at this anthill of a human culture, I wonder how it works!" (or "what happens if we poke it?"), is there a place for art?
Now my feeling is that there is always a place for beauty in this world. Academic arguments about anthropological film have already raised the fact that "representing" is dangerous and biassed (think of the all-knowing narrator or expert, or even the how-do-I-know-this-is-right subtitle), and that hiding behind the camera is equally illusory (as someone, I think it was David MacDougall, once said, any documentary or ethnographic film is not a record of a culture, but of the collision/interaction between the filmmaker(s) and that culture)... But if you're going to show something, why not shoot it well? If you're going to tell a fact (already dubious - damn pomos!) about something, you may as well make it emotionally affective! No?
As Robert Gardner, the central focus of my current plan, has said (I paraphrase): if you ignore the processes and functions and techniques that render a film engaging, then whatever you are trying to tell your audience is most likely just going to fall out of the head as soon as they walk away from the screen anyway...
And besides. Can there ever be enough art? I mean: we (anthropologists, filmmakers, etc.) are hardly real scientists... Social scientists at a push, but only just.
I was told never to apologize for speaking your mind. So I shan't.
I'll thank you instead. Assuming you've made it this far...
Spanks and smooches to the deserving few.
Applications taken.
VIEW 8 of 8 COMMENTS
Love and kisses
Michelle xx
Love and kisses
Michelle xx