MacDougall addresses the notion that Ethnographic Film does not hold it's place in the scientific world as well as Ethnographic text does for some researchers. Text is distinguished from film by a definition of the terms as well as the reception they receive. The concepts seem to be centralized around the ideas of interpretation variants through visual and written anthropological mediums. It is argued that perception is skewed in film because the viewer can be distracted by other events going on in the scene. Rather than focusing on precisely what the film maker may want you to observe, you are left to shift your focus to background noise and other interactions within the frame. Text does not allow for this distraction because "...concrete details are held in suspension in the crucial moment to permit abstract expression..." Written word allows the writer to convey a single idea in full detail allowing the mind to focus solely on the text at hand, rather than the scenery or character interactions in the background.
Both film and text have equivalent amounts of leeway in interpretation. That fact was evident in our class discussion following a quiz about our last reading. Each person in the class read the same passage, yet we all extracted different themes and ideas and weighed the importance of individual points from a view through our own window.
The concept of Film-as-Text causes a paradigm shift in the way anthropology is viewed. Film focuses less on the theoretical stance that is offered in text, and more on the gathering of raw data which conveys an entirely different retrospective view for an audience. It is important to then disassemble detachment from a film if it is to be seen as text, and then read it as such. If film is used as a source of information in which anthropological data can be obtained, seeing it as a form of text with observational accuracy and realism is crucial to its survival.
2 comments:
Kelley made a few good points, as well as some controversial ones. MacDougall said a film is based on how well it is recieved, where a text can constantly be reviewed and noted, elaborated on. I believe a film is stuck in a vacuum, one cannot modify the work (albeit easily) and to do this would doctor it so wholly that it wouldn't be the same.
I do not think that an anthropologic film is "inferior" to the text as Kelley states. Ones mind can wander on "the background noise", but one can also focus on the facts and the arguement presented. If someone were to read an antropologic text, they may get the wrong idea about certain facts. Film provides a new layer of data that a simple text can't. It provides clear, simple, realistic images and sounds, which aren't open for interpretation like words are. In describing say, a slum, one could envision a completely different scenario then if shown the image concretely.
-Josh Barton
hey nice writing. i have a quastion...how do i add u to my list of "friends" i guess....?lol
Post a Comment