Cache viewing questions

I found the techniques in Cache to be very interesting. Haneke does a good job at going beyond just using a camera as a viewpoint and uses objects in the movie as well. Besides watching George on TV, we can see his expression when faced with the son on Majid on the elevator through the glass. We can clearly see them both looking at each other, then staring away, and you can feel the tension within the elevator, as can everyone else, as you can see their expressions go from one, to the other, then trying not to look at either. We also look through the distorted memories of George as we enter his dreams. First we see this when Majid is coughing up blood, later when he chops the head of the rooster off then comes at George with the knife, both which we learn to be lies.

After watching the movie I looked it up on IMDB to see what other people thought of it. Upon looking to see those who enjoyed it and others who did not, I found one theory that interested me. Someone posted the theory of the tapes being part of a reality show in which George did not know it was being filmed but this was the “new project” his agent discussed with him. I thought this was interesting because then it would mean there are so many more people doing the looking than just those who come into possession with a tape (his agent and his household). However, I had a theory of my own, that somehow, Georges mother was connected to all of this, which was why all she needed to stop herself from feeling lonely was her TV, a VCR, and a remote. This would make her the ultimate viewer of everything, keeping herself in the know of what was going on with her family.

When it comes to what is actually being looked at and what lies off camera, they simply follow into each other. When you think of what lies off camera, we can go beyond just hearing the voices of George and Anne as they discuss the fact that someone is watching them, we can move towards the tension that occurs during the movie, the seemingly endless possibilities of theories about who is taping and sending these tapes, and even the feelings we get as we see some of these gruesome scenes and are left to feel as George does. When George is in the apartment with Majid, you can feel the tension between the two of them, and suddenly that tension is cut with a knife (literally and figuratively) as Majid slits his throat open. Suddenly we see blood splatter against the wall and slowly become a puddle of blood on the floor. At this point, if you’ve been paying enough attention to the movie, you can almost feel as George does. Shock, not knowing what to do, panic, slightly starting to pace back and forth, and sick, signaled by his coughing and possibly the feeling of nausea.

Haneke gives the average viewer something more than average to look at. Instead of giving an average film in which everything is laid out for the passive viewer, in this film, you must be an active participant. If you slip for more than a few moments, you may miss something important, or something that seems important. He leaves things very open, waiting for someone to interpret the movie as they’d like. The viewer also has to have a keen eye to see everything occurring, which is most important at the end, which some people miss in the lower left hand side Majid’s son approaching Perrot and talking for a few moments. However, the topic of their discussion is also left to interpretation. The more important thing here I think is his experiment of whether or not people will catch onto that without being told, which many have not.

George is also left to interpret things within the movie. We see that in the film as George receives these tapes leading him to Majid’s apartment and decides he must go. What would’ve happened had he not gone? I don’t recall the tape saying his must go; yet he did. When viewing movies and tapes and the like, it isn’t always necessary that you be an active participant or follow as the tape displays. Yet George chooses to.

The movie employs some interesting techniques although as I’ve seen on some of the reviews, people dislike it for missing the points of it, or focus mostly on the more disturbing scenes than anything else. This movie was probably my second favorite home viewing movie of all we have seen this far.

Macdougall Excerpts...

My brain doesn’t seem to be working too well with me, and even after reading the selections twice over, I’m still a bit hazy on it all, but I’m going to do my best to answer these questions…

What does it mean to create a film intended to be read like a text?
What are the strengths/weaknesses of this approach to filmmaking?
What is an alternative that MacDougall describes?

As for the first questions, I think, as far as ethnographic films go, to create a film intended to be read like a text, is to make a film good enough that those viewing it could study it as they would study a chapter from a text book. I think it needs to be almost multi-layered so that it can be dissected and looked at from all angles. The answers should not just be thrown into your face; there should be some thinking that follows watching the film. I get this feeling because on page 193, I found this quote “…in the work of such filmmakers as Godard, Makavejev, and Glauber Rocha have filmmakers attempted to create objects that exist as ‘texts’ to be plumbed by the viewer.” At first it made no sense to me until I found out the word plumbed according to dictionary.com can mean to examine closely or probe. I believe that’s what they mean with creating a film to be read like a text.

There are quite a few strengths and weaknesses that can go along with this approach to filmmaking. As far as strengths go, this allows “text” to be more accessible to others outside of the anthropological community. Movies have a way of reaching more people than books do; of course, this is probably because most of us have become too lazy to read a book, or when we do, too lazy to look up words we may not understand. With film, viewing something is a like a language we all understand. For the most part, we will see the same thing happening on the screen. With a film as text, it’s also much easier to go back and see if we have missed anything that may be important to whatever aspect we are studying. Having something on film also allows for easier comparisons between other films or even writings, it takes less time to watch a film than read an entire novel or someone’s findings allowing for more time for comparison. It also allows us to almost view something firsthand, or as close to firsthand as we can get without actually being there.

Of course, if used incorrectly, this approach can be very weak. If a video is edited incorrectly, someone may pick up the wrong idea from the “text”. Also, if there is someone speaking over the sounds coming from the film, you could miss something important or something can get translated wrong and give someone the wrong idea or impression about what is going on in a certain scene. We also need to realize we only see what the camera sees and do not get the entire picture of whatever is being studied. We also lose something by not actually being there, perhaps missing out on certain emotions, certain thoughts, or certain ideas that may occur while being right in the middle of whatever is being filmed.

I still however cannot find what MacDougall offers as an alternative. I think a lot of his excerpts here focus on subjectivity and different ways of filming documentaries. If anyone can help me find this, I’d be so happy. I did notice one thing though. He does however say that film will not replace the written word within anthropology. He says that it may help fill some of the blind spots, so perhaps his alternative was to use both, one as a main text and film as supportive.

It comes as no big surprise that since the recorded history, there have always been those civilizations who believe themselves to be above others. As we move forward in time, we find more ways in which these “superior peoples” find ways of boasting their power or increasing it. The “Imperial Imaginary” by Ella Shohat and Robert Stam focuses on how the Europeans and Americans have found ways to use media, in this article mostly film, to exert their dominance over “third world countries”, show historical events in their favor, and keep their homelands prideful.

It’s something that many of us have seen, however may have overlooked time and time again. How many of us have gone to see a movie that falls in the historical fiction genre only to see the U.S. shown as the “good side” and their enemies the evil, corrupted country? Or how many times have the Europeans or Americans or some other advanced culture been shown as the saviors to an underdeveloped country?

Even within a movie such as Independence Day starring Will Smith and Bill Pullman, we see the Americans being shown as a dominant culture, saving not only themselves, but also the entire world from being wiped out in a matter of hours. Do you remember towards the end, the clips of every other culture being shown, stereotypically as always, waiting for someone to save them, then suddenly the U.S. blows up the mother ship and everyone is rejoicing. If an entire world saw such a huge ship, where was their response? Or was the U.S. the only ones brave enough to attack?

I find this an example to reinforce the ideas of the article, seeing as how I am quite sure many of us have not seen movies such as The Real Glory or Trader Horn. However, that is only one idea that the article focuses on. The article also speaks of racism and entertainment being intertwined. The very idea of it may cause a person to become uneasy, or for some of us to say, “we’ve moved past that in modern times”. But one thing I think we need to realize is that we have not come that far within these 90+ years. We still have entertainment and racism being hand in hand and bringing flocks of audiences to the theaters. However, we’ve just changed our ways of doing it.

Everyone remembers the movie Friday. But do we realize how it is a “stereotypically black movie”? Everything from the clothes the characters wear, the way they talk, their neighbors, and even parts of the storylines are following the stereotypes we place on a culture. Are stereotypes not synonymous with racism? Have we not just made it softer or given it a new name in order to make it acceptable? Many people are still running to see such movies in order to gawk at them, laugh at a culture, and most importantly, “study” a culture. I use the term “study” very loosely in the previous sentence. Those who run to these movies see a culture they may have not had much interaction with and learn their preconceived notions of people whom they’ve never met. “Study” enough of these films and you’ll begin to believe that everyone within a certain culture is the same. Instead of displaying someone within the Bronx Zoo or using them for “quasi-sadistic experiments” film makers are taking what they think they know, and may possibly know for a small percentage of a population, and displaying it for an entire world, who may not be as knowledgeable or as able to separate fact from fiction.

I think once we get past the big words, the endless list of actors and movies we may not have heard of, and look at the article more in-depth, we will see, that we have not progressed as far as we think we have. Much of the article still applies today, especially towards the end where they briefly touch upon the idea of a globe symbol being used to show dominance in the media world. We need to all take a look at the article as more than just an article addressing the history of film and anthropology, we need to see it as the present, and possibly the future.