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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with your observation of the film replacing the book as the "text" that is meant to be "read." In one of my other classes we actually spent a considerable amount of time discussing this phenomonon. I think film useing film as a text to read can be increadibly useful, allowing the viewer to go back and reevalutate what they've seen. MacDougall gives the example of the film The Ax Fight which shows how anthropologists can be completely mistaken in judgeing events they experiance out in the feild, and having captured the event on film allowed them to go back and make sense of what occured.
Another limitation to this style of filmmaking is that, as viewers, we can only read into what we see and what has been provided for us. But perhaps, similar to the way we read books, we can consider film within different contexts and not be as victim to the limitatons of the filmmaking process.
It is sad but true that films are more accessible than books now. but i think a major problem with film replacing text is that, although film can be layered and looked at from different angles, film still cannot go into depth as much as books can go- because, instead of a few days, most films are only 2 hours, 3 at the most, the subject cannot be studied or viewed as in depth or complicated as a text can. More topics can be delved into in a text, there is a restriction in films.
Oh, that MacDougall...
I agree with Stephanie when she says MacDougall doesn't offer an alternative. I feel like MacDougall is never about the solution though, he just preaches about what he doesn't like. I think the idea of film never replacing written word is a strong one, but people definitely respond better visually than reading. Those blind spots could just be people not being informed.
Maybe?
-Adam McHeffey
Post a Comment