Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Ethnographic Film by Karl G. Heider

2009; Wiley; Volume: 25; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1548-7458.2009.01013.x

1548-7458

Patrick Devlieger,

European history and politics

Austin : University of Texas Press , 2006 . This revised edition of Ethnographic Film originally appeared in 1976 and its goal has not much changed over 30 years: “an attempt to develop a systematic way of thinking of ethnographic film, and in particular about the ‘ethnographicness’ of film” (ix). What is different in this edition is perhaps the person who is writing it, now an administrator in the university, who affords himself to be “polemic, repetitive, and speaking in different tongues,” characteristics which he knows “are not universally admired” (xi). Heider stays close to his original epistemological position, that ethnographic film is a reality that can be grasped in a limited number of attributes that may become instrumental in the evaluation and production of films, and in using films for teaching purposes. He is going past large and small crises and debates in anthropology, and in visual anthropology in particular, and proceeds along his own path to lend a particular perspective on ethnographic film. The book begins with explicating the nature of ethnographic film and ethnography itself, as well as the relation between the two. For Heider, that relation can be summarized in one sentence: “Ethnographic film is film that reflects ethnographic understanding” (7). Film is thus something that follows ethnographic investigation. By extension, the role of film is seen more as a second-order visual translation or alternative visual representation of an anterior understanding that has been “written.” When it comes to truth, Heider holds on to dogmatic principles of accurately reporting events in time and space. Chapter 2, on the history of ethnographic film, pays tribute to early developments, especially those of Robert Flaherty, to whom he attributes the birth of ethnographic film in 1922, and to Bateson and Mead, whose attempts to use film as an integral part of anthropological research and reportage are seen “as a major advance in concept, even if that concept could not be fully realized” (30). The real coming into its own of ethnographic film is situated after World War II and is illustrated through four major figures: Jean Rouch, John Marshall, Robert Gardner, and Timothy Ash. Others are consciously omitted, and Heider appears to have little interest in new generations of filmmakers who inscribe themselves directly into an ethnographic tradition or deviate from the genre with terms such as “transcultural” or “intercultural” cinema. When it comes to qualifying knowledge, Heider only ventures in a limited way into a “reflexive approach,” as he evaluates the presence of the ethnographer as part of the focus of the film (67–70). All of this comes from sticking to an objectifying agenda, namely “the ethnographicness” of ethnographic film. The chapter is aptly closed with a scant review of interesting film projects and the institutionalization of ethnographic film in associations, prizes, journals, and centers. The book proceeds in chapter 3 to discuss the attributes of ethnographic film, and here it becomes very practical, for both the producer and evaluator of ethnographic film. Heider makes his position very clear with regard to technical characteristics, such as the relation between image and sound and in particular to the limited role that narrative should take. Paradoxically, his purist vision of ethnographic film as “showing” (and not telling) also leads him to reconcile ethnographic film with a secondary role that follows ethnographic text, or at best when text and film are presented as complementary media. Heider recognizes ultimately that film and text are two different modes of representation and that the same person could rarely do both. In chapter 1, Heider subscribes to an objectivist empirical epistemology wherein he points out that while “truth” is the goal of both ethnographic text and film, the two media provide for a different relation with truth. He gives as an example Malinowski's description in Argonauts of a trading expedition that “could be true” but is actually a reconstructed account yet acceptable in text. In film, Heider argues, such a construction would not work and thus would not be acceptable. What remains are very clear views and technical appreciations of how an ethnographic film should be: visuals that speak for themselves (because they are “whole”); sound that is natural; minimal narration, backed up by written material; selective descriptive truths; context oriented with attention to whole people (who can and do stand in for their culture) and their physical contexts; and inserting the ethnographer as part of the scene. In the book, Heider does pay attention to the intrusive and distorting nature of filmmaking, but his view on ethnographic filmmaking remains informed by the possibility of a holistic representation. Within the confines of Heider's epistemological approach, ethnographic film is a tool that communicates ethnographic understanding. As such, it can be evaluated on an “attribute dimension grid” (109). In the earlier edition of the book, Heider stops short of translating this grid into measurable scales that would enable one to quantify such dimensions and perhaps come up with a factor that would enable an evaluator to state that “film X has a 60% rate of ethnographicness.” Further developing such a scientific path is not the case, however, in the new edition. Heider rather relies upon his experience as a filmmaker and teacher to deal with the technicalities of production, evaluation, and teaching within a narrow scientific canon. His orientation is not an appreciation of ethnography or film as art, nor does he take into account the politics of production and appreciation by audiences. The final chapters of the book summarize the main points, as they delve further into the practicalities of making ethnographic film and using it for teaching purposes. Heider points to how difficult it remains to issue official ethical guidelines for ethnographic filmmaking. Without being specific but providing suggestive examples, he reminds filmmakers to take ethical principles into account. In line with his own epistemological principles, Heider sees the classroom as the most ideal setting for the consumption of ethnographic film, as films can be supplemented with written information. He finds it useful for films to be watched twice, in order to allow the film to fully speak for itself. This revised edition of Ethnographic Film extends the reputation of the first edition of being a classic. It provides real answers to an understanding of and possible use for the evaluation of film and the training of filmmakers. Its epistemological objectivist focus remains too narrow, however, for effectively dealing with contemporary issues that influence the scene of filmic (re)production of culture(s). Producers of film, audiences, distributors, critics, and teachers will be satisfied to find some canonical knowledge and strategies in ethnographic filmmaking. Yet they may also find that the book offers few responses to filmmaking in the transnational global scene, the various shifting centers of film production, the fragmented and partial nature of knowledge, the intrusion, alienation, and reflection that filmmaking causes, the impact of memory and the senses, the impositions of the visual, and newly found alliances between film and art. Dealing with such issues requires a different epistemological stance and a different language that accounts for knowledge and encounter, perhaps in which filmmaking becomes an ethnoscape that documents the rizomatic parcours of a nomadic filmmaker.