CHAPTER FIVE Complicities of Style I WILt peor wri what may tum out to be one of the stranger footnotes in the history of visual anthropology. A number of years ago a researcher in psychology was devising an experiment to measure castration anxiety among ‘American men (Schwartz 1955). In order to trigger the anxiety he hit upon the tactic of putting his experimental subjects in a theater and subjecting them to screenings of film footage of Aboriginal subincision operations in Cental Australia. We may find this disturbing for several reasons, not least of all because we are unused to seeing culture shock being dealt out quite so cavali- cetly. It tends to alarm whatever remains of our sense of cultural relativity. ‘But in retrospect the researcher's methods may have a crude irony for us, For quite some time, and again in a receat study (Martinez 1990), we have seen mounting evidence that many films designed not to shock, but to bridge cultural differences, have quite the opposite effect when shown to at least some audiences. Most anthropological and ethnographic films are not made ‘exclusively for anthropologists, and if one ofthe underlying metaphors of the ‘anthropological endeavor is to cure the disease of cultural intolerance, then it is clear that for some recipients the medicine nfay be wrong or too strong. We ‘are finally beginning to take more seriously how audiences interact with films to produce meanings. But tha is only one of the issues. We need to pay equal attention to the prior issue of how the implicit discursive forms of filmic ep- resentation overlap and interact with the cultures they seck to portray Its a commonplace that when Flaherty went to Samoa and the Aran Is- lands he failed to find the dramatic conflict of Nanook ofthe North (1922) and had to invent it. Granted that he may have invented much of the drama of ‘Nanook as well, this isthe kind of obvious, large-scale observation that may keep one from going on to ask related questions, such as why some socities (the Inuit, for example) are s0 heavily represented in ethnographic film as ‘compared to anthropological writing; why some societcs are represented largely by films on ritual and material culture; and to what extent ethno- ‘raph films are influenced by their search for (or creation of) strong central characters. In this regard one thinks immediately of the “stars” of the ethno- ‘graphic cinema, among them Nanook, Damouré, Nai, and Ongka, ‘The relation between knowledge and aesthetics is always tricky, and that between anthropology and film especially so, in part because the legitimacy for anthropology of a kind of knowledge expressed in images has yet to be compLicrties or styie 141 fully addressed. Defining the world in writing rting may appear beter understood, sian often because this older method assumes terry and linguistic ‘raition in common with cultural one. When the subject is wher culture, ‘diferent and less well explored set of problems aries, bert 7 ‘ sin paper called “The Look of Magic,” has described how ia te lden Bough Frazet’s accounts of unfamiliar cultural pocices ive serpag ciness bordering onthe sural, making tiem mow Hels ee1a Pant Two applied to society with avery different cultural style they may prove quite inadequate and inarticulate. They may indeed make the society look strange, and in tems even stronger than Gilbert Lewis describes. And no amount of extemal explanation or contextualsation may make much difference. ‘This isnot simply a matter ofthe cultural gap between filmmaker and sub {et or subject and audience. The cultural incompatibility is more deeply em- bedded in the representational system itself, including its technology, and without radial changes, te result will be much the same whether itis used by 4 First, Third or Fourth World filmmaker, most of whom share a global film culture. Film has a psychological plausibility that tends to natualize many ofthese conventions into invisibility. Filmmakers may be aware that alternative ap- proaches to filmmaking are posible—Sol Worth, John Adair, Eric Michaels, and Vinceat Caneli have beea at pains to show this—and yet not be fully aware how their own filmmaking practice channels their efforts in certain di- rections and frustrates them in others. Ths not only affects the success or failure of individual films but may predispose Slmmakers (and need 1 add, television companies) to make flms in certain kinds of societies rather than thers, orf they have less choice in the mater, to focus on a particular selee- tion of cultural feature, such as ceremonial events and technology. These can take on an exaggerated importance simply because they appear more “filma be,” jst as language and kinship have perhaps figured more prominently in anthropology because they are more easily writen down, ‘The problem is often declared by an abseate, or by an awkward or bizarre stopgap solution. Many films give evidence ofthe bafllement that has con fronted their makers—films that suddenly resort to romantic imagery, nara tion, ora 1940s Hollywood montage when they are unable to follow a subject ‘where it might otherwise lead them. Other films betray a hollowness behind te devices they employ. People ae followed almost by reflex, doing things 4s though those things had a cumulative significance, but the significance never materializes. The camera zooms in on a face which reveals precisely nothing. Worse than jut showing nothing, these false emphases contribute to an image of a world that is mote and off balance Such strangeness isthe overiding quality to me of a considerable number of films on Australian Aboriginal society, including some films of my own and some made by Aboriginal filmmakers themselves. They give off a chaac- teristic cultural tne, like a tuning fork, but itis ike & sound heard at a great distance, or the spectal signature of a star. Sometimes the flmmaker’s unfa- niliarity or lack of sympathy with Aboriginal society can be blamed, but ‘often it seems to have more to do with complexities in the subject and styles of cultural expression unmatched by a comparable cinematic style William Stanner, probably the most perceptive and politically engaged an- thropologist writing about Aboriginal society i the 1950s, linked the problem to Aboriginal frames of reference. “[The] fundamental cast [of Aboriginal 11, Turkana oratorical style. From The Wedding Camels (1977) sought,” he wrt, “seems to met be analogical nd a forion metaphor cal... Tam sigesing tht the ssscnton of Euopean od oeone ns besa stugl of pti lines, fen darkened ieee oat Par by the cota ofthe ahoiines npc wate That sghessnes, he might hve added. extads ws nel oe pes ‘Suppositions of our own habits of description and depiction. = Ar sch dices erie some cline le ote to sy witht betitng the fmmakers, tht cher ims have betes that sem positively to lend themselves to the cae of Wess Seca Peter Lois has prised the special copency of he nerves Monee welyn- Davis's ln The Womens Olama (198) and hs ntl hoe oe intruding on events, the film observes the unites of time, place, and person of Clase Grek tragedy (1998: 133). We gt ute inane interpret he events, nd hese explanations come om the Manca tee either in direct address to the camera or in observed interactions. The dram ‘is Aristolelean and th Maas are found to be supe exlinaes of thir own ves and socal sytem, Other flmnatersncleing mpc founda sinilar openness and eloquence in he elt yee a en Dasa at tie when he ai aso getaway foes cates a baton and rely instead upon the selsevelaton tn sell nee People portayed [gue I] That aim eect a Western relist tadion dependent upon ace iertu PART Two alness of words and deeds and a focus upon events that crystallized deeper social issues. But fortis to work requires thatthe social actors conduct them selves in the world in somewhat the same terms. It requires a society in wi there isa positive value placed upon explicitness of speech, the expression of personal emotion and opinion, and the public resolution of confliet—although not necessarily to the extent of public adversarial debate, as in The Women's Olamal. But think thése assumptions penetrate to another Ievel as well. Even when ethnographic films do not follow models of classical dramaturgy—and most in fact do not—they make use of certain formal conventions of camerawork ‘and editing that derive from it. Thus even a film guided by an anthropological ‘commentary and concemed with economics or politics will do so in visual terms that reflect Euro-American expectations of causality, chronology, and interpersonal behavior. ‘The Look of Documentary ' ethnographic wring assumes that we ean be tol, even if we cannot always experience, ethnographic films, even when they include explanatory commen- tary, assume that we will Ieam something expetientiall from the images, and in some sense make them our own. Films attempt to create a trajectory of understanding, begiming with images that make certsin claims upon us. ‘These claims ae typically produced through acs of disclosure that create a sense of obligation in the viewer toward the viewed, and this can be compared to a form of submission or display of vulnerability in which the subject vites our protection or interest. That is why the tem “exposition” must be taken not only inthe sense of setting out the subject and its context but inthe tral sense of sel-exposure. From the privileged knowledge that results, the audience embarks upon a problem or a journey. ‘The repertoire of shooting and editing techniques in both fiction and nonic- tion films is employed in the first instance to gain the viewer's complicity, by disarming and penetrating the subject from every angle. Iisa repentoite of exaggeration, oversteppng the bounds of normal vision. There are wide-angle shots and close-ups fr expansion or intimacy: montage and continuity editing to condense and intensity significant actions; and sequence-shots to directa unwavering gaze at nuances of behavior. In documentary, various kinds of direct and indirect address have been added to these expository techniques, pthaps in recognition of dhe fact that although self-disclosure can be writen ino a script, special conditions suchas the interview must be created to ex- teat it in realli. ‘Some conventions seem related to implicit expectations about behavioral style, such asthe assumption that characters wll assert thei personalities and IES OF STYLE us a rast ne fs he ec rach lay a infomation abot inner ses and invite Menifeaten, The takes, and especial inh cate of levion “ang ed et of elvson “ling heads" he snare 8 biechical and pci sce n which cots pete ae thos die vocal alts ad geak rai nr and the carter auraton of Nene cinema only in the oseup bt ao in devices such asthe shodecwrec nt ers angle sine to const sn imaginay goog ince es can move and whch ean beso he nny hea orn ‘what Nick Browne (1975) has called the “spectator-in-the-text.” " Otter kinds of structs, sch ss ssuees concn tat to cultural act ang fora ences ae nae Can ‘such as the fade and dissolve, Se fame, nin capedsime xcept, tts sient ection fo this tempo cr, enveatn f rl cton cating. hh esac ae ‘cos tha ty pea te fgpening snes mene ne ‘rl i int hig waa Spt cae sr i conmealy ode a tempor gas va ae scleral cating tends imply a convergence ofthe toe ha even coison. This cn be ake te ee ea i an Ste wound wich vo much of West em6 PART TWO For Wester filmmakers, conflict isan slmost essential discursive princi- plo notin an obvious form, thn in he form of issues or problems equi= ing resolution. Its like the cartier frequency ofall other matters. Conflict, structure in ethnographic ‘films tends to mean filming. event in which confict—real or poental—brings cultural imperatives to the fore. An initiate passes atest and econfrms a hierarchy. An episode of childhood rvalty ex Plains how personalities are formed. Whether or not Ongka's moka ever comes off, or Harry ever turns up, events have ocurred that reveal the pin plesby which peopl ive. Ata deeper level, such evens reveal the unresolved paradoxes witin a society that generate conflicting messages about the rman- agement of authority allegiene, and desir. “The strategies of ethnographic filming often involve seeking out significant renis in the social fabric, such as Nla's sense of rejection and alienation in !Kumg society. There is an echo inthis process ofthe propensity of observa tional cinema to ie in wait forthe moments in life when people et cir socia mass slip an literally “ive themselves aay.” The emphasis may be upon traditional sources of tension, of contradictions between “coret” and actual behavior or even upon a person who i 0 specialized or marginal inthe soc- «fy as to provide a revealing perspective on it. These approaches may some times make more sense to the antropologisvilmmaker than to the peopl being filmed, but in many societies cones are perfectly legitimate topic of attention and often focus issues for people. They may even be seen in some Sense as therapeutic eruptions which provide opporuniis to readjust te s- Gil landscape, But the reliance upon conflict structure also presupposes a society in which peopl traiionally get embroiled in contradictory sts of obligations and in hich some benefit is seen in lving through the consequences. In another society this might be deemed sherfolishness. My experience of Aboriginal society lads me to thik tht it systematically resists approaches based on conflict strctre and most ofthe expository conventions of cinema. This is arly due toa syle of discourse which, as Stanner noted, is highly allusive and, when not formal, often laconic and muli-pronged. Speech ete does not provide an open channel to personal feling and opinion, or des the cloe- up ofa face. Personal reticence is deemed a virtue, and language is nly one of the surfaces of the complex spiral of ar, reference, and ritual that have ‘increasingly come to think ofa “heralic™ culture. [Figure 12] Thus fom a filmmakers perspective it would pethaps be hard 0 find a seater contrast to the outspoken and skeptical pragmatism of East African stort than the style of Aboriginal socal interaction. Confit is carefully onained behind the scenes, and should it breakout of formal contol is con- sidered far from therapeutic and highly dangerous. Contentious issues are sys. tematialy avoided or dealt with in parables, This isnt wo say tht Aboriginal peopl are not personally ambitious or contentious, but the public weal resides im the constant enforcement and repair of personal relationships, comrticities or styLe 12. A "herald 1975, “culture. Photograph made during the filming of Good-bye Old Man, 718 raRt two typically consist of a demonstration of rights to land, knowledge, or other cul ‘ural property. For Aboriginal people, showing i in and of itself a sufficient act and can constitute a transmission of rights. Thus a film in these terms need not explain anything or develop any argument or analysis; rather, by simply exis ing it has the potential to be a powerful political or cultural assertion ‘The Voices of Ethnography ‘To be helpful, recognition of the interaction of different cultural styles must be seen in relation to the larger purposes of ethnographic representation, Eth- ‘nographic film is different from indigenous or national film production in that it seeks to interpret one society for another. Is starting point is therefore the encounter of two cultures, or as some would put it, Wo “texts” of life; and What it produces is a further, rather special cultural document. Increasingly, though, ethnographic films cease to be one society's private notes or diaties about others. They reach multiple audiences and I think must now be made with this in mind. They will certainly be seen and used by the societies they portray. One conclusion, therefore, is that they should become more precise— and perhaps more modest—about what they claim to be, (There is a corre- sponding obligation on viewers to read these limits more accurately.) Another is that they should begin looking in two directions instead of one. ‘This is realy a question of how ethnographic film conceives and frames its subjects. Since 1898 ethnographic filmmaking has undergone a series of revo- lutions, introducing narrative, observational, and participatory approsches. ‘With each, a set of assumptions about the positioning of the filmmaker and the ‘audience has crumbled. Now it is the single identity of each of these that is under review. If we are in the midst of a new revolution, as I believe we are, itis one that is interested in multiple voices and that consists in a shift toward an intertextual cinema, 1 think we are already seeing the changes in a new emphasis on authorship and specified cultral perspectives. Films are ess often posed as omniscient or definitive descriptions, but equally, filmmakers are less likely to claim a spurious oneness with their subjects. Societies are no longer portrayed as ‘monolithic, or unpenetrated by external and historical forces. But this is only the beginning of changes that could affect both the conventions and larger structures of ethnographic filmmaking ‘The focus on authorship has two important consequences: first, in clarify ing the provenance of films, and second in making the search for new diree- tions in film strategy more understandable and acceptable to audiences. (A film with declared interests can more easly afford to be unusual.) Other ‘modifications of film conventions will come from cultural borrowing or from, explicit responses to conflicts in cultural style, I think we will increasingly "ar tora fst mosting plac of prim ad secondary. of repesentton, on cla dace sen nego sete ee ote: In plac ofthe usual cere and linear modes se Pen mploying repetition, ssn cing, nd tomar sone centering of ajc mater cold resi nfs ht ek atta Pesphra apts of wha wer previously taken bet see The ter implication ofthese shite and roby eae 5s the recognition that ethnographic films for multiple audiences must coat foot contending versions of ay Further ey ma en cal expen which overstayed hh vie i Link we sal href se fins ta econ reponse suo, confonaton, and exchange We Sl se ee Ste hy xs elute eel nce SESE Oe rene In Tcent yeas einoprapic fms have become Ie insulin ope Semele © th vies of th sie. Inte en eae th crossing and mingling font dons. This eed notin ny view, aw an niece yf iors within iors and unenting nesting Boss ey