William GuynnPablo in 20069 ube in Great Brin by Rowtladse Routledge ‘Taylor & Francis Group Taylor & Francis Group 270 Masson Aveave 2 Par sure New York NY 10016 Milos Park. Abingdon (ton OX ARN (©2006 by Taye & Francis Group, LLC Routed sa pit of Tylor & Francs Group Printed inthe United Stas of Amerie on aire paper woe7esés2t International tnd Book Number 10; 0-415-979242 (Safco) International Stadia Book Number 13: 978 0-415-979243 (Stone) Library of Congres Cad Nurber 200503751 No pat ofthis book may be sepa, epauce, wansited, of tilled ia any For by any electron Iiechanial. of other ean, sow Kawa or bear iment, nsludng photocopying. micoSming, and ‘sending, in any information storage ores system, without wrton prison fom the pubes. Trademark Notice: Prous o comprae names ay be uademarks opera ema ae wed oy for deietion ao explanation without intent 1 nig. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Pubiication Duta aja, Wiliam, ‘Wieiing sory ia Sim Wiliam Gy, pen Inclues biographical references 04 index {SBN0-115.97923-(hacdhack ak, pager) ~ISBNO15-97928-2(gh, ak pape). Motion Pictures and story. 2 Hori fit Histon and cis, 1. Te, P1995 2.489 2006 TLAYGSH2? informa ““s8s"" “ayo Fans Grp and the Routledge Web site at fete acems isin forsee Rupulewscoatedpe aysam 200507158INTRODUCTION Facing the Skepticism of Historians It is a risky business to write seriously about the historical film. The social sciences in general have shown a profoundly skeptical attitude toward the cinema. Anthropology, for example, long resisted using film technology as a tool of research, despite what would seem the obvious potential for visual observation the medium provides. When ethnographers hesitatingly adopted film as one technique of observa tion, notably through the practice elaborated by Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in their work in Bali, they were concerned to control the use of film through properly ethnographic guidelines. For Mead, this meant a strategy of observation grounded in the “holistic” vision provided by long takes from one observational position and by the all-encompassing long shot. “Fragmentation” —the effects of film edit ing in the mid to late 1930s that Mead associated with fiction—was to be avoided, as was the calculated mise en scene of documentary films of the period. Moreover, Mead argued that film as an instrument of observation belonged to the stage of work that preceded conceptual- ization and that film data should ultimately be examined, sorted, and reduced to written analysis, For most anthropologists (and most historians), only writing provides the kind of distance and discipline that a scientific approach requires. ‘The screening of an ethnographic film, particularly fora larger public, is at best vulgarization and has no justifiable scientific purpose. Pro- ducing such a film involved editing—and therefore distorting—docu mentary evidence, and there was no lack of examples of the exploitative