Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • WEAKLAND, John Feature Films As Cultural Documents

    Uploaded by

    Vi Grunvald
    56 views19 pages

    Original Title

    WEAKLAND, John Feature films as cultural documents

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    56 views19 pages

    WEAKLAND, John Feature Films As Cultural Documents

    Uploaded by

    Vi Grunvald

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    The new and heavily revised edition contains 27 articles. including eight that were not in the first edition (19 They ate written by scholars and filmmakers who are generally acknowledged us the international authorities in the field (and who come from seven countries), Among them are Jean Rouch, Alan Lomax and David MacDougall. The Editor is well known as a professional anthropelo; who edited part of the Encyclopedia of World Cultures (1991-1996), and is currently editor-in-chief of the inter- national journal Visual Ansiropology, The seminal Intro- duction to the book was written by Margaret Mead. ‘This second edition covers ethnographic filming and its relations with the cinema and television; applications of filming to anthropological research; the uses of still uphy, archives, and videotape; subdisciplinary applications in ethnography, archucology, bioanthro- pology, museology and eihnobistory: and overcoming the funding problems of film production. Several of the articles from the earlier edition have been updated by their authors but the coverage of television programming and funding is entirely new ISBN 3 11 0142287 litior rreoriie mere Comic Dene a tg Principles yaaa iret Anthropology ne Pee a ctnS E HUME | TBLIOTECA wi lors] 45 | Principles of Visual Anthropology Second edition edited hy Paul Hockings Mouton de Gruyter Berlin + New York 1995 Moaton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Tatts) ina Division of Walter de Gruyter 8 Co. Becin @ Prinved on aoid-feoe pope which fais swithan te guidlines of the ANS! to ensure permanence and durability, Libary of Consress Canconingn Pobtcation Da cs of visual anthropology oie by Pal Hoskngs Tate Ro Includes biblingraphical oferspces and index, ISHN W11-D1262721.— ISBN 1228-7 (pb T'Viwial nthropalogy, 2, Anthropology — Study and reaching Nuglo-visual ald. 3) Meson pctuces a etn ony Mckeags, Paul GNY tos MOE-OTS de) os.9009 cP Dir Deaascte Buiter ~ Cataenyesn-Pablien Pata Principles of vial anthenpotogs / od, by Paul Hookioes Zed Belin, New York Moulon de Gruyter, 195 Ismy 1.0120 ISBN 311013625 NE Hockings, Paul [Hise yright (995 by Walter de Grater & C9. D-HU7ES Neslin AU vighss reserved, neludiny those Of iransation mo foreign Languages. No part ot this ingok may he nepriuced or transmuted in ans farmor by any teams let nomieor mee ical including photocopy. s2eoeding or any informution storage ahd eetval aster, withe ja permission in wring rom the publsac, Disk conversion: Levis & Leins GnibH, Berlin Printing: Rates Druck, Resta Bndiow Ler” & Bauer CrnbH, testa Conver Design Sigurd Wendiand, Bern. Panta in Goomany Preface This book was originally developed by and for the anthropologists af the world, as was deseribed in the original Preface, Its popularity — far ex. ceeding that of any of the other ninety books in the World Anthropology series — proved that anthropology had indeed suffered too longa serious vacuum, The appearance «fa revised edition of this book may yet fl that ‘vacuum; and the ator hay caretully added materially co ts content. For ‘most in the book is the late Margaret Meai's byilliant and much-quored introductory essay. Then, enriching us all, are e forward inio new arenas of wa eles ght new papers 10 every as fal Anthropology as tis millennium draws Chicsgro, Lines Son tas Tals 19, 1998 Foreword The masterly introduction which Mi ‘volume makes it unnecessary for me to emphasize cither the promise that visual anthropology offers us today or the reserve with which it has been considered in the past. The ptesent coltection of papers will, L trust serve {0 put visual anthropology into its proper perspective as legitimate sub~ discipline of anthcopology and at the same time a contributor to the his tory of cinema, A few words about the editorial procedure may not be out of place here Nearly all of these papers were written in 1973 for discussion at the Tncer- national Conference on Visual Anthropology, which Washeld in Chieago at the University of linois as part of the IXth LC.A.ES. A few were written or drastically revised afterwards as-a result of that Conference. And the briliant paper by Colin Young was preduced six months later, _— Visual anthropology is clearly the product of a dezen Western coun: tries, Being familiar with many of the people active in this new feld, I solicited nearly every paper with a view to how it would fit into the entire volume, To this end | sometimes suggested alterations and the excision of points duplicated in several of the papers. Where time has tot permitted a long editorial dialogue, alternative viewpoints have simply been added as “comment” at the end of some papers. Only three papers were submit- ted in foreign languages: that hy Peterson was translated by Russian ex- Perts, and those by Rouch and Lajoux were translated by me. Ieis 2 matice ef grest satisfaction that nsarly all of the key persons in visual anthropology have contributed to this volume. [ should add that We are all indebied to the National Endowment for the Humanities, which made the International Conference possible: to Margaret Mead and Sol garet Mead has written for this wit Fornvint Tax for their continuous interest in the project; to Jean Block and ber staff for their valuable editing services; to Bill HintZ, the film Librarian at this Universicy, for his belp with problems in the Filmography; and to Karen Tkach of Meutoa Publishers for easing my way to the press. University of Iltinois, Chicago PAUL HocKINGS May 1974 Table of Contents Preface by Sol Tax Foreword by Paul Hockings INTRODUCTION Visuial Anthropology in a Diseiptine of Words by Marquret Mead ETHNOGRAPHIC HIMING ND THE CINEMA raphe Film The History of Ethne by Binilte de Bris Feature Films as Coltyral Documents by John H, Weakland MeCarty’s Law and How to Break it by Mark MeCarty SOME RECENT APPROACHES 10 ANTLIRUIILOGICAT FILM The Camera and Man by Jean Rouch Observational Cinema by Colin Young Beyond Observational Cinema by Davud MacDougall vil y 15 Tate of Consens Jules endl Event in Urban Fil by Join Marshall anol Fmitie de Briard Research Filming of Narweully Occurring Phen by F. Ricard Sorensen and Ailisen Joblonte ‘VistiAl, ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE MNS Ftinographie Film and History by Jean-Dominigue Layore Reconstructing Culuures on) Fil bby Aven Ralite! The Role of Film in. Arc boy Saat Sirnever Fumosiaphic Pioiognaphy in Anuupitagical Ri bby Joanne: Coan Scherr Our Totemic Ancestors saul Crived Masters by deca Role aeology SMP SPECIALIZED USK OF FEE AL AND MIDLOFAPE Photography and Visual Anthropotosy hy Jodie Calfier Jr Videotape: New Techniques ol Observation and Anulysis in Anthropology by Jevephe H, Selunefier Filming Body Belsevior by AH, Prost Audiovisual Tools for the Anl bby Alan Loman Flue in Funopraphic Research boy Fimoddty Asele and Patsy vel is of Culture Style 1UIL PRESENTATION G4) ANTHROPOTOGICAL IEORMATION Lthnographies ow the Aiewaves: The Presentation oF Anthiopelazy bn Amerieun, British. Baloian unl Japanese Television by Lave Ginshure The First Videotheue by Yasuhins Omori Funding Fthnographie Film and Video Prduetions ink Americs by Sabine Jell-Rehisen Lubnographic Filuunaking for Japanese Television by Yasuko Ichioka I ic Suategies 17 38 309 aus i Table wf Content Matters of Fact by Roger Sandall TE FUTURE OF FISUAl_ ANTEROPOLOGY The Tribal Termor of Self-Awareness ‘by Eidimund Ci Visual Records, Huron Knowledge. and the Furare by £. Richand Sorenson mielusion: Ethnographic Filming and Anthropological Theory by Paul Hockings penter Gi Resolution on Visual Anthropology Note on Filmography Biographical Notes Indes of Films Inde of Names Index of Subjects a8 498 507 Feature Films as Cultural Documents JOHN H. WEAKLAND There is a considerable, and probably a growing, anthropological interest inthe making and study of flm records, as this present symposium on visual anthropology itself demonstrates, And itis even more evident that feature films, which here may be understood to include television dramas, are taken seriously as cultural products ay many people, from general andiences (possibly eves including, in their private capacity, some anthro= pologisis) to various special groups, among them filmmakers, erties, moralsts]and politicians. Anthropological interest in feature films as cultusal documents, how ever, is another matter. More accurately, i is two other matters. First, inspite of apparcot similarities or common clements with the two areas of Interest mentioned, this ficld of interest and study is quite separate and diferent from both of them, in ways to be described. Second, while ‘ough work has been done in this area over the past thirty years 10 indicate some approaches and potentials, it currently stands as a quite Small and neglected field. “Any consideration of the anthropological study of feature les must {hus be a minority report in relation to both its filmic and anthropological ontexts, and minority reports are seldom very influential. Nevertheless, ‘this kind of film study is still worthy of promotioa and development. ‘Wis interesting in itself, partly because itis different and special, yet Partly also because basicaly itis surprisingly close to traditional anthro- ological interesis and methods. And it hs both theoretical and practical Potentials, especially inthe otherwise difficult study of large and complex Sontemporary cultures: but these potentials caa oaly be tested by much Jatensive empirical work. In this situation, thea, a minority ceport seems better than none. It will consider, in order: (1) main lines of current interest in films, and the contrasting nature of anthropological feature film study >(2) previous work of this kind and its significance; (3) principles and problems in the study of film content; and (4) the uses and prospects of feature film study, One further point should be made explicit at the outset. Although my report aims to present a broad view of what has been and might be done in this special fcld, this account must necessarily be limited ia certain respects. It will st forth a view, grounded in my own experience, of the main points of intersection between fundamental anthropological interests and methods and the nature of feature films; but there might be other possible ways in which feature films could be culturally infor- mative, or other possibly useful methods for their examination. That is, this present viewing of a field is significantly similar to what happens in the study of any film, oF group or films — or indeed in any cultural study. Selectivity — to some extent personal, but not just subjective — must bbe involved, since the wholecan never be encompassed in a verbal account, and there is never even & final standard defining what should be chosen for attention. This always depends on purposes, preferences, and cit- ‘cumstances, both intellectual and practical. Further, since the purpose of this account is o present a focused view of what appears central in an area that is not well known, it will im to be clear and concise about basic ‘matters, rather than cisk obscuring these by attempting exhaustive and detailed coverage of even this limited field. VARIETIES OF FILM CONSIDERATIONS. In the broadest sense, feature films are cultural documents by definition — what product of any culture is not? The relevant questions are narrower: what sort of cultural documents are such films, and what significance can they have for cultural anthropology? These questions canaot te setiled @ priori. Answers can only be usefully approached — and even then never finally reached —empirically, by examining films and eultures and secing what features and relationships are discernible. Correspon- ingly, this report will center around consideration of the nature, me- thods, and findings of actual anthropological studies of feature films, and possible further studies, Initially, however, some basic orientation — a general viewpoint — is needed to begin either such research or an account of it. Such a general viewpoint consticutes ia effect a broad a as Cillarel Daviihea 4 ‘pabure il is ebout films and culture, towards which specific studies provide ‘evidence of varying sorts. The essentizIs of this viewpoint can perhaps be Seveyed best by the analogue of mapping by triangulation, in which they are spevificd and located in comparison with the two better-known {greis already mentioned: Work with anthropological ims, end various appraisals of feature films. "As already mentioned, anthropologists have been and continue to be interesed in the making and study of film records of culture. The subjects ff this fiming and study of fm vary sreat'y, but there isa rather consis- tent gencral orienistion amid this variety: to preserve and study, by objective and careful systematic examination, visual and sound records ‘ofsamples of actual behavior, That is, one might say thatthe usual aim of uch vork is more accurate and detailed examinstion of certain overt ‘ehavioral realities or facts. “Anthropological study of feature filmsis consistent with this in several important respects. It also involves an appreciation of the value of permanent records, and the careful, systematic and objective study of their visual and sownd (verbal, musical and other) content. Bul there isan ‘equally important difference, related to the basic nature of the material. Feature films are fictional, and they are frankly viewed as stch in anthro ological analysis. That is, although fictional films may at times portray aspects of behavior accurately in a factual or documentary sense, this fs not the main foous of their study. Rather, these films are taken az Projecting iMAGrS of human social behavior, and these images are the first object of study. Such images, of course, my also be “real” in important senses (Boulding 1956), though differing from the reality of ‘detaled records of actual behavior. They may reflect eultural premises nd patterns of thought and feeling They may influence the behavior of viewers and they may throw light on actual behavior, whether they are itilar-or different ftom it. Again, all of these are potentials, Actual Sipniicances can only be determined, once film images are diseernsd, by Studying these in relation to the Almmakers, their audiences, and to other information about their subject matters. Jn another comer there Is a very mixed bag of flmmekers, ordinery FeViewers, high-level critics and theorists, and political and moral guat- ians of society who are all especially interested in feature films. Certainly 8 “The converse spprosch is also possible though probably mare dificult for com= Durable reels, in hoth cue. Fistinaal lime can Se walled vith a concers about ‘ttual behavior, sod decumeataries — since atthe least they must involve selection ‘ed emphases con be eXtiined terms of the stapes they prot, a expressive Father than descriptive resnrds @ 2. Kracauer 1942), {8 Jonss 12 WEAKLAND they have already produced a vast literature of serious — including con- siderable over-serious — writing on fictional films. This literature appears to vary over a Wide range. There are works with a primarily technical, commercial, sociological or critical fecus, and various com- inations of these. Attention may be centered on the making, showing, the nature or significance of the hims. Yet except for the most narrowly technical or commercial considerations, which are not relevant here, there is a remarkable consisteney in the goneral Focus of this literature, both as to what it is concerned with and what it seants.2 By and large, this literature on feature films is focused on eategorizing ‘and evaluating, That is, itis concerned with labeling or classifying a given film, a group of films, or even films in general, aud making statements about their goodness, truth, or beauty, whether this evaluation be in terms of catertainment, technical, artistic, or social-moral values, Even the considerable number of works concerned with defining the “essence” of film 23a medium, though they may openly appear less evaluative, usually, are covertlyand sweepingly so. ‘These observers also are often concerned with labeling and evaluating relationships between fiims and reality. Their views on this matter, how- fever, are complex and polarized, Some, such as the social and moral critics of films, are most apt to criticize films for not depicting reality accurately. In this one respect, they resemble the makers and students of anthropological and other documentary films — except that they may ako criticize film depictions, for instance those of sex and violence, for being too realistic, Others, especially those who view films as works of art, are apt to view factual realism dimly, believing that films should portray a higher reality and truth, ‘Since such « concern to evaluate surely implies that films are considered important, it is remarkable how litle explicit atteation is given to film cantent in these writings. Content, of course, has not gone completely unmentioned. and there have been many intelligent and perceptive observers emong these writers on feature films. Mzny of them, also work- ing uader restrictions of time and space, may have observed much more than they have reported. Nevertheless, especially in relation to the ariount of visual and verbal material presented in even a single film, descriptions of film content in this literature are brief and selective. Though the basis of this selectivity is often unstated, two main lines = Sinaethis literatures so extensive andis relevant here only interms ofits contrasting peneral approach, it will not ba eevsewee specially A woeful guide to much of 1, ‘bowever, is provided by the eugihy annotated bibliography in Jari (1970), and 0 ‘nimeographied supplements 10 tis whick he has subieauerty orocased ro ( Be Fi Clr Dome » ‘eppeat to he dominant. Most commoniy, observations on content art ‘sapérficial and general, noting only what is dramatically obvious. in “femms of commonly accepted categories. In the artistic or highbrow con- yerss, maximum attention may be given to noting and interpreting ap- tly minor or obscure details. The common element in these two ‘approaches is that existing criteria of some kind are applied to charac- {erize and judge the nature end significance of the film content matter. "Along with this body of critical writingthere sa fairly large amount of reported research on film content, and on the significance of such ‘content — usually either in comparison to reality, again, o in terms of ifs possible direct influence on behavior. The beginning of this kind of work may be attributed to the first study of Jones (1942) on quantitative ‘analysis of film content. Since then there have been more elaborate, though fundamentally similar, studies of content by researchers of the fiass media of communication, considerations of various aspects of film conteat and trends over time (especially numerous articles in the Jounal of Popular Culture and the new Joumnel of Popular Film), and recently, 2 mass of studies on television portrayal of violence and its effets. Te does not scem necessary to review these many studies here, They Thavea certain value in pointing out the need to set down basic identifying data about films to start with. Some of them (eg, Jowett 1970; Safilios Rothschild 1968) usefully summarize general characteristics of films ‘of given sources or periods. And a few, such as the study of Marcus (1970), offer thoughtful considerations of the significance of popular ffims and observations that reach to covert levels of content. For the MOS part, however, these studies are fundamentally similar in basic ‘approach to the less formal critical writings. That s, they also view va- OU overt aspects of films in terms of some set of specific, separate Silegories which are applied to the material from outside, and they Sonctive of only rather simple and direct relationships hetween film ontent and behavioral reality, which are seen as quite different realms, Ta sharp contrast, anthropological study of feature films, like traditional Anthropology generally, islargelya matter of inquiry inta the uaknowa — ‘nd hopefully discovery — as regards the films, their cultural environ- ‘ent and possible relations between the two, guided only by some broad Pribeiples. In the frst place, the content of a cultural product so rich 48dcomplex as even an ordinary commercial fm is by 20 means obvious St the usual viewing; this must be discerned from cazeful examination SF the fil itself Th attempting this, ordinary terms of categorization, reflecting common 50) TOA WEAKENS cultural assumptions and usually focusing on particular details or overall impressions, may not be well suited to describing both the parts and the Whole of such content. Also, an anthropological view should be concerned with what is most common and general, rather than what is special and ‘unusual. The analysis and description of content — which is here taken broadly to include what is shown, how it is shown, and how all this is structured — in these terms is a lengthy and difficult task at best, but it is the necessary basis for all further inquiries. What does a film (or group of films) present to the eyes and ears of its audience — including hoth the professional observer and ordinary viewers? Tis, of course, not possible to observe and record the totality of flea content or of cultural patterns, in any case. Only the film itself includes this — just as the anthropologist’s field data cover only part of the living culture he studies. Even quite limited and partial studies can have valid corresponding uses. The important thing is that angle of viewing and the nature of the selectivity exercised should be known and evaluated in relation to anthropological interests in films taken as cultural produc- tions Beyond content itself, anthropological film studies may extend to other matters that relate to ordinary evaluative viewing: Hew do fils relate to their cultural sources? What ig theie cultural funetion and in- fluence? Do silms illuminate more general cultural patterns? In short, how does film content relate to reality? But the basis of such inquiies is abso diferent in the anthropological study of feature films, At least at one important level, the reality with which anthropology is concerned is neither the raw factual details of observed behavior nor some artistic concept of truth, but is itself a cultural entity, a construct comparable in this sense to film images, though much broader — often including both these other relitss What this approach more specifically involves may be clarified by examining next the existing body of anthropological film aralysis, and then discussing its principles and practices in more detail. A REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL FILM ANALYSIS Anthropological study of themes and paiteras discernible on viewing feature films (with which may be grouped a few studies of similar nature by psychologists and others), and accompanying attempts to relate such observations to wider areas of culture, began in the United States duriag the period of World War 1T, At this time, there were extensive efforts ees Pees Fs ws Cutrat Dcsent 2 sevard mobilizing the knowledge and skills of social scientists to develop spunderstending of the nature of various foreign societies, with the tical goal of better estimation or presiction of their members" be- fuvior collectively or individually ‘As one part of this effort anthropologists. for the first time on say -dignificant scale, turned their attention to study of the cultures of large contemporary societies. In the wartime circumstances, the traditional anthropological method of field work was usually aot possible, and in addition there were inherent difficulties in applying this method to the study of large societies. Various means of studving national cultures using resources available in the United States were therefore explored and ulized, including interviewing foreign natives resident here, examination of written material of various types — histories, novels, descriptive and interpretative accounts by both natives and outsiders, and in particular, study of films produced by the societies in question (Benedict 1946), Most of this pioncering work. utilizing thefilm resources of the Museum of Modern Ar: und the Library of Conaress, was concerned with the films and cultures of Germany and Japan, Among the studies of whieh there isuny published record, there is considerable variation in focus, approach, ‘material used, and amount of information available. For instance one of the earliest studies, Bateson's An analysis of the film filerkage Quex"*(1943b). concentrates on the detailed examination of single film (except for a few illustrative references to other films), for Which it is still a model, In addition to aa over-all sumnmury of the plot, this film — viewed many times for the study — is described and analyzed atlength from five different hut interelated viewpoints: time perspective, Politica! groups and background, the family of origin, the future family, fnd the knife (a central symbol in the dram) and death. Bateson also iscusses some basic methodological issues, including film selection, éhecking of film observations against other sources of information, and the relationship of films to their sources. Unfortunately. only 2 brief ‘count ofthe work (Bateson 1943a) anda summary (Bateson 1953) of the fall report are readily available. The other main work on German ‘lm was done by Kracauer. He first sfamined German newsreels and documentaries for the view of life ‘Sxpresed even in such “factual” materials (Kracauer 1942), Kracauer 1947) then considered German fictional films over the period 1919-1933, ‘Stamining considerable number of films ia search of content trends ‘Blatable to, and informative about, the changing social context. This Second work thus illustrates another valid and possible approach 0 flm Shy, though it is neasly polar to Bateson’s detailed concentration on @ single lm. Kracauer’s works also usfil in other respects It shows how knowledge of a film's particular production circumstances sometimes hsins in understanding ts content. Especially his many’ and varied specific observations on fim content, on relations between aricus aspeets and features of content, and on prestmed relations erween such observations and soviet ate often perceptive and suggestive, By pointing theexstence and possibte significance of things often aot abvious, he helps expand the horizons of thee observers However, Kracaver's work alko has some serious, ard perhaps cor respording, flaws, He does not rest his ease on specified observations of films, German society, and speling out the relationships perceived be- toveca these. Instead, he is given to “sep” paychologreal interpretations of both film and social data, to-an apparent'y very selective and warble viewpoint, rather than consistent and systematic observation and analysis, and toswecping land often evaluative) conclusions about flmsane society “There is less specifi: information available about the analytic tudy of Sapanese films during thie period. For instance, although Benedict (1946) mentions that viewing films and discussing them with informants was a significant part of her study of Japanese culture, her book contains only a few brief observations on films specifically. A Workd War Il study, Japorese films: a phase of psychological warfare (Anonymous 1944), xd a considerable amount of analytic observation ‘This report, based on twenty films selected to cover the content areas of war, relations with other nations, urban snd rural life, and Japanese national and family structure, disewsses @ number of basic themes dis comed in these lms and deaws conelasions about related general “psychological” (actually, cultural) attitudes. Finally, a study by Meadow (6544), though rather heavily psychological, gives fairly good summaries of sven fils examined, and discusses inferences drawa from them about Japanese character structae, ‘After the war, interest in the related areas of the cultural study of modem nations and of film analysis continued and for a sime even ex- panded, most notably in the Columbia University Research in Contem- porary Cultures project started by Benedict and continued by Mead ‘Tha major published report on this research (Mead and Méteavx 1958) includes the following material on film study: (1) a general discussion cof movie analysis in the study of eulture by Wolfensteia (267-280), very ‘useful though rather psychological in viewpoint; (2) an introdvetion 10 ve following iustrations of fim analysis, ay Méraux Q81-282): (3) descriptive notes on one Italian lm — among twenty examined — b ‘Woleastein (282-289); (4) notes on two French films by Bolo (289-290) =a Far Flin os Citial Docimens pd Corer (290-291); (5) an analysis of seven Cantonese filme, Focusing gu family relations and time perspectives, by Weakland (292-295); (6) go analysis of the Soviet fm, The Yourg Guard, by Mead (285-297) fed Schwartz (297-302), including a comparison with the original novel; @) a summary of Batecon's earlier study of Hitleimge Quex 14). Although not extensive even in total, these materials are very helpful in providing a combination of discussion of film study and a considerable varity of examples of different stages and approaches in such work. Several additional studies, though reported separately, relate in origin so this same project. These include Erik H. Erikson's study of the Soviet film The Childhood of Maxim Gory (Erikson 1950), and Martha Wolfen- sicin and N. Leites' consideration of plot and character in French films (198) and trends in French films (1988). Also, there is Wolfenstein and Leites’ Movies (1950), an examination of American, British and French films for characteristic reguorites in their depiction of love relationships, family relationships, the relationships between killers, victim und a of justice, and finally relationships between performers and observers, Though this work is subtitled “A psychological study." ints emphasis on observable patterns and crosscultural comparison it appears to be at least equally an anthropological one. Two independent studies also appeared shorty after the time of the Research in Contemporary Cultures project. Haley (1952) presented a rather extensive analysis of patterns observable in David and Bathsheba, shosen for study as the most popular American film of its year, based on Boxofice receipts. Haley's interest in films was encouraged and may have been shaped somewhat by contact with Bateson, Nevertheless, thisstudy related more to his own conceptian (Haley 1952) of films as offesing audiences not escapes from, but guides to the social order, in ie form, by means of recurrent involvement of the audience in hieitening or problematic solutions followed by standard cultural feiolutions, Haley also noted how the basie pattern ofthe plot asa whole "often repeated in miniature, scene ty scene. The work of Honigmana and van Doorslaer (1955) in 2 sease is not M analysis at al, since they used as data only Indian film reviews, uever ‘Sting the actual films to which these referred. Nevertheless this study Tae To line, especialy in view of te limited. body of work ia ates, Their study was aimed at the lentfleation of important cul- $e themes an the are body of indigmnoas mviens om with teed Epresent materials that generally ate selevant to fim analysis as at least Se0ndary data sources. After this, there appears to have been little or no anthropotogicel study of fletional films for nearly ten years. Thea, in the early 1960's I began to examine whatever Chinese Communist films could be found outside of mainland China, In using films for the study at a distance of a then inaccessible culture, and even more in focusing initially on the poli= tical propaganda themes in these Chinese films (Weakland 1966a, 19666), this research clearly was reviving some of the earliest features of anthro- pological film study, During the course of thistong-term research, however, other features became increasingly significant: (1) The traditional culture of China had already been stidied extensively by anthropologists. My study accordinaly was concerned almost from its outset with observing possible relation- ships between sociopolitical themes in the new China films and basic themes and patterns of the traditional culture, For example, film images of foreign invasion and Chinese resistance were examined in relation to traditional Chinese family patterns (Weaktand 1971a). (2) Contrasts between film themes and traditional cultural themes were observed as well as connections, with the aim of using film study as one means toward clarifying the nntuee of cultural change and continuity accompanying revolutionary political change. (3) Chinese films made in Taiwan and Hong Kong were also available, and were used for comparison with the mainland Chins films, for instance, in a study of film depiction of cox ficts between love and family relationships, and theie resolution (Weak. land 1972), Beyond this short list of film studies that are dirsetly anthropological oF closely related, there seem C0 exist only occasional anthropologically relevant needles in the vast haystack of writings about feature films, and even sitch pieves sre ordinarily quite brief When it is worthwhile, such ‘work may be tracked down withthe aid of Jarvie's bibliographies. ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF FILMS: PRINCIPLES. AND PROBLEMS The most important point about unthropological film anelysis is that despite its apparently special object of study, this work relates closely to the meinstream of traditional anthropological concerns, In projectinz structured images of human behavior, social imeraction, xnd the nature of the world, fictional films in contemporary societies arc analogous in nature and cultursl significance to the stories, myths, rituals, and cere ‘monies in primitive sccielies that anthropologists have long studied. . Cutan pease Fils are also corresponding methodological similarities inthe anelysis ‘fconient, Which here means both what is depicted and how, the form of syalas well as the subjact matter. ‘Essentially, the study of fitm content is only a particular case of the ‘pore general anthropological examination of eultural material in search of themes — standard viewings of any particular aspects of life — and patteras of interconnection of such themos.? Some main principles of such examination have been stated simply by Benedict (1946: 6-11) and more fully explained by Weakland (1951) among others, while film analysis is discussed more specifically by Bateson (1945), Wolfenstein (19520) and Weakland (1966a, 19666). Films themselves are rich and complex. Any film involves a vast quantity of information, all of which is potentially significant, For stance, while film studies have primarily been concerned with exami- fing dialogue and depicted action, valuable information may also reside in music, sound effects and technical aspects of film: auch as camera usage. The thematic analysis of films, however, is not primarily a matter of correspondingly elaborate techniques. Rather, such analysis depends mainly upon two maiters easy to state, but not so easy 10 carry out consistently in practice: direct, comprehensive, unbiased observation of theraw data, and adherence toa few hasic orienting principles in making fad refiecting on such observation. The mechanics of antheopological film study are very simple and Ordinary — close examination of films themselves, extensive note taking, Feview of what has been observed and recorded, and repetition of the whole process. But there ate three difficulties involved. First, close and cateful observation of films is tedious work, and this fundamental work Cannot be delegated to assistants — unless they are as competent and Aedicated observers as their principal. _, Second, itis not easy to stick to what is actually observable, and give it the place it descrves. Again, the basic task in anthropological tlm SluGy isto discera and describe the film content, deferring questions of S2y Felationships of this to other aspects of culture til later. Since Alm Ontent, either specifies or basic patterns, cannot he known in advance (it were, there would de no point to the analysis), observable content = tskes a fondamental. One must surrender to the date, Ghd gue testve emphases and preconcsptions about whats important, Wit is, as much as possible. Since such preconceptions abound SDs whit Ae ‘hight , oi i sci comic pron yt be ei, Ba cree aa Serre sec ant min Saree ar cee a a over concerning both films and cultures, and observation is tedious, this is Gificult ‘Third, ifan observer is faced with abundant material end an injunction to avoid preconceptions as to what is significant, how does he focus and cotder his observation and recording at all? After setting down some re- cord of a film's souree, plot, characters, and the sequence of scenes 2s a start, then what? No final answer to this dificult question is possibte; hhonever, some general premises and principles sufficient to orient ob- servation of actual film materials ean be stated. The most basic premive i that any film (or group of films from single cultural source) will, ike & culture, constitute in some form and to a sigoiticant degree an ordered whole, will exhibit a pattern made up of recurrent thematic elements related in characteristi, recurrent ways This premise is based on the general scientific aim of building as orderly 4 view of the world as possible, ancl on successful past experience of Viewing films and cultures in this way, Correspondingly, the primary task of film analysis, both in sequenes and significance, is to discern such clomente and relationships (unknown in advance) in the material. Certain general guidelines Follow from the combination of this premise and the basic focus of interest of anthropological study, Since anthropology isthe study of man, observation of content may be Focused, atleast initially, on film material depiediag human behavior snd social interaction, espectally family relationships. Even this eriterion. however, may not he simple and obvious to apply; ultimately, all content ‘must bear on these matters in some way, and sue subjects may be treated symbolically o quite indirectly. [A second criterion is particularly veluable because it approackes the problem from a different and more formal angle that relates minimally to the observer and maximally to the material It is important to now ‘whatever aspects or elements of content the films themselves emphasize. even if these should initially appear trivial from the observer's stancpoin' Such emphasis may be obvi0us, asin some kind of dramatic prominence: or it may be obscure, as by the recurrent depiction of something not especially striking in itself, Once a beginning has besm med such emphases, it becomes equally useful to look for apparent contre dictions or excaptions to these, and for anything that eppears to be ie ‘nored or avoiged where it might be expected to appear. Special attention should be given to aay content that appears curious or hard to understand, particularly any apparent incengruence betwee words and actions. Suck attention to problematic aspects of content often leeds to special insights, while this orientation is also serving a & a discemnin: _ pesre Ps os Ctra Ds satuatie check on the danger of over-ready and facile “understanding” fwhet is observed. More gencrally, this danger can be controlled by ‘voiding hasty conclusions about content, and instead repeatedly re- fuming to otservation of the row material — the same film, or further fims from the same source — to re-check tentative conclusions against the data. ‘Although observations of content may usefully be mede at many levels, they ordinarily tend to begin with some minture of concrete details ‘and rather loose general charac‘eriantions, whether of scenes, character types, plots, or whatever. As study proceeds, while an interplay between specific observation and broader conceptuslization persists, refinement ‘ef both becomes possitte and necessary. Close observation is needed in forder to tell which details are recurrent and significant, and which are jnessential, A concern with general regularities helps toward perceiving ‘underlying, or even masked, formal similarities amid variations in speci- fe-content — to note, for instance, that heroines in mainland Chinese films commonly are isolated females, though specifically they may be ‘orphans, stepdaughters, or even real daughters whose parente are not in ‘meaningful contact with them. The basic idea here, then, as in other cultural studies, is to discern increasingly gencral and comprehensive patterns accurately. Although the significance of details depends on their relationship to such patterns, ‘the patterns can only he seen by fist perceiving and then interconnecting significant ¢etails; the inquiry is necessarily a circular one of successive approximation. The essential patterns cannot be foreseen, of seen by ‘overall inspection, but they do tend to become progressively more visible 5 the analyst (I) searches for regular, repetitive elements af content and (2) repetitive interrelations between these, especially formal ones, at increasingly general levels, and also (3) seeks to connect up with major inrties even apparent discrepancies o: contradictions —~ usually as Spetial cases, ciffering according to particular circumstances, within 4 Bote general units. Discerning such parters appears to be an operation forwhich the hun mind i stil better equipped tasn the computer! In additien to the raw material observed (a film or films, correspon+ Aifigto the actual behavior or cultural ertifaets observed in other anthro- ological studies. and the notes made on these, corresponding to the “ob- Hever at least external perceptions of the anthropologist), one othet ao cafe contents lnposaninfoumaion en the “nave” Hee fim content by merater of te culeure. This may be ebtsined by Aaa wiehing informants who have seen the ims; stadying film reviews ‘Sommentaries, and so on. AS 10 (ch information is not relied on 0 extensively as to limit first-hand observation, it ean be helpfulin siscoming significant éetails, emphases, and meanings of depicted beha- vyior act readily apparent to “outsiders”. More broadly it is important not to scant explicit views characteristic ofthe culture in question, while also avoiding confinement within these. Inquiry isto how film content is ‘viewed by members of the natural or intended audience also provices an initial basis for any Further study of the cultural influence and significance of films (ef. Keobs" paper, infra), Samples chosen for film study may vary widely. Films for study need not be great works of art. or even particularly good. proviged only that they dere not so badly formed and acted as to create undue vagueness, con- fusion, and contradiction. Very ordinary commercial films may usefully be examined, and may present advantages because of their relative sim- plicty of theme and presentation, or because they follow and represent the mainline of tm tradition closely (Marcus 1970), The choice of sample ‘epends, first ofall, on the analyst's interests and purposes; some aspects af observation will also vary correspondingly. Where a single film (or a Yery limited number) is chosen for study, as in Rateson’s analysis of Hitlerjmge Quex, the emphasis vill naturally fall more on intensive analysis of content and its structuring, and the film will need to be exa- rained many timesand in geeat detail, When a number of films from 2 common source (however this may be delined) are the object of study, each film is likely to be examined less sninutely, for prictical reasons of time and effort, and major emphass will be more on discerning themes and patterns comuon to all of th individual films observed (Anonymous 1944), One would look first for What is pervasive and fundamental; this is a necessary basis even if the analyst aims eventually to investigate more specific ¢ifferences. By and luge, the more varied the sample in terms of style and manifest content, the more dificult but more rewarding is this earvk for regularities, sollong as there issome commonality of source ‘One major variant ofthe study of @ group of itims involves selection of films made over a petiod of time, to investigate tends in themetic content, a exemplified in Keaeaucr’s (1947) conception, regardless of iis execution, This again should involve an initial concern to see what i corstant — that is, common throughout the series — as a basis against which o view diferenees, ‘As wus alteady suggested, the danger of substituting preconceptions for adequate observation isthe most likely source o exter in film content ‘analysis and characterization, Such inaccurate characterization may’ tak? ‘evo different forms. One involves pesitive misperception, “see:ns Lr posure Fis 2 Caltrd! Docemert ” fof content and relationships not supported by the dats, The ‘cher involves assigning too much scope or significance to accurate but finited observations, magnifying a part into the whole picture. it is jmportant to note that this error lies in the magnification, not in the fact that the perception was partial, All analyses must ineseapably be partial, though some may be more comprehensive than others. For this reason, as well as the fact that observational viewpoints may differ for justifiable reasons, analyses of the same material may produce different yet not ‘contradictory results — valid partial views — just as may occur in field ‘studies of cultures ‘Attention has so far been concentrated on thematic study of fim con- tent in itself: Just as myths and ceremonies may be studied separately from their social sources and functions, such film content study is valid ‘and useful, in at least three ways, Film analysis offers a readily available, interesting. and rewarding exercise in anthropological observation and concepiualization. Its application can “substitute for ... inarticulate Impressions” of the style or atmosphere characteristic of a film or films, a structured account of what has happened to produce them” (Wolfen stein 19532), And content study is basic to any further cultural study of films. Equally, however, a basis is only a beginning. Content analysis i ordinarily sezn as mainly a means toward relating films to other aspects of culture; this involves other opportunities and problems, which must now besurveyed USES AND PROSPECTS OF ANALYSIS As the review ofexisting studies presented earlier suggests, anthropologicts hhave been interested in film analysis largely as a means toward broader cultural study, rather than in film content itself. Yet such sesearch is ‘ote dificult to describe and discuss, It inhcrently involves a wider and More complen field, so that what has been done represents a smaller fon of the possible Work, and its resulis are often more a matter Of tentative insights and suggestive leads than of definite findings. But {tisonly means that more careful study needs to be done, while wat has beEa done serves in outlining goneral directions and posibitities, As Bateson noted (1945). the film Mitleriumge Quex was connested With Nazism in three ways: it was made by Nazis, it aimed to make Nazis (as a propaganda fim), and it depicted Nazis. Putting this more Seuerally, one can study how films are related to their makers, to their Wes, and to their depicted subject matter — which may be similar, ASwith that film, or quite different. Ad tome H wRA Ne The situation is simplest when the filmmakers, viewers, and subject ratter are all similar. This is also the most common case, at least if “ similar” is interpreted reasonably broadly. That i, at least provisionally ‘we may view both Hollywood filmmakers and their audiences as mem- bets of a common American culture even though their particular social positions within this differ, and corsider the films they make and view as somehow, though protably not realistically, reflecting American life — just as shamans and story-tellers may be specialists, and myths are not descriptions of daly life. Correspondingly, a very common focus of film study, in both anthro- pological and general critical writings, is on relating observations on files and observations on their surrounding culture. Such anthropological ork commonly proceeds primarily from films toward culture — that i filrn observations are used to clarify and organize observations on the calture more than the reverse, though some interplay ordinarily and use- fully occurs, Further, for both areas the thrust is toward discerning general underlying themes and their patterned interrelations. As one accompaniment of this basic focus on form and organization, fm patterns ind cultural patterns usually are seen largely in terms of paral- lels and congruences, cather than inferring cause-and-effect relationships There are several basic reasons why fictional films should be especilly usefol in the study of general patterns of culture. In the frst place, they are useful precisely because they ate not factual. Instead. they tell story: that is, they present an interpretation of some segment of life by selec- tioa, structuring and ordering images of beluvior. We might aot want to accept totaly the view of Mao Tse-tung, (1950) that “the creative forms Of literature and art supersede nature in that they are more systematic more concise, more typical, and therefore more universal.” Yet we may recognize that even real life iavelves the eonceptualization, organization, and punctuation of experience, and compared 10. daily life a fictional work represents a more highly ordered and defined unity, whose premises and patterns ean be more readily studied. For the case of large, complex, modern societies, where fieldwork could cover an extremely limited fraction of actual behavior, some such Simplification appears an essential starting point. And films especially while more limited and manageable for study — particularly repeated study — than daily life ate still rich and retevant, with several advantages over other fictional materials such as novels. 1. Films ars especially likely to projest important cultural views Although fims-can now be made by one individaal, ordinarily they art uup products, involving the co-operative work of many members of 2 San pan Pins» Cor Docamere ‘i [Also since Ble are. mass medium of communication cimed for aide gooular audience, they are likely to present, elatively simply te bascand general themes rather than special or esoteric ors Pat the seme time films are both rich and varied, Each film offers a deal of matsral for observation, and films aa group deal with @ sarily of subjects, so itis possible to examine how genera themes gad specie social situations ae interrelated, Furthermore. filmmaking, fie if, involves continuation of deliberate design or control and w= elements — both as rovultants of group interaction and because fhe makers cannot possibly control the reflection in fms of cultural ainndes and premises operating below the level of awareness 4. Only films provide verbal and visual material jointy. This gives on ‘opportunity to compare what the players say they are doing with what the observer seer them doing, which may eithsr clarify both or prevent revealing inconsistencies ‘As mentioned carlcr. x number of studies of this general type have been done: General cultural themes and patterns have been sougt by analyzing flms of Nazi Germany, Japan, India, France, England, the United States, and China, but the surface has only heen scentched. Alt of these stucies have teen rather modest ones and there are films from many other cultural sources that have nox heen sted ata ‘There are also several readily visible and potentially useful variants this approach which have hardly been touched. Compurative study of films from different cultures could be applied to clarify cultural similari- ties and differences; the field is wide, but so far only approached in the Work of Wolfenstein and Leits (1950) and Weakland (1972), Changes in fim content could be used in studies of culture change; this iden is sapien Kracauer (1947) and implicit in some of Weakland’s work on Chinese lms, but it has not yet been adequately tried out, Rather Closely related, fm studies could be used in the study of eulture contact ‘tnd adsptation: this has been proposed for Hong Kong (Weakland. 19M) but not put to practice. Over this whale spectrum, then, more Work is needed, to fll in obvious gaps while helping test and refine this SPPIoach to the study of culture. To repeat, this kind of general study of cultural patrms using film Miterials is based on the assumption of a fardamental similarity of mnakers, viewers, and suhjects, Most of the critical questions about ftth study — and even more, most ertvel eitacks on Aims — relate 10 2 this view, oraseerting its epposit, {$iiteal attacks on films, to take the mort spscifis matter fist, oF nacily rest on viewing the actual or potential audience of films (or television)as distinctand diferent from the makers, orfom the content, or from the twe in combination. That is, filmmakers may be labeled es propagandists influencing the unwary or powerless, or as commerical producers of whatever can be foisted on the publis. The contert thus ‘pushed may be sean either as too fanciful af too realistic. bat im both instances diferent either froma how the audience lives, or how they should live, It is very dificult to discuss these views specifically. They rest on assumptions which are seldom examined, let alone empirically tested (which would be difficult). Instead, conclusions are drawn from them, for narrow research — e.g, on television influence — is done within them, and wit a limived concept and study of the content involved. Ik seems mors useful and pertinent hers to point out that these concerns do relats to broader problems about film content analysis and its sig- nificance, The matter of adequate conception and analysis of content itself has already been discussed. The question of the relation of film patterns to patterns of actual behavior is also significant, but far more complex even in principle than usually noted, For instance, Wolfenstein's discussion (19834) of Retion and character suggests that impulsive beha vior may be usual both én (ction and actuality, or in neither, oF shown in one and resteained in the other, and that this relationship itself may be culturally standardized. In view of this,it makes litle sense eithertheoret 1 o€ practically to make general eyahuations of fictional films on the basis of their realism, Once more, empirical investigation, ‘broadly cnougts conceived, would be more help Similarly, there is no general answer 1 the question of whether films reflect exlture, or shape it, While both may be expected in all cases, only detailed studies — yet to be designed — will east any mote specific ight. and the answer will vary from case to case Finally, probably the most general problems in fila, analysis and its use in cultural study concerns the breadth of applicability of finding When film patterns are discerned, and appear to indicate the existence of similar patterns in the eullure more widely — then how much more ‘widely? The question is highly significant but once more there is 20 fixed answer. Beyond observing that this general problem, like the other= {ust mentioned, is common throughout anthropology, ane ean only 593 that the more comprehensive, and the more overtly varied, the materia! in which the pattern appears — films, interviews with # variety of is- formants, books, observed behavior — the more selianze ean be placed nit: yor the problem should allways be rermembered, _ poster Fs as Celtarel Docaen ay CONCLUSION ris curious that more anthropological filmi study has no! been dene. and thavessisbeing done than formerly, One can oaly speculate why this is so. ‘Such study involves much time and effort. and this 1s equally true of other Jatropological Work. On the other hand, people who have not had personal Jing, as fur eather than ferious work, and accordingly make light of it. And even anthropology is Subject co changes of fashion in professional interest, Profuhly Tite ean be Gone about such matters. There is one possible factor. however. concerning it be help to film study developed in relation to contents of international comic there may he tendencies to equate the nwo concems — and not only. kus fnternationsl conflict decreased since the days of World War Il amd the Cold War, but the study of orher peoples has come 10 be reearded ss Iikely to be exploitative. Perhaps it should therefore be pointed out that ‘cultural understanding is as prota i enepperition us in gone amd this spproach via film analysis can be used equally well roward understanding the cultural patterns of friends, or even of our own societies. experience of it often equate lim stucly with movi 1. Since so miuch of this approach POSTSCRIPT, 1964 Tithe twenty years chat have paved since this paper was writen and Published in the Felevision courerpans has certainly not diminished and may even have expanded. There continues 19 he much written uibout flrs an filmenak fing, covering » wide range from popular stories und reviews in newspapers and magszines to serious historical or an Gf particular genses of film, or of particular films deemed to be of special ‘ommercial or arististic importance, A specialized journal. the Joumal of Popider Film ond television, is published at Bowling Green State Uni- Nem in Ohio. Bur without caception, even when such writ flim content, their aim is at most to evaluate the product, anstically or Aecliticaly, and their focus is on a specific tlm or at most 4 limited erowp Flas of some selected type This is = quite different aim trom th Hels — the analysis of wide eu nt Falition, overall interest in feature films and their ialytical accinunty of the industry study of films as cultural prod: ‘of fietional films feom one chosen Salted Source — 19 discover explicit or implicit themes and pattems ‘ofimen to the group. and presumably representative of the soc OF Which they have arisen St OH IL WEAKEN In considering a possible revision of my paper waitien in 1973. since | have aot heer actively doing film analysis for some years — though T re- ‘nia interested in sich work — Thegan by enquiring ahour possible recent cultural study of fins fiom infor sources. This included sm examina. sion of the Directory of Visteal Antimpologr. published by the Society for Visual Anthropology (Blakely and Blakely 1989), and of the repons of this society in various recent issues of the Arvfrupolagy Nensleiter The individuals concaked by phone or nail were Richard Chalfen, then President of the Suciely for Visual Anthropology: Karl Heider. author of Ldhnographic Vitor lan Jarviv of York University. Ontario, the author of Movies cand Society. a person with whos 1 had discussed Asian fii staies when T was aetive in the fields aad! filly HL. Coron: L Michigan University. who has done work on American ethnic eines snd whom | became awvare af through her article “Anthropological Lenses” im the Auclapology Newsteceer af December, 1990. 1 tharsk all four of dhose individuals for their assistance but, unforta hitely, their responses (as well as my extmnination of the SVA Directors ancl slutiropology Newsletter reparts) all broadly contirmed my own initial impression: there has ia fact been very litle cultural study of films since the weting of my original chapter in this book, A few exceptions to this 1 be fnund, Professor Heider has done suns work on wl piewwe were Indonesisn Hetional fms and is published several short articles on the subject. There ure some relevant observations in the film comments ty the psychiatist Frank M. Phumas UF that appear regularly in The Family Therapy Networker and the Newsfetey of the American Family Therapy Association, (This is not sich an unlikely: some as # might Seem: fren my own work in family therapy, [ can report thal viewing. film and ob- serving a faunily therapy se similarities.) ‘The basic point remains, however: cultural study of feutu 8 eld rar has Jain fallow tor many years now — so mnch so that has seemed poiatless. w search thiowgh mouniains of largely irrelevant film literature for a possible few exceptions. Ruther, my original chapter is presented sain here in the hope — shared by myself and my consulees — ‘that it may stimulate some renewed interest anxt activity in an urea that we Delieve suill holds much promise, jon though a one-way mio have signiticant fits is = ceva Pisa Ctrl Doman “ REFERENCES oul Jepanese firs: a phase of psychological warfere, Washington: Office ‘of Stratezic Services (Research and Analysis Branch), csE20%, GREGORY erode Cultural and thematic analysis of ctional films. Transactions of the ‘New York Academy of Sciences (series 2) 5:72-T8. 1p43b “An analysis of the film Hirleriewge Quex (1933)." Mintcograpked ‘manuscript. New York: Institute for Intercultural Studies, and Museum fof Modem Art Film Libra 1953. “An analysis of the Nazi fim sttlerjange Quex," in The study of eu ture at a distonce. Edited by M. Mead and R. Métraux, 302-314, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. se10, ANE 1953 “The father figure in Pantque," in The study of culture ara distance. Eited by M, Mead and R. Métrauc, 289-290. Chicago: University of Chicago Press seeDicr, ROTH 1946. The chrysanthemum ard the sword. Boston: Houghton Mitta MARIAY, THOMAS. EOSELA 6B BLAKELY 1959. Directory of Visual Arshrapoloes, Washington Soeiety tee Veual Ano polegy rownino, xenNeTH 1956 The image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. FRIKSON, BUC 1 1950 “The legend of Maxim Gerky's youth” [a study of the Soviet fm The childhood cf Maxim Gorky), in Childhood and soclety, 316-358. ‘New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ine ‘ones, cxorrney 1953 “Notes on La Rete ot la Béte." in The sid Edited by M. Mead and R. Métrsus, 290 of Chicago Press HALEY, say 1952 The appeal of the moving picture. Quarterly of Film, Radio and Tales vision 6:361-374 41955 “Divid and Buthsheba." Unpublished masters thet, Stanford MANS, 34 Ma VAN DOORSLAER 1955 Some themes from Indian film reviews. Studies i Pakistan National Culture, 2 Institute for Research in Soci Science, University of North Carolina; Eastern Anthropologist 10 (1957):87-96. daw, c. 1910 Movies and society. New Yor: Basie Books. 20885, donor». 4942 Quantiialive enalys’s of motion picture: content. Public Opinion Quarterly 6411-28, » of eultare at aulierance 1. Chicago: University 66 JOHN HWE JOWETT, GARTH 1970" The conception of history in Amarican-produced films: an analysis of the films made in the petiod 1950-1901, Journal ef Popuiar Culture 3:799-813, KRACAUER, § 1912 Propaganda and the Nazi war fim. New York: Museum of Moder ‘Art Film Library. 1947 From Coligari to Hitler: « psychological history af the German film Princeton: Princeton University Press 1950 Problems of are aud dteranwe, New York: Internetional Publishers, 1970 Moviegoing and American culture, Journal of Popular Culture 3:755- 166. 1953 “Plot summary [or the Soviet film The Young Guard),” in The study of culture at # distance. Edited by M. Mead and R, Métraisn, 296-29". Chicago: University of Chicago Press ss, ayn. ETHAN, eltors 1953 The studv of culture ar a distance. Chicago: University of Chicago Prees MEADOW, ARNOLD 1944 “An analysis of Japanete character structure: based on Japanese file> plocs and chematic appereeption tests." Mimeographed manuserin Institute for Intercultural Studies, New York 1953 Five illustrations of film analysis. Introduction," in The end of en sure at a distance. Edited by M. Mead and R. Méttaun, 281-282 Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1968 “Good” and “bad” sirlsin modern Greek movies. Journal of Marriase ‘aad Family 30:527-531, SCHWARTZ, VERA 1953. "Comparison of the Gland novel fof The Young Guard)" in The sualy of culture at w distance. Edited by M. Mead snd R. Métraun, 297-302 Chicago: University of Chicago Pres. WEAKLAND, J. 1951 Method in cultural anthropology. Philosophy of Science 18:88-58, 1953. “An analysis of seven Cantonese films,” in The stacy of culture at 2 distance, Edited by M, Mead and R.” Métraux, 292-295, Chicago: niversity of Chicago Pres. 19663 Thersez in Chinese communist films. American Anthropologist 68 T7484, 1966 Chinere political end cultural themes: a study of Chinese communist {firs Ching Lake, U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS, TP 4028, “Aumst, 1966). 19714 Chinese film images of ievasion and resistance. China Quarterly 27: 439-470. aw. Fae is ws Cr! Dicey é jg7ib Reci and real life in Hong Kens: film stadies of cultural adapiatien. Journal of Asian and African Stedies (Leiden) 6:238-283, 1972 Conflicts between love and family relationships in Chinese films, sournal of Popttar Film {:290-298. oLeESSTEIN, MARTHA 19532 “Movie analysis in the study of culture,” in The study of eutureat @

    You might also like