|
Ethnocinema, from Jean Rouch’s ''cine-ethnography'' and ''ethno-fictions'',〔Rouch, Jean. 2003. ''Cine-Ethnography''. Translated and edited by Steven Feld. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.〕 is an emerging practice of intercultural filmmaking being defined and extended by Melbourne, Australia-based writer and arts educator, Anne Harris, and others. Originally derived from the discipline of anthropology, ethnocinema is one form of ethnographic filmmaking that prioritises mutuality, collaboration and social change.〔Harris, Anne. “Race and Refugeity: Ethnocinema as Radical Pedagogy” in ''Qualitative Inquiry'' (ERA=B) Nov 1, 2010:16, pp. 768-777. http://qix.sagepub.com/content/16/9/768.short〕 The practice's ethos claims that the role of anthropologists, and other cultural, media and educational researchers, must adapt to changing communities, transnational identities and new notions of representation for the 21st century. Ethno-cinematographers have also been associated with American historian James Clifford who has asserted that “all ethnographic representations are partial truths”.〔Clifford, James and George E. Marcus, (eds). 1986. ''Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography''. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press., pg 7.〕 Collaborative ethnographic film and video projects are created with the intention of going beyond "preserving", "empowering" or "giving voice" to marginalised cultures, ethnicities, communities or individuals.〔Harris, Anne. “‘You Could Do With A Little More Gucci’: Ethnographic Documentary Talks Back” in ''Creative Approaches to Research'', Vol 2:1, July 2009. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing〕 According to theorists, such voices already have agency and share community or agendas with ethnocinematic filmmakers. Ethnocinematic films primarily document "relationships"〔Harris, Anne and Nyuon, Nyadol: “Working It Both Ways: Intercultural Collaboration and the Performativity of Identity” ''The Australasian Review of African Studies'', Vol 31:1, June 2010. Pp 62-81. http://www.afsaap.org.au/ARAS/ARAS.htm〕 between filmmakers from different cultures, or subcultures, who now share common space of a political, philosophical, geographical or virtual nature. Ethno-cinematographers include Jean Rouch, Trinh T. Minh-ha,〔Minh-Ha, Trinh T, (ed) ''The Digital Film Event'', Routledge, New York, 2005〕 Harald Prins,〔Prins. 2004. "Visual Anthropology". in ''A Companion to the Anthropology of American Indians'', edited by T. Bilosi. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 506-525.〕 David and Judith MacDougall,〔MacDougall, David, ''Transcultural Cinema'', Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998.〕 Faye Ginsburg, Timothy Asch and, indigenous filmmakers such as Australian Essie Coffey who collaborating interculturally to create ethnocinematic works. == History == Tobing Rony identifies three modalities in early ethnographic representation〔Tobing Rony, Fatimah. 1996. ''The Third Eye: Race, Cinema and Ethnographic Spectacle''. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pg 195.〕 including “ethnographic inscription” (Regnault), “taxidermic mode” (Flaherty’s ''Nanook''), and “self-reflexive” (Rouch’s films of the 1950s). Of these, Rouch’s films are closest to being the forerunners of contemporary ethnocinema. Many film theorists and ethnohistorians have helped to define an evolving ethnographic film in the late 20th century, among them American Bill Nichols.〔Nichols, Bill. 1994. ''Blurred Boundaries: questions of meaning in contemporary culture''. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.〕 Ethnocinema is typical of a shift toward destabilizing traditional notions of representation, both in the West/North and in cultures and communities which had historically been the subjects of such films, and in which indigenous and diasporic peoples are taking control of their own representations, or working (as in ethnocinema) in intercultural collaboration. In addition to Rouch, this includes the work of such ethnographers and intercultural filmmakers as Trinh T. Minh-ha,〔Minh-Ha, Trinh T, (ed) ''The Digital Film Event'', Routledge, New York, 2005〕 Harald Prins,〔Prins. 2004. "Visual Anthropology". in ''A Companion to the Anthropology of American Indians'', edited by T. Bilosi. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 506-525.〕 David and Judith MacDougall,〔MacDougall, David, ''Transcultural Cinema'', Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998.〕 Faye Ginsburg, Timothy Asch and others. More recently, indigenous filmmakers such as Essie Coffey (Australia) are collaborating interculturally to create ethnocinematic works. Working against the observational cinema tradition, these filmmakers are all acknowledging and deconstructing Minh-ha’s observation that “Everywhere we go, we become someone’s private zoo”,〔Minh-ha, T. (1996) "Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism". in ''Feminist literary theory: a reader''. (ed.) Eagleton, Mary. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pg 394.〕 and theorists like Harris continue to draw on her work.〔Harris, Anne. “Someone’s Private Zoo: Ethnocinema and the Other” ''Qualitative Research Journal'', Vol 11(1), 2011.〕 Other examples of early attempts to define ethnocinema include the 1972 "ethnocinematic experiment" of Sol Worth and John Adair documented in "American Indians and the ethnocinematic complex: From native participation to production control",〔Prins, Harald E.L. 1989. "American Indians and the Ethnocinematic Complex: From Native Participation to Production Control". in ''Eyes Across the Water'', edited by R. M. Boonzajer Flaes. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Pp 80-90.〕 in which seven co-participants of Navajo heritage were given video cameras and asked to make films which were ‘Indian’; these films, however, were framed by essentialising notions of Other and did not seek to go beyond the researcher/researched dichotomy. Tobing Rony (1996) and Sam Pack (2000) consider developments in Indigenous media in relation to the anthropological notion of “native authenticity”〔Pack, Sam. 2000. "Indigenous media then and now: Situating the Navajo film project". ''Quarterly Review of Film and Video'' 17 (3): 273-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509200009361497. (Retrieved on: 15 August 2009), pg 274.〕 and why such essentialising notions are increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century’s ethnocinematic context. Yet the ability to truly collaborate in ethnographic research remains a contentious notion in anthropological and other circles, as ethnographic documentary scholar Jay Ruby asserts; what he calls ''Ethnographic Cinema'' must, he claims “be the work of academically educated and academically employed socio-cultural anthropologists”.〔Ruby, J. ''Ethnographic Cinema (EC) - A Manifesto / A Provocation'' (n.d.) http://astro.ocis.temple.edu/~ruby/manifesto.html. (Retrieved on: 17 May 2009), para. 3.〕 By Ruby’s reckoning, what is emerging as ethnocinema has almost nothing to do with ethnographic films. By this definition, even Jean Rouch doesn’t qualify. Conversely, Rouch encouraged the potential of ethnographic film as a “celebration of a relationship” between filmmaker and imaged, in which the “rapport and participation”〔Rouch 2003, pg 12.〕 between both parties enhances any end-product that is collectively achieved. Loizos’s claim (like Ruby’s) that contemporary filmmakers blur the lines between "authentic" ethnography and general documentary seems increasingly out of place. Traditional ethnographic filmmaking as a tool of anthropological researchers seeking to bring the stories of “distant peoples to audiences in North America and Europe”〔Heider, Karl G. 2006. ''Ethnographic Film''. Austin: University of Texas Press, pg 15.〕 is increasingly outmoded in a culture of YouTube and social networking sites screaming for video content. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ethnocinema」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|