In Cannibal tours, the making of; I believe that his goal was to validate his endeavor in creating works like Cannibal tours through reassurance by names that he holds in esteem for their acclaim of his work. Then in the same breadth build a Dialogue with the reader regarding how and why the film came to pass while minimizing the naysayers. Confusion can be read in the fact that on page 3 discussing reinventing of documentary film as non-fiction entertainment films and then on page 8 saying that they are not documentary because they do not try to falsely state anything….On page 3 he calls his work artifice. Contradictory. The usage and symbolism of the words used in his article seem to be misinterpreted leaving any possible true guiding message ignored.
It is understandable that the creation of a piece is to be true to the events that unfold and that he does not know what is to happen till it is finished, and still the pieces of work he creates are to him separate from who he is because it was a journey of who he was. This is a fact that many can agree on feeling while creating work. I know I have felt this effect on shooting documentaries or doing research for shorts. Invariably though trying to compare himself to one of the “most respected” visual anthropologists of the 20th century I think is more then he should have bitten off. Where she was not right constantly in her works, she still tried to maintain a non-biased perspective of visual interpretations.
His work could be taken as a celebration of human spirit and ability. But the work this is regarding seemed heavily handed visually and verbally in painting the tourists as the cannibals. The people of New Guinea are shown as stressed and angry over the bidding wars shown, but in his article O’Rourke comments on how it is a game set up between the villagers and the tour group leaders to reincorporate the films of the 1940’s. Which is the truism? His statement of being part of the tour leads me to wonder why he did not incorporated himself into the piece since he viewed himself as one of the tourists.
Colonialism, Racism, Representation. I gotta get this out of the way now. The man flung around the word modernity like it was the word of the day. Please get off the soapbox and realize that Birth of a Nation was not about Native Americans, but rather the rightful rule of caucasians over slaved African descendents and how Lincoln was “wrong”. It is true that for a time a cultural belief was felt through interpretations of what movies show us. It still holds true today for some. But unlike what O’Rourke says, the place and usage of this as a tool has grown and adapted to hold truth to light where possible. It is no longer about the Director being the hero, or black stereotype to appease cultural need. It is about using tools to communicate to people of interest scoped to taste. Stereotypically speaking, guys watch action; woman watch dramas. This is the part that I do agree with is awry with how the international film system is set in labeling movies for guys who like movies and heart warming for the whole family generalization. Most cases are going to be based on location and social economical situations that very still in our cultural climate from region to region. For example the movie Milk was a hit in California rightly so, and limited theatrical release in fear most likely to populous response. I agree though that the situations revolving around “sensitive” topics are a ticking issue, but if work is being done respectfully of sides of the truth there should be less of a chance of biased reaction. So in turn I agree that we are far from powerless in influencing the cultural dichotomy of film and culture. Film is a representation of what is popular in culture at the time. Yes, a large amount of works created in the past are irreversibly wrong and hold effects that will outlast most of our lifetimes, however we do have to respect these types of works from a strictly anthropological study point as they are interpretations of how our story telling has matured working towards equality and non-biased representation. Form wise I think this article leaves one wondering what they are arguing for or against due to the fact that I know that I have not seen all of these films. Should I? Not by any means per this article because of there undo influence in harming the growth of our culture. So it leaves me thinking that formally explaining bits and pieces of these films that work towards the theory of this article may be misleading in themselves. Its layout was good in setting up arguments for itself. So that was a plus in trying to grasp the sections and meanings through out the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment