In Representation and Authority in Ethnographic Film/Video: Production, Titon presents the paradox of translation to the reader. "How can an ethnographer make the strange familiar, yet keep it strange?" The ethnographer, Titon argues, assumes the authority to represent people, and there are inevitable consequences of translated language and point of view. He then moves on to video, and discusses how film and video present a different arena of ethnographic authority. Although far more 'realistic' than text could ever be, Titon argues that the filmmaker assumes quite a bit of authority, unbeknownst to the viewer. Narrating (which is basically text), compressing time, and cutting from scene to scene are all authoritative tools used by the filmmaker. Titon concludes that film and video create larger issues with representation and authority than text. Leaving little to the viewer's imagination, a film captures more than just the words of a person.
Apart from viewing the camera crew and documentary setup on film, how else could Titon have shown the viewer that there was a large camera setup present in the church, which may or may not have affected the subjects of the documentary?
Though the presentation of professors in front of book shelves, speaking about a subject seems cliche, does Titon mean to say that no person should be presented as an authority on a subject? Or does he believe that this 'naked and obvious' display of authority should be avoided for aesthetic purposes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment