{"id":3189,"date":"2017-08-08T18:04:49","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T18:04:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/der.org\/community\/?p=3189"},"modified":"2018-04-20T16:06:11","modified_gmt":"2018-04-20T16:06:11","slug":"faces-of-change-retrospective-for-a-new-digital-chapter-part-2-the-rise-of-the-filmmaker-anthropologist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.der.org\/faces-of-change-retrospective-for-a-new-digital-chapter-part-2-the-rise-of-the-filmmaker-anthropologist\/","title":{"rendered":"Faces of Change: Retrospective, part 2 – The Rise of the Filmmaker-Anthropologist"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Faces

This post is part of a summer blog series on Faces of Change<\/a>, one of the most important ethnographic and educational film collections of the previous century. Digitally remastered by DER in 2017, the collection is one of the earliest attempts to provide a creative documentation of a changing world through the use of then pioneering approaches of observational cinema. <\/p>\n

For an introduction to the series, read part 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

One of the important features of the films from the Faces of Change<\/em> collection is that they were all made through a collaborative effort from filmmakers and scholars, who were brought together through producer Norman Miller in an attempt to make films that would serve as \u201cvisual evidence\u201d of the cultures that were examined in the series. In this regard, together with the Harvard Peabody New Guinea Expedition<\/a>, the Netsilik Series<\/a>, and the Yanomamo Series<\/a>, Faces of Change<\/em> is one of the early serious and large-scale projects to serve as a platform for filmmakers and anthropologists to work together in producing works that bear the authorial marks of, and reveal a tension between, both sides. Yet, as I wish to argue in this piece, Faces of Change<\/em> could as well be viewed as one of the projects that, seen in retrospective, has served as a catalyst for the rise of the filmmaker-anthropologist (or anthropologist-filmmaker?). We will consider\u00a0this by looking, if only briefly, at the careers and films of three of the filmmakers that were involved with the Faces of Change<\/em>, Herb DiGioia and David Hancock (who worked together in all of their films) and David MacDougall, and how this project influenced their later work.<\/p>\n

After an unsuccessful attempt to work with the NFB (a two-day conference was held in Montreal to discuss collaboration possibilities between AUFS and NFB), Norman Miller turned to Colin Young, who had founded the Ethnographic Film Program at UCLA in the 1960s (see MacDougall 2001<\/a> for a longer piece on Young\u2019s efforts to bring students of cinema and anthropology together) for assistance with recruiting filmmakers who would be capable and prepared for\u00a0working with scholars in sensitive geographical areas and in new cultural settings. Among those who Young recommended were his former students Herb DiGioia and David Hancock, as well as David MacDougall. They\u00a0would later become the principal filmmakers\u00a0for several films in the Kenya<\/a> and Afghanistan<\/a> series, including two of the most celebrated pieces of the collection: Kenya Boran<\/a> and Naim and Jabar<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Colin Young is an influential figure in the development of observational cinema. In his early days at UCLA, he was one of the major proponents of new forms of collaboration between filmmakers and anthropologists. Yet, interestingly enough, he was also among the first to notice the difficulties that this undertaking brought to the fore, as both anthropologists and filmmakers were quick to realize that their ideas about how a film should be made or what it should look like were, more often than not, almost contradictory. In a seminal essay from 1975, (see Hockings 1995<\/a>), Young acknowledges that \u201cuntil anthropologists are their own filmmakers\u2026they must help a filmmaker choose his subject.\u201d In his struggle to find new ways for the development of observational cinema, he continually made calls for filmmakers to think more anthropologically and for anthropologists to learn the \u201clanguage\u201d of cinema. DiGioia, Hancock, and\u00a0MacDougall were\u00a0among the first to respond to these calls.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

DiGioia+Hancock<\/b><\/p>\n

The participation of these three filmmakers (note that DiGioia and Hancock always worked in\u00a0a tandem, until Hancock\u2019s passing, when DiGioia turned to teaching) in the Faces of Change<\/em>, and the films that they made as part of the project, had a great impact for their later careers. For Digioia and Hancock, participating in the Faces of Change<\/em>\u00a0project was the first (and last) time they worked in a community that was not their own. Most of their films have been made in DiGioia\u2019s native Vermont community, where they worked with, and filmed, people they knew well as they went about\u00a0their mundane activities (for a longer discussion of DiGioia\u2019s and Hancock\u2019s careers and films, see Grimshaw 2009<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Their experience filming in an unfamiliar environment and community (Aq Kupruk of Afghanistan) was one that had a significant impact in the development of their career and their filmmaking style. On one hand, it confirmed the difficulties of filmmakers and anthropologists to work together, as DiGoia recalls in a conversation with Anna Grimshaw (see Grimshaw 2006<\/a>): \u201cIt was not easy working with an anthropologist\u2026he had conventional ideas about documentaries, narrated films and all of that\u2026\u201d It also made them aware of the struggle to work and build relationships with people in an unknown community: \u201cI think that what we both learned very well is that neither of us wanted to make films in other cultures again\u2026We loved being with the boys [Naim and Jabar] but we felt bad that we just grabbed the film and left.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

On the other hand, spending time in Aq Kupruk helped them to hone a particular style of filming that accompanied them in their later films back in Vermont. When we look at Naim and Jabar<\/em> today, we can quickly realize the importance of the encounter that DiGioia and Hancock had with the main subjects\u00a0after whom the film is named. By focusing on these two boys, they learned that observing and following particular individuals, rather than actions, was an interesting way to build a more structured visual narrative which did not require the use of tools such as commentary to assist in the film\u2019s editing and storyline. With Naim and Jabar<\/em>, partly because they did not understand the language, they learned to be patient and wait for the subjects to guide them and their camera, rather than the other way around (see excerpt\u00a0below as an example). It was this experience that served DiGioia and Hancock to further strengthen a unique style of observing and following particular subjects as they went on\u00a0with their daily lives. This can be clearly seen in the works that they later produced back in Vermont, such as Peter Murray<\/em> and Peter and Jane Flint<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Excerpt 1\u00a0\u2013 Naim and Jabar<\/em><\/h3>\n