In the 1980s writer and film critic Bill Nichols made the provocative claim – that forms of documentary film are comparable to pornography. One of unequal power relations – as the filmmaker remains in the dominant position, a voyeur, deciding what is shown of the subjects. However, no longer should it be considered acceptable to present an ethnographic or documentary film as an absolute truth, or one way stream –positioning and opinion should be raised.
For Nichols, the representation of the other is concerned with knowledge and pleasure, these are for him important aspects of both type of film. Also, he suggests that alliance between science and ethnographic film suggests that the problematic matter of representing the Other in works of fiction will be overcome. He posits that the parallels between ethnography and pornography challenge the claim the alliance suggests. (Bill Nichols, 1991, p. 201). Hence the problem of the Other cannot be dissolved within scientific discourse. Highlighting one of Nichols “four structural qualities” convention, we can acknowledge that pornography and the liberation of sexual expression per say assimilates and engenders the other and represents it within a particular framework, a framework which is subject to power, the dominating discourse and technology, within this set of variables excess in contained “total strangeness held in check‟ (Bill Nichols, 1991, p. 223)
To consider the point of – the alliance between ethnography and science – further, empirical evidence and the problematic truth of visual representations conveying reality by the medium of film must be explored further. When we consider the idea of ethnographic intention it appear that it is most clearly seen when the desire to encode “reality; directly upon the film strip‟(Banks, 1992, p. 119).
Pornography depends heavily on claims to give us “truthful‟ represent tation of sexual performance (Bill Nichols, 1991, p. 201). With regard to pornography this is discussed by Williams, she suggests that hardcore pornography is reluctant to engage with other less clinical-documentary such as realism or artistry (Williams, 1989). It remains faithful to the scientific nature of visual knowledge. However ethnographic film has undergone many transformations since its emergence it is still concerned with scientific discourse, which includes anthropological methodologies including reflexivity.
If the will to know the Other, be that cultural knowledge or sexual knowledge is a matter of scientific discourse as Nichols’ posits, then it could be suggested that “Western‟ epistemological notions about truth are more-often-than- not bedfellows with visual evidence. That is, to see is to believe. The processes and technologies of film making necessarily emerge from and converse with this epistemology and it remains fundamental to filmic discourse. So what can be said about the visual evidence of an event? As an example of the parallels between The Act of Killing and pornography – and engaging with Nichols’ observation regarding the “cum shot” (Bill Nichols, 1991, p. 217) – it could be suggested that bodily fluids are just one of the evidentiary features of truth value in film.
There is one particular moment which lends itself to a discussion of bodily substances. Pornography requires to see the male orgasm, as Nichols points out “Pornography and ethnography depend on the assurance that what the spectator sees really happened” (Bill Nichols, 1991, p. 216), if the images of penile ejaculation are as he says “like proofs of witchcraft and divinity, this outward and manifest sigh offers visible proof on an outward and subjective state” (Bill Nichols, 1991, p. 217)
How it be compared?
Gender: Close up images of the body are central in ethnographic documentaries, as filmmakers have often honed in on nudist scenes. It is this that Nichols argues is comparable to pornography – images centred on the body of the ‘Other’. The ‘Other’ is a figure described in the social sciences and political spheres as somebody deemed different from the ‘norm’. According to Nichols, ethnographic and pornographic films alike represent bodies in their most sexualised form, as heterosexual gender roles are enhanced.
People are often symbolised on film through their body or gender alone, providing a representation that has little or nothing to do with their beliefs or opinions. Surely this can be highly problematic when a mass audience only sees a fraction of a representation, and at that one imbued with sexuality.
Pleasing the Audience: This representation, Nichols argues, is one designed to please the audience. He draws on the link between knowledge and pleasure as one that is prominent in both industries, and therefore another reason for the comparison.
Although arguably, the ethnographic film audience desires a different form of knowledge to that of the pornographic industry, the need to film an action to create a reaction in the audience is comparable – and it is this aim that can be criticised, as it does not allow for true representation. But then shouldn’t the filmmaker want to excite the audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment