Download to the PDF file. - South Omo Research Center

Television and Anthropology and the Anthropology of Television
5th International Festival of Ethnographic Film
University of Kent
1996
The Challenge of Television for Anthropology
Jean Lydall
In this talk I want to address the question of how I, as an anthropologist, responded to the
challenge of making an anthropological film for television. As I experienced it, television
presents anthropologists with a double challenge. Firstly, the challenge of film itself which
demands that anthropologists find ways other than writing and lecturing for transmitting
anthropological knowledge. Secondly, the challenge of how to make this knowledge
interesting, attention holding, and understandable for a general, non-anthropological
audience.
Hamar in Southern Ethiopia has been my field of research since 1970, and it was here in 1989
that Joanna Head and I made our first film together, "The Women Who Smile". In 1990, we
made a second film, "Two Girls Go Hunting", about the weddings of two girls featured in the
first film. And in 1993 we produced a third film, "Our Way of Loving", about the subsequent
lives of one of these two girls, her husband and mother-in-law.
When we came to make the first of these films, Joanna and I were both novices in the sense
that, although we had both been involved in the making of other people's films, neither of us
had been fully responsible for making her own film before. Joanna, having worked in
television for eight years, was acquainted with various documentary film styles, especially
that of Chris Curling with whom she had worked extensively. For my part, I had helped my
husband, Ivo Strecker, make films in Hamar in 1982/83, and was strongly influenced by that
experience and by Ivo's approach. I was happy to work in collaboration with Joanna. I could
rely on her expertise as a documentary filmmaker, just as she relied on mine as an
anthropologist who had done extensive field work in Hamar. The films were a product not
only of Joanna and my collaboration, but also that of the film crew and editor, and most of all
that of the people of Dambaiti who allowed us to film them. I will not attempt to disentangle
our different contributions to the films but will concentrate on clarifying my own approach to
making the films.
When, in 1988, Chris Curling invited me to make a film on Hamar women, I was already
familiar with other anthropological films dealing with the Hamar and neighbouring peoples.
To begin with, I knew the film "Rivers of Sand" which Robert Gardner had filmed in Hamar
in 1971, after Ivo Strecker and I had completed our first seven months fieldwork there. For
this film Ivo helped Gardner during the filming, and I helped afterwards by doing translations.
Both Ivo and I were very dissatisfied with the film Gardner later produced. Although it was
constructed around an interview that Ivo had arranged with a Hamar woman, the film was
edited in such a way as to trivialize Hamar gender relations, presenting men as vain indolent
oppressors and women as meek overworked servants. Now I had been invited to make a film,
I took this as an opportunity to redress Gardner’s presentation of Hamar women and Hamar
gender relations. But how was I going to do this? What kind of knowledge and understanding,
1
by means of what format, could be transmitted to a TV audience? How had other
anthropologists responded to such questions?
One solution I was acquainted with was the "lecture style" typical of the "Disappearing World
Series" and exemplified above all in the Mursi and Kwegu films, made by David Turton and
Leslie Woodhead. This solution involved using a great deal of "off camera" commentary to
explain the scenes and events filmed. Turton provided a running anthropological analysis
while another commentator provided additional factual information. The films were rather
like illustrated lectures, the anthropological knowledge and understanding of the
anthropologist being transmitted by way of the commentary. What I appreciated about this
lecture style was the recognition of the intelligence of the TV viewers; David Turton
explained complex social processes, as he would have done to his university students, except
that he avoided any jargon which only anthropology students could be expected to
understand. I found it difficult, however, to view the films from any other point of view than
that offered by Turton. I decided I didn't want to give a lecture when I had the opportunity of
having the subjects of my film explain things themselves in their own way.
One of the great things about sync sound film is that it lets the viewers get to know others
whom they could otherwise never meet, and get to hear what they think and feel. Ivo and I
had invited our great Hamar friend and teacher, Baldambe, to accompany us to Addis Ababa
and Europe on several occasions. A few other Hamar men also came with us to Addis. Our
friends and colleagues enjoyed meeting these men and talking with them about Hamar. Ivo
and I were kept busy relaying questions and translating responses. But it was never feasible to
invite any of my women friends to visit Europe or even Addis Ababa because they were
always too tied up at home with their children and fields. Now, I had the rare chance of
introducing my Hamar women friends to a non-Hamar audience and have them speak about
themselves and their lives, much in the way Baldambe and the other Hamar men had done.
In contrast to the lecture style was that adopted by David and Judith MacDougall in their Jie
and Turkana films. In these films the MacDougalls deliberately did not use "off camera"
commentary. In stead any commentary they had was provided "on camera" by the subjects of
the film. In conversation with Anna Grimshaw and Nikos Papastergiadis, David commented
that "A Wife Among Wives is driven by our enquiry, so we're more in control from the start.
We're trying to explore certain abstract concepts of polygamy and how co-wives relate to
each other, and we can more or less lead that process. In The Wedding Camels something was
happening and it would go on without us. We had to do the best we could to make sense of
it." (p.37 of Conversations with anthropological filmmakers: David, produced by Anna
Grimshaw and Nikos Papastergiadis, University of Manchester, Prickly Pear Press, 1995)
Crucial to the 'unprivileged‘ camera style' adopted by the MacDougalls was that the
filmmakers were also the researchers and the film crew all in one. Thus they could film the
scenes, persons and events in such a way as to make it clear that the film was the result of an
encounter between film maker and subject, and that in this encounter the film makers'
knowledge was circumscribed. The films bring the viewers very close to people, scenes and
events, and allow them considerable room to make their own discoveries and reach their own
conclusions. However, the viewers have to be highly motivated and pay close attention to
what they see and hear. The MacDougalls did not make their films for a TV audience, and as
far as I know only a few TV stations have broadcast them, probably because the films require
more effort on the part of the viewers than normally expected.
2
A style of film that falls between the lecture style and the unprivileged camera style, is that
adopted by Chris Curling and Melissa Llewelyn-Davies in "Maasai Women" (1974) and
"Maasai Manhood" (1975). Unlike the MacDougalls, the film crew and director were not one
and the same as the researcher. In these films, the anthropologist, Melissa Llewelyn-Davies,
provided a moderate amount of "off camera" commentary, while "on camera" she elicited
reflective commentaries from the subjects of the films. These commentaries were used to
explain filmed scenes and events, as well as exploring other topics not seen on film. The
interviews were very personal and allowed the viewer to get to know individuals in an
engaging way.
In 1982/83 I helped Ivo Strecker make two films in Hamar for German TV, "The Father of the
Goats" (1984) and "The Song of the Hamar Herdsman" (1986) Like the MacDougalls Ivo and
I were not only the film makers but also the researchers and camera crew all in one. Because
he had very little film material, Ivo could not afford to film exploratory dialogues from which
to then select suitable excerpts for the final film. As a result the dialogues he filmed were
more in the nature of testimonies than reflective commentaries. Unfortunately, the German
TV station for which the films were made, were not prepared to use subtitles, and "voice
over" translations of the dialogues had to be used in stead. Unlike British TV, German TV
had yet to recognize the competence of its viewers to learn to read subtitles, and was still
unwilling to leave them much room to make their own discoveries and draw their own
conclusions. Fortunately, thanks to Brian Moser, the use of subtitles in anthropological
documentaries has long been standard practice in British TV.
In the early eighties, Melissa Llewelyn-Davies, this time working as her own director, went
on to make further Maasai films; "Diary of a Maasai Village"(1984) and "The Woman's
Olamal"(1985). "The Woman's Olamal", like the MacDougalls' "Wedding Camels", followed
a major public event through from beginning to end, rather than gathering bits and pieces of
various scenes and events. As in her earlier films, Melissa's anthropological knowledge and
understanding of Maasai was clearly reflected in the kind of commentaries she elicited from
her subjects. I think the fact that Melissa was separate from the film crew, and that the film
crew was not acquainted with the subjects prior to filming, had a distinct influence on the
kind of dialogue elicited. When, as in the MacDougalls' case and Ivo's and my case, the
camera crew and researchers are one and the same, the unknown audience for whom the films
are being made is difficult to imagine because it is not in evidence during filming. In the case
where the anthropologist is separate from the film crew whose members know nothing about
the subjects of the film, the unknown audience is represented by the film crew during filming.
Both the anthropologist and the subjects of the film can therefore better address themselves to
the unknown audience by orienting themselves towards the film crew who represents it.
I decided that Melissa's style of eliciting reflective commentary was what suited me best. It
provided a way of putting my anthropological knowledge and understanding of Hamar to use
without imposing an "off camera" lecture onto the film. It was also a good way of getting the
sympathy and engagement of the audience by allowing them to get to know persons in an
individual and intimate way. One of my main ambitions was to break down clichés such as
those Gardner had promoted, and indicate the variety and complexity of women's lives. To
this end, I decided to feature several women, each at a different stage in the life cycle. In my
film proposal I suggested that the women would speak more freely and confidently about
themselves and their lives if the film crew were kept small and consisted of women only. This
is why Chris Curling introduced me to Joanna Head, and why she in turn sought out a small
all-women film crew. Working for TV meant, in our case, having a film crew in the field at a
3
prearranged time for a fixed length of time. Joanna succeeded in bargaining for six weeks
filming time, two weeks more than most films in the same series. Even so, this was not long
enough for us to wait for unforeseen events around which to construct the film, nor for the
film crew to become acquainted with the Hamar before filming. I proposed that the filming
take place after the main harvest because then people would have enough to eat and being in
good spirits would be agreeable to have us film them, and because at this time people would
certainly engage in ceremonial activities which are good to film. Beforehand, however, I
insisted on spending two and a half months in Hamar to prepare for the film, deciding on
which women we should film, the kinds of scenes and events we could surely film and the
kind of topics I would ask the women to reflect on.
In some respects my task was easier because the people of Dambaiti were already familiar
with film making from the times when Ivo and I had filmed before. I still, however, had to
prepare myself. Whenever I had returned to Hamar before, I always came with questions that
had occurred to me while cogitating over previous fieldwork data. The difference now was
that I had to put all my knowledge and understanding about Hamar women and Hamar gender
relations to the test. I spent my time with women discussing issues such as birth control,
acquisition and control of property, marriage, relations between husband and wife, mother-inlaw and daughter-in-law, mother and children, and so on, to see whether I understood things
properly. I found this focusing of my research very activating, and having a TV audience in
mind forced me to clarify things in my own mind in common sense terms. By the time Joanna
came with the film crew, I felt I had a better understanding of things. Also, my women friends
were more used to explaining themselves and their customs to me in a reflective way and in
terms that I could understand. They realized that Hamar ways could not be taken for granted
and could possibly be explained in terms other than simply saying, "that's the custom". Joanna
was as keen as myself to have the women talk about their selves at length, and she allocated a
great deal of film footage to interviews. As it turned out, there was no major event around
which we could construct the film. Such an event was to happen six months later when two
girls got married and we were able to return to Hamar and make the second film, "Two Girls
Go Hunting". For this first film, "The Women Who Smile", we concentrated on portraying
several women by way of their own reflective commentaries and showing them participate in
typical scenes and events. When the women were being filmed and their commentaries were
being recorded, they focused their attention on the topics under consideration, and brought to
bear all their knowledge and understanding. I had discussed many things with them before,
but our discussions had always been casual, being conducted while the women were busy
doing other jobs such as grinding or weeding. I thought the women would explain things
more or less as I had come to understand them, but again and again, I was taken by surprise,
and their explanations were far more interesting than I could ever have imagined. Take for
example, an interview with Baldambe's daughter, Duka. I had shared the same house with
Duka for the two and half months prior to filming, and she well understood that I wanted her
to explain things and not simply describe them. In the interview I barely had to ask her
anything, I just indicated the topics I wanted her to talk about.
Jean: Dukamai!
Duka: Yes.
Jean: Now give us a talk on girlhood.
Duka: Should I make you a speech on girlhood?
Jean: Mmmm.
Duka: Its goodness...
Jean: Its goodness and ...
4
Duka: and the work you used to do, while a girl, and everything you did?
Jean: and marriage...
Duka: and marriage...
Jean: like that.
Duka went on to give a long speech. She gave an analytical description of childhood, how a
girl is taught to do things by her mother, how she has girl friends with whom she likes to do
certain tasks such as fetching green leaves for the kid goats, how she learns from older girls to
do things like preparing a skin skirt, how she likes to go dancing with her age mates and then
how her marriage is arranged by her parents without consulting her, and how she only finds
out about it when a girl friend tells her. Duka then considered the question of how a girl
accepts the fait accompli of her marriage, and it was an excerpt from this reflection that we
included in the film:
But you, you haven't heard anything. You are getting green leaves; you are
sweeping up the dung. Then one of your friends hears (about it) over there.
"Algono, you've been given.” That’s how she tells you. So you hear about it and
then your heart changes. "For my father, I've been getting green leaves and
sweeping up the dung. I've been a girl, and been called a child. I've been smoking
the milk containers. My father's cattle at the water hole over there, I've taken a
bowl and gone down to the water hole (to water them). I've been sweeping up the
dung of my father's livestock, and taking their bowl, I've gone down to the water
hole. That's how I've been, like a male. What's this now (i.e. having to become a
wife)? Oh, my (best friend), so-and-so has gone. Before, she was sweeping up the
dung and getting green leaves, then her father gave her away. Now becoming a
bride and tying on a (married woman's) skin skirt, she has given birth to a child.
It's like this for everyone. In the case of a boy child, if he hasn't been given one, a
gun is bought for him. Now, for you, iron bracelets are bought, they're your gun.
An iron necklace is bought for you; it's your gun. Aluminium coil is bought for
you; it's your gun. While you are a girl your father slaughters (goats) for your rear
skirt, saying: "My daughter has fetched green leaves. She has swept up the dung."
Now these things have been done for me. I didn't have to buy them. I didn't buy
the iron bracelets myself. All the dung I've swept up, all the green leaves I've
fetched, and all the milk containers I've smoked, for all I've been rewarded by
these things. Why should I complain?" Then you're just given to your father-inlaw.
Duka went on to tell how a grown up girl alleviates her mother of grinding and cooking just
as a youth alleviates his father of herding. Finally she tells of how when a married woman she
visits her parents' home, no one yells at her to do things because now she has become
someone else's wife. Duka's commentary was reflective in the sense of being subjective and
thoughtful, and it was reflexive in the sense of being adapted to what she thought I was
interested in and would understand. Anne Salmond talks of 'the process of reflexive
interpretation...’ that, she says, 'is an attempt to bring about a "merging of horizons", so that
the viewpoints of self and other progressively overlap and understanding is achieved...' (1982
p. 74). This is an apt description of what Duka and I were involved in. Duka did far more than
simply describe custom; she also analysed and evaluated it, doing so in terms of her own
common sense. Couldn't the knowledge and understanding which Duka incorporated in her
'speech', be described as anthropological? Although I had talked with Duka about childhood
and marriage many a time, she had never made a speech about them, and formulated her ideas
5
in such a comprehensive way. It took the importance of the filming situation to bring this
about. I was particularly intrigued by how Duka brought the two topics of childhood and
marriage together. Up till then, I had never seen arranged marriage in this light, that of a girl's
father having the right to give his daughter away in marriage because he has rewarded her for
all the work she has done in caring for his livestock. This view led me on to reflect on the
relationship between a man and his son. Could it be that, likewise, a man doesn't complain
that his father controls his initiation and marriage because his father rewards him with a gun
and in other ways for the work he does looking after and defending the livestock?
The excerpt from Duka's speech, which I just quoted, is but one example from the hours and
hours of dialogue we collected for "The Women Who Smile". We only used a small fraction
of this material for the film, selecting only those commentaries which could be readily
understood by a non-Hamar non-specialized audience without extra "off camera"
commentary. Other criteria for selecting interview excerpts were how they fitted in with,
complemented or contrasted with filmed scenes and events, and how comments of different
subjects complemented or contrasted with each other. In writing the sub-titles, I kept the
audience in mind and accordingly made translations that were easy to read but still
transmitted the main gist of the commentaries. Since I found it impossible to make a word for
word translation, Hamar and English being so different from one another, the translations
were any way my interpretation of what I understood to have been said.
After making "The Women Who Smile", Joanna and I went on to make "Two Girls Go
Hunting". In contrast to "The Women Who Smile" where our main concern was to present
women speaking about themselves and their lives, in "Two Girls Go Hunting" we were
concerned with the weddings of two girls, and what it was like for them getting married to
men they didn't know. In "The Women Who Smile", the scenes and events we filmed were
used to illustrate or complement the things talked about by the women. In "Two Girls Go
Hunting", the balance was the other way round, and the reflective commentaries were used to
reveal the subjects' thoughts and feelings about the major events, which we were filming. I
elicited reflective commentaries from the main protagonists in the two marriages: the girls,
their fiancé, their parents and parents-in-law, to find out what they felt and thought about the
marriage process in which they were involved. I hoped in this way that the weddings would
take on greater depth of meaning for the audience rather than seeming to be purely exotic
events. The weddings entailed major changes in the lives of all involved so I did not need to
ask people to reflect on remote events, but rather to express what was any way foremost in
their hearts and minds. Take for example the comments made by the young girl Gardi while
her aunt trims her hair in preparation for her last night at home when all her friends and
neighbours will come to be with her and sing until dawn. Gardi explains to me, "I've put a
stone in my heart, but my heart still aches. Later I will feel even worse." Gardi's aunt adds,
"Now she's calm, tonight she'll weep." And Gardi continues, "Before it seemed like a game,
but now my leaving home has become real. Now as the sun is setting it's all become clear to
me." Although these words indicated Gardi's feelings, much of what she felt was also
communicated nonverbally. As usual, Duka provided great insights into things. For example,
when Duka and Gardi are relaxing with their girl friends after weeding, I ask them about their
prospective marriages. Duka explains,
"We girls grow up and are given to our husbands. That man becomes our father
and our older brother, even our mother. Then you are forgotten. Who remembers
you?" "So marriage is bad?" I ask, and Duka responds "But what can we do? You,
our mothers, tell us it's bad and scare us. But we only say it's bad while we are
6
still girls. That's all. When we've left, we say, "What's so special about my father's
home? What's so special about it?" Then you think your new home is better than
theirs. They raised you, and then you snub them."
Three years after Duka's marriage, I proposed making a third film to find out what life was
like and how it had changed for Duka, her husband and mother-in-law. In particular, I was
interested in exploring the relationships between Duka, Sago and his mother. While spending
two months in the field preparing for the film, I realized that it would be very difficult to film
the relationship between Duka and her husband since it was one of avoidance and indirect
communication. I was also struck by how reserved Duka had become. Previously she lived in
the home of her father, Baldambe, and when he was absent, which he frequently was, she
used to entertain her friends in the evening and would chat and talk most volubly. Now she
was rarely alone, either her husband or her mother-in-law was present and they always
dominated the conversation while she remained quiet, speaking only when spoken to. Only
when both her husband and her mother-in-law were away did Duka revert to her old self and
talk at ease with me. As a young wife and daughter-in-law she had become muted, and yet
inwardly she was teeming with thoughts and feelings. It was clear to me that we would have
to arrange a special session with Duka on her own if we were to have her express her inner
feelings and ideas about her change in status and her relationship to her husband and motherin-law. In the event Duka was quite candid about her relationship to her husband. For
example, when I asked her if she could go places now she was married she answered,
"I can't go places. I'm tied up with the goats. My husband says, "Work for my
mother, do what she says." If I went off and left things, he'd come after me and
beat me."
Because Duka, Sago and his mother were, by now, used to responding to my questions, I was
able to elicit commentaries from them even when they were in action or shortly there after,
and this gave added dynamism and imperativeness to the film. Take for example, Duka's
commentary when winnowing the grain.
I asked her "Is that all the grain you have?" and she answered, "That's all we
have." "Is it enough?" "How can it be enough? Last year we had a big harvest. We
stacked it here and there. We had a lot. When it's like that the granaries fill up.
But how can this be enough? It's only one sack full."
We structured the film around a number of scenes and events in which the three characters
were involved either separately or together. Some of these events were foreseen, like the film
show that we arranged so that Duka and her husband could see their wedding film, and the
initiation rite of Duka's cousin, which his parents arranged. Other events were unforeseen,
like when the in-laws came to demand bride wealth, or the sudden death and burial of Sago's
grandmother. These unforeseen events gave the film an urgency and tempo that I had not
imagined beforehand. I had thought we would be filming quieter domestic scenes with more
interaction with the children. For this, however, I will have to go back and make another film.
In response to the challenge of making an anthropological film for television I chose to make
use of the personal dimension of television. Television is a very personal medium being seen
by individuals in their own homes. What better way is there to rouse the viewers' interest and
gain their attention, than by introducing them to individuals in a personal and intimate way,
and what better way is there to transmit knowledge and understanding about the subjects of
7
the film than by showing these individuals in action and eliciting from them reflective
commentaries about what they think and feel about themselves, their relationships and their
lives? My concentration on eliciting reflective commentary was partly a result of my being an
anthropologist working with a film crew and director who were not well acquainted with the
Hamar.
In Paul Henley's message in Anthropology Today, he points out that "Anthropological
filmmaking is at a crossroads." and goes on to say that "the trend towards international co
production means that all sorts of compromises have to be made to meet the expectations of
several different kinds of TV viewer." I think it is wrong to consider making compromises,
we should rather see the expectations of different viewers as a challenge to respond to,
because only then will we find ways to uphold our standards of honesty and respect for the
subjects of our films.
8