• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch Identifying Indian

Nice work! You got some terrrific interviews.

I make narratives now, but I actually got my start in videography making short documentaries. I have a BA in Anth, and if you could say I had a specialization, it would be in Visual Anth (fancy language for making documentaries).

I'm not sure if you're asking for constructive criticism, so I don't want to be that annoying guy who offers it when it's not wanted. If you're pretty close to a final cut, and happy with it, then maybe I keep mum. Though, maybe my critique might be of worth for future reference. Shall I?

A couple things I'm curious about -- are you also a student of Anthropology, or is this just one class for you? And, is documentary-making your primary focus, or is this just sort of an aside?
 
I'm doing my field school in Archaeology this summer, I'll have my BA after Fall 2010 in Anth and Film Studies. I'll always welcome for real critiques. The harsh jump cuts within each interview was a conscious choice amounting to a visual ellipsis. I'm still going to be placing some J-Cuts between interviewees to smooth those transitions a bit. As for the rest of it, if there's something I can improve, please let me know.

I'm more of a narrative filmmaker, but documentary and visual ethnography was the thrust of the beginning of the class. The readings we had were a bit of a call to arms for defining Visual Ethnographies as an accepted form of academic ethnography... we've had a hundred years since Bronislaw Malinowski invented the concept of Participant Observer, but for presenting the data visually, it's still a fledgling endeavor.

The main problems I've been presented with were the artifice of film as a medium and the audiences training to overlook soft edits unquestioningly (based on my experience with the other students in the class) and the lack of access to the source materials. I've strived to present the data in a way that's as obvious that I had altered the flow of the conversation to inspire viewers to look at the source interviews to get a sense of my ethics as editor.

Again, beat up the edit, I have a thick skin and am really good at taking honest, constructive criticism.

Oh, and thanks for taking the time to watch. :)
 
I love the documentary short format and I really liked yours :) It totally sucked me in and I think you managed to work in a beginning middle and end with it.

I thought it was a pretty cool idea to interview via webcam, too. That's going in the toolbox for the no-budget docu :P

I gotta say I only noticed one jump cut within an interview so I wouldn't worry about those, they totally seem to work.

An interesting subject, too. I'll admit that I don't really think about the Indian issue or the fact that wrongs are still being committed, and that's a shame. The whole blood status thing really seemed wrong, too :/

But yeah, good job. May you get an A+
 
I haven't watched this yet as I'm trapped at work without headphones but I'm excited to go home and check it out.

In regard to
The main problems I've been presented with were the artifice of film as a medium and the audiences training to overlook soft edits unquestioningly (based on my experience with the other students in the class) and the lack of access to the source materials. I've strived to present the data in a way that's as obvious that I had altered the flow of the conversation to inspire viewers to look at the source interviews to get a sense of my ethics as editor.
Click to expand...

I took a class called Non Fiction Film Theory that I think dealt with the issue you are talking about here. I'll try to dig out my syllabus to find some good examples of documentaries that really break down that artifice, and maybe you've already seen some of them.

Obviously I have not watched yours yet but the conscious decision to include jumpcuts in interviews that you talk about I think is a really good way to show that you're trying to present something very different from something like, say, Nanuk of the North.

Having just watched it, I did enjoy it. The interviews travelled well from one subject to the next and I thought presented a pretty clear insight. The question of who actually defines our identity (rather than ourselves, and in this case, Indians) was pretty evident, via the material about the census, the media portrayal, and also the stereotypes that the interviewees had heard from others.

One question I have regarding some of the cuts is, what did you cut out? In some cases, and one I can remember is when Ed Vondal is in the middle of sentence, then it cuts to him saying "would..." something else (it flows as if it were a sentence except we can see the cut), it might just be better to let any "um"s or extra words stay in. While you are making it apparent that you are cutting something out, people might still wonder "what did you cut out, and why?" In this case though, you did mention adding some L-cuts so that might be a place to use something like that.

I'm not sure it ended on the strongest note, mostly because I wasn't sure exactly what the final interviewee was saying, but other than that I thought the "argument" was well portrayed and each interview seemed to build on it, so that definitely worked for me. Hope you got a good grade!
 
Thanks...
@Dreadylocks: it was a skype conference with a camera pointed at the screen (lcd has no screen roll, so it worked like a champ... sound wired directly into the camera for the best possible sound). The interviewee was in Alaska, so I needed a way to get them on camera and they said they had a webcam.

@Pinehill: The point of leaving in the jump cuts is to make you ask specifically what had been cut out (yay, it worked :) ). In the case of Ed, he's a very tangential speaker, so most of the jump cuts are to eliminate asides and unnecessary information.

And we actually started with "Nanook of the North" in this class. I noticed that during the discussion of the walrus hunt, everyone was talking about the narrative as presented without realizing that camera angles had changed or that any time may have passed between the kill and the eating. I actually ended up giving a presentation to the class titled "Film is Manipulation." wherein I discussed all of the things that go into your average film, including the simple act of pointing a camera at something inconsequential to elevate it to an object of interest.

As a remedy for the curiosity about the jump cuts and the missing information, the full interviews are in the link at the bottom of that page for review.
 
Okay, so based on your first response to my comments, it sounds like my "critique" will actually be more of philosophical discussion on the ethics of visual ethnographies. My intro to vis-anth class also spent a great deal of time reading about and discussing the issues you've mentioned, and it seems as though you and I have chosen opposite sides of the issue.

It is my opinion that it is literally impossible for the ethnographer to present the absolute truth, as so many try to do.

For starters, the mere presence of a camera dramatically changes people's behavior, instantly. There are methods we can implement to try and lessen this effect, but it cannot be eliminated.

Furthermore, every decision you make, as a filmmaker, affects how the audience will see the subject. It's not just how you edit the piece - it's EVERYTHING you do. Is the camera close to, or far away from the subject? Are they centered in the frame, or off-center? Did you give them nose-room, or did you do the exact opposite? Is the camera looking up at them, down at them, or is it eye-level? Where did you conduct the interview -- did you take them someplace secluded and quiet, or did you get them in their natural everyday surroundings? Do we see their surroundings a little bit, entirely, or not at all? Do we see the interviewer asking questions? All of these things matter. Even as a mere cameraperson, you have a tremendous impact on how the viewer soaks everything in.

And lastly, it's not like you didn't edit anything. You edited a lot. You chose which clips were more important than others. You chose in which order you could present these clips to best tell the story you're trying to tell. Yes, it's true that you're doing your best to present it as most accurately as possible, but let's not kid anyone -- this isn't their story. It's their story, as YOU see it.

The most truthfully accurate visual ethnography would be to place a camera down in front of someone, with a wide angle, so that we could also see our ethnographer, press record and just let it go. And then don't edit anything. No editing whatsoever, because as soon as you edit the video, we're getting YOUR version of the story.

But that would be boring, and nobody would watch raw footage of an interview.

So I say EMBRACE the edit. If it's going to be my version of the story, then I'm going to use every tool in my arsenal that will help me effectively tell that story. I'm going to use soft edits almost exclusively. I'm going to keep the soundbites brief, and I'm going to keep the story moving forward at a rapid pace. I'm going to use cutaways and pickup shots galore, and as many relavent (and pretty) visuals as possible. I'm going to use music. Lots of it. I'm going to try my best to be as truthful and honest to the story as I possibly can be, but that's not going to stop me from trying to make this story entertaining to watch.

In my opinion, the methods I'm describing wouldn't make the ethnography any less legitimate then if I were to not use them. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't believe a visual ethnography is science.

One of the things that I love about Anthropology is that it's this weird combination of science and social science (and any scientist can tell you that social science isn't all that scientific). Visual Anthropology definitely falls into the social science side of things, so I say we should embrace the ART of filmmaking, and use all of it's powerful tools. If we can use these tools to help the audience connect with the subjects on a deeper emotional level, might that make the story more truthfull?

My professor taught me a wonderful organizing tool that I'd love to share with you, but I'm too tired to explain it right now. Also, it's more along the lines of making the edit yours, as I'm talking about doing, and I kind of get the impression that you're not really interested in doing that, anyway.

Regardless of our philosophical differences, you've done a terrific job on the video. As I mentioned before, I think your interviews were very good. They really had a more natural conversational feel to them, and not every interviewer can produce those results.
 
I agree with "embracing the edit". That's a great way to put it. Obviously you want to present the most accurate portrayal you can but accepting that you have power over how the information is delivered is an important lesson. Just be honest with yourself and others about it. People who try to find "the essence" of a story or a character and claim they do are so annoying for a reason.

None of this is directed at you, knightly, just joining in the conversation! Also I forgot that you included the full interviews which I think is really cool for anyone interested in delving that deep. Does that include the questions being asked too?
 
@cracker... no I totally agree with you... and the story that ended up being told was directly from the agency of one of the interviewees... Ed Vondal chose where the edit went, I just cut it to his direction. He would present a few possible talking points from the interviewees (whose stories were eerily similar across the board - just at different points), and I picked the one with the best transition editorially. The use of hard edits was specifically to encourage people (artistic choice) to delve more deeply into the provided full interviews which do have the interview questions (unmiked, off camera) except for Don's for which the audio setup I was going to use didn't work, so the workaround that I came up with on the day didn't have my audio. I only did the interviews for Don and Ed, Ed did the rest. I was basically just the technician in this production... excercising my craft based on the editorial decisions we'd made prior, minimal color correction, minimal audio work, etc. We are straight up philosophically on the same page. I'm treating visual ethnography in the same way editorially that I'd treat written ethnography. We are telling a participant's story from their point of view giving them nearly full agency (Anthro technical jargon) and respecting their voice (again more jargon) rather than using mine as an observer. The shots I used were setup where I had access with the tools I brought had access to on the day. I choose to keep the Skype interview looking like a webcam to give the viewer that relationship so they would apply their expectations of a webcam image rather than the authoritative centered, face on shot that would generally be given to an authority on any given subject (which Don is).

@Pinehill: I have a thick skin... and alot of our editorial choices were direct responses to the topics and issues covered in the class about Indian agency and voice historically in addition to the lack of those things in film and media representations throughout the entirety of film history... even now "Avatar" show a horrible "Noble Savage" representation of a Native who no longer exists, not because they've disappeared, but because they've gone through change with the circumstances of their society and ours (Americans).
 
I am reading a lot on early American history right now (mostly through howard zinn's people's history series and also a book called 1491 by Charles Mann which is completely about debunking the concept of the noble savage. I've also been reading first hand accounts from the early colonies which depict the natives as much more equals than later summaries of those accounts might) so I am on the same page with you. That is partially why I was eager to watch this. I find that often when people try to depict Indians in that positive light they forget they are actually taking all complexity and therefore agency away. I didn't see Avatar but that's what I heard about it also.

A lot of people hate talking heads in documentaries, but I don't mind them, not just when I am interested in a certain topic, but its good practice to just listen to people talk. Even if you are asking them directed questions and the answers are edited to a certain lean, I think the directors that are always looking for the "scene" are the ones so busy trying to show the "essence" they think they already know rather than sit down and listen to people talk, then watch the interviews enough and review the transcripts to really present what the people are trying to say about themselves.

Its interesting to hear you both talk about it from an anthropological standpoint though because I haven't heard much in that sense since that class I mentioned, which had a section dedicated to "the new ethnography".
 
That class was perfect for me as I am a double major in Film Studies and Anthropology... I enjoyed the journey we were taken on... Here's the reading that really struck me:
Rose, Jay "Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film and Anthropology"
We also read
"Hollywood Indians: The portrayal of the Native American in FIlm" and "Wiping the War Paint Off the Lens" which wins my award for one of the coolest titles of any text I've gotten to read in College.

Films watched (in order):
Excerpts from Disney's "Peter Pan" and "School House Rock: Manifest Destiny"
Nanook of the North
Contrary Warriors: a film on the Crow Tribe
You are on Indian Land
The Sunrise Dance
Adam Fish, Adventure Journalist, Anthropologist
Nike Air Native American Shoe N7
The Vanishing American
The Last of the Mohicans
Stagecoach
The Searchers
A Man Called Horse
Broken Arrow (not the Christian Slater one)
Little Big Man
Dances With Wolves
Tell Them Willie Boy is Here
Powwow Highway
Medicine River
skins
Black Robe
Dead Man
Dance Me Outside
Incident at Oglalla
Thunderheart
Smoke Signals
The Business of Fancy Dancing
Osama likes Frybread
macnp

So early attempts at ethnography, to images of the vanishing american to Hollywood Westerns to Noble Savage to More realistic, but still takes a white man to save them, to introduction of agency and finally authorship and youtube as a new voice with a wider audience than traditional channels of distribution.
 
Watching them as a regular audience member (most of them at least) I loved them just on their own... but watching critically specifically with the intent of seeing how they treat Indians, it's a bit disturbing.

Even in the "Schoolhouse Rock" the entirety of the mention of indians is an arrow through one of the settlers' hat... end of statement.
 
Have you seen the film about Jim Thorpe the athlete? I don't remember the title of it right now but I remember watching it and being really appalled by the music they use while he is training , this really ridiculous cliche orchestra versions of "indian music"

If you haven't read that Charles Mann book I mentioned, you should check it out. Its a really radical view of what the Americas were like before the white man showed up that turns the romanticization of Indians on its head.
 
Thanks, I'm glad it communicates the story. All of the dialog choices were made by Ed Vondal (featured in the interviews) who is currently going through it... as well as all of the arrangement of the interviewees except for Don Wedll whom I found through my family.

The YAFI site for this has the full interviews up so they have academic transparency as we knew that there would be bias in the edit - so we present the full data for academic review :) Questions were asked in an open-ended manner and focussed on the personal process each of the interviewees had gone through in pursuit of their heritage. Each participant had similar stories even though we had 4 different subject of different ages and points of progress in that journey. The journey became the dialog of the piece for Ed when we got to the edit, so it really was the story being told by the interviewees of that process.

We treated this as if it were an ethnography. The subjects had agency over the data and I merely worked as a technician during the shoot and the edit (except to interview Ed and Don, but I strove to keep those interviews to the same questions and open-ended nature as the rest of the interviews).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top