Francis Jupurrula Makes TV at Yuendumu

Francis Jupurrula Makes TV at Yuendumu is a very interesting piece about the Walpiri people and how they conduct themselves through film with the restrictions their culture has. The Walpiri people follow a certain law that is that of a knowledge-based class system. Based on age, gender, kinship and “country” (country being a place of conception, birth, death or residence), they classify individuals into one of several categories. This restricted-access knowledge classification system differs vastly from our western system of classification; income. If an unauthorized individual shows knowledge they should not be privy to, that person can be severely punished or even killed.
In the Walpiri culture, when a person dies, all material positions and property of that individual must be destroyed. People must not speak of that person, and even words that sound like that persons name must be changed. This is an interesting restriction that the Walpiri people have on their film. If the deceased is captured on film or in a photograph, two mediums that have longevity and may include people that are still living, the Walpiri people simply white out, or ink over the faces of those deceased.

Reading Response to Defiant Images

Turners general point in his article Defiant Images is “The act of video making itself, when done by an indigenous person or member of a local community, begins to 'mediate' a variety of social and political relationships within the indigenous community in a way that has no exact parallel when the video maker is an outsider, as is the usual case in documentary and anthropological film and video-making” Throughout his article he uses many different examples to support this theisis. He talks about the Kayapo encounters with western culture (brazil) and how their cameramen were included in the footage of the political events going on. Here, the Kayapo began to see video as an event to be recorded rather then just seeing video as just a way of recording an event. Being a cameraperson means combining an important role in the community with a “culturally and politically important” form of mediation with the west. It is this relationship that provides us with a way of interacting with and communicating ideas to the world.

Summary of On the Use of the Camera in Anthropology

The dialogue between Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in On the Use of the Camera in Anthropology discusses the use of tripods when filming versus handling the camera and shooting selectively. Mead prefers using tripods, and believes the camera should be used as a telescope, not necessarily as a “camera”. When an artists chooses to shoot one particular moment, another variable is introduced to the work- the artists perspective. When you choose to shoot one thing, you may miss another that is relevant to the subjects behavior. Anything that is considered art, she says, has to have been altered before the project is finished. Your audience then cannot form an analysis of their own, they must take on the one introduced by the artist. The only thing there is to analyze is the filmmaker themselves. Mead prefers to shoot things raw, from one standpoint, for a long period of time and letting her audience determine what the outcome is. She films her subjects long enough to get a sequence of events and believes an artist cannot get a true understanding of what’s going on if they are constantly choosing what and what not to film. She uses an example from her experience in Manus. “ One of the things, Gregory, that we examined in the stills, was the extent of which people, if they leaned against other people, let their mouths fall slack. We got that out of examining lots and lots of stills”.
Bateson, on the other hand, despises the use of tripods. He believes an anthropological film should be a form of art, and shooting from one standpoint is not artistic or creative. He believes tripods hold no relevance because it uses no effort. He needs to feel that there is control over the camera and therefore control over the outcome of the film. Bateson and Mead debate, “Bateson: Of the things that happen, the camera is only going to record 1 percent anyway. Mead: That’s right. Bateson: I want that 1 percent on the whole to tell”. Things the artists finds important should be filmed to show their audience a more detailed view of their subject. Bateson holds more weight with how the film is made then the subject matter being shot.
Both Mead and Bateson hold valued opinions on the use of cameras in anthropology. While Mead believes that man-handled cameras both interfere with the subjects being shot, and taints the final product with the artists bias, Bateson believes it is more important to film more directly with a thesis, and that tripods take away the specific detail artistic films need to have in them.
In the end of the dialogue, they both agree that leaving a camera on a tripod to be left alone for a long period of time is a waste, and unacceptable and meet at one point to agree that weather or not the artist is holding the camera, or that it is supported on a tripod, the artist must be involved, behind the camera or otherwise, throughout the duration of the film.