From Paper to Ethnography

As I mentioned in VRM class, the transition from writing a paper on ethnography to actually producing an ethnography is technically challenging but also essential in truly understanding the documentary medium. For our ethnography on the Day Laborer Cup we filmed first, saw what happened at the event and what we could record, and pieced the project together afterwards.

This method was particularly striking to me. The process of writing an essay, papers on ethnography included, is very regimented and institutionalized. Traditional academic essays do not generally allow for much creativity in voice or process, but rather call for a regulated format and working process. I really appreciated the practice oriented method of producing an ethnography. While we used sources and were dedicated to theory, this was largely (and clearly) an experiment in practice.

Making our ethnography illuminated the process and technical aspects of the medium that I believe would be necessary to know in order to adequately write a critical essay on documentary. In simpler terms, one must really ought have had experience in making an ethnography in order to write an essay on ethnography. The medium is more accessible, and being involved in the production process is much more possible, then if one were critiquing and attempting to be involved in feature films. With a small amount of of background knowledge anyone can make an ethnography.

The experience of getting involved with the people you are filming, becoming a subject yourself via your interactions and differences, transcends the traditional written essay in terms of praxis and working knowledge. In our reflexive portion of the film Marina made the comment that "we were documenting the undocumented." This notion is indicative of our experiences with making an ethnography. We were outsiders filming people who are traditionally unseen or invisible. Through our interactions as outsiders, however, we learned what it meant to be subjects.

Our intent was to present the footage of our event and leave the viewer to place meaning. We did not want to tell the viewer how to see the tournament. I understand that because we edited our own video we were showing the viewer pre-chosen portions of the event. We attempted to mitigate this effect, however, by showing a montage of long clips. We did not include short clips, sounds effects, outside music, or voiceover because we felt that this would detract from the true event.

The second portion of the video, in which we speak about our reactions and intentions, was deliberately included in a somewhat spartan way. We wanted the viewer to really feel the shock of transition as a way to mirror the way in which our two cultures collided. When the two portions of the film are placed together the viewer is jolted, placed in the same uncomfortable place as the videographers and subjects. Our ethnography was, because of this method, a ethnography critiquing the methods of ethnography.

The Tenth Annual Day Laborer Cup: An Ethnography

Anderson's newest commercial

Anderson's AmEx commercial.

Wes Anderson and Zizek

My classmate Sabbiaovale's recent blogpost on a commercial entitled "Mr. W" got me thinking. Commercials/advertisements that mimic independent film are an interesting conundrum. Whats even more interesting to me is the type of director who makes a much more nuanced and artistic film then is average in todays film scape, yet who still deign to follow the dominant media and capitalist ideology.

Take Wes Anderson (one of my favorites), for instance. Anderson produces films that employ the auteur method and fantastic cinematic skills, films that have solid character development, intelligent humor, and distinct technique. Anderson has the makings of a independent filmmaker, but like any filmmaker so-inclined in today's market (who wants their work to reach the masses), he must produce his movies though the major motion picture houses. This is the hard truth, but is still an interesting that Anderson makes this concession to the dominant power structure. I will get to this point later, through Zizek. What is more provoking is that Anderson has produced several commercials, one for American Express (credit cards, the plight of America) and one for ATT (wire tapping anyone?) Why is Anderson allowing himself this capitalist piggishness? I could accept films being produced by major studios out of necessity for distribution, but this is a much harder pill to swallow.

Anderson's AmEx commercial pays homage to Francois Truffaut and his "Day for Night". Though Truffaut's politics were complex, perhaps borderline anarchistic, he often sided with the French left (though he, admittedly, often attempted to rile them up as well). Truffaut signed the Manifesto of the 121, which nearly ruined his career. The lauded New Wave director was also involved in "les evenements Mai 1968" with leftist student protesters. Anderson paying homage to him through a commercial seems, therefore, a bit maladroit (to use a word from Truffaut's French). How can Anderson make such thoughtful films and ignore the fact that he is on bent knee to hegemonic capitalism?

Zizek, who I have been reading lately, would say that Anderson's take on art distances him from capitalist ideology but binds him to it at the same time. The distancing may be cynical, but it can also be defensive distancing. Cynical distance is just one way to blind ourselves to the structuring power of ideological fantasy. Anderson overlooks the gap between his belief and his actions. In the simplest case this overlooking is a matter of Anderson seeing through the illusion in general terms but failing to see how the illusion guides him.

In more simple words, Anderson (as an intelligent and successful filmmaker) can certainly see that he is aiding and abetting capitalism, but likely chooses to ignore it or view it cynically as a necessity to make ends meet.

Zizek presents a quote from Pascal which brilliantly reveals his theory.

"The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."

In reality, Anderson ought to be questioning why he does what he does, as we all should. We ought to question, as Zizek suggests, how to break this cycle.

Ads and Myths

A professor recently explained to me that the study of advertising and its effects on the populace is not looked highly upon in academia. The professor went as far to say that "if you don't want to get tenure, study advertising."

I'm not sure how to begin expressing my disappointment with this sentiment.

I've mentioned before that the average American sees somewhere around 5,000 ads a day. There is no doubt that Ads effect us in significant ways. An argument could be put forward to assert that ads control the majority of our lives. I think this dramatic, but I have heard it done.

Even if we see ads as ridiculous and silly, which we often do, their power over the public is undeniable. Zizek theorized that even though we might make fun of an ad or television show, we still pay attention to it. He believed that we were still truly effected. You may make fun as you watch and look, but you still watch and look. You are still listening to the messages of the hegemonic structure.

The question is how do these proclamations of the material effect us? Perhaps more pointedly, how do the ads present meaning.

Little recent work of merit has been done on this question. As aforementioned in different words, academics won't study something that will detract from or ruin their career.

What we are left with is the somewhat dated work of Judith Williamson ("Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising").

Through William’s take on advertisements we look for and are shown a second, latent and hidden, but also unconscious, meaning.

We are lead to rationalize the signified by means of the signifier.

Through this idea Williamson presented the idea that ads are not simply transparent vehicles of their messages. Although Williamson believes that ads present information which is frequently untrue and attempt to persuade people to buy useless or unnecessary products: she believes this criticism to be the greatest obstacle in understanding the role of ads in society. This take on ads only looks at the overt content rather then the ads form. In other words, ignoring the content of the form.

Here Williamson drops words content and form because, when used as a pair, they already assume that conveyors of messages are significant things in themselves and that it is messages which exist in the realm of the ideal. Replaces content and form with signifier (the object) and signified (the meanings attached to said object).

This move is perhaps a jab at Theodor Adorno, who spoke in terms of signifier and signified.

Williamson gives an example of a tire advertisement in order to show HOW ads mean rather then WHAT they mean. Herein we can begin to see how they affect us.

This ad shows a car stopped on a line at the very end of a pier. The ad celebrates good year tires for being able to still stop on a dime (or line) after doing 36,000 miles. With all that wear and they still stop!

According to Williamson:

The rational message here describes actual tests and results and gives a logical argument to show that the tires are safe and durable. Here the jetty equals risk.

The significance of the jetty is, HOWEVER, the opposite of danger and works in a way that is not part of the rational narrative of the ad.

The Jetty itself resembles a tire (it is rounded and black) and has some tires attached around its outside, it is a picture of strength against water and erosion. The strength of the jetty equals the strength of the tire.

It turns out that the Jetty is merely part of the apparatus for conveying a message about tire durability.

It works on almost an unconscious level, it is not overt or clear at first glance. There is a irrational leap on the basis of the correlation between the two objects (tire and jetty) made on the basis of appearance and juxtaposition.

The signifier of the overt meaning in the ad has its own function, a place in creating an additional and less obvious meaning.

Williamson's argument presents three crucial points here:

1) The meaning of the signifier involves a correlation of two things: the significance of the jetty is transferred to the tire. This is non-sequential: they are not aligned by in a narrative or through argument but by their place in the picture.

2) This transference requires US to make the connection. The transference of the strength of the jetty to the tire does not happen until we make it.

3) The transference itself is based on the fact that the first object, the jetty, has significance to be transferred. We are invited to make meaning, the ad does not initially do this for us.

Here we can see that the way in which we are effected by ads is more in the realm of the unconscious.

I find this extremely interesting. This suggests that ads role as "hidden persuaders" (a long argued theory before Williamson's article) is more nuanced.

Williamson's theories are enlightening and, for me, life changing. I am now slightly more educated about how advertising works. Although I have not completely answered the trophy question of how ads effect us and HOW they mean, I believe Williamson's argument takes us on the right path.