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.