"Can Film Show the Invisible?"

video|right|300px right|300px 
==Abstract==
“Can Film Show the Invisible” provides an alternative to dogmatic “humanized” camera that has taken precedence in ethnographic filmmaking. As with many other documentaries, these films attempt to place the viewer in an immersed point of view relying on long shots and long, uninterrupted takes. The belief here is that by leaving the footage un-manipulated and left in its most raw form, the viewer can be fully immersed into the experience of “being there”. However, this article advocates an alternative approach to ethnographic filmmaking that utilizes the same techniques practiced by traditional Hollywood films. Suh and Willerslev argue that these tools of manipulation, particularly the use of montage, can reveal a “hidden truth” that raw footage cannot provide. The intangible experiences that montage can create offer the filmmaker a way to explore the unobservable depths of a cultural experience.
Suhr, Christian, and Rane Willerslev. "Can Film Show the Invisible?"Current Anthropology 53.3 (2012): 282-301. Web.
==Key Concepts==
Montage: Montage refers to the cutting/editing of film that provides multiple perspectives in the same scene, often in rapid succession. Early scholars that commented on the function of montage saw it as a technique to create relationships between shots, relationsips that are not evident in the shots discretely. Rather, it is through the justaposition of two shots in which new meaning can be created, something not visible in the observable world. The power of montage relies on the manipulation of film to both challenge and suggest relationships the audience may have not considered. As stated in the article, “Montage, as here understood, is the production of superhuman vision that pushes the frontiers of the observable world into uncharted regions.”
“Human” Eye Camera: The “humanized” camera refers to the use of long, uninterrupted takes in the attempt to have the viewer take on the perspective of the camera. This perspective allows the camera lens to stand in for the human eye that was not present at the moment of recording. Just as human vision contains no cuts, no superimpositions, and no quick changes of shot length, this technique relies on the same in order to mimic the human eye as accurately as possible.
The Invisible in Vision: As the article argues, ethnographic filmmaking should not simply recreate the culture in the most immersed fashion possible, but also to question preconceived notions about a culture. In what Suhr and Willerslev refer to as the “Sacred Cow” of observational cinema, it becomes necessary to sacrifice the subject-perspective through which we experience culture in these films. In relying on techniques used to jar and dislodge viewers, the invisible world is brought into vision. Often utilizing montage, this manipulated and tailored footage can suggest non-observable phenomena including power-relationships and social dogmas present in the culture. “Only when we realize film is mechanical, can we then recognize the ability to capture the invisible.”
"Obsure Haze" : Suhr and Willerslev warn agains the overuse of montage. While they recognize its ability to display hidden relationships, they also warn against completely obscuring the sense of reality in ethnographic films. When the footage has been so manipulated as to make the footage unrecognizable to any sort of realistic observation, the content becomes an “Obscure haze” with nothing coherent for the viewer to appreciate. Suhr and Willerslev note the important in striking balance between the observational camera that mimics the eye and the manipulation of footage in the name of constructivism.
==Examples==
thumb|left|340 px
Bull Slaughter Scene in Eisenstein's Srike (1925)
These scene is an excellent example of Eisenstien's use of montage in his films. This clip has three basic segments intercut with each other. One segment is of a crowd running in a field, another segment contains officers also running in a large mass, and the the third segment is of a cow being butchered. These seemingly unlreated segmant are intercut with each other in order to create symbolic relationships between the three segments. As Eistenstien argued, with montage, the sum is great that its parts.
thumb|left|335 px
Scene from The Ax Fight (1975)
This ethnographic film from 1975 depicts a fight that occurred between two native Yanomamo Indians from beginning to end. The films offers a combination of observational filmmaking and editing techniques. The first 11 minutes (much of what is in the video) are one long, uninterrupted shot with variable zoom in and zoom outs throughout the scene. However, the film then proceeds to decpit the rest of the same fight from 5 different persepctives. Suhr and Willerslev argue that this chronological interruption and the presentation from multiple viewpoints offer a well-rounded and more immersed experience for the viewer who not only gets to watch the fight ensue, but become intimately aware of every nuance.
thumb|left|335 px
Ghandi's Children (2008)
==Keywords==
Montage
Constructivism
Affordances
Media
Kuleshov Effect
Audience
Mimetic
Observational Cinema
Subject
Category:Keywords