Critical Review - Jeff Titon, "Representation and Authority in Ethnographic Film/Video: Production"

In this brief paper, Titon discusses epistemological/ethical problems related to ethnographic films. He notes that, though film is seemingly more directly linked to reality then narrative writing, there are still conventions that dictate the presentation of material. Some strategies to help maintain objectivity, or at least make clear the nature of the subjectivity, are presented: these include showing the narrator/filmmaker onscreen, showing the recording setup onscreen, using the first rather than third person in narration, and even letting the subjects of the ethnography work the cameras (and decide what to film).

In an article dedicated to empowering the ethnographic subjects, one moment struck me as a little presumptuous. Titon relates his choice, while making the film Powerhouse of God, to include footage of John (the most prominent figure in the film) explaining the motives for his participation. That make sense, but Titon goes on to note that John never asked the filmmakers for their motives in making the documentary. Then: "After puzzling over this for some time, I realized he was content to let the project rest in God's hands...Our work would, in John's view, be judged by God" (93). The problem here is that Titon never asks John why he doesn't ask; he just invents ("realizes") a reason. Granted, it's hard to see how this invention could be harmful to John. It may well be correct. But it's not like there aren't other possible reasons. John could simply not care, he could have assumed the filmmakers were sympathetic to his goals, etc. It's a minor point, but given the context, stands out.

Aside from that, I felt some of the points about film versus writing were a little unclear. Titon writes that in order to portray someone telling a long story, "The most ethnographically pure strategy, it might seem today, would be to turn on the camera and just let run, from a stationary position, while focused on the storyteller from beginning to end" (90-91). The counterpoint presented, however, is essentially that this is boring. I agree that that's probably the case, but it introduces some additional concerns. Is it the duty of an ethnography not to be boring? That sounds like a silly question - obviously boredom is something we try to avoid creating - but at what point ought fear for an audience's loss of interest change the way an ethnographic film is presented? Two thoughts:

- Titon's point is more complex than I made it out to be in the last paragraph. The boredom concern is ultimately still a concern for the accuracy/neutrality of representation. If you're trying to communicate the character of a culture (i.e., rather than specific facts), the conventions of the medium as they affect this communication are a real concern.
- That said, Titon does seem to be writing about films for a general audience, which explains his focus on the conventions of film. Are there even ethnographic films made for a particular audience (something that is neither raw footage from fieldwork nor documentary for the general public)? There certainly don't seem to be film equivalents to the various points on the intended-audience spectrum found in ethnographic writing.