FICHAMENTO

ANTROPOLOGIA COMPARTILHADA

ROSE SATIKO RIJI

Aqueles que se exprimem (nos filmes) falam em seus nomes e no so atores submissos a um
roteiro pr-concebido, eles contribuem em sua elaborao, participam assim da construo de
um lugar antropolgico de interrogao. Neste espao a priori abstrato da pesquisa
antropolgica se criar uma situao concreta, uma histria vai se desenvolver, aquela do
encontro de pessoas que no pertencem a uma mesma cultura e questionam abertamente entre
elas seus pertencimentos, seus desejos, seus prazeres e suas obrigaes.
(Piault, 2000: 217; trad. minha)
Rouch sobre conhecimento: o resultado de uma busca interminvel onde etngrafos e
etnografados se encontram num caminho que alguns de ns j chamam de antropologia
compartilhada, diria Rouch
O outro simplesmente outro, no objeto de estudo, sujeito, e, antes de tudo, um amigo
em potencial (Gonalves, idem: 21).
Leiris
E aprendemos com Jeanne Favret Saada (2005), que como Rouch pesquisou feitiaria, que
aceitar ser afetado supe, todavia, que se assuma o risco de ver seu projeto de conhecimento
se desfazer.
resultado de uma experincia sensorial que resulta numa prtica cinematogrfica onde o
corpo do cineasta afetado pelos fenmenos que observa, uma cine-antropologia corprea,
sensvel.
Em seu artigo clssico, A cmera e o homem (1995), Rouch aproxima por analogia - o
fenmeno da possesso e o estado bizarro de transformao do cineasta, que, em cinetranse deixa de ser ele prprio para tornar-se um olho mecnico acompanhado por um
ouvido eletrnico.
enquanto o cinema de Rouch nos engajaria por meio de um apelo mente e ao corpo, nos
levando ao desordenamento dos sentidos e subverso dos modos habituais de pensar como
precondio para novas formas de conhecimento e compreenso (Grimshaw, op.cit: 100).
para mim fazer um filme escrever com os olhos de algum, com os ouvidos de algum,
com o corpo de algum. (trad. minha)
uma das melhores reflexes sobre a relao entre cinema e corpo, que pode iluminar a
perspectiva de Rouch:
Vemos com nossos corpos, e qualquer imagem que faamos carrega a marca de nosso corpo;
(...) quando observamos com inteno, e quando pensamos, complicamos o processo de viso
enormemente. Ns o investimos de desejos e respostas elevadas. As imagens que fazemos se

tornam artefatos disso. Elas so, em certo sentido, espelhos de nossos corpos, replicando o
todo das atividades do corpo, com seus movimentos fsicos, sua ateno que vai mudando de
foco e seus impulsos conflitantes no sentido da ordem e desordem. Uma construo complexa
como um filme ou fotografia tem uma origem animal. Imagens corporais no so apenas
imagens de nossos corpos; elas so tambm imagens do corpo atrs da cmera e de suas
relaes com o mundo.
(MacDougall, 2009: 63).
A nfase no corpo implica uma defesa do sensvel como esfera privilegiada desta
antropologia.
Nestas reas a representao visual pode oferecer uma alternativa apropriada escrita
etnogrfica.
O antroplogo tem a seu dispor a nica ferramenta a cmera participante - que pode lhe
proporcionar a oportunidade extraordinria de comunicar-se com o grupo estudado. (...) Sua
cmera, seu gravador e seu projetor o levaram ao corao do conhecimento e pela primeira
vez seu trabalho no est sendo julgado por uma banca de tese mas pelo povo que ele
observou. (...) Esta tcnica extraordinria do feedback (contra-ddiva audiovisual) (...) Este
tipo de pesquisa que emprega a total participao me parece hoje a nica atitude
antropolgica possvel moralmente e cientificamente hoje.
(Rouch, 1995: 96, trad. minha)

JEAN ROUCH
THE CAMERA AND THE MAN

Butsomedayslater,uponseeingtheprojectionofthebriefimages,theysuddenly
becameconsciousofanunknownmagicalritualthatoldfearofthefatalmeeting
withonesdouble.
WhenFlahertybuilthisdevelopinglabatHudsonBayandprojectedhisimagesfor
Nanook,hehadnoideathathewasinventing,atthatveryinstant,participant
observation
andfeedback(anideawithwhichwearejustnowclumsilyexperimenting)
IfFlahertyandNanookwereabletotellthedifficultstoryofthestruggleofman

againstathriftlessbutbeneficialnature,itwasbecausetherewasathirdpartywith
them.Thissmall,temperamental,butfaithfulmachine,withaninfalliblevisual
memory,letNanookseehisownimagesinproportiontotheirbirth.Itisthiscamera
thatLucdeHeuschsoperfectlycalledtheparticipatorycamera.
Perhapsitwasduetosuchsimplicityandnavetthatthesepioneersdiscoveredthe
essentialquestionsthatwestillaskourselvestoday:Mustonestagereality(the
stagingofreallife)asdidFlaherty,orshouldone,likeVertov,filmwithout
awareness(seizingimprovisedlife)?
In1930technicalprogress(thechangefromsilentfilmstotalkies)transformedthe
cinemaartandindustry.Nooneaskedanyoneelsewhatwashappening,andnobody
tookthetimetofigureoutwhatwasreallygoingon.Butitwasthenthatawhite,
cannibalisticcinemaemerged.Itwasthetimeofexoticism,Tarzan,andwhiteheroes
amongthewildsavages.Makingfilmsthenmeantcrewsoftentechnicians,tonsof
cameraandsoundequipment,andresponsibilityforthousandsofdollars.Soitwas
obviouslysimplertobringmantothestudioandplacehiminfrontofthecamerathan
totakethecameraouttoman.JohnnyWeissmuller,themostfamouskingofthe
jungle,neverleftthesacredHollywoodforest;itwastheAfricanbeastsandfeathered
Tubisthatwerebroughtontothecameraset.
pg34

Andsoafewethnographerssimultaneouslymadethemselvesdirector,cameraman,
soundrecordist,editor,andalsoproducer.Curiously,LucdeHeusch,IvanPolunin,
HenriBrandt,JohnMarshall,andIrealizedthatasabyproduct,wewereinventinga
newlanguage.
Whatarethesefilms,andbywhatweirdnameshallwedistinguishthemfromotherfilms?
Dotheyactuallyexist?Istilldontknow,butIdoknowthattherearethoseraremoments
whenthespectatorcansuddenlyunderstandanunknownlanguagewithoutthegimmickof
subtitles,momentswherehecanparticipateinstrangeceremonies,movethroughavillage,
andcrossplaceshehasneverseenbeforebutnonethelessrecognizesperfectlywell.Onlythe
cinemacanproducethismiracle,butnoparticularaestheticgivesitthemeanstodoso,and
nospecialtechniqueuniquelyprovokesit.Neitherthelearnedcounterpointofacutnorthe
useofstereophoniccineramacancausesuchawonder.Oftenthismysteriouscontactis
establishedinthemiddleofthemostbanalfilm,inthesavagemincemeatofacurrentevents
newsreel,orinthemeanderingsofamateurcinema.PerhapsitisthecloseupofanAfrican
smile,aMexicanwinkinghiseyeforthecamera,oraEuropeangesturesocommonthat
nobodywouldimaginefilmingit;thingsliketheseforceabewilderingviewofrealityonus.
Itisasiftherewerenocameraman,soundman,orlightmeterthere;nolongerthatmassof
techniciansandaccessoriesthatmakeupthegreatritualofclassicalcinema.Buttodays
filmmakersprefernottoadventureonthesedangerouspaths.Itisonlymasters,fools,or
childrenwhodarepushtheseforbiddenbuttons.

However,themajorityofethnographicfilmsmadeinrecentyearssharethesame
formatasproductionsmadeforcommercialrelease:credits,backgroundmusic,

sophisticatedediting,narrationaddressedtothegeneralpublic,properduration,et
cetera.Forthemostpart,theresultisahybridproductthatneithersatisfiesscientific
rigornorcinematicart.
Theoutcomeisanotoriousincreaseinthecostofthesefilms,whichmakesevenmore
annoyingtheiralmosttotallackofdistribution(exceptwhenthecinemamarketis
opentosensationalfilmssuchasMondoCane).Thesolutiontotheproblemisto
studythefilmdistributionnetworks.Onlywhenuniversities,culturalagencies,and
TVnetworksceasetheirneedtomakeourdocumentsconformtotheirotherproducts,
andlearntoacceptthedifferences,willanewtypeofethnographicfilm,withspecific
criteria,beabletodevelop.
Thesoundmanmustabsolutelybeabletounderstandthelanguageofthepeoplebeing
recorded;itisthusindispensablethathebeamemberofthegroupbeingfilmed,and,
ofcourse,betrainedinallaspectsofhiswork.
thedecisivefactor:theethnographermustspendalongtimeinthefieldbeforebegin
ningtoshoot.Thisperiodofreflection,apprenticeship,andmutualawarenessmight
bequitelong(FlahertyspentayearintheSolomonIslandsbeforerollingafootof
film)andisthusincompatiblewiththeschedulesandsalariesofacrewoftechnicians.

Thistechniqueisparticularlyusefulinethnographicfilming,foritallowsthe
cameramantoadapttotheactionasafunctionofthespatiallayout.Heisthusable
topenetrateintothereality,ratherthanleavingittounrollitselfinfrontofthe
observer.
Actually,thistypeofshootingmorecloselyresemblesavoyeurlookingatsomething
fromafarawayperch,andzoominginforthedetails.Thisinvoluntaryarroganceon
thepartofthecameraisresentednotonlyaposterioribytheattentiveviewerbutalso
bythepeoplewhoarefilmed,becauseitislikeanobservationpost.
Formethen,theonlywaytofilmistowalkwiththecamera,takingitwhereitismost
effectiveandimprovisinganothertypeofballetwithit,tryingtomakeitasaliveas
thepeopleitisfilming.Iconsiderthisdynamicimprovisationtobeafirstsynthesisof
VertovscineyeandFlahertysparticipatingcamera.Ioftencompareittothe
improvisationofthebullfighterinfrontofthebull.Here,asthere,nothingisknownin
advance;thesmoothnessofafaenaisjustliketheharmonyofatravelingshotthatar
ticulatesperfectlywiththemovementsofthosebeingfilmed.Inbothcasesaswell,it
isamatteroftraining,masteringreflexesaswouldagymnast.Thusinsteadofusing
thezoom,thecameramandirectorcanreallygetintothesubject.Leadingor
followingadancer,priest,orcraftsman,heisnolongerhimself,butamechanicaleye
accompaniedbyanelectronicear.Itisthisstrangestateoftransformationthattakes
placeinthefilmmakerthatIhavecalled,analogouslytopossessionphenomena,
cintrance.

HereagainwearebacktoVertovsidea:Thecineyeis:IeditwhenIchoosemy
subject(fromamongmillionsofpossiblesubjects).IeditwhenIobserve(i.e.,film)
mysubject(makingachoiceamongmillionsofpossibleobservations)(A.B.C.of
theKinoks).
Itisthisaspectoffieldworkthatmarkstheuniquenessoftheethnographic
filmmaker:insteadofelaboratingandeditinghisnotesafterreturningfromthefield,
hemust,underpenaltyoffailure,makehissynthesisattheexactmomentof
observation.Inotherwords,hemustcreatehiscinematicreport,bendingitor
stoppingit,atthetimeoftheeventitself.Thereisnosuchthinghereaswritingcutsin
advance,orfixingtheorderofsequences.Rather,itisariskygamewhereeachshot
isdeterminedbytheoneprecedinganddeterminestheonetofollow.
Narration,bornofsilentandlecturetypefilms,seemedthemostsimplesolution.Itis
thedirectdiscourseofthedirector,mediatingbetweentheviewerandhimself.But
thisdiscourse,whichshouldbesubjective,ismostoftenobjectiveandmakesouttobe
asortofscientificexposition,amanualprovidingthemaximumamountof
informationpossible.Thusinsteadofclarifyingtheimages,thetracksimply
obscuresthem,maskingthemuntilitfinallysubstitutesitselfcompletelyforthem.
Andsothefilmceasestobeafilmandbecomesalecture,ademonstrationbasedon
visualdesignsratherthanademonstrationactuallymadebytheimagesthemselves.
Moreandmore,actorswerecalledupontorecitethenarrations,alwaysintheanxiety
ofapproachingthenormsofcommercialcinema.
IthusmadeaversionwhereIspeakthetext(thehearingtimeisshorter)
superimposedoverthesyncsoundoriginal.Butinfact,theresulthereisalso
deceiving,foralthoughthetexttakesonanesotericandpoeticvalueatthemomentit
isrecited,itactuallydoesnotbringanycomplementaryinformationintothefilm.So
Ihavegonebacktoaversionwithneithernarrationnorsubtitles,feelingthatinthe
longrunitwouldbemiraculousindeedifintwentyminutesonecouldgainaccessto
thecomplexknowledgeandtechniquesthatdemandsometenyearsof
apprenticeshipfromthehuntersthemselves.Inthiscase,thefilmcanbenomorethan
anopendoortothisscience;thosewhowanttoknowmorecanrefertoapamphlet,
which,liketheexemplaryethnographiccompaniontofilms(booklets)should
henceforthaccompanyallethnographicfilms.
TimothyAschinTheFeast.Thefilmbeginswithapreambleoffreezeframe
condensationsoftheprincipalsequences,andindispensableexplanationsaregiven,
apriori,onthesoundtrack.Thefilmisthentitledinordertotellwhoisdoingwhat,
anddiscreetlysubtitled.Ofcourse,thisprocessdemystifiesthefilmfromthestart,but
tomyminditisthemostoriginalattempttodealwiththeproblemthathasbeenmade
untilnow.
Ilearnedtheheresyofdoingthisearlyon(1953)whenshowingmyfilmBataillesur

legrandfleuvetohippopotamushuntersinNigeramongwhomIshotittwoyears
earlier.Atthemomentofthechase,Iputaverymovinghuntingair,playedonaone
stringedbowedlute,onthesoundtrack;Ifoundthisthemeparticularlywellsuitedto
thevisuals.Theresultoftheplayback,however,wasdeplorable.Thechiefofthe
huntersdemandedthatIremovethemusicbecausethehuntmustbeabsolutelysilent.
Sincethatadventure,Ihavepaidmuchattentiontothewaymusicisusedinmyfilms.
TodayIhavetheconvictionthatevenincommercialcinema,theuseofmusicfollows
nothingbutanoutdatedtheatricalconvention.Musicenvelops,putsustosleep,
helpsbadcutspassunnoticed,andgivesanartificialrhythmtopicturesthatdont
have,andneverwillhave,anyrhythmoftheirown.Inshort,musicistheopiumofthe
cinema.
weshouldbeaidedbymusicthatreallysupportsanaction,beitritual,everyday,
workrhythm,ordance.Andalthoughitisbeyondthescopeofthispaper,Imust
mentiontheimportancethatsyncfilmingwillhaveinthefieldofethnomusicology.
Ifindmanyrecentdirectcinemafilmsruinedbytheincredibleamountofattention
paidtochattering,asiftheoralstatementweremoreimportantthanthevisualone.
Whereadirectorwouldneverhesitatetocutonamovement,hewouldntdarecutin
themiddleofasentenceorevenaword,muchlesscutamusicalthemebeforeits
finalnote.Ibelievethatitwontbelongbeforethisarchaichabit(TVisthecurrent
primeoffender)willslowlydisappearandtheimagewillregainpriority.
thefirstquestionaskedaftertheprojectionofanethnographicfilmis,Forwhom,
andwhy,haveyoumadethisfilm?
Forwhom,andwhy,doItakethecameraamongmankind?Myfirstresponsewill
always,strangely,bethesame:Forme.Notbecauseitissometypeofdrugwhose
habitmustberegularlysatisfied,butbecauseIfindthatincertainplaces,closeto
certainpeople,thecamera,andespeciallythesynccamera,seemsnecessary.Of
courseitwillalwaysbepossibletojustifythistypeoffilmmakingscientifically
(creatingarchivesofchangingordisappearingcultures),politically(sharinginthe
revoltagainstanintolerablesituation),oraesthetically(discoveringthefragile
masteryofalandscape,ofaface,orofamovementthatisirresistible).Butinfact,
whatisthereisthatsuddenintuitionaboutthenecessitytofilm,orconversely,the
certaintythatoneshouldnotfilm.
Thefrequentingofmovietheaters,andtheintempestuoususeofaudiovisual
equipment,makesitclearthatwearetodaysVertoviankinoki,cineyeswhowere
formerlythepenhands(Rimbaud)whocouldnotresistwriting:Iwasthere,so
manythingshappenedtome...(LaFontaine).Andifthecinvoyeurofhisown
societywillalwaysbeabletojustifyhimselfbythisparticularmilitarism,what
reasoncanwe,anthropologists,givewhenwepinoursubjectsupagainstthewall?
Thisquestionisobviouslyaddressedtoallanthropologists,butanthropological

writinghasneverbeencontestedthewayanthropologicalfilmhas.AndthatswhereI
getmysecondresponsetoForwhom,andwhy?FilmistheonlymeansIhaveto
showsomeoneelsehowIseehim.Forme,afterthepleasureofthecintrancein
shootingandediting,myfirstpublicistheother,thosewhomIvefilmed.
Thesituationisclearlythis:theanthropologisthasathisdisposaltheonlytool(the
participatingcamera)thatoffershimtheextraordinarypossibilityofdirect
communicationwiththegrouphestudiesthefilmhehasmadeaboutthem.
TheprojectionofmyfilmSigui1969inthevillageofBongowhereitwasshot

broughtconsiderablereactionfromtheDogon(oftheBandiagaracliffs,inMali)and
thedemandformorefilms;aSiguiseriesisnowinprogress.6Andtheprojectionof
myfilmHorendiontheinitiationofpossessiondancersinNigeralsobrought
demandsformorefilms.Bystudyingthisfilmonasmallmoviescopeviewerwithmy
informants,IwasabletogathermoreinformationintwoweeksthanIcouldgetin
threemonthsofdirectobservationandinterview.
Finally,then,theobserverhaslefttheivorytower;hiscamera,taperecorder,and
projectorhavedrivenhim,byastrangeroadofinitiation,totheheartofknowledge
itself.Andforthefirsttime,theworkisjudgednotbyathesiscommitteebutbythe
verypeopletheanthropologistwentouttoobserve.Thisextraordinarytechniqueof
feedback(whichIwouldtranslateasaudiovisualreciprocity)hascertainlynotyet
revealedallofitspossibilities.8Butalready,thankstoit,theanthropologisthas
ceasedtobeasortofentomologistobservingothersasiftheywereinsects(thus
puttingthemdown)andhasbecomeastimulatorofmutualawareness(hencedignity).
DESSECARUMAR

Butatthesametime,itisobviouslyabsurdtocondemnethnographicfilmtosucha
closedinformationcircuit.ThatiswhymythirdresponsetothequestionForwhom,
andwhy?isForeveryone,forthelargestviewingpublicpossible.Ibelievethatif
thedistributionofethnographicfilmis,withrareexceptions,limitedtouniversity
networks,culturalorganizations,andscholarlysocieties,thefaultismoreourown
thanthatofcommercialcinema.Thetimehascomeforethnographicfilmsto
becomefilms.
Ifforreasonsofscience,orideologicalshame,anthropologicalfilmmakersinsiston
hidingbehindtheircomfortableincognito,theywillirrevocablycastratetheirfilms
anddoomthemtoanexistenceinarchives,wheretheywillbereservedonlyfor
specialists.Thesuccessofpocketbookeditionsofethnographiesonceconfinedtoa
smallscientificlibrarynetworkisanexamplethatethnographicfilmshouldfollow.
Andsonowwefindourselvesawaitingtheappearanceoftrueethnographicfilms;
filmsthatjoinscientificrigorandcinematographiclanguage,adefinitionwegave
themnearlytwentyyearsago.Meanwhile,attheVeneziaGentifestivalof1972,the
InternationalCommitteeofEthnographicandSociologicalFilmsdecidedtocreate,

withthehelpofUNESCO,atruenetworkfortheconservation,documentation,and
distributionoffilmsofman.Why?Becausewearepeoplewhobelievethatthe
worldoftomorrow,theworldweareintheprocessofbuilding,cannotbeviable
withoutaregardforculturaldifferences;theothercannotbedeniedashisimage
transforms.Forthisitisnecessarytobeaware,andforthatknowledgethereisno
bettertoolthanethnographicfilm.Thisisnotjustapiousvow,andasimilarexample
comestousfromJapan,whereaTVcompany,inanefforttobroadenJapanese
perspectives,hasdecidedtobroadcastanhourofethnographicfilmeachweekfor
threeyears.
SharedCinAnthropology

ItisgoodthattherearedifferencesinAmerican,Canadian,Japanese,Brazilian,
Australian,British,Dutch,andFrenchethnographicfilms.Withintheuniversalityof
conceptsinthescientificapproach,wemaintainamultiplicityoforientations:ifthe
cineyesofallcountriesarereadytounite,itisnotsimplytohaveonepointofview.
Andtomorrow?...Tomorrowwillbethetimeofcompletelyportablecolorvideo,
videoediting,andinstantreplay(instantfeedback).Whichistosay,thetimeofthe
jointdreamofVertovandFlaherty,ofamechanicalcineyeearandofacamera
thatcansototallyparticipatethatitwillautomaticallypassintothehandsofthose
who,untilnow,havealwaysbeeninfrontofthelens.Atthatpoint,anthropologists
willnolongercontrolthemonopolyonobservation;theircultureandthey
themselveswillbeobservedandrecorded.Anditisinthatwaythatethnographicfilm
willhelpustoshareanthropology.