“How can we conserve and rescue these [indigenous] cultures before they are lost?” (Himpele, p. 361)
Introduction:
On a tour across the United States in which they screened their indigenous Bolivian films, Marcelina Cárdenas, Ivan Sanjinés and Jesús Tapia, discovered that audiences often “seek to find a purely indigenous moment in their film ‘products’” (Himpele, p. 357). Put simply, and as clearly demonstrated from the quoted question above, many Western audiences seem to believe in a concept of indigenous purity in film. But what are the implications of this deference to authenticity?
This belief in purity and authenticity seems to come in direct contrast with a relational ontology. Arturo Escobar succinctly articulates one core pillar of relationality as follows: “nothing preexists the relations that constitute it” (p. 101). In other words, the existence of anything is wholly dependent on and made up of its relations with other things. Within this relational framework, then, it should hold that any film, too, is constituted and defined by its relations to other things. Notably, indigenous filmmakers have stressed “the significance of their appropriation of media technologies, genres, funding and professionals, which is necessarily a transcultural process” (Himpele, p. 357). This must then mean that such indigenous films, by transculturally appropriating these things, also necessarily hold transcultural relations with them. If this is true, then returning to the aforementioned belief of relationality, these indigenous films must also necessarily be transcultural due to these relations. Therefore, it must be practically impossible for any indigenous film to be truly “pure” in its indigeneity if it is inherently transcultural. Two ideas thus become clear within the relational framework:
- Seeking “a purely indigenous moment” is in and of itself contradictory to relationality
- The process of indigenous filmmaking is naturally transcultural
But what is the benefit in viewing indigenous filmmaking relationally in terms of transculturalism rather than purity?
Venturing further into this relational framework, Faye Ginsburg’s theory of the parallax effect demonstrates the productivity of multi-perspective and thus transcultural films. In the context of filmmaking, the parallax effect is the idea that “both ethnographic and indigenous films [are] … objects that are themselves implicated in cultural processes” and that “if harnessed analytically, these ‘different angles of vision’ can offer a fuller comprehension of … culture” (Ginsburg, p. 65). In other words, Ginsburg believes that the combination and/or juxtaposition of two types of filmic perspectives, indigenous and traditionally Western/ethnographic, will create a better conception of the culture that both viewpoints aim to capture. It is crucial that this theory specifically notes that the films themselves contribute to the creation of their subject (culture), because this decidedly reflects a central pillar of relationality: “we are not radically separate from what we commonly conceive of as external reality, but rather such reality comes into being moment by moment through our participation in the world” (Escobar, p. 88). Because they help create the culture that they are observing, these films that Ginsburg describes are in fact not separate from reality but rather critically entrenched and participatory in it. If such films were not created, the “cultural processes” in which they are implicated would shake out differently, causing a different cultural reality to “come into being.” Therefore, based on Ginsburg’s clearly relation theory of the parallax effect, a third truth of a relational perspective on filmmaking becomes clear:
- A transcultural understanding of indigenous filmmaking is highly productive in creating a better conception of the culture that both viewpoints aim to capture.
However, by virtue of the pervasive existence of the belief in indigenous purity, it’s evident that this transculturalism is (at least to some extent) invisible within the broader space of Western film culture. If this transculturalism were radically visible, surely no one would ask how to “conserve and rescue these [indigenous] cultures before they are lost” in the context of a film about indigenous communities (Himpele, p. 361). The exigent question at hand then becomes the following:
If a transcultural analysis of indigenous filmmaking is crucial in better understanding indigenous culture, then how can we bring that transculturalism to the fore while dispeling the opposing myth of indigenous purity?
Through a strategic application of their undoubtedly visual formal dimensions, many films have begun to make visible the invisibilities that are these transcultural relations. In this project, we will explore how this is done through Michael Beckham and Terence Turner’s Disappearing Worlds: The Kayapo of the Brazilian Rainforest, Marcelina Cárdenas’s Llanthupi Munakuy, and Dennis O’Rourke’s Cannibal Tours.
Disappearing Worlds: The Kayapo of the Brazillian Rainforest
Michael Beckham and Terence Turner’s Disappearing Worlds: The Kayapo of the Brazilian Rainforest highlights its own transculturalism by exemplifying a convergence of both Kayapo and traditionally Western filmmaking aesthetics. To demonstrate this, let us look below at a sequence within the film in which we see Kayapo people using modern media technology.
On one hand, Beckham and Turner do seem to use many filmmaking techniques that are very Western and in fact distinctly not Kayapo. For example, they include a filmed interview of a Kayapo individual discussing the benefits of using cameras, framing this interviewee in a close-up shot (see Figure 1). Not only is this exact interview style a hallmark of many typical Western documentaries in which interviewees are framed from the shoulder up as they speak, it is also directly contrary to the Kayapo video aesthetic of “avoiding extreme close-ups of individual faces” (Turner, p. 82). Therefore, in this way, it seems that Beckham’s film could be considered traditionally Western and ethnographic.
Figure 1 (Beckham, 41:26)
However, in this same sequence, Beckham and Turner also interject many medium shots that frame a large group of Kayapo people watching their recording on the television together, such as in Figure 2. This is exactly reflective of what Turner defines as a central Kayapo cinematographic technique: “middle-range close-ups of collective activities” (p. 82). This use of middle-range close-ups is also not simply a chance mimicry of Kayapo aesthetics, but rather a deeper reflection of Kayapo cultural beliefs. According to Turner, the Kayapo believe in “a principle of sequential organization: successive repetitions of the same pattern … thus approaching more closely the ideal of completeness-and-perfection” (p. 83). In other words, Kayapo thought holds that when something is repeated, such as through collective action, it becomes more “real” or “complete.” Therefore, in using shot framing that allows the depiction of collective viewing and thus of repetition, Beckham and Turner are also directly referencing the repetition so significant to Kayapo thought. Thus, I would argue that Beckham and Turner’s film is also, in these moments, very much Kayapo.
Figure 2 (Beckham, 41:21)
In using this Kayapo belief in repetition, Beckham and Turner are clearly, in the aforementioned words of Himepele, participating in a process of “transcultural appropriation” of these beliefs (p. 357). By converging visual aesthetics from two different cultures, Western and Kayapo, Beckham and Turner are quite literally beginning to visualize this transculturalism in their film’s production.
Llanthupi Munakuy
Marcelina Cárdenas’s Llanthupi Munakuy is certainly a film within which one otherwise might seek “pure” indigeneity because it is made by a Quechuan woman and about a Quechuan community. Therefore, also clearly working to dispel the myth of indigenous purity, Cárdenas foregrounds the transcultural relations of her film through its non-formal yet still visual qualities. For example, the packaging of the tape of Llanthupi Munakuy displays the logo for the Cinematography Education and Production Center (CEFREC) and lists credits for its film crew (see Figure 3 below). Notably, CEFREC houses “international participants, instructors, and collectives,” and among the credited crew members are “several prominent nonindigenous cinematographers and editors” (Himpele, p. 357). Therefore, by including the names of these nonindigenous entities that have contributed to this purportedly indigenous film, this packaging underscores the transcultural (between indigenous and nonindigenous) relations that make up this film. Furthermore, the film begins with an opening credit that reads “Con el Auspicio de: Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional” (0:07), which roughly means “with the help of the International Cooperation Agency of Spain.” Given that Spain is included in the name of this agency, any viewer will likely understand that this is a non-indigenous organization. Therefore, this credit immediately and unequivocally demonstrates another transcultural relation that Llanthupi Munakuy holds. With both the packaging and the opening credits, Cárdenas forces the audience to immediately notice the non-indigenous contributors to and thus the transcultural relations with her film—in fact, it’d likely be difficult to start watching the film without first having seen both of these things. It is also particularly important that these indexes of transcultural relations are presented prior to the film because, in this way, the audience cannot proceed to watch any part of the film and attempt to find a “purely indigenous moment” without having already been forced to recognize the film’s multiculturalism
Figure 3 (Himpele, p. 358)
In addition to this use of packaging, Cárdenas also foregrounds the transcultural relations between the audience and the film throughout its entirety with the use of English subtitles. Beyond just their practical utility, these English subtitles point out to the film’s viewers, whether or not they individually need the subtitles, that the film must be translated in order to be consumed by English speakers. In doing so, these subtitles demonstrate and force the audience to confront the idea that the audience themselves are engaging in a transcultural relationship (between viewer and film) with Llanthupi Munakuy. Given that the subtitles pervade the entire film, one cannot go a single moment in the film without being reminded of such transcultural viewing relations. As such, once again, the constant of these subtitles crucially prevents the audience from ever being able to find a purportedly “purely indigenous moment.” In short, the visual subtitles act as a vehicle to visualize the transcultural audience-film relationship and, in doing so, also work to disprove the idea of indigenous purity within the film.
In short, in Llanthupi Munakuy, the visual text and iconography on the packaging and opening credits are responsible for visualizing the otherwise invisible transcultural relations of the film’s production, thus also contributing to a rebuttal against the idea of indigenous purity in film.
Cannibal Tours
Dennis O’Rourke’s Cannibal Tours purposely includes acknowledgments of O’Rourke’s presence behind the camera in order to highlight the transculturalism present during interviews with indigenous Papua New Guinean people, sequences in which one might seek a “purely indigenous moment” given that it wholly centers the voice of the indigenous interviewee.
Particularly, let us look at one interview with an indigenous woman who is discussing her attempts to sell items to white tourists. First, in observing the camera’s framing in this interview, we noticed that the set-up is one that follows any conventional documentary interview: the interviewee sits very close to the camera and looks at the interviewer positioned right next to the camera (see Figure 4 below). Thus, it is immediately and constantly evident that the woman must be aware that the camera and O’Rourke are present as she speaks; in other words, O’Rourke and the woman must be interacting with one another in some way. In this way, the interacting relationship between the indigenous interviewee and the filmmaker is already inherently foregrounded in merely the use of the interview in the film. Even more notably, during this segment, O’Rourke keeps in and actively translates moments in which other indigenous women are telling the interviewee to “speak slowly, or he won’t understand [her]” (17:37). This quote undoubtedly indicates that O’Rourke is a foreigner, which is why it’d be possible that “he won’t understand” the indigenous woman speak. As such, even if a viewer were unaware of O’Rourke’s background, this quote/translation would make it abundantly clear that he is not of the same culture as the indigenous interviewee. Thus, the framing of the camera that highlights the filmmaker’s involved relationship with the interviewee in conjunction with this contextual translated quote makes one truth undeniably clear: throughout the entire interview, this indigenous woman is interacting with a non-indigenous O’Rourke. As such, the transcultural relationship between Western filmmaker and indigenous interviewee required to produce this interview is clearly visualized through camera framing, intentional editing (to include the quotes about speaking slowly), and on-screen translations of such quotes. In doing so, such visual strategies also help prove that even during this interview that solely features an indigenous person, we are not witnessing a “purely indigenous moment.”
Figure 4 (O’Rourke, 17:21)
So What?
Notably, and crucial to Ginsburg’s ultimate point about the productivity of the parallax effect (i.e. the third conclusion explained in the introduction), the methods of visualizing transculturalism in Disappearing Worlds and Llanthupi Munakuy effectively further the films’ communication of the indigenous culture(s) which they are representing.
For Disappearing Worlds, the above sequence in the film effectively communicates its argument about Kayapo culture (the significance of video for the Kayapo people) precisely because it uses both the Western interview style and the Kayapo medium shot style. For one, the interview provides specific insights into why the Kayapo want video cameras: “It is so that our children and grandchildren will look at these pictures” (42:00). Such detail would not be possible simply with the medium shot in Figure 2. Then again, the medium shot of collective, widespread Kayapo viewership directly portrays that such modern media is being used by the entire community. Though this might be able to be articulated in an interview, it is not made visible without the repetition found in this Kayapo aesthetic. In conjunction, then, the Western and the Kayapo shots create, to quote Ginsburg’s theory, a “fuller” culture of Kayapo media use that encompasses both its specific applications and its community-wide significance. As such, this sequence in Beckham and Turner’s film is certainly reflective of the parallax effect and particularly its benefit.
For Llanthupi Munakuy, “Bolivian video makers [like Cárdenas] seek to have their works enter film festivals and circuits of distribution alongside nonindigenous works, without necessarily being marked as indigenous” (Himpele, 356). In other words, they hope for their films to simultaneously be perceived as indigenous and nonindigenous in order to more widely share their indigenous culture displayed in the films. By visually foregrounding the film’s transculturalism that encompasses Quechuan, Spanish, and other international/nonindigenous contributors, Llanthupi Munakuy’s packing and credits undoubtedly force their audience to acknowledge its nonindigenous qualities in addition to its indigenous ones, thus helping achieve this aforementioned goal.
As such, this sequence in Beckham and Turner’s film and this packaging and credits in Cárdenas’s film are certainly all reflective not only of the ways in which transculturalism can be rendered visible, but also of the immense benefit of transcultural understandings of indigenous filmmaking.
With all this being said, this underlying transcultural nature of indigenous film is by no means exclusive to Llanthupi Munakuy, Disappearing Worlds, Cannibal Tours or even indigenous films in general. Let us look below at a line plot representing data collected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Institute for Statistics. Focusing on a handful of Latin American countries (because Llanthupi Munakuy and Disappearing Worlds are primarily Bolivian and Brazilian, respectively), this plot illustrates the amount of internationally co-produced films from each of these nations on a yearly basis. Though there may not be one stable trend (which is unsurprising given the constantly fluctuating state of the film industry at large), one thing is for certain: year after year, all of these nations continue to produce at least some internationally co-produced and thus inherently transcultural films. As such, it becomes that clear that relational transculturalism is not only rampant in the examples shown in this project, but rather, all throughout the Latin American film industry.
Figure 5: Yearly trends of internationally co-produced filmmaking in Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Costa Rica, and Bolivia.
Conclusion:
In using Disappearing Worlds, Llanthupi Munakuy, and Cannibal Tours as case studies, this project has attempted to demonstrate three truths about culturalism relating to indigeneity in the film space given a relational framework:
- Seeking “a purely indigenous moment” is in and of itself contradictory to relationality
- The process of indigenous filmmaking is naturally transcultural
- A transcultural understanding of indigenous filmmaking is highly productive in creating a better conception of the culture that both viewpoints aim to capture.
Specifically, all three films have used visual formal techniques in order to render visible this inherent yet often invisible transculturalism, thus also working to disprove the existence of “a purely indigenous moment.” Some of these visual methods include: packaging, credits, subtitles, cinematographic aesthetics, and framing. Beyond this, Disappearing Worlds and Llanthupi Munakuy also demonstrate the immense productivity and benefit of acknowledging and highlighting said transculturalism. Finally, we leave off having begun to understand how transculturalism in filmmaking actually manifests itself across the board (and not just in our case studies) through the extremely common practice of international co-production.
Works Cited:
Cannibal Tours. Directed by Dennis O’Rourke, 1988
Disappearing World: The Kayapo of the Brazilian Rainforest. Directed by Michael Beckham, Granada Television, 1994.
Escobar, Arturo. “In the Background of Our Culture: Rationalism, Ontological Dualism, and Relationality.” Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 2017, pp. 79–104.
Ginsburg, Faye. “The Parallax Effect: The Impact of Aboriginal Media on Ethnographic Film.” Visual Anthropology Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 1995, pp. 64-76.
Himpele, Jeff. “Packaging Indigenous Media: An Interview with Ivan Sanjinés and Jesús Tapia”. American Anthropologist, vol. 106, no. 2, June 2004, pp. 354–363.
Llanthupi Munakuy. Directed by Marcelina Cárdenas, Cinematography Education and Production Center, 2001.
Turner, Terence. “Representation, Politics, and Cultural Imagination in Indigenous Video: General Points and Kayapo Examples.” Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010, pp. 75-89.
