The subject of authenticity in this ethnographic work was troubling for me, as I feel that there is a natural dichotomy that occurs once a camera is brought into play.  What is considered to be authentic when a camera is and isn’t rolling are inevitably going to be different when the person knows that they are being filmed.  In the third chapter of Media worlds Turner argues that giving the camera to the Kayapo is a way of escaping the implications of intervention.  In theory, is the introduction of the camera not the most important intervention.

We discussed in class how there were times in the film where the natives were surely influenced, if not putting on an entire act, for the camera, whether or not the camera person was one of their own.  When the chief was on the radio lecturing the other villages, his actions cannot be seen as authentic.  Once the camera starts rolling, the validity of ones actions come into question.  Even the minute details such as when a person looks into or smiles at the camera, reduces the authenticity.

I would equate the phenomenon to what occurs with “reality television.”  These tv shows like the “Jersey Shore” or “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” are meant to be representations of their every day lives.  But its obvious that their actions and conversations are dramatized for audiences to enjoy and find more interesting.  There was a scene in the film where a male kayapo was brandishing a bow and arrow for the camera.  He was boasting how he was going to kill with it and motioning how he would do so.  This in my opinion is a similar situation, where someone is behaving differently in front of a camera.