I watched the Kayapo Documentary before I read the associated chapter, so when watching, I had one immediate question: who was the narrator and who was making the film? I didn’t get an answer until the very end of the film – it isn’t until the credits that the viewer learns who the associated anthropologist and videographers are. Terence Turner doesn’t insert himself into the film – his presence remains unseen and he endeavors not to speak in the videos, instead choosing to narrate over clips or allowing the Kayapo to speak for themselves. He also seems to edit out his questions and prompts, only showing the Kayapo’s responses to those questions.
In fact, the first time a cameraperson (I’m assuming it’s Turner, although I could be wrong) speaks and inserts himself into the narrative is to ask a question at around the 10:50 mark. (Notably, his other insertion into the film’s narrative is at the end, when the narrator makes an ‘I’ statement regarding his observations about the Kayapo’s dancing rituals and the likelihood of those rituals being performed after a political victory.)
Turner, by attempting to remove his presence from the documentary, seemed to me to be attempting to present a more ‘objective’ view of events. It reminds me of the way Edward Lane disguises himself to “pass” in Egypt. In the same way that Lane tried to make his positionality of European as irrelevant, Turner seems to also attempt to remove his positionality as a Western anthropologist, by removing his questions and by using clips filmed by the Kayapo where possible. This also connects to the preconceived notion we have that a more direct experience (of culture, aka immersion) equals a more real experience.
But, as we’ve previously considered, objectivity is not necessarily possible – there is no objective observer, and there is no objective videographer. I think that Turner, by failing or neglecting to inform viewers of his own positionality, removes a valuable angle with which to further analyze the portrayal of the Kayapo and the layers of culture in the film.
Rei – this is an insightful critique of the mode of address of this film. A few pieces of info might help explain the issues raised here. The film style is based on the model of the Disappearing World series, made in England, which entails many of the exclusions your post identifies. Recognize that the film style and the implications are based more on choices made by the series producers, and not as much as Turner alone, since he did not make the film. (Check out the credits.) I agree that it is unfortunate that the film does not offer an account of Turner’s long collaborations and deep relationships with Kayapo villages. In any case, the questions that the post pursues and the connection with the modern European way of seeing described by Mitchell are spot on..